36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 178
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 10, 1999
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ELECTION IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| THE SOUTH ALBERTA REGIMENT
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING CANADA INC.
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| HEALTH CANADA
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| WHITECAP DAKOTA SIOUX FIRST NATION
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1405
| 2003 CANADA WINTER GAMES
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| COLOMBIA
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| BELL CANADA
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
|
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
1410
| SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| ELECTRIC VEHICLE PROJECT
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| BELL ISLAND FERRY
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| STUART ENERGY SYSTEMS
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1440
| FARM SAFETY NET INCOME PROGRAM
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| ABORIGINAL LIVING OFF RESERVE
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1445
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| DEVCO
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1450
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
1455
| PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. John Manley |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| FIREARMS
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1500
| POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1505
1510
1515
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1520
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1525
1530
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1535
| Mr. André Bachand |
1540
1545
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-471 Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-472. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1550
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-473. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| PETITIONS
|
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| MMT in Gasoline
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Employment
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Firearms Act
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1555
| Canadian Merchant Navy Veterans
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
| Bill C-55. Report stage
|
| Speaker's ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Motions Nos. 1 to 21
|
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1615
1620
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-65—Notice of Time Allocation
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
| Bill C-55. Report stage
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1625
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1630
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1635
1640
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1645
1650
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1655
1700
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1705
1710
| Mr. Ted White |
1715
1720
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1725
1730
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1735
1740
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1745
1750
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1755
1800
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1805
1810
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| HOLIDAYS ACT
|
| Bill C-401. Second reading
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1815
1820
1825
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1830
1835
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1840
1845
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1850
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1855
1900
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1905
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1910
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Transport
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 178
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 10, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ELECTION IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to acknowledge and congratulate Premier Brian Tobin and the
Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador on their successful
re-election.
Yesterday voters in that province returned a Liberal majority
government, a fourth consecutive Liberal majority, the second
under Premier Tobin's leadership.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have renewed the Liberal
government's mandate to continue its agenda of reducing
unemployment, balancing the budget and ensuring that the province
receives the full benefit of its present and future resources,
including mineral exploration, energy production and a
rejuvenated and diversified fishing industry.
It is fitting, in the year commemorating the 50th anniversary of
Newfoundland joining the Canadian family, that the Liberal Party
of Newfoundland and Labrador is the victor in yesterday's
election.
Joey Smallwood can rest easy. I congratulate Brian Tobin and
the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.
* * *
THE SOUTH ALBERTA REGIMENT
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to inform the House that this afternoon I will be
presenting to the Library of Parliament the history of the South
Alberta Regiment. The book entitled The South Albertas: A
Canadian Regiment at War, is the story of five infantry
militia units that together formed the South Alberta Regiment and
ended the war as Canada's finest regiment in the Canadian
armoured corps.
As part of the 4th Armoured Division, the South Alberta Regiment
played a major roll in a number of significant battles, including
the Battle of Falaise Gap where Major David Currie of C Squadron
won the Victoria Cross. Mrs. Currie is with us in the gallery
today.
Removed from the order of battle in 1954, the South Alberta
Regiment is a sterling example of Canada's militia and a proud
part of our military heritage. With 316 casualties, their
unofficial motto was “You've been through the mud and the blood
and I hope that you reach the green fields beyond”. Their
record indicates that the South Alberta Regiment deserves nothing
less.
* * *
TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING CANADA INC.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Toyota
Motor Manufacturing Canada of Cambridge, a leading North American
auto manufacturer, recently received the Most Supportive Employer
for Ontario award from the Canadian Forces Liaison Council.
As stated by the Minister of National Defence, Toyota was
recognized for “performing an important act of patriotism” by
supporting its employee reservists who serve with dedication in
Canada's Armed Forces.
Toyota has invested $2.2 billion in a state of the art
automotive plant in Cambridge, provided 2,700 quality jobs to
Canadians and has generously supported local charities and
community organizations.
I know that the people of Cambridge and all members will join me
in offering Toyota our heartfelt congratulations.
* * *
WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Manitoba welcomes the Cangene Corporation's decision
to open its new health biotechnology research and development
facility in Winnipeg, not England, thanks to a $3 million
repayable loan from the western diversification program.
This program illustrates the commitment of the federal
government to advance the economic prosperity of the western and
northern regions of Canada.
It is a facility like Cangene's that ensures the creation of
jobs for Manitobans, old and young alike.
Manitobans, therefore, find it difficult to understand that
another political party has, as its policy, the dismantling of
the western diversification program.
The constituents of Winnipeg North—St. Paul salute the federal
government for its commitment to sustain this program for
Canada's western and northern regions, thereby strengthening our
social union as a federation.
* * *
SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the Liberal government on reaching a social
union agreement with the provinces. The agreement is proof that
the provinces and Ottawa can work together to build a stronger
Canada.
The social union will ensure that our crucial social safety net
is preserved and enhanced for today's generation and for future
generations.
The health accord is a perfect example of the social union at
work. The accord has renewed the federal, provincial and
territorial commitment to the five principles of the Canada
Health Act, ensuring that Canadians everywhere will continue to
have access to the highest quality of medicare. Together we are
working in the best interests of all Canadians.
The fact that this agreement was reached just before Citizenship
and Heritage Week serves as a reminder of all that we have and
all that we should be thankful for. After all, Canada truly is
the best country on earth.
* * *
HEALTH CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Monday's National Post reported that Health Canada is
dragging its heels on approving the drug TPA in the treatment of
strokes and heart attacks.
This is appalling since it has been proven to save thousands of
lives in America, yet it is a gamble for those living without the
drug in Canada. If a person is one of the lucky few who are
admitted to a teaching hospital in which the drug is used they
are guaranteed a fighting chance.
I myself stand here in the House of Commons as proof that TPA
saves lives. At midnight on October 6, 1990 I had a blood clot
travel to the main artery of my heart. I was declared dead for
six minutes until TPA was administered and it brought me back to
life.
I give full credit to both my doctor and TPA. I would really
encourage Health Canada to make the approval of TPA a priority.
The government should be in the business of saving lives. Here
is an opportunity to erase its abysmal record of stripping our
health care system dry by giving those Canadians suffering from
strokes and heart attacks the gift of life.
* * *
WHITECAP DAKOTA SIOUX FIRST NATION
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I am pleased to tell the House about a model new partnership
between a Saskatchewan first nations community, the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the city of
Saskatoon. This initiative has resulted in jobs, training and
improved fire protection for the community.
This week the Whitecap Dakota Sioux First Nation opened a new
fire hall and training centre and signed a fire protection service
agreement with Saskatoon. This agreement is the first of its
kind in Saskatchewan.
What this means is that Whitecap no longer has to rely on
services from 30 kilometres away. Now, with its own fire hall,
truck, equipment and trained volunteers, the community has the
same basic level of fire protection service that other Canadians
have. This is a good example of partnership as outlined in the
federal government's aboriginal action plan “Gathering
Strength”.
On behalf of the government I congratulate the chief of Whitecap
and the mayor of Saskatoon for working together. With the help
of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
this partnership is providing tangible improvements to the
community.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
2003 CANADA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
that the Chaleurs and Restigouche regions of New Brunswick have
been selected to host the 2003 Canada Winter Games.
[English]
This announcement was made possible by the relentless work of
the local 2003 Canada Winter Games bid committee. The efforts of
the committee, chaired by Brian Theede, bore fruit last night
with the confirmation of the 2003 Winter Games being awarded to
our region.
[Translation]
The economic fallout from the Games, estimated at $30 million,
will be most welcome in our area. The publicity generated by an
activity of such scope will have major long-term economic impacts
on the region.
I am sure the region will exhibit its usual hospitality, and
that the experience will be an unforgettable one. We look
forward to seeing everyone there in the year 2003.
* * *
COLOMBIA
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in less than a
week, there have been reports from Colombia concerning a
murderous attack by paramilitaries, the murder of two human
rights activists, and the kidnapping of four social workers
affiliated with the Canadian Catholic organization Development
and Peace.
According to a spokesperson for that organization, the kidnap
victims were monitoring the actions of paramilitaries in the
regions where land is being confiscated. It appears that they
were taken in order to sabotage the peace talks between the
Colombian government and the guerrillas.
Twenty-five thousand Colombians have protested in the streets of
Medellin against the misdeeds of the paramilitary forces.
The Bloc Quebecois joins its voice to theirs in demanding that
the four people being held hostage by the paramilitaries be
freed and the peace process in Colombia resumed.
* * *
[English]
BELL CANADA
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last year BCE, the mother company of Bell Canada,
realized net profits of $1.6 billion after a raise in basic rates
was approved by the CRTC.
The increase was supposed to finance enhanced services in rural
Canada. In the meantime, in my riding of Timiskaming—Cochrane,
5,000 customers served by Northern Telephone, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Bell Canada, are still on party lines.
Five thousand customers are still living in the fifties with
party lines and rotary phones, which means no fax machines, no
Internet and consequently no jobs.
Bell Canada, should be ashamed of itself. It benefited from a
monopoly but failed to fulfill its responsibilities. Shame on
Bell Canada. It made $1.6 billion in profits and instead of
increasing services it laid off people.
I say shame on Bell Canada. I will continue to repeat this
statement as long as the problem is not solved.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government has created a class of working poor in Canada.
Many angry Canadians rallied on the Hill today and their message
was loud and clear.
Liberal economics are putting Canadian families and individuals
out on the street. When will this government admit that it is
wrong to tax a family making far less than $20,000 a year? When
will this government stop draining our social system of its
resources, preventing Canadians from helping those who need help
the most?
The Liberal government does not hesitate to give out millions of
dollars to Canada's largest corporations but laughs when it comes
to relieving the pressure on those in real need.
The Prime Minister has talked to the imaginary homeless but some
real homeless people are outside still waiting to talk to him.
The Prime Minister's absence was noted and so is the government's
inability to implement economic and social programs that will
allow every Canadian to have a home.
For a country so rich in resources, only the regressive policies
of this Liberal government prevent every Canadian from having
their needs met.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to invite the Government of Quebec and the
sovereignists to give careful thought to the advantages of the
recent framework agreement on social union.
The sovereignists have decided to turn it into an issue, but
they must not forget that the people did not give them a mandate
to prepare Quebec's independence.
The people of Quebec want their government to look after their
interests, without the usual excessive partisanship that is the
annoying trademark of the sovereignists.
The social union is nothing less than a new approach to Canadian
federalism reflecting change in our social policy and the needs
of Canadians.
I invite the Government of Quebec to sign this agreement as soon
as possible.
* * *
1410
SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
social union agreement is entitled “A Framework to Improve the
Social Union for Canadians”.
As Sainte-Beuve put it, “Happy lovers adapt willingly to any
framework”. This is the way I would describe the unhealthy
atmosphere that led nine provinces concerned about us to sign an
unconditional surrender, after being starved by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
The agreement dwelled as well on the obligation to eliminate
barriers to Canadians' mobility. “To eliminate” means “to
reject“, “to remove”.
This is a word that unfortunately goes well with the regrettable
attitude of the nine provinces concerned about us, which dropped
Quebec without a moment's hesitation.
One word, however, is missing from this agreement, inspired by
the minister. It is the word “to eat away” as in “to eat away
the powers of the provinces”.
* * *
ELECTRIC VEHICLE PROJECT
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
January 25 was announced an innovative and ambitious project for
the acquisition of electric vehicles in the Montreal area.
The purpose of this Montreal 2000 project is to form a network
of between 15 and 20 organizations interested in buying 40
electric vehicles that will become part of their fleet and be
used on a regular basis.
This two-year project, estimated at more than $3 million, was
made possible through concerted efforts by industry and
government partners. The $500,000 in federal assistance will
come in part from the climate change action fund, which was
established to assist Canada in meeting its Kyoto commitment to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
This is the kind of action the Canadian government encourages in
the Montreal area.
* * *
[English]
BELL ISLAND FERRY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to bring to the attention of this House, and to the
attention of the Minister of Transport in particular, a very
serious incident that occurred last week on the Bell Island ferry
service in the riding of St. John's East.
The ferryboat Hamilton Sound, fully loaded with vehicles
and 75 passengers, lost a ramp in heavy seas during what should
have been a routine crossing. Luckily the ferry made port
without any serious injury or loss of life.
The operation of the Bell Island ferry service is very much a
local matter, but the safety of ships at sea is also a matter
within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. I call
upon the minister to investigate and to act on the incident so
the people of Bell Island can be assured they will have a ferry
system that can operate safely under local traffic and weather
conditions.
* * *
STUART ENERGY SYSTEMS
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on February 8 the Minister of Natural Resources addressed the
ninth annual Canadian Hydrogen Conference in Vancouver. On
behalf of the federal Ministers of Industry and the Environment
the minister announced an investment by the federal government of
$5.8 million in Stuart Energy Systems, a Canadian company
developing a system for improving the refuelling of hydrogen
fuel-cell powered buses. The total cost of this project is
estimated at $17.7 million and will create 250 jobs.
This is a superb example of federal departments working together
to support Canadian companies in developing more environmentally
friendly forms of energy and technology. It also helps us to
meet our Kyoto commitments. Congratulations to Stuart Energy
Systems for helping us move in the right direction.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me tell a story from Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
Picture this: A young woman jetting around the world, testing
five star hotels to make sure they are ritzy enough for her
uncle's first class vacations. This young woman travelled first
class herself when she was lining up luxury suites for her uncle
in Italy last year. She spent more than 10,000 loonies on first
class airfare.
Who is this jet-setting young woman and who is her uncle with
his champagne taste for the high life?
No, it is not the Sultan of Brunei. It is not Bill Gates. We
are talking about young Caroline Chrétien jetting around the
globe to check out fancy hotels for her uncle. He has come a
long way from being the little guy from Shawinigan.
Maybe that is the real reason the Prime Minister did not go to
King Hussein's funeral. Bill Clinton already booked the royal
suite, so Caroline Chrétien radioed back “Don't bother coming,
Uncle. Room service is better at the Chateau Whistler”.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
about one hour ago the chief of defence staff was forced to take
the blame for the Prime Minister's poor judgment regarding King
Hussein's funeral. What a humiliating day for our military.
Why was the chief of defence staff forced to take the fall for
our Prime Minister's mistake?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we wanted to go there. It is very clear that the
Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of National Defence
and my office worked together to try to organize it so that the
Prime Minister of Canada could be there. There was an advance
team.
Unfortunately I could not be there. I do not want to blame
anybody. Everybody did their job. I wanted to go there. I am
terribly sorry that I could not be there. If there is any blame
to give, I am here to take the blame.
I wanted to go there and I did not make it. I am sorry but it
is a fact of life.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in fact the Prime Minister just said not once but twice I am
sorry but and came up with an excuse. The Prime Minister is
incapable of saying I am sorry, period.
On APEC, on hepatitis C and on some of these other things the
Prime Minister just continues to blame anyone else but himself.
Now he is blaming the Jordanians and our Canadian air forces.
I would like him to stand up in his place and simply say the
words, I am sorry, period, and not I am sorry but, but, but.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member had listened she would have learned that I
said je suis désolé. I am sorry. I wanted to go there and I am
sorry I could not go there.
I said to the ambassador I am sorry I was not there.
[Translation]
I am sorry, in both French and English.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
again there is proof in Hansard forevermore: “I am sorry
but it was someone else's fault other than mine”—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Deborah Grey: That is definitely true. It is not
good enough.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but the Prime
Minister could go and he knows it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to go
to her question, please.
Miss Deborah Grey: I would love to, Mr. Speaker. Only
after 24 hours of badgering did our chief of defence staff now
come forward and say “Well, it was our fault”.
Why is the Prime Minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We are going to hear the question right now.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, why is the Prime Minister
soiling our military's reputation to try to save his own?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that I do not want to blame anybody. I said I
wanted to go there and I could not make it. I said je suis
désolé. I repeat, I am sorry, and in case that is not enough, it
is written.
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members not to use props.
1420
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
now know that the military could have placed the Prime Minister
in Jordan for King Hussein's funeral. Everybody now knows that
the Prime Minister is blaming the Canadian forces for his bad
judgment. He continues to stubbornly stick with that
unbelievable explanation.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he immediately
table the flight logs and other pertinent correspondence between
the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of National
Defence to back up his story?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, General Baril made a statement and I made a statement.
There is nothing to add. We all wanted to make sure that the
Prime Minister of Canada would be there. Between the time that
it was known that the king was dead and the time that the funeral
was to start, there was not enough time for the Prime Minister to
be there so the Government of Canada and the people of Canada
were represented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
There were a lot of other leaders that could not be there. In
fact, from the Americas, only the President of the United States
could go there.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
one hour ago I witnessed a humiliating scene over at the
Department of National Defence, the Prime Minister using the
chief of the defence staff as his fall guy for the Prime
Minister's own flawed decision.
I do not believe the Canadian forces are to blame here. The
Prime Minister has a responsibility to clean the air.
I am asking the Prime Minister again if he will table in the
House the logs and the correspondence that existed between his
office and the Department of National Defence now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have clearly explained the situation. There was no
flight for the Prime Minister. There was one that took the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and some members of parliament to the
funeral. They represented Canada very well.
These are the facts. I do not want to blame anybody. I am
sorry. I wanted to be there. I said that to my staff and to
everybody last week, but I could not make it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
again, the Prime Minister has found a scapegoat. In the case of
the GST, it was the Minister of Canadian Heritage. For APEC, it
was the RCMP. This time, it is the Canadian Armed Forces.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, in his haste to ridicule
the forces and their commander in chief in order to cover up his
errors in judgment, he is undermining the credibility of
institutions such as the armed forces and, in particular, the
office he himself holds?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Absolutely
not, Mr. Speaker. I indicated clearly that the decision to go
there had been taken last week.
The Department of National Defence, the Department of Foreign
Affairs and the PMO did everything they could, but it was
physically impossible for me to get to Amman. That is why the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and members of the House represented
me and Canada at King Hussein's funeral.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
saying that he had not anticipated an urgent requirement, did
General Baril not reveal that neither the PMO nor the Prime
Minister had informed him of the need for possible urgent
action, because an early return from Vancouver was possible. I
imagine that, if the entire world knew that King Hussein was on
the verge of death, so did the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister apparently did not. He did not say there was
an urgent requirement. Is this believable? Can this be?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister does not have to tell the Canadian Armed
Forces what to do. They are capable of acting on their own, and
it is their responsibility to ensure that I can get places when
I wish to do so.
1425
It was indicated clearly last week that the Prime Minister
wished to go to Jordan. The Department of Foreign Affairs and
the Department of National Defence were informed accordingly. A
PMO team had already gone on ahead to Amman to prepare the way.
Unfortunately—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Repentigny.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I had the
honour of being part of the Canadian delegation to the funeral
of King Hussein of Jordan.
According to my calculations, from the time the PMO was notified
until the start of the ceremonies, and taking into account the
nine hours of flight time between Ottawa and Jordan, there was
still nine hours leeway.
How can the Prime Minister explain that, with nine hours to
spare, he could not have got from Vancouver to Ottawa, when a
flight normally takes about four and one-half hours?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the information provided by the Canadian forces, it
was impossible.
I do not know how the hon. member does his calculations, but I
know that I needed two hours to get to Vancouver, another five
to Ottawa, and then thirteen to get to Amman, plus the seven
hours of time change. All together that makes considerably more
than the 22 hours there were between the time the King died and
the start of the ceremonies.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
explain my calculations.
I was at Repentigny at 8.30 a.m. on
Sunday when I was told I had to be in Ottawa for 11 a.m. to get
the flight out. That being physically impossible for me also, I
asked if the flight could be held until 12.30 p.m. I was told
it could. And I am not the Prime Minister.
How can the Prime Minister explain that it did not occur to him
to have the flight held for another hour or two to allow him the
time to get to Ottawa to join us, since our flight arrived at
Amman a good three hours before the start of the ceremonies.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my office was informed that it was impossible to make the
necessary arrangements Sunday morning to allow me to get from
where I was in British Columbia to Ottawa in time to catch the
flight to Amman.
The decision was not mine. This is what was decided by those
who were responsible, who acted in good faith. They concluded
that it was impossible, and I could not get to Amman. It is as
simple as that.
* * *
[English]
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we had a
very serious situation on Parliament Hill today. The Prime
Minister refused to meet with a delegation of Canada's homeless.
He preferred a more heavy-handed approach: the homeless need
shelter, throw them in jail; the homeless need help, bring on the
riot squad.
Why did the Prime Minister refuse to meet with homeless people?
Why was the RCMP brought in instead?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has
offered to meet with them. He is the minister responsible for
this problem in the government. He sent a note and he organized
a meeting with one member. He was willing to meet with a
delegation of the protesters. Apparently they are not available
this afternoon to meet with him.
We are very preoccupied with this problem. It is a very
difficult problem involving the provincial, municipal and federal
governments. The minister made a statement yesterday showing all
the activities that the government has has taken to move forward.
1430
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister knows perfectly well that he was asked 35 days ago
for this meeting today. His minister offered to meet with those
protesters after they left town.
Instead of meeting with them and listening to their desperation,
instead of responding to their pleas, the Prime Minister brings in
the riot squad.
Will the Prime Minister admit he was wrong? Will he accept
the challenge of the homeless, to meet with them on their terms?
Has the Prime Minister got the decency and the guts to do that?
The Speaker: Colleagues, we all know today is Wednesday
and sometimes we run over a little in our words. It is not a
question of any of us having courage in this House. I will
permit the hon. Prime Minister to answer the question.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party likes to use
extravagant words in the House of Commons, as she is doing now.
I would have appreciated last week if she had had the good sense
of respecting the tradition of the New Democratic Party and stood
in the House to defend the charter of rights.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in 1990 the current finance minister chaired a task force on
the homeless. He promised a Liberal government would hold a
national conference on the homeless and provide more money for
social housing.
Nine years later, like so many other broken Liberal promises,
all the task force recommendations have been forgotten.
Given that the number of homeless Canadians has skyrocketed
since this government took office in 1993, will the Prime
Minister commit today to new measures to reverse this serious
problem?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me continue to
read the list I started yesterday of the things the government is
doing in housing for the homeless.
Over $12 million from RRAP will be targeted to upgrade an
estimated 1,450 units for those at risk of becoming homeless.
The Government of Canada and the city of Calgary are currently
planning the use of the additional 1998-99 RRAP funds and loan
insurance to support the development of rooming houses for the
homeless and low income Canadians. CMHC will be hosting a
national housing research commitee discussion group on the
homeless—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, what the minister is talking about is not enough for the
Canadian homeless. I know the Prime Minister always likes to
speak to his homeless friends.
Why did the Prime Minister not speak to the homeless people this
morning who travelled to Ottawa to meet with him today, although
it is a great day for skiing?
Did the Prime Minister discuss homelessness with the premiers
last week? If not, when will he meet with other levels of
government to devise a comprehensive plan to solve this serious
problem?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year I
announced the extension of RRAP. The government put in $250
million. Last December the government put another $50 million in
the program to help the homeless.
Some of the provinces are participating, some are not. If they
would participate we would have more money to do more.
Maybe the hon. member should speak to some of his Conservative
friends like Mike Harris in Ontario who are not participating.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last night
the Prime Minister was quoted on this sad situation with the
king: “The army told me they could not take me there so I could
not go”.
I am asking the Prime Minister to prove that, to file the logs
here in the House from the plane that was waiting for him in
Vancouver to prove his story now.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there was a statement issued by the Department of
National Defence which confirmed what I said yesterday.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I flew to
Jordan on exactly the same type of plane the Prime Minister could
have taken. It was 12 hours from the moment that plane took off
from Ottawa until we were on the tarmac in Jordan, and 4 hours
from the time I was notified until that plane took off.
I have the logs of that plane. We need now the logs of the
plane the Prime Minister could have taken.
1435
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very difficult to give him the log of a plane I
did not take.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, for months, we have been warning the
government that its cuts to health care would have disastrous
effects everywhere. It paid no attention, and now we can see
the results.
The same is true for employment insurance. We repeatedly warned
the government that it was creating a real social drama with its
so-called reforms.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development finally get the
message and improve his system to quickly repair the damage his
reform caused as happened in health care?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, we undertook a
major reform of employment insurance and, each year, for the
next five years, I will be tabling a report in the House
measuring the real impact of our employment insurance reform.>
However, what I note is that the employment insurance reform and
the other programs of the Government of Canada have led to the
creation of 87,000 new jobs in January alone.
The youth employment strategy led to the creation of 44,000 of
these jobs for young people. Perhaps the Bloc should pay closer
attention to the situation in Quebec where, unfortunately, while
87,000 jobs were being created in Canada, 1,000 jobs were lost
in Quebec.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in addition to scrapping the employment
insurance plan, the Minister of Human Resources Development is
allowing the Minister of Finance to siphon off the plan's
surplus in order to lower taxes for the wealthy.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development get on with his
job, assume his responsibilities and stand up to the Minister of
Finance in defence of the unemployed? He is paid to do this,
not write books.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we created the youth employment
strategy, which the Prime Minister himself announced in
December, and which will operate on a permanent basis. We note
that last year there were 150,000 new jobs for young people, the
best performance in 20 years. We have a standing Canadian job
creation fund in the country's finances.
I can tell you I am proud to be part of a government that wants
to help people escape unemployment and find a job, unlike the
members on the other side.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
under this government Canadians truly are paying more and getting
a lot less.
This year the average taxpayer will pay $1,800 more in taxes
than they paid when this government came to power. That is a lot
of groceries. On the other hand, the government has ensured that
Canadian taxpayers will get $1,150 less in health care than they
did in 1993.
How can the government deny for a second that Canadians really
are paying more and getting a lot less?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in every budget
since we have taken office it has been our priority to try to
reduce taxes.
We have done this in a consistent and responsible manner. In
the last budget we reduced taxes for 13 million Canadians and
completely eliminated taxes for 400,000 of the poorest taxpayers.
We will continue in the forthcoming budget this responsible and
balanced course.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, is
that really the minister's story, that taxes are going down in
Canada? We know that $38 billion more every year now comes out
of taxpayer pockets and goes to this government, $1,800 per
taxpayer.
Where does this minister get off spinning a yarn like that? How
can he deny for a second that Canadians are paying a whole lot
more and getting a lot less from this government?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our growth is
evidenced by what has happened in terms of jobs. Last year Canada
created 449,000 brand new jobs. In January of this year there
were 87,400 brand new jobs.
There are 1.5 million more Canadians who are working today than
there were five years ago since we took office. This is the type
of growth we are proud of.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
FARM SAFETY NET INCOME PROGRAM
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the national
safety net advisory committee is proposing a series of concrete
measures to ensure that the $900 million in the farm safety net
income program announced by the minister will all be spent, and
spent in a way that best helps our producers.
Does the minister intend to implement all the committee's
recommendations so that Quebec producers benefit, or does he
not?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in coming up with the criteria and
defining how up to $9 million of federal support will be given to
those producers who need it, we listened to the advice of many
people. We listened to the advice of the safety net advisory
committee, the provinces and colleagues on both sides of the
House. We will do our best to make that fair and equitable
across the country.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since Quebec
has already taken steps to help its producers, particularly in
the pork sector, can the minister assure us that Quebec will not
be penalized in any way in the implementation of the farm safety
net income program?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member full assurance
that they will be treated equitably, the same as any other farmer
in Canada.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the reality in this country is that the government has
hiked taxes 37 times. Even after the budget next week with a $2
billion proposed tax cut, taxes are still the biggest component
in any family's budget load.
Why is the government continuing to tax Canadians more and
giving them less in services?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
continuously cut taxes. We made major tax cuts in the last
budget, $7 billion over three years. The minister has indicated
that our forthcoming budget will have tax cuts as well.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister talked about 400,000 taxpayers being
eliminated from the tax rolls. We do not want to hear about the
people who have moved out of the country or have died. We are
talking about the 14 million people who have to stay here and pay
these exorbitant taxes. The reality of living in Canada is that
we are paying more and getting less.
What we would like to know is why can the government not
understand that people want the government to cut taxes, not
health care.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we have
to know where the Reform Party is coming from. This is the party
that over the three years in its prebudget submission proposed
$54 billion of new fiscal measures.
What has it done? It is predicting there will be growth in our
economy for each of those years of 5.5%. It is absolutely no
wonder that it wants to unite with the Tory party which has won
the governor general's prize for fiction for its budgets.
* * *
[Translation]
ABORIGINAL LIVING OFF RESERVE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In October 1998, the federal government announced that the
labour force agreements signed with the Congress of Aboriginal
Peoples and the Native Women's Association were expiring. These
two groups represent an off-reserve aboriginal population of more
than 800,000, who will now be excluded from the training
program.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development justify the
fact that he has yet to meet with officials of these two
organizations to discuss renewing and restoring funding to these
programs in the next federal budget?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
responsibility for labour and manpower issues, we have signed a
new agreement with the Government of Quebec.
The Canadian government does not have sole jurisdiction over
aboriginals living off reserve. That concerns us. I have met
with a number of aboriginal leaders and it is extremely
important that we make sure the best possible services are
provided to these aboriginal people living off reserve, so that
they can join the labour force.
It is one of our concerns, but we do not hold all the cards. The
Quebec government has been holding some of them since this
historic agreement was signed.
* * *
[English]
YEAR 2000
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
There are fewer than 215 working days until the year 2000.
I know the minister has given us his assurance in the House
regarding the government's preparedness for the Y2K on the
operability of the government's computer systems, but what
concrete third party proof can he give the House that the
government's payment systems will be fully operable when the
clock strikes January 1, 2000?
1445
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the international group, the Gardner Group, is universally known
and has been assessing the various countries. It has for the last
few months repeatedly been saying that Canada is now the second
country in the world, behind the United States, in terms of
preparedness.
Also for January we now have the latest report for the level of
preparedness of departments for their government-wide mission
critical systems and the departments are on average at 84% of
preparedness. They give us assurances that they will be ready for
the year 2000.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the parliamentary secretary keeps telling us the government has
cut taxes. Has he heard anything about the CPP $10 billion tax
increase he stood up and voted for? Does he know about the
impact of bracket creep which every year takes a billion
additional dollars out of the pockets of hardworking Canadian
taxpayers?
How can the minister stand in his place and tell us he has cut
taxes when in fact as we speak the government is raising taxes on
Canadians through bracket creep and the CPP?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not be
prouder of the measures our government took in concert with the
provinces in order to ensure the continuity and ongoing viability
of the Canada pension plan.
I look at the Reform Party proposal to hold the line on all
existing programs, including seniors pensions. As if there are
not going to be more and more seniors in Canada who require more
and more support over the next three years. I would not be
cutting seniors pensions the way the Reform Party is. We have
preserved them.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party would take every low income senior off the tax
rolls who should not be paying taxes today but is because of
bracket creep. We would take every low income Canadian off the
tax rolls who should not be paying taxes but is because of
bracket creep.
How can the minister continue to stand in his place and justify
a tax system which taxes people without their even knowing it
through this pernicious tax grab called bracket creep?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
continuously reduced taxes and we have said there will be more
forthcoming.
In terms of the $54 billion in new tax measures that the Reform
Party has proposed for the next three years, it has not come
clean on exactly which programs it would cut. This is
irresponsibility of the worst order, but unfortunately that is
what we have come to expect from the Reform Party.
* * *
DEVCO
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it has been over 10 days since the Minister of Natural Resources
made his drive-by announcement killing over 1,100 jobs in Cape
Breton.
Today a delegation of labour leaders, representatives of Devco
workers, is meeting with representatives of all parties with a
simple question for the minister: Why did he reject their
reasonable proposal for the future of Devco given that the
corporation had previously approved the plan?
Will the minister now agree to have the union proposal reviewed
and costed by an unbiased third party in consultation with the
union?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the union proposition was put to me informally when I
met with the union on January 11. I was provided with a written
description of what it had in mind.
I subsequently had that proposal very carefully analysed. The
information revealed that under any of the various scenarios,
which I am sure were put forward with the best of intentions, but
under any of the various scenarios proposed by the unions, Devco
unfortunately would continue to be a losing proposition because
the arrangement was simply not economical.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The government's recent announcement regarding Devco is
devastating the Cape Breton economy as we speak. In 10 days real
estate is down 20%. It also leaves hundreds of workers with 25
years and more of service ineligible for pensions.
To restore at least some trust, will the minister tell union
leaders in Ottawa today that he will agree to set up a
labour-management committee to deal with this crisis?
1450
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when I was in Sydney for the announcement I indicated
that the management of the corporation would indeed want to
review the human resources package that was included as part of
our announcement with union representatives. Some of those
discussions have already been held. Obviously, if there are ways
to tailor that package in a way that is more beneficial to the
employees within the financial parameters that have been set out,
every creative idea would be considered. Some of those
discussions have already started.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on February 3 the chair of the RCMP Public
Complaints Commission, Justice Ted Hughes, wrote to the solicitor
general urging the federal government to pay the legal fees for
the students. He has called on the government to approve the
funding in order to ensure a fair hearing in the hope of finally
levelling the playing field and improving the quality of the
proceedings. This request follows a similar one from the
original panel.
In the interests of justice, will the solicitor general approve
this reasonable request immediately and bring some integrity and
credibility to the APEC hearings?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did receive a very detailed letter from
Mr. Hughes. I and my officials are reviewing this letter and
will respond to Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, delay, deny and distract. Cameron Ward, a lawyer
representing six of the complainants at the APEC inquiry said
yesterday “The value of this hearing will rest in part on
whether the Prime Minister actually testifies”.
In light of the fact that security at the APEC summit cost $13
million and the inquiry itself is costing additional millions to
the taxpayers, does the Prime Minister not want Canadians to know
the truth about this matter? In the interests of fairness, will
he speak from the heart? Will he testify at the APEC hearing?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is entirely between the Prime
Minister and the commission.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Revenue.
A leaked document reveals that a number of Canadian
environmental organizations are acting as a front for huge
American corporate and family trusts. Millions of dollars are
funnelled into Canada every year.
Today we find that the Sierra Legal Defence Fund and the David
Suzuki Foundation among others are counting on this money to
finance a smear campaign and manipulate share prices of Canadian
based Redfern Resources to scare off investors and kill a mining
project in northern B.C.
Why is the minister extending charitable status to these
organizations? When is he going to commit to removing it for
these environmental terrorists?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know, a study was
recently done, the Broadbent study, which looked at the whole
area of the voluntary sector. We as a government are very
interested in looking at that.
Our department is following the jurisprudence at the time to
determine that those charities which are registered fully follow
the law and the courts in support of the decisions we have made
in terms of registration of charities.
This is an area we are very interested in looking at. Certainly
we have to modernize and update our legislation. We welcome the
report that has come forward and look forward to looking at it.
* * *
[Translation]
TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
In 1998, Technology Partnerships Canada invested $166 million in
the aeronautical sector. That is about half of what it invested
10 years ago, and only $10 million more than the royalties
reimbursed by the companies.
When will the minister acknowledge loud and clear that today's
jobs are the result of yesterday's investments in this sector,
and that the present underfunding of Technology Partnerships
Canada represents a serious threat for the jobs of tomorrow?
What will be in the budget?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
aware of the facts the hon. member is presenting. I agree that
it would be important for us to increase the funding available
to the Technology Partnerships Canada program, but the
government always has to set priorities. I am sure that next
Tuesday the Minister of Finance will be presenting a budget that
will balance the various priorities very well.
* * *
1455
[English]
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when it
comes to cultural protection and specifically Bill C-55, this
government seems to have a split-run policy. When the Americans
are playing the bullies, the minister plays the great
nationalist. At the same time, the government likes secret
meetings and now proposes an amendment that cabinet and not
parliament determine the future of Bill C-55. Canadians want
some clarity on this issue.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage now commit to make Bill
C-55 the law of the land, call the Americans' bluff and stop
setting our cultural policy behind closed doors?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member and her
party and the hon. members of most parties for the strong support
they have shown. I also want to thank in particular my hon.
critic who yesterday displayed an incredible openness when he had
meetings on this issue with representatives of the magazine
industry.
That being said, we are certainly committed to proceeding with
this bill. The amendment that we have put forth today is the
standard amendment in most bills that have been brought before
the House. Frankly, what it does is it shows that we on the
Canadian side are operating in good faith. I only hope our
American allies choose to also operate in good faith.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, Liberals can
run but they cannot hide from being accountable for misuse of
grants and loans. Yvon Duhaime, a financially challenged
convicted criminal, admitted that he received assistance from the
Prime Minister's riding staff in applying for government funding.
I ask the Prime Minister, did he or a member of his staff
intervene with the Business Development Bank or any other
department to obtain dollars for Yvon Duhaime?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have made it clear in the House before that the
process for dealing with loans authorized by the Business
Development Bank of Canada is one that is entirely within the
control of that organization.
In this case, because the level of the loan was such as it was,
the decision was not made at the local level. It was made at the
head office level by a vice-president whose responsibility it is
to determine whether or not such loans should be given. There is
not even an order in council appointee who was involved in
determining that process.
Furthermore, I want to emphasize that this money was not only
loaned by the Business Development Bank of Canada, there were
also loans from the Caisse Populaire, a private sector lender,
determining that this was a project worth supporting by private
sector funds.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Department of Foreign Affairs and its 140 missions abroad
provide crucial information and services to Canadians, services
that are dependent upon international communications facilities.
What assurance can the Minister of Foreign Affairs give that his
department is prepared for the millennium and is thereby meeting
the needs of Canadians worldwide for the year 2000 and beyond?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no question of the responsibility to ensure
that Canadian interests abroad are protected in this very
complicated situation and need to be advanced. We have developed
a number of contingency plans to ensure that there can be
communications services. For example, we have secured emergency
satellite channels to make sure that all 140 missions will be in
direct contact with Canada to protect Canadian consular interests
and trade and security interests abroad if something happens in
the year 2000.
* * *
FIREARMS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government has a double standard. The justice minister
tells firearms owners not to fear registration, but her
government has declared certain registered firearms prohibited
and will not pay compensation to thousands of dealers whose
property will eventually be confiscated.
In August the government announced it will give El Salvador
$130,000 for a firearms buy-back scheme. Will the minister
explain why firearms owners in El Salvador get compensation but
law-abiding firearms owners in Canada do not?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the
program that the member refers to in El Salvador, but I will
certainly follow up on that with my colleague who is responsible
for CIDA.
Let me say that it has been a longstanding policy of this
government in terms of firearms in fact either to provide
grandfathering provisions for those who presently own various
kinds of weapons, or in limited circumstances, very limited
circumstances, to provide compensation. That policy continues.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the homeless
are demonstrating outside the Parliament Buildings, while at the
same time the government is amassing over $16.5 million daily in
the employment insurance fund.
This government, which presents itself as the champion of the
poor, is in fact the champion of poverty. The number of
children in Canada living in poor families has increased by 60%
in the past ten years.
My question is for the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister finally get moving and ensure that the
coming budget contains the funding and other measures required
to combat poverty?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has already taken action. We created tax credits
for poor families. We put $1.7 million into that. This is a
system that did not exist two years ago. The government has
already committed the sum of $1.7 million, the biggest
contribution to any program since we have been in government.
* * *
[English]
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today hundreds of homeless people came to Parliament Hill with a
very simple mission. They wanted to tell the Prime Minister of
the pain and the reality of being homeless in Canada. They were
turned down in a meeting.
Will the Prime Minister demonstrate commitment and care today by
ensuring that in the upcoming budget there are adequate resources
to ensure that homelessness does not exist in Canada? Will he
provide the funds in that budget to provide emergency shelters
and housing?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for her question.
In the first week of January I met in Vancouver with the mayor
of Vancouver and a group of people who are trying to help the
homeless. CMHC has provided RRAP funding for a rehabilitation
housing project on the east side for the Washington Hotel and the
Sunrise Hotel in the member's riding. Thirty thousand dollars
was provided for the Home Mutual Aid Society for a proposal to
develop a low income housing project.
I would like to say to the member, who is an NDP member, that in
British Columbia there is an NDP government and it is not
participating in the RRAP.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 17 petitions.
* * *
[English]
SOCIAL UNION
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the framework to improve the social union for
Canadians was signed on February 4, 1999 by the Prime Minister of
Canada, all but one of the premiers and the territorial leaders
after more than a year of negotiations which were superbly
co-chaired by Saskatchewan's intergovernmental affairs minister,
the hon. Berny Wiens, and our colleague, the Minister of Justice
and chair of the cabinet committee on the social union.
I am pleased and honoured to pay tribute in the House to the
immense service that the member for Edmonton West has rendered to
our country.
1505
This framework agreement has been very well received across the
country, but there is still concern about the fact that the
Premier of Quebec did not sign the agreement. There is a fear
that Quebeckers may not reap the benefits of the agreement to the
same extent as other Canadians. This is a legitimate concern
which I would like to address here today.
[Translation]
Although the premier of my province did not sign this framework
agreement, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Jean
Chrétien, has promised to make sure his fellow Quebeckers
benefit from it as much as possible. This is good news for
Quebeckers and for other Canadians. I will demonstrate this by
examining a number of the major elements of this agreement.
The agreement comprises seven parts. The first sets out a
number of principles committing governments to promoting greater
fairness, equality and respect for diversity throughout Canada.
The Government of Canada is naturally committed, within the
limits of its constitutional powers and jurisdictions, to
ensuring that Quebeckers benefit from the promotion of these
fundamental values as much as other Canadians.
The second part is about mobility. It commits governments to
eliminating harmful or unreasonable barriers to the free
movement of Canadians throughout Canada. The Government of
Canada, as the only government elected by all Canadians, is
determined that Canadians be considered Canadians everywhere in
Canada. This is an essential element of Canadian citizenship.
The objective is obviously not to have “one size fits all”
public policies and government practices throughout the country.
Rather, the objective is to give all Canadians equal access to
our country's rich diversity.
The Government of Canada hopes that the Government of Quebec
will participate in these negotiations on mobility in order for
Quebeckers to benefit fully from them.
The third part commits governments to keeping Canadians better
informed and to acting with greater transparency. Each
government will work to enhance its accountability to its
constituents, known as public accountability. But governments
will not be accountable to one another.
The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing its
accountability to Quebeckers as it will to other Canadians.
The fourth part of the agreement commits governments to working
in partnership while respecting their constitutional powers and
jurisdictions. They will share information so as to learn
better from one another. They will consult one another on their
respective priorities and opportunities for co-operation. They
will give one another advance notice prior to implementation of
a major change and will work to avoid duplication while
clarifying their roles and responsibilities. They are committed
to more effective co-operation with aboriginal peoples throughout
Canada.
The Government of Canada is committed to working in partnership
with the Government of Quebec as it will with all other
governments in Canada.
The fifth part commits governments, specifically the federal
government, to using the federal spending power more
co-operatively so as to improve social programs for Canadians.
This means that with respect to any new Canada-wide initiatives
in health care, post-secondary education, social assistance and
social services that are funded through intergovernmental
transfers, whether block-funded or cost-shared, first, the
Government of Canada will no longer decide on its own to launch
new initiatives. It will have to consult each province and
territory and will consider proceeding only if it obtains the
approval of at least a majority of provinces on objectives and
an accountability framework.
Second, the Government of Canada will no longer impose programs,
but will let each province determine its own programming for
attaining the agreed objectives.
Third, the Government of Canada will no longer require that the
total transfer be devoted to a given objective. A provincial
government that, because of its existing programming, does not
require the total transfer to fulfill the objective, may use the
balance for other purposes in the same or a related priority
area.
1510
With respect to federal spending initiatives through direct
transfers to individuals or organizations for health care,
post-secondary education, social assistance and social services,
the Government of Canada will no longer be able to implement new
initiatives without first giving three months' notice and
offering to consult the other governments. Those governments
will have the opportunity to identify potential duplication and
to propose alternative approaches to achieve flexible and
effective implementation.
These undertakings set down significant new constraints on the
federal government. They go beyond the provisions on limiting
the federal spending power contained in the Meech and
Charlottetown agreements. Independent observers in Quebec
recognize the significance of these provisions.
The Government of Canada is committed to respecting these new
requirements for co-operation and consultation and to ensuring
that all governments benefit from this process, including the
Government of Quebec.
The sixth part of the framework agreement on the social union
commits governments to respecting a new dispute avoidance and
resolution mechanism. This mechanism provides for joint
negotiations and the participation of third parties for
fact-finding or mediation. Even the Premier of Quebec has
acknowledged that this new mechanism is a sign of progress. It
will be available to him, as it is to all governments.
The seventh and final part provides for a full review of the
framework agreement on the social union by the end of the third
year of the agreement. Once the agreement has been put through
its paces, it will be possible to identify its strengths and
weaknesses and make improvements to it.
The Government of Quebec will be invited to participate in this
review. Quebeckers and all other Canadians will thus have an
opportunity to express their views.
So this is what the Government of Canada intends to do to ensure
that Quebeckers reap the full benefits of this agreement. To
this end, it will offer its full co-operation to the Government
of Quebec at every opportunity. Quebeckers want their
governments to work together.
It is understandable that the Government of Quebec may feel that
the progress achieved through the agreement is not enough. But
it is reasonable to expect the Government of Quebec to accept
the progress offered to it, even if it believes it is not
enough.
Quebeckers, like other Canadians, must have full access to the
immense potential of their country and to all of the
opportunities for mutual assistance provided to them through the
Canadian social union, one of the best in the world, which we
will make even better through this agreement.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point
out to the minister, and especially to his speech writers, that
it is the tradition in this House to not call members by name.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Verchères—Les-Patriotes is absolutely right. Our standing orders
provide that members not refer to one another except by riding
name or title.
I am sorry the Chair did not pick up on the slip the hon. member
is referring to. I was involved in a discussion, therefore
missing what was said just then. Normally, the Chair would
interrupt a member who makes this kind of slip to correct him or
her.
1515
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is no surprise to the House
that I have had deep reservations on the social union agreement
that was struck on February 4. I hate to rain on the minister's
parade, but it is interesting that just six days after the fact,
the C.D. Howe Institute has released a report by William Robson
and Daniel Schwanen entitled “The Social Union Agreement: Too
Flawed to Last”. It states that while Canadians “might
reasonably have expected to strike a deal that would have sorted
out federal-provincial overlap, made federal-provincial transfers
fairer and more transparent, and brought Quebec in as a more
co-operative partner, the agreement reached on February 4 failed
on all these counts”.
The federal government can spend money in areas of provincial
jurisdiction with the support of six provinces. If it is the six
smallest provinces in Canada it could mean that as little as 15%
of Canada's population will determine the programs. I suggest to
the minister that the seven provinces representing 50% of the
population would have been much more representative and much
fairer to Canadians. This is the recommendation the Reform Party
has made in the new Canada act.
Under this arrangement the federal government will still be able
to initiate programs like the millennium scholarship fund with
the exception that it now only has to give the provinces three
months notice. It is not going to stop the interjurisdictional
conflict that has existed in this country for the last 50 years.
While the richer provinces will be paying the lion's share for
any of these new programs, it is the poorer provinces which can
dictate what programs will be activated.
The C.D. Howe report also shows that residents of the three
so-called have provinces, B.C., Alberta and Ontario, will loose
money with the announcement of more dollars for health care
because of the federal bias in the transfers to the provinces. It
is not just with equalization where this happens, it is with the
transfer of programs that the federal government has to the
provinces.
For every additional dollar spent on health care the residents
of Ontario and Alberta will have to contribute an additional
$1.30. To get that additional dollar British Columbians will
have to contribute $1.10. For the provinces of Ontario and
Alberta for that extra $100 the federal government transfers for
health care they will in actuality only receive about $60. One
has to ask how this agreement managed to find signatures on it.
As has also been reported, the proposed tax cuts in the federal
budget will automatically result in less tax revenue for the
provinces with the exception of Quebec. Where will there be
actual dollars to put into health care?
The C.D. Howe report also mentions the concern of isolating
Quebec. The minister made great efforts this afternoon to assure
the people of Quebec they will be considered the same as all
other Canadians. This agreement leaves two classes of Canadians,
those in Quebec who will not be subject to the mobility and
non-discrimination commitment, and those outside Quebec who will
be.
For example, Quebec is the only province to charge higher
tuition for out of province students. Quebec's failure to sign
on will leave this situation as it stands. How long will the
people outside Quebec tolerate Quebec students being able to pay
the same tuition as their children in their provinces, while
their children who want to study in Quebec will have to pay more?
As I mentioned last week, the Prime Minister missed a wonderful
opportunity to sign a truly historic agreement that was all
inclusive. The only reason for this missed opportunity was this
government's reluctance to give up power, control and credit.
1520
Members opposite want to get pictures of themselves handing out
the cheques. What they fail to mention is that the money that is
the basis of those cheques does not belong to the federal
government. It belongs to the taxpayers of Canada.
Why do they fail to mention that? Why do they practice photo
opportunity politics?
The report recommends that the provinces must seek ways of
reopening the social union contract so that Quebec can sign on.
Since the agreement contains provisions for re-evaluation after
three years, an opportunity to establish more extensive opting
out provisions balanced by more stringent obligations of
transparency, portability of programs and credentials, and
respect for the citizenship rights of all Canadians will arise
shortly.
Preparing in advance would help to ensure that this accord's
failings, Quebec's exclusion prominent among them, are not
repeated. In other words, the federal government should have
followed the Reform Party's new Canada act which gave good
guidance in how Quebec could have signed on.
The official opposition hopes that a new spirit of
federal-provincial co-operation has indeed occurred. However,
rest assured we will be prominent in pointing out any and all
instances where this government is letting down the Canadian
people.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday,
February 4, 1999, nine provinces, two territories and the
federal government signed an agreement on the social union, and
all ten provinces and the two territories signed an agreement on
health care.
At the time this announcement was made, some of the premiers
apparently forgot what the Prime Minister of Canada said on
referendum night, in November 1995. I would like to quote the
Prime Minister, who said:
We have made to those Canadians who demonstrated their
attachment to Quebec a commitment to change Canada.
You called on Quebeckers not to let Canada down. You have been
heard. Now I call on you not to let them down.
Once again, nine premiers have entered into an agreement with
the federal government without Quebec's consent. This feels
strangely familiar in Quebec.
After last Thursday's announcement, Friday's press conference by
three ministers of this government, and a string of public
statements over the weekend, the federal government is at it
again today, telling us it knows what is good for us and we
should do as it says.
Despite the fact that none of the political parties on the
Quebec scene—the Parti Quebecois, the Quebec Liberal Party and
Action démocratique—would have wanted to sign such an agreement,
the federal government, in its great wisdom and superiority,
tells us it understood what was best for us: a framework
agreement.
This is the same government which has, in recent years,
implemented a Plan B, made a reference to the Supreme Court,
started such initiatives as the millennium scholarships, done a
number on the provinces by cutting transfer payments for health
care, and now it is touting itself as a great saviour.
What is there in this agreement? First of all, the great values
and principles, with no reference whatsoever to the lead role
played by the provinces in the health field.
On the contrary, the door is being opened to the federal
government's having a major planning role in social programs,
health services and education.
Nowhere in the document, moreover, is there any firm financial
commitment, even in the principles that relate to sectors so
crucial to the future.
Third, this government, which had promised a commitment to a
specific, unique status for Quebec, and so on and so forth,
thumbed its nose at all that. Nowhere in the document, either,
is there any recognition of Quebec's contribution to Canada as a
society that is different, a people that is different. Now
there is no longer any attempt at pretence. They do not even
take the trouble to put this into the key principles behind this
agreement.
The second element is mobility within Canada, a point that
surely led to passionate discussions.
In this regard, the government introduces the possibility of
barriers to mobility where reasonable. We know full well, and
we heard it in a speech earlier, that outside Quebec there has
long been criticism of the fact that there is a difference
between tuition fees charged students from outside Quebec and
those charged Quebec students. What they never say, however, is
that these students still pay less than they would in their own
province.
Will that be called into question by such an agreement. That
remains to be seen, it will depend on the reasonableness test.
1525
It is clear, however, and the minister knows it for a fact, that
at the discussion table the matter was raised by many provinces.
It was even raised, on a few occasions, by another of the
opposition parties here in the House. This is one of the areas
some provinces want to attack in connection with Quebec. I
could provide examples of other areas, but there is not enough
time this afternoon to do so.
The third point is accountability. I am extremely surprised to
see in this agreement that they are trying to impose
accountability criteria on the provinces.
As if they were not already accountable.
I would point out that the provinces, and the case in point,
Quebec, are democratic. Each year, before the budget, there is a
practice, known as budget votes, involving a parliamentary
commission, a debate in the National Assembly and a public
presentation by the media and the opposition parties.
Accountability criteria already exist and they apply to
provincial governments, which are accountable to their electors.
The federal government now wants to get involved in that and
give itself the job of evaluating provincial accountability.
The provinces will therefore get a report card from the federal
government with a thinly veiled threat that funding is tied to
the achievement of cross Canada objectives, something no
Government of Quebec has ever supported or ever will.
Fourth, to work in partnership with Canadians. In the real world
one must also walk the talk. It was just a year ago that the
government introduced the millennium scholarship initiative. The
same government that promised to take a co-operative approach
unilaterally established this program to subsidize or grant
scholarships to students on merit and performance, arguing that
it was fulfilling a priority in education at the expense of the
provinces' own priorities. Would Quebec's priorities in this
respect not been different?
Now there will be no choice; $80 million will be invested in
this area every year and priorities will be set by the federal
government, not by the Quebec government, the one responsible
for managing the whole education system. It is one thing to make
grand statements of principle, it is another to put them into
practice.
Fifth, and this is the crux of the problem, federal spending
power, this constitutional plague. Every attempt to negotiate
and come to an agreement inevitably stumbled over the issue of
limiting federal spending power. The minister claims this goes
much further than what was called for in the Meech Lake accord.
He has a very biased view of reality and I will refresh his
memory on a few points.
He uses one point in the Meech Lake accord to say that, in the
future, federal spending power will be restricted even further
that was provided for in Meech, but he fails to mention—and I
will remind him a thing or two about Meech—that there was nothing
in the Meech Lake accord about the provincial responsibilities
for mobility, accountability and transparency.
Granted, in Meech the opting out provisions only applied to
cost-shared programs.
Everyone agrees on that. However, no provision explicitly
recognized a legitimate federal role in health, education and
welfare.
There was no mention of the federal government's power to spend
through direct transfers to persons, which is a key feature of
this agreement. This meant that Quebec could always assert that
it did not recognize this federal power.
Moreover, in the Meech Lake accord there was a safeguard clause,
which basically stated that this provision did not extend the
legislative authority of parliament or the provincial
legislatures.
I might add also that Mr. Bourassa, then Premier of Quebec and
not a sovereignist, specified that the new provision had been
drafted to address the right to opt out without recognizing or
defining the federal spending power.
To make very certain—we can see that he was wary too—we insisted
that an escape clause be added to the effect that the
legislative powers of the federal parliament would not be
increased”.
There are therefore several differences between this agreement
and the Meech Lake agreement. There is also a new rule
requiring the federal government to have the support of a
majority of the provinces. The federal government will be able
to go ahead with the support of six provinces. What does this
actually mean? It means that the four maritime provinces, with
two of the other smallest provinces, or 15% of the population,
could impose Canada-wide standards on the social programs of
Quebec, which represents 25% of the Canadian population.
There is something very wrong about this. Even advocates of the
agreement admit that this is a major problem. This is a new low
with respect to the criteria the federal government must meet in
order to flex its spending power which, it should be said, it
has extended unilaterally on more than one occasion, relying on
the supreme court, the Criminal Code, national interest, and a
series of supreme court rulings. Each time, they have
encroached a little bit more.
Now, with this framework agreement, the provinces have cut them
a little more slack.
1530
There are two other points: a dispute settlement mechanism and a
review of the agreement after three years. In light of all
that, it is obvious that the Government of Quebec could not
sign. I would like to read from an editorial that does not come
from Quebec but rather from the National Post, which is hardly
known for its sovereignist slant. Journalist Andrew Coyne wrote
as follows:
[English]
“Let us consider what the federal government has gained and
what it has given up. It has gained first and foremost
provincial acknowledgement of the legitimacy of its own
involvement in the social policy”.
[Translation]
He recognizes that there has been a very clear gain for the
provinces in this agreement. My time is running out, so I will
cut to the conclusion. Having analysed all the federal
government gains, he says this:
[English]
“You would think the premiers would never sign such a document.
But with at least two and probably four facing elections this
year, the allure of more money for health care proves
irresistible. Money can buy happiness but it seems it can buy
provinces”.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the New Democratic Party sees the social union as a potentially
positive development in the kind of co-operative federalism New
Democrats have long advocated.
The NDP has long supported the principle of co-operative
federalism. Most recently, an NDP panel of party members
presented a report to our federal council endorsing a social
union based on the co-operative development and enforcement of
standards for nationwide social programs.
To the extent that the social union framework is an attempt to
establish such a framework of co-decision with governments
working together in building programs that meet the needs of
Canadians, it is a first step in the right direction.
The NDP welcomes the fact that the development of new and better
social policy appears to be front and centre on the public
agenda. We hope this agreement will break the impasse that has
blocked the introduction of urgently needed national programs
such as the national child care program and the national home
care program, not to mention a national pharmacare program, all
of which have been promised at one time or another by the party
in power at the moment.
We believe therefore that the social union is a first step in
the right direction toward a co-operative and less conflictual
federalism where governments work together to meet the needs of
Canadians in a context that affirms national standards and the
continuing relevance of the federal spending power.
One of the biggest threats to Canada-wide social programs in
recent years has been the federal government's unilateral
withdrawal of funding. For instance, the federal share of health
costs has fallen from 50% when medicare began to less than 15%
now.
The social union framework comes with no specific offer of
federal money nor a firm mechanism to ensure that the federal
government will maintain its fair share of contributions to
social programs over time.
The social union will only work if the federal government comes
through with that commitment and if at the same time the
agreement is amended to prevent unilateral action, particularly
when it comes to unilateral reductions in federal contributions.
We believe therefore that the social union will only work if the
federal government pays its fair share, is committed to do so in
future years and is willing to forswear unilateral reductions in
transfer payments.
New Democrats are pleased that the social union framework and
the exchange of letters between the premiers and the Prime
Minister have reaffirmed the principles of the Canada Health Act
which protect publicly provided universal health care.
The social union framework must therefore be used to stop the
trend in some provinces toward American style two tier health
care.
The framework agreement contains numerous references to
transparency, public accountability and the involvement of third
parties. This is to be welcomed but the language is very vague.
Indeed the process of negotiating the social union was seriously
lacking in transparency. We would like to register our own
criticism and the criticism of many other Canadians about the way
this agreement was arrived at in spite of whatever virtues it may
contain. The process was seen by a great many Canadians, and
rightly so, to be terribly lacking.
The federal NDP will therefore be watchful to see if governments
follow through on these promises with effective measures on
transparency and accountability.
On the important issue of having a watchdog to allow Canadians
to assess whether both levels of government are meeting their
obligations under the social union, the framework agreement is
incomplete.
The accountability framework for new social initiatives has not
yet been agreed on. The agreement provides for individuals to be
able to “appeal unfair administrative practices” but the
mechanism is to be provided by the government providing the
service itself, not an independent agency as proposed by the NDP
panel report to our federal council a couple of weeks ago.
1535
Canadians want to have a say about how well their social
programs like health care are serving them. New Democrats will
be watching carefully to make sure the social union develops in a
way that allows them that kind of input.
Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Covenant on Social,
Economic and Cultural Rights and other international covenants
that set out Canadian social rights. The social union framework
makes no reference to Canadian social rights, nor does it
establish any mechanism to ensure that both levels of government
are respecting them. In our view this is a serious shortcoming
and something that perhaps could be remedied in future amendments
or changes to the social union.
New Democrats want to see a social union that recognizes the
social rights of Canadians and we will work toward this goal.
The framework agreement does declare with respect to aboriginal
peoples that nothing in the agreement will take away from
aboriginal rights and the signatory governments do commit
themselves to work with aboriginal peoples “to find practical
solutions to address their pressing needs”. We will insist that
these consultations are meaningful and that they result in
concrete action.
Finally, the Government of Quebec has not agreed to this social
union framework and the social union will not be complete until
all the provinces agree.
We do see in the social union a form of asymmetrical federalism
by default. We do not find this to be as disturbing as others in
the sense that we have always seen a form of asymmetrical
federalism as that which is needed in order to address Canada's
national unity problems. We have shared the concern of others in
the past about having to decentralize at the level of 10
provinces in order to meet this distinctive special needs of one
province.
We see in the social union more by default that by design an
aspect of asymmetrical federalism which at the same time creates
a situation in which the needs of Quebecers as citizens of Canada
will be met and they will not be left out of the benefits of the
social union.
Perhaps federalism is working in mysterious ways. We see here
the seeds of a new beginning. We hope they will come to
fruition.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
to make a few comments before dealing directly with the social
union framework. I listened to members from the other parties
and I want to take a minute to comment on their remarks.
First, let me say that it is strange to hear Reformers say there
are small and big provinces, and that the small provinces could
not tell the big ones what to do. The Reformers are once again
changing their mind. The provinces are all equal when Quebec or
other issues are concerned, but when the issue is social union,
the small provinces must not control the big ones.
Such is Reform politics. It can change at any time, depending on
which way the wind blows.
It is also strange to hear comments about Quebec being isolated.
During the last federal election campaign, no other party
isolated Quebeckers more than the Reform Party did. People are
becoming increasingly aware of this, on the eve of a weekend of
activities that seems to be lacking on the organization side, on
February 19, 20 and 21.
As for my Bloc Quebecois friends, they perpetuate historical
fears. They often talk about traditional demands. Our
sovereignist friends have a historical fear, that of Quebec
getting along with Ottawa.
They talk about Quebec's traditional demands, but this also has
to do with traditional fears in Quebec because if ever Quebec
gets along with Ottawa, they can kiss sovereignty goodbye. I
think it is imperative that we get rid of this more extreme view
as soon as possible.
Coming back to the framework agreement on social union signed
last week, it was odd to have the minister talk about
discussions over the past year. He knows very well that
negotiations, often sectoral negotiations, on health, for
instance, and even negotiations between the finance ministers,
have been under way since 1995. That said, we can say that the
federal government has been on board for the past year and the
provincial government, Quebec in particular, for a few months.
There is one player missing in this social union deal today, but
earlier on, there were actually two players missing, both Quebec
and the federal government.
Closer scrutiny may reveal that this deal was doomed to fail
from the start, to a certain extent.
1540
With respect to the agreement per se, I would have one request.
This is very important to us. Shortcomings aside, no province,
especially not Quebec, should have to pay a penalty. The fear in
Quebec at present is that Quebeckers would have to foot the bill
after any confrontation between Quebec and the federal
government.
I think that the minister, the Prime Minister and the
government, and hopefully the Premier of Quebec, can give us the
assurance that there will be no such penalty. The people of
Quebec and Canada should not be penalized because it was not
their fault if a few people became stubborn at the last minute.
I trust there will be far clearer commitments and that they will
quit telling Quebec that it has to fall into step, and that, if
it will not accept the carrot, then it will get the stick
instead. That is not the right attitude.
This agreement can be readily summarized. We all know what an
excellent writer the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is,
but this document could be put in just a few lines. There is an
awful lot of stuff in here. There was much talk of mechanisms
for settling disputes between the federal and provincial
governments. It is high time we had a mechanism for settling
such disputes, as they just keep on coming.
Point six refers to dispute avoidance and resolution. I am
ready to bet anything, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot tell me what
is going to bind the provincial and federal levels together in a
solid, efficient, effective and credible process for resolving
disputes.
It is said that this must be simple and timely. The government
is left with maximum flexibility. The sectors must design
processes appropriate to their needs, and provide for
appropriate use of third parties. This could perhaps be used as
a guideline. There is no dispute resolution mechanism. That is
all we will have for the next three years. There will be talk,
but no mechanisms.
In our 1997 electoral platform, we very humbly suggested a far
firmer mechanism on which all provinces and the federal
government agreed.
I suppose this was written because they had to have a document.
They wanted more than just two sheets of paper. They said
“Social union is something important. There must be a bit of
meat to it”. But when one turns the pages, it does not amount
to much.
I understand the hair on the necks of our Bloc colleagues rising
at the suggestion of accountability, but what does it mean? Not
much. What is there in the departments' reports that cannot be
found there. Perhaps they are referring to certain national
standards, because there will have to be a comparison among
provinces. That is not all right. When things go well in
Quebec, a comparison is often made with Ontario. They say, “We
are better than Ontario this month in job creation”. But, when
Ontario is better the following month, then it is different. It
is the fault of the federal government.
Perhaps there is a fear of saying certain things, but we must
keep Canadians informed and be transparent.
They mention a better partnership for Canadians. They talk
about federal spending. The government will not let go its
direct spending power.
It does not even want jurisdictional problems. It wants nothing
to do with the matter. It wants to keep it all for itself.
What we are saying is that this could increase the fear some
provinces or all the provinces feel in connection with federal
spending power, the direct spending power.
What is new in the agreement, is that now, for new programs,
there is a new rule based on a majority of provinces. There will
be jointly funded and managed programs. But who will pay what?
No one is saying the federal government will pay 50% or 30%. No
one is saying the provinces will pay 30% or 50% or 75%.
Agreement will be reached at the request of six provinces.
I return to the remark by the party that will be doing group
therapy in two weeks, to the effect that it is not true the
little provinces are telling the big ones what to do.
To the people of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Manitoba, I say, the Reform Party
is not for you. The same applies to Alberta. British Columbia
is smaller than Ontario, and it will not tell Ontario what to
do. That is a lot of hot air.
1545
In conclusion, there is nothing much in that document. However,
there is one element that I do want to point out, namely
providing a framework for cost-shared programs. We will certainly
support the federal government in that regard.
Anybody who looks at our party's 1997 platform will see that
this is what we want. Providing a framework does not mean to
restrict or to smother, but rather to put in place mechanisms
for joint management, joint decision-making and, of course, joint
financing. If a minor problem occurs, there should be a dispute
settlement mechanism.
We are not afraid to do it with the United States and with the
World Trade Organization, so why not do it among ourselves. We
must have an efficient and credible dispute settlement mechanism
that respects every government's jurisdictions. At some point,
we may have one or two decision levels, which will allow the
provinces and the federal government to act accordingly.
On this subject, we applaud the initiative taken by the federal
government to consult with the provinces. It is a good thing. We
are also pleased with the fact that the provinces will be able
to discuss new cost-shared programs with the federal government
so an agreement can be reached.
There is still much to be done, but it may be a baby step in the
right direction. We agree on that point, but for the rest, it
was worth a photo op with all the first ministers in their dark
suits except one, the premier of Quebec.
Again, Quebec shows its distinct character. I hope that the next
photo op will be for something positive rather than negative.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-471, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act
(elimination of the waiting period in a natural disaster).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague, the member
for Drummond, for supporting this bill, which would eliminate
the waiting period in a natural disaster.
What has motivated my colleague and me, as well as all the
members from the Montérégie region, is last year's terrible ice
storm. People who had paid EI premiums all their lives were
denied benefits right when they needed them most.
With this bill, the inhabitants of Manitoba,
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and the Montérégie region could now draw
from this fund, and a rich one it is at $20 billion, in the
event of a natural disaster. That is when people need
assistance.
I therefore urge the House to support this bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-472, an act to amend the Competition Act
(abuse of dominant position).
[English]
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill along
with my colleague, the member for Cambridge, to amend the federal
Competition Act with respect to the abuse of dominant position in
the marketplace, particularly by large companies.
The report of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing called
for the Competition Act to be amended to ensure a level playing
field in the retail sector of Canada's oil industry and greater
protection for Canadian consumers.
The Liberal committee studying the proposed bank mergers also
concluded that the Competition Act needs to be strengthened.
To many observers the current act is a toothless tiger that is
unable to prevent anti-competitive acts in markets that are
dominated by a few large players. In the food industry four of
Canada's six major grocery retailers are currently proposing
mergers. Large grocery companies charge food producers high
listing fees in order for their products to gain access to
supermarkets.
As a result, Canadian consumers have less than half—
1550
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member will want to
follow the rules and give a succinct explanation of the purpose
of the bill, rather than a speech. Perhaps he could very briefly
conclude his remarks.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I just want to
indicate that the tenor of the bill is certainly understood and I
appreciate that. The time is right and therefore this bill seeks
to do just that, protect Canadian consumers as well as
competition.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-473, an act to amend the Criminal Code
and the Young Offenders Act (capital punishment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from
Souris—Moose Mountain for seconding the bill.
I believe that Canada should hold a binding referendum on
capital punishment so that the Canadian people and not political
parties decide whether it should be reinstated. A Reform
government has pledged to do that. However the Liberals do not
believe in allowing Canadians to exercise that much power.
Today I am introducing my bill to reinstate the death penalty
for adults convicted of first degree murder. In addition, the
bill also imposes a range of stiffer penalties for youth
convicted of murder.
I introduced this bill three times in the 35th Parliament and am
now introducing it for the second time in the 36th Parliament. On
the two occasions on which I was fortunate enough to have the
bill drawn, votable status was denied. If I am lucky enough to
have it drawn once more I will call on the government to allow a
free vote so that all MPs can vote the will of their constituents
on this important issue.
Not all murderers—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is going a little
beyond a succinct explanation of the bill. While what he is
saying, I am sure, is of great interest to all hon. members,
perhaps he could quickly conclude his remarks because he is going
far beyond what is normally permitted in a succinct explanation.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, this is very succinct. Not
all murderers deserve the death penalty, but in the most heinous
cases the punishment must match the crime.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition from my constituents, largely from the city of Weyburn.
The petitioners are very concerned about judicial rulings which
could change the meaning of the word marriage which they hold
very sacred.
MMT IN GASOLINE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
two petitions signed by residents of Grand Bend, Dashwood and
Hensall who urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT, noting
that it is not used in Europe and most American states as it
clogs emission control devices in vehicles.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present on behalf
of my constituents two petitions.
The first petition is signed by 51 residents of Vancouver Island
who are still very concerned about the introduction of a
multilateral agreement on investment. They feel that all
Canadians should have the opportunity to have full discussion on
such an agreement before it is implemented.
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is signed by 287 constituents, mostly from
the town of Ladysmith. The petitioners are very concerned about
recent cutbacks by Human Resources Development Canada. The
petitioners ask for a full restoration of employment assistance
services for the town of Ladysmith.
[Translation]
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of submitting
a petition signed by 25 residents of the Outaouais region.
1555
The petitioners are asking Parliament to repeal the Firearms Act
and to redirect the money spent on gun registration to more
effective ways to reduce violent crime.
[English]
CANADIAN MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a
petition on behalf of Marianne and George Frederick and 30 others
who want to draw attention to the House that since the end of
World War II Canadian Merchant Navy veterans have sought to be
accorded the same recognition and benefits as have been accorded
to other Canadian war veterans and Canadian prisoners of war, and
that to date no government has accorded to Canadian Merchant Navy
veterans the recognition and benefits sought.
These veterans would like to be recognized as war veterans, to
receive prisoner of war benefits, to receive compensation for
years of denial of equality and to receive recognition on
ceremonial days.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
signed by a number of Canadians, including from my riding of
Mississauga South, on the matter of human rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that violations of universal human rights continue to occur
around the world, particularly in countries such as Indonesia.
The petitioners also acknowledge that Canada is recognized
internationally as a champion of universal human rights.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on parliament to
continue to condemn violations of human rights and to seek to
bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition containing over 20 pages of signatures
from people who are essentially calling for international sanity.
They cite the stockpiling of over 30,000 nuclear weapons
internationally. They cite the threat they pose to humanity and
the environment. They point out that the only route to safety is
the elimination of these nuclear weapons. They also point out
Canadian obligations through the UN and International Court of
Justice.
They therefore pray that parliament support the immediate
initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international
convention which will set out a binding timetable for the
abolition of all nuclear weapons.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that, because of
the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
42 minutes.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-55, an act
respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical
publishers, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are 22 amendment motions on the
order paper at report stage of Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.
Motions Nos. 1 to 21 will be grouped for debate, but they will
be voted on as follows:
The vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2 to 21.
[English]
Motion No. 22 will be debated and voted on separately.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 21 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.) moved:
1600
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for seconding the motions. I am pleased
to debate at report stage the amendments to Bill C-55, the
magazine bill as everyone knows it. The bill is really not about
culture; it is about trade.
Bill C-55 has created a life of its own and is about to put
Canadian jobs at risk. In some ways the bill has got out of hand
over the past several months because of numerous statements made
by many parties which have not helped matters. It has the
potential to threaten many Canadian jobs.
Today the heritage minister indicated that she will amend the
bill, but she could do a lot better. She could withdraw the bill
at this time. The heritage minister's amendment is redundant. It
does nothing. Bill C-55 is still government legislation. It is
still onstream.
This is the reality of the amendment: Once Bill C-55 passes
through both houses of parliament it will qualify as an action
under article 2005 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Under
subarticle 2005(2) the United States “may take measures of
equivalent commercial effect in response to actions”.
My main message is that the minister's amendment is legally
meaningless. With or without it—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows
that we are debating Motions Nos. 1 to 21 which he has moved and
not Motion No. 22 which is in Group No. 2 and which will be
debated later this day or whenever we complete the debate on the
first group of amendments. I suggest that he confine his remarks
to the group we are discussing at the moment.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly do that.
Regardless her amendment is still redundant.
Trade is really the issue in Bill C-55. Our countries share a
common boundary, the longest unguarded boundary in the world. We
share a common continent. We move freely about across borders.
Our friendship is a model for others in the world to follow. Yet
at times we tend to forget all of this.
I will try to make my remarks brief. I will do a quick recap on
why I believe this ill founded magazine bill needs to be deleted
in its entirety. The bill needs to be taken back to the drawing
board. It was ill-conceived and very one sided.
The bill represents the views of publishers. When the bill was
drawn up the advertisers were not even consulted. One-half of
the equation was not even consulted. That omission is enough to
withdraw the bill. It is so unfortunate that an industry is
divided by the bill. The magazine industry is divided into two
camps: advertisers versus publishers. Everyone knows that.
Who did the government consult? It was people like François de
Beaubien and Ted Rogers.
Do these people need help to defend Canadian culture? I do not
think so. What we have today is that publishers support Bill
C-55 and advertisers oppose it vehemently.
1605
The bill is a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent two
unfavourable rulings Canada received at the World Trade
Organization tribunal. How can a government bring on good
legislation without consulting all the stakeholders in the
industry? I believe this magazine bill is a good example of bad
legislation. It was poorly researched and poorly put together.
We have always been told that Canadians tend not to read
Canadian magazines. The fact is that Canadians do buy Canadian.
Canadians buy magazines that are published in Canada. Statistics
have proven that 75% of all magazines read are received by
control circulation and 94% of these are Canadian owned. In
other words they are owned and published in Canada. This proves
one thing, that Canadian readers prefer and buy Canadian
magazines.
Let us put this debate in perspective. Let us take a closer
look at our trade with our closest ally and trading partner. Over
$1 billion of trade takes place daily across our borders. Canada
is the western world's most trade dependent nation. Some 40% of
Canada's gross domestic product is derived from trade and 83.5%
of all our goods and services are exported to the United States.
Our economic health is directly related to our U.S. partner. Can
we imagine the value of our loonie without our trade with the
United States? Our United States exports rose 10% in 1997.
Meanwhile our Asian market shrank by one-third.
According to Nesbitt Burns the reality is that we are more
reliant than ever on the United States. We really have only one
trading partner, the United States of America. Our Japanese
market is number two but it is currently on its knees. The
reality check is that Canada's total trade with the United States
is 83.5%.
Do we need a trade war? Do we want a trade war with our best
trading partner? No. Do the steelworkers of Hamilton want a
trade war? Do the textile workers of Montreal want a trade war?
I am sure the millworkers of B.C. and the maritimes do not want a
trade war. Do farmers of Canada want a trade war? Who wants a
trade war? Perhaps the heritage minister does, especially when
she puts her culture protection bill ahead of the steelworkers in
her home town.
Perhaps we need to look at how much money we are talking about
in the bill in terms of advertising dollars. I am told a measly
$250 million of advertising is at stake.
Let us look at what is really at stake for the country. As I
said earlier, $1 billion is exchanged daily between our two
countries. This tells me that on an annual basis the total is
about $350 billion. Can we put our country at risk for $250
million? As François de Beaubien said, that is several hours out
of a day's worth of trade. There are $350 billion at stake. Only
a fool would gamble on these types of numbers. We would think
that the international trade minister would do a risk assessment
before echoing his full support for Bill C-55.
According to law professor Jamie Cameron of Osgoode Hall Law
School, irrespective of any trade issue Bill C-55 should be
opposed because it is an unreasonable limit on free speech and
press freedom. Furthermore it impinges on property rights and
freedom of contract as guaranteed by the Canadian bill of rights.
1610
How real is this threat of retaliation? Let us listen to the
people of Hamilton. They know what it will be like if the steel
industry is hit. One industry towns like Hamilton take this
threat seriously. Dofasco steel is telling the Hamilton MP to
drop Bill C-55. Stelco has made the same plea. Steelworkers of
Hamilton are sending the heritage minister the same message, to
drop Bill C-55.
Why is the heritage minister willing to sacrifice the
steelworkers of her home town? It is to protect the big magazine
publishers like Télémédia and Rogers Communications. How many
steel jobs would be put at risk in Hamilton?
There are many other ways to promote Canadian culture. The
heritage minister needs to take a lesson from the defence
minister who said:
Perhaps in the new digital world policies of cultural promotion
make more sense than traditional policies of protection.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
given the number of amendments to Bill C-55 tabled by the Reform
Party I thought it would be useful to highlight their substantive
character.
The member who just spoke made an interesting commentary, but I
think the most interesting part of his intervention was that in
his view and the view of his party more consultation should take
place between, as he put it, all the stakeholders.
That statement says to me that there is a number of issues which
have to be worked out in the bill and there are some issues to
which they take exception. As a result of this need for
Canadians to continue to consult with the stakeholders on all
sides, obviously there are some issues that are of importance.
What are those issues? The issues of importance which reflect
the need for additional consultation are highlighted and exposed
for all Canadians to see in the 21 amendments proposed by the
Reform Party.
Motion No. 1 would eliminate clause 1. It is a very well
crafted, effective motion to delete the first clause of the bill
without explanation and without being addressed by the member in
his comments, which is the purpose of the debate that is going on
right now.
We understand that it is okay for members to sometimes
demonstrate a point. I was hopeful and listened to the Speaker
read the motions. We came across the Reform Party's important,
constructive and insightful Motion No. 2 which would delete
clause 2.
It has a lot of parallel to the first important motion that the
Reform Party tabled on Bill C-55. It provides important insight
into why it wanted additional consultations with all
stakeholders, as the the hon. member so eloquently put it,
advertisers, publishers, Canadians and so on.
If we go forward with the bill, according to the Reform Party
there will be a trade war and we will lose $1 billion a day in
trade. Suddenly all ties with the United States will be totally
severed and Canada will risk losing $350 billion of estimated
trade in a year when the impact of the bill on Canada is about
$250 million.
With that I think I could understand the concern and the
justification for Motion No. 2 in Group No. 1 of this report
stage.
1615
I was hopeful we would get a bit more insight as to the specific
concerns and why we would have these consultations when we got to
Motion No. 3, tabled by the Reform Party for Bill C-55.
Motion No. 3 was somewhat different in that it referred to
clause 3 of the bill rather than the previous two clauses and the
amendment tabled by the Reform Party to improve this bill was to
delete clause 3. A pattern was developing. I had heard the
member clearly state on behalf of the Reform Party that more
consultations were needed on this bill.
Bill C-55 obtained first reading in the House on October 8 and
second reading on November 3, 1998. The committee report was
presented to the House on December 2, 1998. There has been quite
substantial dialogue and opportunity to deal with Bill C-55 by
all hon. members, whether it be at the different stages of this
bill or indeed at committee which dealt with it. As a result of
all those consultations, as a result of all the discussions with
all these so-called stakeholders from all parties, we came up
with Motion No. 4, which was delightfully refreshing. It was to
delete clause 4.
I was really hoping that as a result of the member's serious
concern the trade position with the United States would evaporate
in a moment should Bill C-55 proceed because it only involved
$250 million and that this was outrageous and a serious risk. It
was so important to the member that we not take this terrible
risk of moving forward with Bill C-55 that we came up with Motion
No. 5, which is the parallel and by now I have caught on totally.
Motion No. 5 said that clause 5 of the bill should be deleted.
Even the Speaker at the time was becoming a little concerned that
this pattern would extend to a point in which the House's time
might be possibly frustrated, perhaps even wasted with frivolous
discussions of which amendment was deleting which clause. I
suppose we should be thankful that there are at least rules in
the House that allow us to deem things to have been done.
If we had proceeded the way the Reform Party wanted on this
extremely important bill which was to evaporate all trade, over
$350 billion of annual trade with the United States, we would
have had to stand in our places and listen to 21 motions, each
saying delete a different clause of the bill.
This is the substantive contribution of the Reform Party to a
bill it suggests will somehow eliminate all trade with the United
States.
I do not want to abuse the opportunity or the privilege to bring
these items up but I want as a backbench member of parliament
simply to express my disappointment that the time of the House
would somehow be taken up by such a frivolous approach to an
important bill.
1620
We have important amendments that are going to be considered by
this place. They are not going to be considered until we deal
with 21 amendments on behalf of the Reform Party which simply say
delete a clause without explanation, without members prepared to
speak on those motions.
This is contemptuous of the House. It is an insult to members
of parliament who are here to deal with the important legislation
of the day. This is an important bill. This bill has to do with
the cultural sovereignty of Canada. It has to do with important
issues within the magazine industry. It affects some groups
differently from others and we must understand that. We have to
make decisions.
The Reform Party is having a conference very soon. Something it
will have to deal with is a report done by one of its own members
from Edmonton who basically said the problem with the Reform
Party is that this philosophy of populism does not work in
Canada. Populism says let the people tell you where you want to
go and the Reform Party will lead you there.
I have risen to speak in favour of Bill C-55 at report stage of
the first grouping because I support the bill. I am insulted and
disappointed that the Reform Party would not give respect to the
House by introducing 21 frivolous motions.
* * *
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
BILL C-65—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be
reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2)
with respect to the second reading of Bill C-65, an act to amend
the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. This is the act
to provide funding to provinces.
[Translation]
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I therefore give
notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at the next
sitting of the House, a motion to allot a specific number of
days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings
at the said stages.
This applies to Bill C-65.
Some hon. members: Shame.
* * *
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers,
as reported (with amendments) from a committee, and Motions Nos.
1 to 21.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Transport.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to participate in this debate today on Bill C-55, an act
respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical
publishers.
The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage having reviewed this
bill clause by clause, we are now proceeding to consideration of
the bill at report stage. My hon. colleague from Dauphin—Swan
River has introduced 21 motions in amendment designed to delete
clauses 1 through 21 of Bill C-55.
To ensure greater efficiency in the House, the Chair has grouped
these 21 motions together. I will therefore use the time
allotted to me to discuss the Bloc Quebecois' position on this
bill.
First of all, the Bloc Quebecois is against the 21 Reform
motions as they boil down to withdrawing the bill.
The Bloc Quebecois has supported this bill from the outset
because it acknowledges as legal and legitimate the right of any
people to protect its culture against an overly aggresive
invader. It is therefore no wonder that the Bloc Quebecois is
working toward Quebec's sovereignty, since the Canadian
government will not recognize the people of Quebec.
The battle waged at this time in Canada goes far beyond the
periodical publishing industry. Two major principles are at
stake.
First, we must assert the rights provided for in the trade
agreements we have signed. Otherwise, it would be like saying
that all these rights, including the cultural exemption in
NAFTA, have no true value without the United States' approval.
1625
Second, if Canada does not defend its rights, it would be
tantamount to letting Washington dictate our country's economic
and cultural policies.
This is nothing new. In all the trade negotiations in which
Canada took part, successive Canadian governments stated
clearly, without beating around the bush, that Canadian culture
was not negotiable. Yesterday, in a statement to the media,
François de Gaspé Beaubien said, and I quote:
We have obtained a cultural exemption under the free trade
agreement and under NAFTA, and we have not assumed any
obligation under the WTO agreements that would restrict Canada's
right and ability to implement these policies. In the magazine
industry, the United States have not obtained the right to have
access to our advertising services market, and we are under no
obligation to grant them that access.
What is the purpose of this bill? Essentially, this bill is to
prevent American advertising from being replaced with Canadian
advertising in split run editions of American magazines sold on
the Canadian market. This policy has been in place for more than
30 years, and split run editions of American magazines such as
Time and Reader's Digest are protected under the bill's
grandfather clause.
This is not about prohibiting imports of foreign magazines into
Canada.
After this bill is passed, nothing will be changed. Foreign
periodicals will still be imported and will still take up 80% of
shelf space in English Canada, and account for 50% of magazine
sales in English Canada. This bill is aimed at preventing unfair
competition by dumping advertising charges.
The Bloc Quebecois understands the concerns expressed by many
Quebec and Canadian businessmen, who do not want to get caught
in the crossfire when they are not directly involved in the
periodicals industry.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the United States is using
these businesses to encroach upon states' rights to pass
measures favourable to their economy.
These industries deserve to be given information by the federal
government on the mechanisms governing international trade so
that their fear of reprisal will be replaced by informed
knowledge of the mechanisms for handling international trade
disputes.
The Bloc Quebecois also believes that the rules of international
trade apply to the US as much as they do to any other country on
this planet. The Bloc Quebecois therefore calls upon the
federal government to continue its negotiations with the US
representatives, in order to reach a negotiated agreement to
protect the magazine industry.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to
assure all members of the House that the NDP's lukewarm support
of Bill C-55 still holds. It is possibly now stronger due to the
bullying noises coming from Washington.
We still believe the bill is too weak because it does not
contain provisions to improve the situation for Canadian
magazines. We still believe the main premise of the bill is
false, that the cultural protections offered under NAFTA or by
the WTO are inadequate.
The WTO does not protect culture and the FTA and NAFTA continue
to remain untested with fatally flawed exemptions for culture. We
know that half a loaf is better at this time than no loaf and
therefore we support the bill.
A lot seems to have happened on the volume front concerning Bill
C-55 since the heritage committee heard witnesses on the bill.
The Reform Party has decried this bill, saying we have no need to
protect culture, that we should simply promote it.
We are debating today the 21 amendments proposed by the Reform
Party, amendments that tersely delete ever section of the bill
until nothing is left. The amendments to methodically delete
every trace of the bill seems to reflect its approach to Canadian
culture, methodically and clinically delete, delete, delete.
The irony of this position is that Reform then puts forward
budget plans which would inevitably decimate the Department of
Canadian Heritage, the only mechanism in place to promote our
culture.
The Reform Party position smacks of hypocrisy and of an
opportunism that I believe comes painfully close to being
anti-Canadian.
1630
The Americans have turned up the volume by threatening, albeit
verbally, to countervail steel, plastics, lumber, textiles and
God knows whatever else if we pass this law. This kind of
bullying is not unique. The committee heard similar threats
coming from the New York based president of Time magazine
at the hearings. He suggested that we were preparing to
confiscate his property without compensation and compared the
Canadian government to some old-style communist regime. I must
admit that this is the first time I have ever heard this
particular criticism levelled at this government.
What the Reform Party and the Americans believe is that this is
not about culture but that it is about money. They think that
magazines, and music, and books, and videos, and films, and
paintings, and fragile artifacts are not to be valued as culture,
they are goods to be priced for sale. They do not believe that
writers are creators, but are potential profit centres only if
marketed properly.
I can categorically say that Canadian culture is not a
commodity. Margaret Atwood is not a soap pad. The Group of
Seven is not an international trading cartel. The Canadian book
publishing industry, a group of visionary business people who
have made our great writers a possibility, should not be allowed
to be shipped south as if it were a roll of newsprint.
The fact that only 2% of Canadian film screens show Canadian
films is not a reflection of the quality of our films, because
they are excellent. Instead it is the reflection of the fact
that Hollywood spends more money promoting a single film than
most Canadian filmmakers will ever have to produce their films in
their lifetimes.
Sadly, this government and the official opposition continue to
bow at the altar of Jack Valenti and his Hollywood version of
reality.
Our culture is constantly under attack from south of the border.
We as parliamentarians have a duty to stand in our places and say
that we are different.
We need a government which will stand up for our creators, not
reluctantly pick and choose cultural winners and losers.
I can see the talk around the current cabinet table: “This
time we will hold the line on magazines but we will let books go.
This time we will have the CRTC promote Canadian content through
the CBC but we will kill the mother corp with underfunding. We
will promote access to Canadian national museums, but we will
abandon the regional and local museums. We will talk tough on
trade but do nothing to fix the problems which exist in our
current trade agreements. In other words, we will play both
sides of every cultural issue”.
This may be the Liberal way of politics, but our cultural legacy
deserves the full support of the Canadian government, not half a
loaf.
Culture is something which Canadians have a right of access to,
not simply because some American conglomerate has decided that it
may be marketable, but because it has intrinsic value.
We should promote, but we also have a responsibility to protect.
I call upon this government not only to draw the line at
magazines, but also to get active protecting our culture across
the board. Do not continue to stand idly by while our book
publishers are sent offshore with the obligatory nod from the
Minister of Industry. Do not further gut the CBC and the NFB to
shuffle funds to Canadian film producers. Take action on
allowing Canadians to see their own product by bringing Canadian
content to our screens. Do not listen to voices who believe there
is a price for culture but ignore the value of culture.
Do not believe that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is the
great protector of culture until the title is earned. I would
say that the jury is still out on this minister's legacy.
Again, Bill C-55 is something that we will support in the House,
but we continue to hold our praise for the minister and her
efforts on Canadian culture.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to rise before the House to once again speak in
favour of Bill C-55, the foreign publishers advertising services
act.
Bill C-55 is a very important piece of legislation.
Besides providing much needed support to our Canadian magazine
publishers, it also sends a clear message to all Canadians that
we are intent on protecting and maintaining our cultural
sovereignty in the midst of ever increasing pressure from foreign
influences.
1635
[Translation]
A desire to protect our cultural integrity has always been a
major Canadian priority in all business discussions.
[English]
The former Progressive Conservative government was always very
concerned with the protection of our Canadian cultural industries
which is why during the free trade negotiations we ensured that
all cultural industries were exempt from the final free trade
agreement. This exemption was also included in the North American
free trade agreement.
[Translation]
Over the past three decades, successive Canadian governments
have brought in legislation aimed at ensuring that Canadian
publishers have sufficient advertising to maintain their
competitive edge in the Canadian market.
[English]
The Canadian publishing industry has prospered during this
period specifically because of these initiatives. According to
Statistics Canada, in 1996-97 there were 1,166 publishers
producing some 1,552 periodicals with a total circulation of 539
million copies. The result is that we have revenues reaching the
billion dollar mark plus 7,000 full time and part time employees.
Canadian publishers rely on advertising revenue for anywhere
from 65% to 100% of their income. Therefore, it is easy to see
why it is imperative that we intervene to protect them against
the potential of any unfair competition by our U.S. competitors.
The government introduced Bill C-55 to help protect our Canadian
magazine industry following last October's World Trade
Organization ruling against Canadian imposed excise tax and
customs tariffs on split-run magazines entering from the U.S. It
is very important to note that in its decision, the WTO was not
questioning Canada's right to protect its cultural industries; it
objected to a policy that directly targeted U.S. magazines.
Rather than target U.S. magazines directly, Bill C-55 will focus
its attention on advertising services.
Essentially, Bill C-55 will restrict the sale of advertising
directed at the Canadian market to Canadian publications. It
should be noted that U.S. magazines can still sell Canadian
advertising in their magazines so long as these advertisements
appear throughout their North American publications. They cannot
be solely targeted toward the Canadian market.
Some people might be wondering why we should impose measures to
protect our Canadian magazine industry. There are a number of
very important reasons, notwithstanding the fact that each year
the Canadian magazine industry pumps millions of dollars into our
economy creating employment opportunities for thousands of
Canadians.
For one thing, many of Canada's most distinguished writers have
graced our magazines with thoughtful and entertaining stories
about people, places and things that have helped make our
Canadian culture unique. More specifically however, Canada's
magazine industry plays an important cultural role in helping us
to define who we are as a people and what we stand for as a
nation.
A culture defines one's beliefs and values. We are not
automatically born with a culture. We might be born in a culture
but culture is something we learn. We need Canada's magazine
industry to prosper so that future generations of young Canadians
have the opportunity to learn and appreciate the value of our own
distinct culture, one that is envied throughout the world.
From the very beginning, the Reform Party has opposed any kind
of legislation that would call for the protection of Canada's
unique culture. Obviously it does not believe we have a culture
worth protecting. Well I believe and the Progressive
Conservative Party believes that Canadian culture is worth
protecting.
When Canada was rallying together to show the people of Quebec
that we very much wanted them to remain part of this great
country, where was the Reform Party? Its leader was busy in
private discussions with the former American ambassador.
[Translation]
More recently, the Reform Party went to the U.S. to hire a kind
of guru to help cultivate MPs' minds.
1640
[English]
The Reform Party's heritage critic has introduced 21 motions on
Bill C-55, none of which contains any constructive improvements.
All the Reform Party wants is the total cancellation of the bill.
Is the Reform Party blindly following our American friends while
overlooking our own cultural needs?
For months Canadians have been hearing stories about possible
U.S. retaliation directed toward such Canadian industries as
lumber and steel if Bill C-55 is allowed to become law. Naturally
we take these threats very seriously. Canadians are naturally
concerned, as I am, of any possible sanctions that might be
imposed against any Canadian company.
That is why as the Progressive Conservative heritage critic I
made a point of asking on a number of occasions questions in
committee, precisely to get assurances from the representatives
of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of
Justice that Canada's industries would be protected if indeed the
U.S. brought challenges before the WTO or NAFTA. I received these
assurances from departmental staff, as well as from the minister
herself during yesterday's question period. As the minister
stated, Bill C-55 respects every one of our national and
international obligations.
Canada has one of the most open markets in the world for
imported magazines. Imports account for 50% of magazine sales in
Canada and over 80% of newsstand space according to the Magazine
Publishers Association.
This bill is not going to close the door on imported magazines.
It is going to allow our Canadian publications an opportunity to
continue to compete with other foreign magazines in a very
competitive industry.
In April 1993 the first Canadian edition of Sports
Illustrated successfully circumvented import prohibitions by
electronically transmitting its magazine to a printer in Canada.
Essentially this opened the door for unfair competition from U.S.
publishers who began producing split-run advertising editions of
their magazines, thus reaping the benefits of repackaging the
editorial content of their U.S. editions with Canadian
advertising which they could sell for considerably less than
their Canadian competitors. This essentially is dumping of U.S.
magazines in the Canadian market.
Advertising has changed more in the last 10 years than it had in
the previous 60. This is mostly because of new technology and
changing markets. That is why any threat derived through unfair
predatory practices must be challenged. Canadian publishers
need our support to maintain their competitive edge in this new
global economy.
[Translation]
Bill C-55 may not be perfect, but it is my belief that we must be
strong as a nation and protect our Canadian culture. That is
why I will be supporting this bill.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to these
amendments today.
It is always a pleasure to remind the ruling party that the
government's primary duty to the citizens of Canada is to defend
their fundamental and natural rights and not to strip them of
these rights by misguided legislation such as Bill C-55.
I have a little aside before I go any further. The same
government that pretends to protect Canadian culture would not
allow Canadians to indicate on their census forms that they were
Canadian. Figure that one out.
Bill C-55 violates fundamental and natural rights including
freedom of expression, freedom of contract and property rights.
Bill C-55 also violates the charter of rights and freedoms and
the Canadian bill of rights. Additionally, Bill C-55 has
violated at least two international treaties including the
50-year old Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the North
American free trade agreement.
Why were amendments not introduced to deal with these colossal
oversights? It is because of politics.
1645
When the government can run roughshod over individual rights and
freedoms on the false premise of protecting our culture there is
something sick with our system of government. I have said more
than a dozen times in this House that if we do not change the
system we will not change much else.
Bill C-55 should be scrapped, which is what the amendments of my
colleague intend to do. It should not be just amended, it should
be completely done away with. Bill C-55 makes it unlawful for
Canadians and Canadian businesses, small and large, to advertise
in foreign magazines sold in Canada, especially those magazines
published in the United States.
How is this legislative sledgehammer supposed to protect
Canadian culture? By prohibiting Canadians from advertising in
American magazines. The bill actually guarantees that Canadians
will only see American ads in American magazines, not Canadian
ads.
Even a foreign magazine that has published only articles about
Canada could not sell ads to Canadians. That is a long leap of
Liberal logic that is bound to make everyone shake their heads in
amazement.
Farmers cannot sell the grain they have grown with their own
hands on their own land because of a government enforced
monopoly. Now the government is taking away the freedom of
Canadians to advertise where they think it will do the most good
for them, for their companies, their employees and their
shareholders.
Section 2 of the charter of rights and freedoms states:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
Professor Jamie Cameron of Osgoode Hall Law School says that
this fundamental freedom includes advertising. The charter
states that everyone has these fundamental freedoms; everyone it
seems but Canadians who want to advertise in the magazines of
their choice.
Through Bill C-55 the government takes away these fundamental
freedoms for Canadian citizens. This will undoubtedly be the
subject of a charter challenge. Has the government factored this
into its cost of implementation for this bill? Has it considered
what will happen when this unconstitutional law is struck down?
How much will it cost us?
Violation of the freedom of expression is the first reason this
bill should be scrapped rather than amended.
Last December 10 was the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations,
which included ratification by the Government of Canada. Article
19 of the universal declaration states: “Everyone has the right
to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers”.
Bill C-55 prohibits the imparting of information and ideas
through any media. There it is for the world to see. Canada
chastises other countries for violating fundamental human rights
but it is prepared to violate article 19 of this international
treaty which it signed 50 years ago. Violating such a fundamental
freedom guaranteed in an international agreement will diminish
respect for Canada and Canadians, and this is the second reason
that Bill C-55 should be withdrawn rather than amended.
Bill C-55 violates another international agreement, namely the
NAFTA. I would think that the minister of heritage and her
cabinet colleagues would have learned their lesson when they lost
the fight and millions of dollars when they arbitrarily tried to
ban MMT in 1997.
Members of the House will recall that the Ethyl Corporation of
the United States took the government to court because Canada had
breached its obligations under the NAFTA. The NAFTA established
a compensation process for investors harmed by a government
failure to meet its NAFTA obligations.
Just like Ethyl Corporation, American magazine publishers will
claim compensation for the advertising dollars they will lose as
a direct result of the Canadian government's arbitrary
prohibition of advertising from their Canadian customers. It is
estimated that the loss to American magazine publishers will be
in the neighbourhood of $250 million. This is money that the
Canadian taxpayer cannot afford and that the government should
not put at risk. That is the third reason Bill C-55 should be
abolished and not amended.
Property rights protect the freedom of individuals because they
allow people to make their own decisions about how to make the
best use of their existing possessions, including their labour
and the fruits of their labour. In the long run the right to
make one's own decisions about one's life, one's work and one's
business is the foundation of dignity and freedom.
1650
In order to have property rights individuals must have freedom
of contract, or economic liberty as it is called. Bill C-55
takes away Canadians' freedom to enter into contracts with
whomever they choose. Bill C-55 takes away everyone's
fundamental freedom of contract and, as a consequence, violates
the property rights guaranteed in the Canadian bill of rights.
That is the fourth reason Bill C-55 should be killed rather than
amended.
None of these four reasons have been addressed by the government
or any of the other parties that are criticizing us for our stand
on this. I wish they would address these four concerns.
Let me summarize why Bill C-55 should be killed, scrapped and
abolished. First, it violates the charter of rights and
freedoms. Second, it violates the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Third, it violates the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Fourth, it violates the Canadian bill of rights.
Throughout Canadian history it has been taken for granted that
we have freedom of speech and property rights, including freedom
of contract. In fact people have come to this country because
Canada is known for protecting these fundamental freedoms.
These freedoms have provided a foundation for the culture that
has developed on this continent, especially in Canada. Canadians
value their property rights and their freedom of speech. They
see them as being part of their heritage. For the government to
use protection of culture as an excuse for this bill is
ridiculous. Any thinking person would realize that this bill
does the very opposite. This bill flies in the face of what
Canadians value most. It does not protect their culture, it
undermines it. The speech I have just given makes that
absolutely clear.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am speaking in support of the amendments put forward by our
heritage critic today for a number of reasons. Before taking a
look at the issue on a clause by clause by basis, I will give a
broad overview, probably best contained most recently in an
article by Peter Cook in the Wednesday, February 3, 1999 edition
of the Globe and Mail.
In part he writes:
Just as the Canadian government thinks its needs a new weapon,
Bill C-55, to safeguard a threatened cultural sector, the
magazine industry, so Europeans are taking an increasingly
nationalistic line with U.S. cultural “imperialism” as it
applies to them.
In this article he is speaking about something the French were
doing.
The article continues:
The current big transatlantic trade fight is not over culture,
but bananas. Still, it is worth noting that the tactics pursued
by the United States against Canada on magazines and Europe on
bananas are the same—threatening massive retaliation against
many unrelated products. And the Europeans have had culture
clashes with the Americans before and expect them in future. At
one stage, the French held up the Uruguay Round of trade talks in
an attempt to limit the activities of U.S. entertainment
companies. So there is keen interest in what Canada is proposing
to do on magazines and whether, by restricting advertising, it
can succeed in making Bill C-55 compatible with world trade
rules. Where Ottawa leads on cultural sovereignty, Europe may
follow.
The larger question, however, is whether erecting cultural
barriers works.
Of course that is the question the Reform Party poses. In
answering the question, our answer is no.
Mr. Cook continues:
While it may satisfy those who worry about the powerlessness of
the nation state, Europe's experience, and Canada's too, is that
publication bans, audio-visual quotas and content rules raise
costs and deter quality. Subsidies to European films cost $600
million a year; increasingly, they help film makers make films
that win awards at festivals before going on to bomb at the box
office.
Meanwhile, far from encouraging local talent, television quotas
have led to a profusion of European soap operas and game shows
that are instantly recognizable as cheap U.S. look-alikes.
The issue for Canadian magazines or French films or Irish music
is whether competition, and the public interest, is best served
by this. And that, to judge by the European record, is doubtful.
1655
This bill congers up a number of spectres. I take a look at
clause 4. Subclause 4(1) states that the minister may cause any
investigation that the minister considers necessary to be made
into an alleged supply of advertising services in contravention
of section 3.
Now we are going to have magazine cops going around making sure
that those ads are just exactly what the minister wants.
Subclause 4(2) states that the minister may designate any person
to carry out an investigation under this section and shall
furnish them with a certificate of that designation in the form
that the minister may specify, and that the investigator shall,
upon request, produce this certificate to any person in charge of
a place under investigation.
Subclause 5(1) states that an investigator may, under a warrant
issued under section 487 of the Criminal Code, with any
modifications that the circumstances require, enter any place and
make any investigation that the investigator considers necessary.
Not being a lawyer, I went to a lawyer and I said “What is
section 487 of the Criminal Code? What does it cover?” Section
487 of the Criminal Code covers things like going in and looking
for people who may be in the possession of child pornography. Of
course this is available anywhere except in British Columbia,
thanks to our justice minister. They can go in and do
investigations on murder. They can go in and search for illegal
weapons.
While they are there, under this clause, it was pointed out to
me that they can also go into computers and take apart any data
contained in the computer.
It is a very broad ranging section of the Criminal Code that the
heritage minister may choose to enforce this bill.
We then go on to take a look at the whole issue of who the
minister may choose to go after. Subclause 7(1), which again we
have asked be deleted, states that the minister may send a demand
to a foreign publisher if the minister believes that a foreign
publisher (a) has supplied advertising services in contravention
of clause 3 or (b) has entered into a transaction or an
arrangement that if carried into effect would likely lead to a
contravention of this act. Subclause 7(2) states that the
minister may in the demand require the foreign publisher, without
delay or within a period specified in the demand, to stop
supplying the services, and so on.
What this is basically saying is that the heritage minister may
choose to jump all over a foreign publisher. But by definition a
foreign publisher would be exactly that, a foreign publisher;
somebody outside of the immediate jurisdictional constraint of
this House or of the laws of Canada.
While the minister may jump on a foreign publisher, the reality
is that under this bill the government is going to go after
Canadians who have the temerity to advertise, to use their
freedom of speech, association and expression in a particular
publication. This bill will allow the minister to go after those
awful Canadians who may choose to advertise in an unsubscribed
publication.
The reality is that this bill, although it is under serious
constraint and is of concern to our trading friends across the
border, is a far larger threat to the freedom of expression that
Canadians assume they have under the charter.
I agree with the Reform member who spoke before me. There can
be absolutely no question that this bill, if it were to be
passed, would definitely lead to charter challenges.
1700
There can be absolutely no other way. The Liberals are famous
for setting things up for the charter industry, for all the high
priced lawyers to go after them. It is just a wonderful way for
any of the people in the charter industry to make money.
Reading through this bill is a very scary proposition when one
realizes that there is little or no problem. If we take a look
at Maclean's this week, I dare say that better than 50% of
the advertising revenue in Maclean's will have come to
Maclean's from American advertisers. My friend, our
international trade critic, will be able to provide us with
precise numbers on that. The reality is this is simply a
constraint in the ordinary process of doing business in Canada.
Furthermore, although the Canadian Magazine Publishers
Association loves to drag out that 80% of the magazines on the
stand are foreign magazines, the reality is that there are many
Canadian magazines that are very successful.
For example, the Alberta Report and B.C. Report are
two examples where the majority of their revenue is derived from
subscription. There are many ways for magazine companies to
compete on an level playing field.
If this government would just get out of its smother love we
might be able to get on with doing business in Canada and
disregard the bleatings of the heritage minister.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in the debate today at report stage of
Bill C-55, although I admit I am a little dismayed that we should
be debating such a bill to begin with.
In my capacity as the critic for international trade for our
party, I understand all too well the importance of trade to
Canada. Forty per cent of our GDP is derived from exports.
Canada recognized a long time ago, and I suggest that even the
Liberal government of the past recognized a long time ago, as
early as 1947, the need for some rules to surround the trade
issue. Canada has a relatively small population base and we need
trade to survive. It is as simple as that.
A third of all the jobs provided in this country are related to
exports. That is a simple fact of life. There is not anybody
here who is not affected by that fact of life. Of that, 83% of
those exports go to United States. We have this great big trade
relationship, $1.4 billion a day crossing the Canada-U.S. border
in a healthy, goodwill relationship. I submit we need to make
sure that stays.
In that trade relationship, yes, we have some problems with the
Americans in terms of agriculture from time to time.
Problems with softwood lumber and other issues present
themselves. This is a pretty small problem overall in terms of
our total trade relationship but to those industries the problem
is big.
Add to that the steel industry. It is subject to a lot of
anti-dumping charges by the U.S. and I do not think they are
really substantiated. They have to go through quite a process to
comply. The compliance factor is very expensive. They are
always on notice that there will be problems with the U.S. on the
steel industry.
We have come a long way with trade liberalization. It has been
recognized worldwide for the last 50 years, largely as a result
of the second world war. A number of institutions were built to
make sure we did not get back into those situations again, the
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and of course the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the United Nations.
One of the reasons the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
was put in was so that we would not have Balkanization where
there was no access to markets from other countries.
I have already made the case why we need that access. In
addition, under the free trade agreement with United States and
the subsequent NAFTA, trade between our two countries has grown
by over 50% in 10 years.
1705
That speaks volumes about the need for and the benefit of trade
liberalization and yet we have a government that as far back as
1988 fought the free trade agreement. The minister responsible
for Canadian heritage was one of the leading proponents of
fighting the free trade agreement with the United States. She
even fought it right up until NAFTA was signed.
Although the Liberal government all of a sudden was elected in
1993 it said at the time it would not sign NAFTA unless a number
of important problems were addressed. It did not do that. It
did sign NAFTA.
I wonder if some of the Liberals who fought this so hard are
really committed to trade and trade liberalization. It seems to
me we are seeing today that some of them are not.
Do we need protectionism in our cultural industries? A number
of our speakers have already suggested we do not. I would
subscribe to that theory. Our cultural industries need promotion
just like any other industry. It needs to be promoted at our
embassies overseas and through trade missions. I have no problem
with that aspect at all.
We have a number of areas in culture that stand up very well but
what we do not want is to have other countries take this same
type of venue, protectionism, especially the United States. What
would happen if the United States told Canada our artists no
longer had access to Hollywood or Nashville?
Look at the number of Canadian artists who have developed their
abilities by having access to that huge American market. We
absolutely have to make sure that stays. This kind of
legislation is the type we have come to expect from the minister,
stick your finger in the eye of the United States and give it a
good gouge.
What do we have from this minister so far? We have the MMT
legislation, Ethyl Corporation. We were to ban the sale of MMT.
It came from the minister. Of course we had to back down. The
American Ethyl Corporation was paid $16 million as a result of
the heritage minister's misguided policies.
We had the split run legislation on taxation, on duties, that
went to the World Trade Organization that we lost. We had the
endangered species legislation that had to be pulled as an
embarrassing piece of legislation because the minister was not
going to take into account the very users in the areas involved,
forest companies, farmers and ranchers. We have of course the
toxic waste situation where S.D. Myers in the United States is
probably going to sue Canada under the investment chapter of
NAFTA because the minister decided that toxic waste should not be
exported to the United States, it should go to northern Alberta
so we could burn it up there.
This is what we have come to expect but it is not what we should
expect from a minister of the crown who should be introducing
responsible legislation. This issue will come back to haunt us.
I know the minister has introduced an amendment today,
essentially backing down, saying this will not be put into effect
for some time.
I noticed the tone of her remarks in question period during the
last while has really come down a lot. She is trying to put this
issue at a lower level, and rightly so. It should be scrapped
altogether. The legislation should be scrapped because it is not
in Canada's best interest.
I happened to catch a CBC program the other night where a number
of the minister's own constituents in Hamilton were interviewed.
The big issue for them is jobs and not whether split runs
continue to enjoy Canadian advertisers. It is the fact that
their jobs may be threatened. The Hamilton steel industry has
enough problems with the Americans. We do not have to invent
phoney ego trip problems by the minister.
What about the chemical industry, the plastics industry out of
Toronto and other parts of the country which has had tremendous
growth into United States, taking advantage of niche
opportunities in that big American market? Are we going to kill
those opportunities now because we risk retaliation from the
United States?
It is clear that if there are any jobs to be lost on this issue
it should only be one, that of the Minister of Canadian Heritage
for irresponsible legislation.
Does Canada have the right to introduce the legislation? Of
course we do. But is it the responsible thing to do? That is
the question. Is it responsible to risk our big trade
relationship with the United States?
NAFTA, brought in 1993 and endorsed by the Liberals, says
Canadians have the right to protect our culture. It also says as
part of that agreement that if the Americans are not happy with
that they have the right to retaliate to an equivalent effect.
1710
Some people have estimated that equivalent effect to be $350
million of Canadian businesses that may be subject to tariffs and
duties. Can our steel industry support having duties applied to
it? We know what has happened to our softwood lumber industries
in the past when that happened. It has had a very dampening
effect on jobs.
It seems this is sending entirely the wrong message to
Canadians, that one minister on an ego trip is willing to
sacrifice the jobs of Canadian farmers, the jobs of Canadian
steelworkers, Peerless Suits in Montreal which has actually had a
tremendous niche opportunity and developed a business in the
United States. It has developed this because the United States
took a misguided view of things and put a tariff on wool coming
into the United States.
We do not have the same tariff. We have seen the light. It has
given Canadian companies in Montreal a tremendous opportunity in
manufacture in wool suits. They captured a tremendous amount of
the American market. We were not there 10 or 20 years ago but we
have several billion dollars worth of sales of wool suits in the
United States. That shows what can happen when we a view in
terms of liberalization, in terms of duties and tariffs. This
bill should be sunk. It should have the deep six. It should go
to the bottom of Lake Ontario, the same place the minister
referred to with some of the ships from the war of 1812. She put
it in the same category as the American-Canadian battle of 1812
when American ships were sunk. That is where this should go, to
the bottom of Lake Ontario.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, as
I sat listening to the speeches it really struck me what a menace
this minister is. She truly is a menace.
When we think about the history of the bills and acts she has
introduced and the actions she has taken in parliament she truly
is a menace. Just a short time ago I remember seeing a news item
on television where she was taking a swim in a polluted part of
Lake Ontario. It had been approved safe to swim there.
Obviously it was not cleaned up enough and corrupted her thinking
in terms of sensible legislation. I do not know why her cabinet
colleagues continue to humour her this much, to allow her to
introduce this type of legislation, especially when we consider
her history.
This is the minister who introduced a ban on the transportation
of MMT. When she could not get the health department to prove to
her that MMT was harmful she introduced a ban on transportation.
What could be more ridiculous than that? No wonder we ended up
in a fight with the United States over that. It cost us close to
$100 million by the time the dust settled.
Then we had the flag fiasco. Remember that nonsense the minister
ran for about a year and a half where she gave away flags,
putting Canadian businesses out of work. I had people in my
riding who make their living selling Canadiana who were begging
with me to stop this minister from being in competition with
them, giving away Canadian flags. How much did that cost us in
the end? It cost $14 million for a complete fiasco which
actually put people out of business. There was loss taxation and
lost jobs on top of the actual cost to the treasury.
The heritage department was reported by the auditor general a
month ago to be in complete disarray. It has no idea what it is
spending the money on or why. The auditor general gave examples
of programs that should be in completely different departments.
For example, the minister's department produced a brochure on
alternatives to physically disciplining children published in 16
languages, including French and English. It is unimaginable the
waste that goes on.
We heard recently the minister's department gave $80,000 to a
Montreal publisher to produce a book on blonde jokes. Another
example is a conference to discuss promoting science and
technology programs in schools for a specific racial group. A
further program she funded was a conference for aboriginals on
adolescent issues.
1715
We have to ask ourselves, with this sort of history, the actions
of her department and the bills that are coming in, how we can
tolerate anything at all that the minister brings before us.
We have the example of the previous magazine bill that she
brought before the last parliament. What a fiasco that was.
Although we did not end up with the compensations we had to pay
for the MMT fiasco, I will bet there were tens of millions of
dollars in legal fees, human capital, resources, use of copiers
and travel, all the things that went into that appeal and the
challenge that took place under NAFTA.
It appears that everything the minister touches turns to poop. I
hope you do not mind me saying that, Madam Speaker, but that is
to put it mildly.
It makes me think of the complaints I receive in my riding about
the CRTC which tries to impose through the minister culture upon
the people of Canada. When a new Canadian station starts up,
whether or not it is even commercially viable, whether it is
mediocre or excellent, cable users are forced to pay for it and
it is forced into an unimpaired part of the channel spectrum on
cable. Some other channel people were getting before goes into
the nether regions of space where they have to pay for an
additional package to get it.
I know these sorts of complaints come to every member of the
House. This is a misguided attempt to force upon people
something on which they should be able to have free choice. All
the things the minister is doing should be based on choice. The
people producing them should have to produce excellence instead
of mediocrity if they want to be accepted.
My original home country, New Zealand, went through quite an
upheaval in the early nineties. It cut the size of government
from something like 80,000 federal employees down to about 45,000
people today. That does not sound like much by Canadian
standards but it is for New Zealand, a small country. Almost 10
years later it is running with half the people it had in 1993.
Part of the program system it had involved cultural controls,
subsidies to protect New Zealand culture. It was exactly the
same nonsense we have here. TV and radio stations had to have a
certain amount of New Zealand content. With the upheaval in the
New Zealand economy and the restructuring there was the
abandonment of that approach.
After an initial faltering the culture industry in New Zealand
took off because it offered opportunities for entrepreneurs and
private people to put money into the system. It started to
become excellent instead of mediocre. It managed to produce
films like The Piano which was sold worldwide and appeared
on screens all over the world, something that had never happened
from New Zealand before. Mutiny on the Bounty was made
there as a result of encouragement of culture. People were
encouraged to come from the outside and use New Zealand talent.
The point that I am illustrating is that every attempt the
minister makes to compel Canadians to go along with her plans to
absorb more Canadian content is a disaster. They are a complete
and utter failure. They cost us hundreds of millions of dollars
and achieve absolutely nothing except to make Canadians irritated
and angry about what the minister is trying to do.
The minister should be telling the people making their livings
off the grants and subsidies she hands out that they are on their
own. They should prove to Canadians that they can produce
excellent quality material and the viewers and readers will come
and they will be successful. She is not doing these cultural
groups any favours at all by giving them constant subsidies.
Some of my colleagues have mentioned that we are threatening the
billion dollars a day in the trade we do with our biggest trading
partner all over a few arguments about advertising in magazines.
It is quite clear, from the way the bill is constructed, that we
would not just have the Americans challenging us. We will have
Canadians taking us to court if the bill is enacted.
People will ask what right the Minister of Canadian Heritage has
to stop them from advertising where they want to advertise. There
will be challenges.
1720
Mr. Speaker, you always enjoy it when I make speech when you are
on duty. I am pleased you have taken the chair. It is a shame
you were not here before because you missed the best part about
the minister being a menace and how everything she introduces
turns to poop.
The national publicity the bill has received over the last week
has finally brought some sense to the minister. She realizes,
with the uprising in her own riding, that this attempt to protect
Canadian culture at the expense of everything else is a silly
fiasco. If the magazines are worth reading they will be
purchased by Canadians and there will be advertisers in them. Let
us get that out of the way.
We have to remember as well that only about 5% of all magazines
sold in Canada are sold off magazine racks. Yet we hear all this
weeping and wailing about how 80% of the magazines on the racks
are from foreigners. Most of the magazines in Canada are
delivered through subscriptions or through delivery along with
the local newspapers or by free drop off at the door.
There is plenty of opportunity in magazines for advertisers and
Canadian content. In committee representatives of the Canadian
industry admitted that their biggest competition was from
Canadian industry, not from across the border.
What have we done here? We have used a great big sledgehammer
in an attempt to take care of a tiny, little problem that should
be resolved by people in the industry sitting down with their
counterparts across the border and seeing if they can work out
natural trade relationships where they share advertising and
editorial space. Let us use creative thinking at the commercial
level instead of the nonsense that the minister keeps
introducing. I urge all members to vote against the bill.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will use my time to explain to the government that the
bill is a time bomb. The bill is ticking. Even though we have
temporarily put it on the shelf by order in council the bill will
explode.
When the bill explodes every Canadian will be affected by it,
not just the people in Hamilton or the people in my constituency.
The bill will hurt Canadians everywhere, from ocean to ocean to
ocean. We are bound to suffer severely from the bill even though
it has been put on hold.
One might ask if it is a heritage bill. No. What is the bill?
Is it a finance bill? No. Is it an industry bill? The minister
is seeking to control an industry. Is it a justice bill since it
is applying the Criminal Code to those people who wish to
exercise their right of free speech? Or, is it a foreign affairs
and international trade bill? As this time bomb sits there and
as the bill sits on the shelf there will be severe repercussions
for Canadians.
Two words cannot be found in the bill. They are the words
culture and heritage. These words do not even occur in the bill.
1725
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Will the member opposite be kind enough to indicate to
which of the motions in Group No. 1 he is referring?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to Motions
Nos. 1 to 22.
We will have trade retaliation. The government knows it. The
Minister of Canadian Heritage knows it. Backbenchers know it.
This why the bill will come into force to be fixed by order in
council. That is how much they trust their own minister's bill.
There are nine ports of entry into the United States in my
constituency. They are all legal. If an American magazine
published in Minard was dedicated solely to Canadian geography
and sold advertising to Canadian advertisers, it would face
criminal charges. Can we believe this? It is true. The
magazine would face criminal charges, and I have that happening
in my own area.
I do not know whether the government has clearly thought the
bill through. On the other hand, if a magazine owned by a
Canadian in Estevan writes about vacation spots in the United
States, it can get advertising from whomever it wishes. This is
bound to have severe effects on international trade.
Let us take the western perspective. A group of people just
south of the 49th parallel are waiting for some little excuse to
retaliate. The first truckload or caravan of cattle turned back
because of retaliations for this bill will fall right smack in
the government's lap, particularly in the lap of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. They do not seem to care. That will happen.
The time bomb is ticking away on the bill.
Let me put it in a different perspective. The bill is more
restrictive than the Canadian Wheat Board bill. It is a fact.
Why is it more restrictive? The Canadian Wheat Board bill only
affects the property rights in the west of those who grow wheat,
but this bill will affect all Canadians everywhere.
Does the government opposite think for one moment that it should
restrict American advertising on Canadian TV? Does it think for
one moment that a little FM station in Scobey, Montana, should
not be able to take Canadian advertising or, better still, that
we should not be able to take from Estevan and advertise in the
States?
This is sheer nonsense. If we want to see culture grow and
prosper we should let it compete. Canadians can compete in any
area they wish. They can compete in manufacturing. They can
compete in agriculture. We do not need this international
squabble looking us in the face.
Weyburn and Estevan in my constituency have some very unique
projects which are running short of funds. They look after people
who cannot look after themselves. They are both short of about
$20,000. We could not get it from here. Yet, as the hon. member
mentioned, we find a Montreal publishing firm was given $98,000
to publish a bunch of dumb blonde jokes.
What do members think the people out there think? They ask if
that is the government's priority? The answer is yes, that is
the government's priority. And, it is all in the name of what?
Oh, culture.
1730
If you advertise in the wrong magazine you are subject to
criminal prosecution. Think of that. Somebody in my constituency
who chooses to advertise in a magazine that is published in
Bismarck will be subject to prosecution. It is unbelievable but
it is true.
This bill will not be passed for some time. There will be
terrible ramifications. It will cost us hundreds of millions of
dollars to get ourselves out of the legal suits. I would ask the
government members opposite and the ministers to take this back
to caucus and do the sensible thing and pull this rotten bill
right off the list. Pull it right away. Get it out of here. It
has failed in the past several times. It will fail again but they
are quite willing to blow a hundred million dollars to try to
defend it in international courts and they will say that they
were standing up for Canadian culture. Nobody believes that.
Let us honour the Canadian's right to compete. Let us not try
to protect something that can compete. The minister in charge of
the wheat board would tell us right away that Canadian wheat can
compete anywhere in the world but this bill says that Canadians
cannot compete. I believe they can and I think this government
is terribly wrong in trying to say they cannot.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I re-emphasize that Motions Nos. 1 to 21 in Group No. 1
point out that the bill is poorly crafted. It is a thinly veiled
attempt to circumvent two unfavourable rulings that Canada
received at the World Trade Organization tribunals. It is
provoking very real trade retaliation from U.S. trade
representatives and it is offensive to fundamental freedoms.
There are some very practical reasons why I oppose Bill C-55 on
behalf of the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake. This foreign
publishers advertising services act will have a large negative
impact on my riding and on all Canadians. The minister has said
words to the effect that this bill is about promoting Canadian
culture. I think the minister referred to ensuring that her
daughter has magazines to read that have Canadian content.
I say this bill is really about promoting the heritage minister.
It is not about Canadian culture at all. Let us look at this
promotion. The protection of what appears to be two major
publishers in this country is what this whole bill seems to be
about. The two that have come to the attention of this House are
Maclean Hunter and Télémédia Incorporated, two very large
companies that really have no problem standing on their own or
competing with others. I think they would agree this has nothing
to do with their not being able to compete.
1735
As soon as any country starts to go into protectionism and
reduce trade the population of that country soon becomes much
poorer. Throughout history look at the greatest nations in the
world like Rome. We find that the rich nations were those that
had open and free trade. They became wealthy. Their citizenry
became wealthy. That is what is under attack in Bill C-55. We
want to close in among ourselves. Deal inside Canada. Keep the
evil foreigners away, in this case the Americans. Tomorrow it
will be the Europeans. The day after that it will be the
Japanese. That is what this bill is about. It is about dollars
and cents as to its repercussions.
Mr. Gary Leech, one of the chief executive officers of Manitoba
Rolling Mills, a steel rolling plant in Selkirk and a subsidiary
of Gerdau, was so concerned with the possibility of trade
problems in steel exports from Canada to the United States that
he sent me a letter outlining the problems he sees will come up.
Bill C-55 and protectionism is exactly what he does not want. He
wants to see the exports that earn large amounts of money for
Canada continue to flow to the states. It is a good customer.
It wants to make these purchases. There is an example of a
direct impact on my riding. It is one of the industry items that
we are exporting that we do not want to see shut down.
The reality check is the harm in trade between Canada and the
U.S.. It is our biggest customer and we are its biggest customer.
It would enter into the hundreds of millions. When we get into
a tit for tat trade dispute, which is what the heritage minister
seems to be trying to get us into, it soon turns into billions.
At best, the intent of trying to protect a couple of our
publishers to the tune of a few million dollars is not worth the
trade costs and problems we will have if this bill gets passed.
I am the chief agriculture critic. Agriculture is another
gigantic industry in western Canada, in my riding in particular.
At present Canadian agriculture and agri-food trade is over $28
billion a year. We are not talking a few million for the
publishing trade.
I pointed out that Motions Nos. 1 through 21 have very much to do
with the World Trade Organization talks. We are coming up to
those talks. What we are going to find out is that the trade
representatives from other countries are going to look at Canada
and say “Are you putting out bills like Bill C-55 and going into
a protectionism type mentality? Our economies are about 10 or 15
times bigger than yours. You are going to be the loser”. We
will not see that in published print but I guarantee that is
exactly what we are talking about in the debate today.
The cost to agriculture could be gigantic. We are talking about
an industry of $28 billion in exports a year. In agriculture we
depend on trade for our survival. Right now we see the problems
of agriculture with reduced exports to other countries and low
commodity prices. They are low because the dollars we are able
earn from trade and the lower exports are hitting families on
Canadian farms in the pocket book.
We are not talking about some hypothetical bill, that is really
does not matter or that it matters to only a few Canadians.
This matters to everyone.
1740
At present commodity prices have collapsed and in Saskatchewan
the estimates earlier on this fall were that the drop in income
could be as high as 70%, Manitoba as high as 45%, Prince Edward
Island as low as 41% off from past years.
Instead of introducing legislation that would ensure a viable
agricultural sector, this government seems to spend its time on
Bill C-55. Bill C-55 will erode our farm markets and will deepen
the income crisis we are in already.
I point out that our exports to the United States have been hurt
by South Dakota and North Dakota which feel that we are
subsidized, that we are exporting products which are not in
keeping with their pesticide regulations or other chemical
regulations.
I believe Bill C-55 will just add to the frustration of American
trade negotiators. They will not necessarily say they are
restricting the movement of grain, cattle or hogs into the states
because of Bill C-55 but in the back of their minds they will see
Canadians as unfair traders, people trying to restrict trade and
put up barriers to the United States and other countries.
In the fall the agriculture minister was real big on this. He
said don't worry about trade, it is just to do with the elections
in the United States. When that is over we won't have any more
problems. The elections in the United States were over in the
fall and the trade disputes and the trade irritants got worse. It
was false that the elections were the cause of the trade
disputes.
On top of all that now we see Bill C-55 which could be looked on
as the straw that broke the camel's back if passed. I urge all
members to vote against this bill.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise today, not necessarily to have to speak to
a bill like this, but still to exercise my democratic right as an
elected representative of the people of Nanaimo—Cowichan to
continue the debate on Bill C-55 and the amendments proposed by
my hon. colleague.
I want to share why I believe those amendments should be passed
and through the passage of those amendments the bill should be
entirely wiped out.
This bill has drawn a great deal of controversy and political
rhetoric over the past several months. As we all know, what we
read and hear from the spin doctors and the political posturing
from the government does not tell the whole story.
Part of the government's and magazine industry's story has been
that without this bill Canadian culture will be hurt. I have
eight children and I do not for a minute think that the passage
of this bill will protect the kind of culture with which they
grow up. I have a little daughter who is going to be eight
tomorrow. I wish her a happy birthday. As a member of
parliament I may not be there for her birthday. But I do not
expect that she is going to ever have her cultural sensitivities
hurt because this bill passes into law.
The government said that not to endorse this bill is somehow
unpatriotic and anti-Canadian. This is absolute nonsense.
I believe, moreover, that this bill has the potential to do far
more harm than good for Canada. If this bill is approved and
given royal assent the heritage minister is willing to put vast
portions of the Canadian economy at risk.
1745
The minister may be willing to risk it all but I wonder, are the
people who she is affecting willing to risk it all? I dare say
that if we asked the logger, the sawyer, the pulp and paper
worker in the British Columbia forest industry, we would find
that they are not willing to take this risk. They have already
paid dearly in the downtrodden economy of British Columbia. They
have already paid with layoffs and downturns.
My riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has traditionally been a large
producer of forest products with many people employed in that
industry. I can guarantee that they are not willing to put any
more of those people at risk through a bill like this.
I wonder if the minister of heritage is willing to ask the
farmers across the prairies who have already seen a price drop in
grain whether they are willing to risk their livelihood further.
Farmers are already facing many natural calamities from drought,
frost and hail without built-in disasters that are imposed by
their own federal government. Many farmers are already facing a
disaster from this federal government by hearing that the cheque
is in the mail when in fact it is not.
Perhaps the minister would be willing to listen to the response
of the many people who depend upon work in the steel, textiles or
plastics industries which stretch across southern Ontario and
Quebec.
Many of these businesses have carved their place in the market
in spite of major international competition. Are they willing to
risk it all based upon the false premises of this bill? I
suggest that they are not.
When the heritage minister asks the House to pass this
legislation, there are major risks and very real consequences.
The United States has clearly stated its own position on this
matter. I do not want to be misunderstood here; I believe in
Canadian sovereignty and I strongly believe in national unity.
But there are many issues and times that I feel this government
has acquiesced to the sabre rattling and scare tactics of our
neighbours south of the border.
Overall our U.S. neighbours are good neighbours and I agree they
cannot dictate Canadian policy. However, our ambassador to the
United States met with me and a group of parliamentarians which
incidentally included members of the government in Washington
last week. The government members should listen to this. Among
other things, we discussed this bill and its consequences to
Canadian-U.S. relationships. The ambassador warned us not to get
into a situation where a trade war would erupt because when all
is said and done, we know who the losers would be. Here is a man
who has his ear to the ground in Washington. I really wonder
whether our government has been listening to him. I do not think
so.
There are other instances. I believe that the minister of
fisheries has a lot to account for in the handling of our west
coast fish stocks. Where was the nationalism of this government
when our west coast fishermen were being stopped from reaping
their livelihood and were forced to watch from the sidelines as
Alaskan fishermen ran their nets and lines down to pull up our
Canadian salmon? It was not found anywhere on the west coast.
Where was the strength of the government when the British
Columbia forest industry was facing sanctions and tariffs by the
lumber industry of the United States? It was nothing but
weak-kneed action that I would see.
This government has a lot of very mixed up priorities. On the
issues when the government could have made a difference and truly
stood up for national sovereignty, the Liberals were nowhere to
be found. On the issues that involve the jobs and livelihoods of
thousands of individuals and businesses alike, they are prepared
to take enormous risks. This seems to be out of step with what
Canadians really desire.
I believe that Canadians want to have opportunities to work,
opportunities to move ahead in their lives and to not be faced
with regressive and hidden taxes every time they try to make a
step forward. This bill does not meet those kinds of objectives.
In doing some rough calculations, the total trade that Canada
currently does with the United States is approximately $365
billion, a billion dollars a day. That is a huge number. The
annual advertising market that Bill C-55 is designed to address
totals about $400 million. This is just over one-tenth of one
per cent. In comparison, the value of the goods for wheat,
metals, alloys, chemicals, plastics, fertilizers and forest
products that Canada exports to the United States totals $76.98
billion.
The heritage minister is willing to risk 21% of our trade with
the United States for the sake of this bill.
This is a far greater risk than I believe the stakeholders in
these industries are willing to take. This bill is fraught with
misconceptions and bureaucratic doublespeak.
1750
On Tuesday, February 9 the heritage minister was asked if Bill
C-55 was an ironclad piece of legislation that could survive any
possible U.S. challenge to the WTO or the NAFTA and to confirm
that it conforms with Canada's charter of rights. The minister's
reply was that it is the position of the government that this
bill respects every one of our national and international
obligations.
In fact, the WTO handed down two rulings last year which found
the provisions under previous magazine advertising legislation to
offend the GATT. We were not receiving a straight bill of goods
on these most important questions.
This bill also has possible ramifications for our charter of
rights and freedoms. Through the enactment of this bill,
Canadian advertisers will be banned from selling their goods and
services in foreign magazines. Is the minister telling Canadian
advertisers that when it comes to freedom of speech, something we
all hold in high favour, that these people are second class
citizens? I certainly hope this is not what it will come to be.
We have been told this bill is to protect our Canadian culture.
My read of this bill does not show the word culture anywhere in
its writings. What this bill has is the workings and markings of
protectionism and will likely fail when challenged at the World
Trade Organization through the GATT.
We have been told that this bill is intended to protect Canadian
advertisers from cheap American advertising dollars creeping into
split-run magazines. In fact, Mr. John Tory of Rogers
Communications, which owns Maclean Hunter and publishes
Maclean's magazine, recently appeared before the heritage
committee. At the heritage committee he admitted that magazine
publishers' biggest competition for advertising dollars is from
Canadians. It does not make sense.
Perhaps the item that causes me the most concern in this bill is
the addition of the magazine police. Are we going to have them
all over the place? I suspect so if this bill goes through. I
believe this legislation is wrong. I do not believe that the
Canadian public is supportive of this legislation and I certainly
am not.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I know that
unlike my colleagues across the way, you have been waiting for
some time for my intervention and I hope I do not disappoint.
The first thing I have to say and which is patently obvious to
most of us in the House and most Canadians at this point in time
is that the heritage minister's ego and arrogance know no bounds.
It is becoming clearer to Canadians all the time. She has
demonstrated this over and over again. Let me give this House
some examples.
Alongside this bill, what has the minister got for a track
record? She has the GST promise. She has the—
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It is my understanding that members on either side of the
House have to address the motions that are on the floor. Would
you please invite the member to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. member for
Skeena is going to address the 21 amendments that are before the
House at this time. I am sure he was just warming to a theme.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case. I
am amazed. My friend across the way must be blessed with ESP to
know what I was going to say as I just rose.
I have to relate this bill to other things the minister has done
to show the arrogance and the egotistical approach she has to her
job. I can talk about the MMT, the GST, the flag giveaway, and
as my colleague mentioned the $98,000 for a book on dumb blond
jokes, which incidentally was just before she had her hair dyed.
She demonstrates little concern for the economic wreckage she
leaves behind her with all of these initiatives. This bill is a
case in point.
1755
The minister professes to care about national unity. She
professes to care about keeping Canada together. Then she
introduces a piece of legislation such as Bill C-48 which I
suggest is going to do more to divide and anger Canadians than
anything the minister has done before. We will see the fruits of
her labour not too far down the road.
What is amazing is that the Prime Minister continues to let the
heritage minister prance around without a leash leaving
unpleasant little surprises for us all over the place.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
privilege. This is probably the toughest afternoon I have ever
had in my life listening to the nonsense from across the way, but
when it degenerates to personal insults directed at members of
the House I am amazed that the Chair tolerates that.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is mindful that members do
sometimes make personal comments. While some may regard them as
in poor taste, I do not think that intervention by the Chair is
required unless the comments are unparliamentary. I have not
heard comments that under the rules appear to be unparliamentary.
A matter of taste is a matter of taste and I leave members to
exercise their own restraint.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Reform members seem to be the main ones who are trying to shed
some light on the problems of the bill. We are continually being
interrupted. Could I suggest that perhaps it might be in order
if the hon. member across the way has so much to say that he take
a place on the speaking rotation instead of interrupting.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the comments on both sides
are indicative of the fact that perhaps there is not complete
agreement on all the terms of the bill. The Chair is not in a
position to adjudicate on what I regard as perhaps not well taken
points of order or questions of privilege.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, it would be easier for us on
this side and certainly easier for me to proceed with my
intervention and to keep the personal comments to a minimum if my
colleagues on the other side were not engaging in this kind of
heckling in debate.
The case before us is really important. Canada's trade with the
United States is huge. Eighty per cent of our trade is with the
United States. We need them and they need us. It is a very
important trade relationship. We need them very badly.
The magazine issue as an economic matter does not even register
on the scales in terms of economic importance. It is not
important in terms of our economy. Issues like steel, softwood
lumber and other trade relationships that we have are vital to
the future of the country and vital for the province I come from
and vital for the constituents I represent. We have a huge trade
in softwood lumber with the United States.
By introducing this bill, the minister is indicating that she is
willing to put at risk those jobs and those industries and that
trade relationship for the sake of her ego. It is irresponsible
in the extreme. She is willing to put our entire trade
relationship with the United States at risk over an issue that
does not even register on the scales economically. Someone
should run out and buy the minister a calculator. She should
become acquainted with the numbers and maybe then she would pause
and change her mind.
The minister and the government show so much concern for
magazines. If the Liberals are that concerned about the trade
relationship with the United States and protecting Canadian
businesses, why do they not do something about fish?
The people in my riding particularly from the Prince Rupert and
the Queen Charlotte Island areas are in deep trouble because of
our trade relationship and because of the fact that the
government has been totally ineffective at negotiating any kind
of an agreement with the Americans on the Pacific salmon dispute.
It was totally ineffective in even bringing up the issue, and
totally ineffective in even trying to make this a priority
because the Liberals do not consider it to be a priority.
When it comes to magazines, oh yes it is a national issue but
when it is Pacific salmon, that is a regional issue, a B.C.
issue. It does not matter. It does not register on their
scales, or the minister's scales.
1800
Where is the concern for the sports fisherman, the aboriginal
fisherman and the commercial fishermen who have lost their
livelihoods? That is a heritage issue. These people,
particularly in the commercial industry, have lost and are in the
process of losing a way of life because of government inaction
and inability or unwillingness to deal with that very crucial
issue.
The province I come from does a tremendous amount of trade with
the Americans on softwood lumber. I cannot begin to say how many
communities in my riding, never mind businesses, depend on trade
in softwood lumber for their sustenance, for their livelihoods.
Families depend on a paycheque so they can make their mortgage
payments, buy groceries, put their kids through school and have
some kind of future.
The minister is willing to put that at risk over an issue that
does not even register on the economic scale. The minister is
willing to put at risk thousands of jobs in the steel industry in
Ontario over an issue that does not even register on the economic
scale. The minister is willing to put her ego and agenda ahead
of the best interest of Canadians. I am frankly appalled.
I look at my colleagues across the way. They just do not
understand that real lives and futures are on the line. If they
would choose to venture out of Ontario and come to my riding in
northern British Columbia they would see for themselves the
economic devastation that northern communities in British
Columbia have faced over the last couple of years. Then maybe
they would not be so quick to criticize.
We see window dressing action on the part of the minister that
is designed to try to persuade Canadians she is concerned about
our country and out there doing something. She is really out
there attempting to exacerbate the problems my constituents
already have in the industries in which they are employed.
I understand the heritage minister being this way because she
has demonstrated a track record in this regard for a long time.
What I cannot understand is how her caucus, her fellow cabinet
and the Prime Minister will let her continue with putting at risk
hundreds of millions of dollars of trade with the United States
every year over an issue which basically does not even register
on the economic scale and is not important to most Canadians. I
frankly do not think most Canadians are concerned about the issue
the minister is trying to address. I am appalled that the
minister is willing to put everything else on the line over this
issue.
If the heritage minister and the government were really serious
about standing up for Canada's interest, they would get off this
issue which for most Canadians does not even register and address
some other issues like softwood lumber and Pacific salmon which
they have done absolutely nothing meaningful about for five years
now, ever since I have been in this place.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I note once again that Liberal members across the way
have the opportunity to officially join in this debate at any
time but would rather snipe from the sidelines. Of course, that
is understandable. They have nothing concrete to add. They have
nothing substantive to say so all they can do is hurl little
insults or stand there and nod like drinking birds. It is kind
of interesting. If they had something to say I am sure the
Canadian public would listen, but as it is they have already
declared the merit of the bill by their silence.
Let us look at what is really happening with the bill. I have
just completed a round of town hall meetings in my riding. I
have talked about how legislation works in the House. I have
explained that only the government writes legislation and that
sometimes it writes good legislation which we support.
In fact we work with them to get it through the House as quickly
as possible because it might be long overdue.
1805
Sometimes the government comes out with legislation that has
some merit, but we think it could be a little better so we
propose amendments. Sometimes the legislation is bad, really
bad, and we say we will fight it unless the government agrees to
fix it up. Every now and again it comes out with some
legislation that is so bad it is absolutely unfixable. We are
close to that with this one.
There is actually one more category. Every now and again it
comes out with legislation that just does not make sense. We
fight it if it is bad. We may not agree with it but at least we
understand where the government is coming from. However, every
now and again it comes out with something that just makes no
sense at all.
Should we try to come up with some Machiavellian reason as to
why it might come out with such legislation? Let us look at the
legislation before us. We are only talking about two big
corporations that stand to have any possible benefit. The rest
of the publishers in the country are asking what it is doing.
Why would the government do that? It was not overly rich back
in pre-1993 but it got all kinds of contributions from big
corporations. I wonder if there will be a marker out there after
its slides this piece of garbage through the House.
An hon. member: Do you think so?
Mr. Jim Gouk: It is entirely possible that is what this
is about. I certainly cannot think of any other reason for it.
The sole speaker, I think it was, on this debate from the
Conservative Party raised the issue of dumping. It was an
interesting point. That is what the government is claiming. In
essence that is what it is claiming the American companies are
doing, that they are dumping product.
We do not need legislation for that. We already have it. If
that is what it thinks is occurring it should follow the rules
that are already in place. If it is not really dumping then it
cannot very well follow those rules. There goes another excuse
for the Liberal Party.
The Liberals talk in terms of what the Americans are doing in
Canada, that they are running Canadian ads in their magazines.
Did it ever occur to them that Canadians want to be able to run
those ads? That is how they sell to their market. Have they
ever thought of the impact on Canadian producers? God forbid,
they have enough trouble nowadays with Liberal taxation policies.
Now they cannot even advertise their overpriced products,
overpriced because they have had to pay so much in taxes and
wages trying to keep their employees above the starvation level
as the Minister of Finance takes their paycheque away from them.
Now they want to take away their ability to advertise in the
magazines and publications of their choice. It is absolutely
crazy.
Let us look at some of the other potential impacts of the bill.
If one walks up to somebody and punches him in the nose he tends
to try to defend himself. If the little giant walks up and tries
to do something to the United States, guess what it will do? It
will defend itself. It will say that we are being unfair to its
companies. There are rules in place. If the government thinks
they are dumping it should follow them. If it does not have the
temerity to follow that route then it is wrong and retaliations
start.
What kinds of things will the Americans retaliate on? We have
talked about how it might be dumping. The government thinks this
is dumping and it needs this action.
In the western part of my riding in the Okanagan Valley lot of
orchardists, particularly those growing apples, are going
bankrupt. One of the problems they have is real dumping by the
American market into the Canadian market. American orchard
farmers, apple farmers, have a completely different set of
policies to follow and different levels of subsidization so they
dump into Canada.
Is the government concerned about that? No. They are little
apple orchardists who do not contribute enough to the Liberal
Party to merit concern about that kind of dumping. However, a
couple of big publications might affect the Liberal coffers so it
had better do something. It creates a bogeyman and goes out to
save them even though nobody else thinks they are in danger in
the first place. It is interesting.
1810
In the softwood lumber industry it has been suggested the
Americans may look for some form of retaliation. I come from a
forest reliant riding. That is our major employer. We had
agreements with the United States and it tried doing the very
thing the Canadian government is now talking of doing in the case
of this magazine situation. What did we do? We just acquiesced.
Maybe that is why they thought the Americans would do that in
this case, but they did not acquiesce. They came out with an
insane softwood lumber quota system and the government said “Hot
damn, where do we sign?”
All kinds of people in my riding have had problems. I have
talked to people in the softwood lumber industry about how this
started and how they tracked it. When this started they admitted
they had no idea of how it was going to work but they just had to
do it.
My riding has been hurt by the softwood lumber quota. As if it
were not bad enough the way it started, they said here is the
quota and here is how it will work. A lot of people were really
opposed to it. Some said the government is too weak-kneed to
support them in any other way. At least if they got a little
stability, even though they would be cut way back, they would
know what they could count on.
Every year for the last three years a lot of the big lumber
producers in my riding have been cut back further on the softwood
lumber quota. They are hanging by their fingernails right now on
the verge of shutting down. They are very close to it. We are
waiting to see what happens with the quotas coming out in the
spring. If there is another cut, it will wreak havoc on the
west.
Of course the Liberal Party does not care. That is Reform
country so why should it do anything for western companies. Then
it has a western tour to try to determine why it does not get any
support in the west. We do not have to look very far for the
reasons for that.
If there is any threat of retaliation against western lumber
producers, it might be the straw that breaks the camel's back and
puts them under—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member but the time for the consideration of Government Orders
has expired.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would ask for unanimous consent to dispose of all
questions at report stage.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to dispose
of the report stage of the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.12 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
HOLIDAYS ACT
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.) moved that Bill C-401, an
act to amend the Holidays Act (Flag Day) and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today
to discuss Bill C-401. This is not the first time I have
introduced this legislation. It is not even the first time that
similar legislation has been presented before the Chamber. I had
an identical bill in the previous parliament that was votable but
unfortunately it died on the order paper when the election was
called.
For members here and for those watching us tonight, some may
immediately jump to the obvious conclusion that there is such a
thing as a flag day. Flag day is the third Monday of February or
February 15. My legislation talks about making it the third
Monday. Flag day is recognized on the February 15, which is the
very day the flag rose over our nation in 1965 for the first
time. Indeed the current Prime Minister proclaimed a day called
flag day.
The difference between that and my bill is that my bill seeks to
make flag day a national holiday. That is to say that people
would have the day off work to celebrate this event.
1815
The background of this has a lot of history in this Chamber. It
goes back as far as 1980 when my colleague in a previous session,
Warren Allmand, presented a bill much the same as this. Back in
those days they called this heritage day and indeed we have a
heritage day as well which falls on the third Monday of February.
This of course causes some confusion among people. I look at
flag day as being a culmination of heritage day to recognize the
heritage of all cultural groups in Canada under one flag.
Then there is a string of similar suggestions by the New
Democratic Party. Stanley Knowles presented this legislation at
one time, as did Ian Deans. A special consideration for my
former professor. I have a bachelor of commerce degree but I
always took political science just down the road here at Carleton
University and in those days my political science professor for
about three of those years was Dr. Pauline Jewett, which I know
rings a happy note with some of my colleagues across the way. I
can say that Dr. Jewett was somewhat responsible for leading me
into the area of politics. It took a long time for me to
remember some of her words and come back to this place, but it is
in somewhat of her honour that I am able to stand in my place and
present her very bill, although I now call it flag day as opposed
to heritage day.
Mr. Speaker, sitting on either side of you is the Canadian flag.
I have been very happy, every day I have been in the House, to
wear this lapel pin, the Canadian flag. I have been very proud
of my country and its symbols.
The flag is more than a simple piece of coloured cloth. It is
the epitome of who we are as a country. It is a symbol. Canada
is very much a young country. For some of us 1867 may seem like
a long time ago but in reality, when we compare it to countries
like Greece or European countries, our history is quite young.
It is very important that a country, as it is evolving, evolves
symbols of its unity as symbols of its people. I do not think
there is any stronger symbol in Canada than our flag.
I know all of us have travelled to foreign countries and there
is no question of the identity, when one is wearing that flag, of
who one is, where one is from. Most important, it is not about
geography, it is about what kind of people that represents,
caring people who created this incredible country on the north
half of the North American continent, the second largest
geographical country in the world with tremendous democratic
traditions over a short period of time. It has become the envy of
the world. The Prime Minister often refers to the United Nations
accreditation that Canada is deemed the best country in the world
for its social services and so forth. This is really about
agreements that we make with one another.
I was talking to some Cape Bretoners last night. Taxation came
up. I said people like to talk about Ottawa, about money coming
from Ottawa and going to Ottawa, but in reality what is really
happening is that these are all agreements we make among
ourselves. We agree in this place to share money with other
citizens of this country for a variety of reasons.
1820
I think these are the great things that Canada is about and why
this symbol is so important to me and the Canadian people.
The flag debate has had a great tradition. I was a little
younger but I can remember the flag debate in the House. I can
remember the very day the flag went up the flagpole on this
Chamber. Governor General Georges Vanier, Lester Pearson and
hundreds of thousands of Canadians watched that momentous event.
I also remember at that time the leader of the official
opposition, Mr. Diefenbaker, with a tear in his eye watching the
red ensign come down. It was a traumatic event in our history.
It was a recognition of how we had changed. It was not about
throwing out our old traditions.
A lot of people get involved in the monarchy thing. They always
think we are tearing something apart. We are throwing something
in the garbage. Our history cannot be stolen. Nobody can steal
our traditions. What we can do is build on the strength of those
traditions and move forward. I believe that is what the flag
does.
I have not argued why I feel this should be a national holiday
which is significantly different from what the Prime Minister did
only a short few years ago. It should be a national holiday
because it is a time that Canadians can reflect on their
heritage, their culture and the things that make this a great
country.
I know some people will suggest what is Canada Day if not that.
I agree. Canada Day is another similar day on which we recognize
our country. But flag day is unique in that it marks the
evolution of our country in 1965. An argument a lot of people
will bring is that we cannot afford flag day. That is another
day off. People will not be working. Employers will have to pay
for it. That is a lot of the argument brought up.
To give a comparison, Australia has 11 statutory holidays;
Austria, 12; Finland, 12; France 11; our chief trading partner
the United States, 11; Canada, only 10. In the scheme of things
we can see there is room for another national holiday.
I will touch very briefly on the cost of that. It is a fair
question and people are going to raise that issue. I have made a
basic estimate of the labour costs for that national holiday of
$1.5 billion. People will say that is a lot of money in lost
productivity. It represents .16% of our economic activity. More
important, it does not attempt to analyse what economic benefits
would be gained by a national holiday.
Members may ask what benefits could there possibly be. Everybody
will be sitting at home or hopefully going to flag day
celebrations. How is that going to have an economic impact? I
do not have to tell the House that we have Winterlude going on
right now in Ottawa. People would use this to promote tourism
and events and celebrate the flag. When people do that they have
a tendency to go out and spend some money and so forth. So there
is a direct economic benefit to Canadians to have this national
holiday.
It is very timely that we are having this debate because Monday,
February 15 is flag day. The time between New Year's Day and the
next holiday, Good Friday, is about 91 days. In other words, it
is over three months without a holiday.
Many of my constituents and other people have said we need a
break in the middle of winter. Winters are long and the days are
short. It would be nice to celebrate our country and make
something very important about that.
1825
I have mentioned Canada Day. One problem I have with Canada Day
is that it is in the middle of the summer. Invariably the very
people we want to interest in this cultural evolution are our
youth. Unfortunately they are out of school at the cottage or
wherever and Canada Day kind of works but it does not work as
well as I think it could.
That is why in my own riding I have been promoting flag day. It
started off with one school the first year that the Prime
Minister proclaimed that day. We went to the school and had a
ceremony. We raised the flag and we talked about the great and
wonderful things in this country. It was a wonderful thing to
watch all these students with their Canadian flags singing O
Canada. They were very proud of their nation and about who they
are.
There was a teacher retiring. He was 55. He said “That is the
culmination of my career. I have never been so proud to be a
teacher at this school as this day”. That tells something about
the emotion people feel about this event.
I have attempted with the help of the people on the school board
to promote this because it is such a wonderful thing. Now it is
at the point where I cannot go to all the flag day ceremonies in
my riding. My whip is annoyed with me and other members as well
because I will be away on Monday. I have three ceremonies that I
am going to. Our biggest problem is supplies. We have to find
hundreds and hundreds of paper Canadian flags.
It is a great event because we talk to those young people about
the importance of Canada because it is their country. Clearly
they are going to be the inheritors of this great nation.
We are all getting a little older and one of these days we are
not going to be here. It is these young people who will step
forward in our place and advance the cause of Canada. It is to
these people that we are trying to promote the importance of this
great nation.
We just had a debate on Bill C-55. I do not really want to get
involved in that, but that is the whole issue that we are talking
about, Canadian culture and our identity.
I think I have touched on most of the points that I wanted to
raise. I wish this were a votable motion. I think it is a very
important issue for all Canadians to identify the symbols which
unite them as a nation and to honour them and make them even more
important in their lives. If all of us did that on a day to day
basis this would be a greater country.
I see some of my colleagues from the Bloc looking at me very
auspiciously. It is a great experiment that we are all involved
in here. We cannot unite under monarchial flags. It is time to
realize we have a central purpose in this country and that is our
flag. Our flag identifies that purpose.
I will close on that and I hope we have a very nourished debate
about what I consider a very important issue.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to stand in the House today to speak about what it
means to be a Canadian and to speak about the Canadian flag.
I have no small touch of history in this place with respect to
the flag. I suppose therefore it was rather natural when this
bill came forward that I was the one selected from our party to
respond to it in this debate.
I am really curious about this bill because of the fact that I
am probably known both among my friends and among my colleagues
here in this place as being a very proud and a very grateful
Canadian. It never leaves my mind.
1830
Often I think how grateful I am that way back in the early 1920s
both my grandfathers, although they did not know each other at
the time, and my parents, who also did not know each other at the
time, made the decision to flee Russia and make Canada their
home. We sometimes complain about the rate of taxation here, but
over in Russia they paid 100%. They left everything they had and
fled to preserve their lives. They chose to make Canada their
home.
My grandparents have been gone for some 30 years, but I remember
going to my grandparents' place. My grandmother, in particular,
many times, both in speech and in her prayers, expressed
gratitude for the wonderful country in which we lived. She, my
grandfather, my uncles and aunts shared many of their experiences
in the old country.
This is quite remarkable because growing up on a farm in
Saskatchewan in the 1940s and 1950s we were actually quite poor.
We had very little of what we would call worldly goods. Yet here
we were in this wonderful country. I suppose the feature they
liked the most was the freedom which we enjoy here, the
opportunity to work and provide not only for ourselves as a
family but also to share with others.
That is a value that has been deeply ingrained into my thinking
over all of these years and one which hopefully I have
transmitted to my children. Hopefully they will transmit it to
their children, since I now have three grandchildren. I shall
take the opportunity, when they are old enough to understand, to
explain some of our family history and to bring them to the place
where they are not only proud Canadians but also, as I am, a
deeply grateful Canadian.
We are discussing the issue of having a flag day, a special day
to honour our flag. I too am old enough to remember quite
clearly the time when the Canadian flag was brought in. As a
matter of fact, on Monday, February 15, 1965 I happened to have
been a grade 11 student in a small town in Saskatchewan.
I also remember the great degree of opposition there was to the
flag, especially in that part of the country in which I live.
The opposition was primarily from people who had fought under the
old Union Jack, people who were involved in our great wars, as
they are called, in which Canadians participated, many giving
their lives.
I remember one of our neighbours, a person by the name of Mr.
Payne. He had a permanent limp as a result of an injury he
suffered in the war. I do not remember him specifically, but it
was that kind of person who had some considerable objection to
the changing of Canada's symbol because of what the old symbol
meant to them.
Our Canadian flag is not without its history. The flag that we
have now, the Maple Leaf, is a flag of which I believe we are all
proud. We have made that transition. I am grateful to say that
my family is now totally accepting of the Canadian flag. We are
very happy that we have a symbol such as this to unite us as a
people.
Not long ago I thought about the Canadian flag as being one of
the very few things that universally ties us together. There are
some who say it is our health care system. Yet the trouble with
which our people are viewing the health care system now is such
that it is hardly a great unifying force in our country. The
health care system is in deep trouble, primarily because of the
fact that the commitments made by the federal government at the
time when it was brought in have greatly eroded.
Consequently, while the Liberals particularly love bragging about
the health care system, and we all wish we had a good one, due to
their change in fiscal priorities over the years it is in great
trouble. Therefore, I do not think our health care system can be
said to tie us together.
1835
We have other symbols. For example, the governing party of
Canada. Does it unify us? As I recall, it got about 39% of the
popular vote in the last election. That means that approximately
60% of Canadians probably would not view the present Liberal
government as being a unifying force.
We have other symbols, such as our governor general. Yet when
we realize that the governor general is but a token appointment,
a patronage appointment of a current prime minister, then that as
a unifying force is substantially diminished. I do not want to
in any way denigrate the position or the person. However, it is
not a huge unifying force.
Then I think of Her Majesty the Queen. I have spoken to a
number of people in the last couple of years and, very frankly, a
lot of people have shown genuine regret over some of the problems
that have beset the royal family in England. There is a genuine
concern and a compassion for some of the things they have gone
through. Yet if we ask whether we are unified around our
allegiance to the Queen, that too falls short.
I suppose we could come to the conclusion that the Canadian flag
is probably the strongest unifying symbol in the country today.
There may be some others that I have not thought of. However, I
went through a small list of different unifying symbols or forces
and probably the Canadian flag is the strongest one.
The question at hand is: Should we have a day once a year
proclaimed as flag day? Should we have a statutory holiday in
which everybody would make a special effort to celebrate Canada
and that national symbol, the Canadian flag?
I have great problems with a motion of this nature for one very
simple reason. To explain it I want to give a little analogy.
There was a young fellow who was asked in church to sit down by
his father, but he kept standing. His father put his hand on his
shoulder and said “Sit down” and the boy stood again. Finally
the father, very firmly, said “Sit down”. At that point the
young lad turned to his dad and said “I may be sitting on the
outside, but I am standing on the inside”.
I think that is a rather good illustration of what it means to
fly the Canadian flag. If we bring in legislation that says “On
this day you will fly the flag and you will do this”, it almost
smacks of political or government manipulation of a desired
behaviour. I think it is meaningless unless it comes from deep
within.
Again I think of the stories my grandfather told. They were
legislated into allegiance to their country. At the first
opportunity they left because it just went on and on until they
lost all their personal freedoms.
I in no way suggest that this bill takes away any freedom. I am
saying that the idea of legislating a day to promote the flag
leaves a hollow ring, at least with me. I think the much better
way is to have people fly the flag with pride and with honour
because of the fact that deep within, hopefully like me, they are
proud and grateful to be Canadian.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I also
have the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to the bill
before us, which aims at adding a holiday to celebrate the flag.
We already have a flag day.
1840
It is in fact a sad day in Canada's history, because the first
day we celebrated this flag day, we recalled that the Prime
Minister had shaken up a demonstrator by grabbing him by the
throat. And the Minister of Canadian Heritage, without knowing
who the person was, called him a sovereignist.
So flag day has a bit of a blot on it in our history. Memory
being what it is, I hope one day that we will have happier
memories in this regard about Canada.
I have heard some rather unconvincing arguments on the subject
of making this day a holiday, first, because the third Monday in
February would make a fine holiday. If people are tired,
collective agreements provide for sick days so they can take a
day off if they need to.
Reading week happens about the same time, a week later. So
there are holidays the following week.
Some have said that other countries mentioned have 10, 11 or 12
holidays. They probably have much more important events to
celebrate than flag day. I for my part know of no country that
gives everyone a day off just to celebrate the flag.
When the argument is made that this might cost $1.5 billion in
work time, we say that it is meaningless, that the amount
involved is negligible in relation to the revenue generated by
all these workdays. I think these kinds of arguments are not
very serious.
I heard another argument, saying “There is Canada Day, but it is
in the middle of the summer. It is hard to celebrate in the
middle of the summer. If kids were in school, we could have a
flag celebration for them, which would be more like an
indoctrination or propaganda day than a day of celebration. We
would like kids to be back in school, so that the celebration
could take place at school”.
However, it seems to me that the argument put forward by the
hon. member from the Reform Party could have some merit.
That is always the problem with days like women's day, child
day, mother's day, a day for this and another for that. I think
that the flag should be honoured 365 days a year in all
circumstances.
Personally, I am old enough to remember how the Canadian flag
came to be. As hon. members will remember, under the leadership
of Réal Caouette and his Social Credit Party, the French-speaking
members of this Parliament argued vigorously in favour of Canada
adopting its own flag, as we Quebeckers had a hard time relating
to the Queen's flag, a flag that looked like the British flag
and did not mean much to us.
Quebec has its flag, and I think Quebeckers venerate the flag of
Quebec first and foremost, the flag that belongs to us, and
tells who we are, because Canada was such a long time adopting
its own. Personally, I have a great deal of difficulty
believing that those two bands on either side of the maple leaf
represent the Atlantic on the one side and the Pacific on the
other. Oceans sure ain't what they used to be.
I can perhaps understand Canada's wanting to have a flag day,
but I cannot see why it should be a statutory holiday. We in
Quebec have a journée du drapeau, I know, but I would also be
opposed to its becoming a statutory holiday in Quebec.
I believe that a flag day needs to be celebrated at work, for it
is important in my mind to associate it with work and with the
pride of living and working under the flag. We Quebeckers have
our journée du drapeau and it is a day when we celebrate. But I
do not see why it should be made a statutory holiday.
1845
Canada has given itself many opportunities to promote its flag.
The Canadian flag became very popular following the campaigns
led by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The minister
distributed flags all over the country. Since one had to phone
to order them, Quebec only accounted for 10% of total demand. I
believe that, for Canada Day, spending was increased by 400% in
recent years, with the result that Quebec finally got more than
its fair share, since 63% of the budget for last year's Canada
Day was spent in our province.
The flag is, of course, a symbol for a country.
It is very difficult for me to tell Canada what it should do
with its flag, but I do not think it should be used as a tool
for propaganda or indoctrination. It must be something that
people are proud of.
When I was very young, we used to sing the national anthem every
Friday afternoon in school. We would salute the flag, but it was
the Quebec flag. We sang O Canada, which was sung in Quebec long
before it became Canada's national anthem.
This is how I was raised. I have always respected the flag.
I will respect the Canadian flag as long as Quebec will be part
of Canada. However, my allegiance is first and foremost to the
Quebec flag, which I learned to love. I hope Canadians will
learn to love their flag the way we learned to love ours, but
without having to designate a legal holiday when no one goes to
work.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak today to Bill C-401 which would establish a
flag day on the third Monday of February as a national holiday to
be observed throughout Canada.
I appreciate the genesis of the hon. member's bill and his
studies with Pauline Jewett. I also appreciate his faithfulness
to the idea of heritage and I share that with him.
I was interested in the fact that the original concept was to
have a heritage day and then it moved to a flag day. I must say
that I have some concerns with the name.
I am not going to dwell on anybody's devotion to the flag as a
national symbol, but I recall an uproar which occupied the
attention of some in this place some time ago and it was all for
the sake of a flag. That rancorous debate did not feed one
child, improve our health care system, create a job, cut a tax or
in any way benefit a Canadian. Therefore, I am reluctant to
dwell too much on the flag, given the fact that it causes a great
deal of problems for some people.
This debate allows for the dream of a well earned holiday for
hardworking Canadian workers in the dead of winter, and I
appreciate that. However, do we need a day to commemorate the
flag? I think not. I appreciate the sense of inspiration which
my hon. colleague gets from the flag and I respect that, but I do
not think a day should be named after it.
I agree that Canadians should recognize their roots and their
symbolic heritage. It is very important for us to draw strength
from our roots. We need to find inspiration and guidance from
the people who came before us. But I think that each of us looks
to different people for inspiration.
I have found inspiration in an early suffragette named Francis
Beynon. She was a journalist in Winnipeg in the 1910s. She
worked for a newspaper called Women Grain Growers. For
many years she spread information and communicated with isolated
women on the prairies who lived on mile-wide farms and had no
contact with anyone.
Francis Beynon taught women a lot about their rights. She was
very involved in the struggle to get the first vote for women.
When the first war came along she fought very hard to get the
vote for immigrant women. That was not an easy battle because
unfortunately there were a lot of women, even in this country,
who were unwilling to allow foreign women to vote during the war.
1850
Francis Beynon showed her patriotism not in her flag, but in her
actions. She took this very important democratic stand. I
respect her for that. It was not a popular stand. She also
fought against conscription. I believe that she passed out of
history because she did not take a popular stand.
I respect and find inspiration in people like Francis Beynon. I
wonder whether I should suggest a Francis Beynon day. Instead, I
think I would look at the concept of an ancestor day.
Other people might look to someone like Agnes MacPhail for
inspiration. As we walk in the door every day we see the statue
of Agnes MacPhail. She was the first woman member of parliament.
She served in the House from 1921 until 1940. In 1943 she was
one of two women to be elected to the Ontario legislature. She
was also the first woman appointed to the Canadian delegation of
the League of Nations, where she insisted on serving on the
disarmament committee.
She is another important ancestor for many of us in terms of our
political beliefs. She was a very important woman in Canadian
history. She was a peacemaker and an inspiration to many women.
Maybe we should have an Agnes MacPhail day.
Recently I had the privilege of being part of the unveiling of a
plaque for Portia White in Preston, Nova Scotia. She was a very
famous and inspirational black Canadian woman from my community.
Portia White was the first African Canadian woman to win
international acclaim as an opera singer. She was a famous
musician in our country. She was born into a musical family and
taught choir in her church. She was a teacher and a community
person who is remembered by thousands of people scattered all
over the country. She has become well known as an inspiration
for thousands of young black Nova Scotians.
I believe we should all celebrate our roots and our ancestors.
They are the root to our patriotism. We should be helping young
Canadians to find inspiration wherever they can. Instead of
having a day that represents one inspiration, a piece of fabric
with some red and white on it, it may be more appropriate to have
an ancestor day. We accept the fact that we all have ancestors
who we gain strength from. We should try to recognize them in a
public way. That would go a long way in encouraging us to gain
strength from our roots and in helping us to understand our roots
better, and perhaps one another.
I do not agree at this time that we need a flag day. I do not
think that is a wise option. Instead, I suggest that we have an
ancestor day.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise before the House to debate Bill C-401, an act to amend
the Holidays Act to have a flag day and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
First I would like to commend the sponsor of this private
member's bill, the hon. member for Durham, for his obvious sense
of pride and patriotism in both our country and our Canadian
flag. Most Canadians would agree with these sentiments.
[Translation]
When I look up and see the Canadian flag flying high, I proudly
recall all those who, throughout our history, fought to make
Canada the best country in the world.
I think of the Fathers of Confederation, with their vision of a
great country, I think of our war heroes who fought courageously
to defend our freedom, and I think of the millions of Canadians
who struggle daily to improve not just their own lives but the
lives of their fellow citizens.
They are what Canada is all about and they are what make this
the world's most respected and wonderful country in which to
live.
[English]
The Canadian flag represents the tremendous efforts of all
Canadians who have worked so tirelessly to make this such a great
country. It is the embodiment of what we have achieved together
as a nation. I love our Canadian flag and I am tremendously
proud of our country and our achievements, but I do not believe
the flag should somehow overshadow the celebration and
recognition we already offer to our great country. Obviously I
am referring to July 1, Canada Day.
1855
Every July 1, millions of Canadians participate in Canada Day
celebrations across the country. Whether they are joined
together across the country by means of satellite or whether they
proudly fly the Canadian flag at home, whatever the case the
results are the same. Canadians want to show their pride in
their country. It is not solely pride in the Canadian flag but
what it represents.
[Translation]
The Canadian flag was first unveiled on February 15, 1965, at an
official ceremony in Ottawa. Many of our fellow citizens will
remember that the decision to adopt our flag was not reached
without heated debate on both sides of the House, and without
input from many Canadians. The intensity of the debate is a
testimony to the significance of the flag as a symbol
representing us as individuals.
[English]
I believe the government too often forgets just how important a
symbol the Canadian flag is to our identity. The Canadian
heritage minister believes that handing out hundreds of thousands
of free Canadian flags at a cost of millions of dollars is enough
to qualify anyone as a proud Canadian. Although most of those
who receives these free flags were likely proud Canadians, I am
certain that they would have been even prouder had the minister
and her government invested the money into much needed programs
such as education and health care.
[Translation]
Like many of our fellow citizens, I have had the opportunity to
travel abroad. I met people who talked to me just because I was
wearing a Canadian pin. I must say I find it heart-warning to
hear people say nice things about our great country. Canada is
highly regarded abroad.
A Canadian pin is a symbol of what Canada and Canadians are in
people's mind. When they see the Canadian flag, they see a
caring and generous country, where free citizens live in a
democratic society. It bears repeating, the flag represents
Canadians, and it is to them we must continue to pay tribute.
[English]
There is a number of questions we should be asking ourselves
regarding Bill C-401. Should Canada create a specific holiday
with the sole purpose of recognizing an important symbol of who
we are as a people and what we stand for as a nation? Or, should
we not focus greater attention on promoting ourselves through an
existing holiday, Canada Day, in such a manner whereby we could
focus greater attention on educating Canadians about our history
and the importance our flag has played in it?
On November 11 we celebrate Remembrance Day. For days leading
up to it and including Remembrance Day we hear countless stories
of the exploits of brave Canadians during both World War I and
World War II, along with those who fought in the Korean War and
our various peacekeeping missions.
These individuals fought and in many instances died so that we
could enjoy the freedom we have today. It is because of them
that we can fly our Canadian flag. Although in most instances
their exploits were done prior to the adoption of our official
Canadian flag, it does not diminish the significance of the
Canadian flag being flown during these ceremonies. The Canadian
flag is the embodiment of their struggle and sacrifice for the
country.
Do Canadians across the country want another national holiday?
Have the proponents of the bill actually held comprehensive
discussions with representatives of Canadian industry or boards
of trade to see just how another national holiday would affect
the Canadian economy? Can the Canadian economy support another
holiday? Canadian taxpayers may already believe there are too
many holidays. I am certain when approached they would likely
say that politicians already have too many days off.
Our fragile economy continues to struggle from the effects of
high taxes and high unemployment. The Liberal government
continues to refuse to reduce taxes which would help stimulate
growth in the economy. It is intent on continuing to gouge
Canadian workers for refusing to significantly reduce EI premiums
even though reports show that a greater reduction is possible and
necessary.
These are serious problems that Canadian taxpayers are facing on
a daily basis. Can they legitimately afford to sponsor another
holiday no matter how good or how just it might be?
1900
I think more consultation would be required from across the
country before we systematically created a new holiday.
I appreciate the most sincere attempt by my hon. colleague to
draw attention to the importance of our great flag. I commend
him for that. However, at the present time we can work within
the framework of already existing holidays to accomplish the same
goal.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for
Durham for bringing this issue to the floor of the House of
Commons for debate.
As he may be aware, in the past I presented a private member's
bill proposing the adoption of an oath of allegiance to the flag.
I share his passion and his love for our country and its symbols
which is why I felt it is important for me to speak on Bill
C-401.
I support the spirit of Bill C-401, an act to amend the Holidays
Act and make flag day a statutory holiday. I agree that flag day
is an important day and that it should be recognized.
The flag is what symbolizes our nation. It is bold and
represents our strength as a country. The maple leaf
demonstrates unity with the stem, the federal government, binding
the tips of the leaf, the provinces and territories, together.
It is an internationally respected symbol and an ambassador of
tolerance, peace and understanding. It is Canada.
Compared to those of other countries, our flag is quite young.
It was only 34 years ago that parliament debated the adoption of
a new flag. Imagine how exciting it would have been to see the
maple leaf flying over the Peace Tower for the very first time.
It is that excitement that I hope Canadians everywhere still feel
whenever they see our flag.
A teacher in my riding of Guelph—Wellington is working very
hard to make sure that our younger generations share that
enthusiasm for our national symbols. Joe Tersigni has put a
motion to the local Catholic separate school board that would
require every Catholic school in the district to raise and lower
the flag every single day. While this may seem like a normal
process or way of doing business, as far as Mr. Tersigni is
aware, no other school board in Canada has done this yet. This
simple action would go a long way in teaching respect for our
flag and our country. It would teach students that our flag is a
treasured emblem of our nation, one that must never be forgotten
or abused.
Mr. Tersigni's school, Our Lady of Lourdes, is hosting a special
ceremony on Monday to commemorate the adoption of this important
motion. On February 15, flag day, every Catholic school in
Guelph will raise a new Canadian flag and the students and
teachers of those schools will be reminded of all that it stands
for.
Canada is a young country with an even younger flag, but that
does not mean the maple leaf is not steeped in history and
significance. Just think of what we have accomplished in the 34
years since it was adopted.
We have developed the Canadarm, a tool that has been critical to
the success of many space missions. We have watched inspiring
individuals like Terry Fox and Rick Hansen venture across Canada
to raise awareness on very important causes. And we have twice
hosted the Olympics and won numerous medals. We have worked to
make and to keep peace in every corner of the globe. We have
repatriated our Constitution. We have officially adopted O Canada
as our national anthem. We have come into our own as a nation.
All under our own flag.
These are just a few of the reasons why I feel it is so very
important to recognize and celebrate flag day. I do feel that
flag day deserves more recognition and promotion than is
currently the case. If Canadians were to be polled, how many
could say why February 15 is a very important day?
Wendy Willis, a teacher at Crestwicke Christian Academy in
Guelph, recently brought her grade 4 class to citizenship court.
Each new Canadian was presented with a handmade valentine.
One of her students, Brad Lord, recited a poem welcoming the new
citizens and outlining all that Canada has to offer. The closing
line of his poem was “From coast to coast, it's all within
reach”. The new Canadians no doubt believe this statement or
they would not have chosen to make Canada their new home. The
students believe it too, because now they have seen firsthand how
special it is to be Canadian.
1905
I believe it is through initiatives such as those undertaken by
Mr. Tersigni and Ms. Willis that we can best educate Canadians to
appreciate all that we have and to the importance of our flag
day.
I would be remiss in not mentioning Joyce Hammond who two years
ago suggested to my office and myself that we should think of
doing an oath of allegiance to the Canadian flag. I put it
forward in this very House as a private member's bill. When I
did, over 500 municipal councils wrote to me, including a number
of them in Quebec, and said that they agreed with this premise,
that this should happen. Mr. Speaker, I put you on notice that I
will be reintroducing the bill at some point in time.
As I mentioned earlier, I sincerely thank my colleague, the hon.
member for Durham for proposing Bill C-401 because it gives us
all an excellent opportunity to promote flag day and to encourage
Canadians everywhere to take part in the celebrations. My hon.
colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage says it has been wonderful to promote Canada
Day and flag day and therefore I make special mention of him.
Whether it is by wearing a Canada flag pin on your lapel or
dressing in red and white, or attending a flag raising ceremony,
there are ways for everyone to show a little patriot love.
Canada truly is the greatest country in the world. Let us
celebrate it.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Durham. I advise the House that when the hon. member speaks, he
will close the debate.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we
have had a very useful debate today.
The members of the Bloc will not necessarily be supportive of
the legislation. It was interesting to listen to the member as
she talked about times when singing O Canada in that great
province and because of the flag's association with the monarchy
Quebecers felt that it was just too late to make that change, so
they opted for another flag, the flag of the province of Quebec.
I do not want to get into an argument about flags but the flag of
Quebec of course is a monarchical symbol, the monarchy of France,
so it seems unusual to me.
Similarly the New Democratic Party has its own wish list. It
wants to recognize the women's movement. As I listened to the
debate by the opposition I reflected and wondered what it must
have been like back in 1964 when everybody had some reason not to
proceed with the flag debate. They wanted to keep it the way it
way it was, and we should be honouring some other group within
our society. I am not saying that the member of the New
Democratic Party did not have a good argument, but the reality is
our flag unites all of us, women, men, everyone under one flag.
The member from the Reform Party thought that it was
inappropriate to have just one day for celebration, that we
should be celebrating this within our bodies every day. I
suppose we could say the same thing about Christmas which of
course is a national holiday. If one is a Christian why should
there be a Christian holiday called Christmas? It should be
something that is inside a person every day and there should not
be a specific statutory holiday for that reason. The reality is
that is what people have holidays for, to celebrate the things
they think are unique in life.
1910
The debate in the House is amazing. Other countries celebrate
flag days because they are proud of their countries: Argentina,
Finland, Haiti, Liberia, Panama, Paraguay, and the list goes on.
Yet here we have this intellectual debate about why we cannot
have a statutory holiday. I think that is unfortunate.
My concern was that it was not a votable motion. It would be
great to carry on this debate for another two hours. I wonder if
I could seek unanimous consent to continue the debate by making
it a votable motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
motion be made votable, as suggested by the hon. member?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary following
a question I posed back in November with respect to a shortage of
aviation inspectors.
My question was generated by a report put out by Price
Waterhouse, a very well respected consultant in Canada. In the
study it prepared it found that as the government moves from
being a hands-on regulator to more or less a monitor and as we go
through the deregulation process in the aviation industry there
is a significant and concerning shortage of aviation inspectors
to inspect aircraft and aviation facilities.
The study says that the growing wage gap between the private
sector and the department means that the department must either
choose between a shortage of inspectors or lower the
qualifications. This is no time to lower qualifications for
inspectors. It cites certain provinces in Canada that have
inspector shortages in their areas of up to 20%. It puts a
number on it and says there are 80 vacancies for inspector jobs
in Canada.
My question is in the interest of ensuring that aviation safety
is addressed on an ongoing basis. I feel it is, but I want to
make sure in this circumstance and for this case that the
minister is taking steps to ensure there is an adequate number of
aviation inspectors and that they have adequate training to do
the job.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that Transport
Canada recognized the recruitment and retention problem with the
technical inspector community. In October 1997 it commissioned
the Price Waterhouse review to help in resolving it.
Similar independent reviews are now under way of both the civil
aviation pilot inspector and the aircraft certification
engineering communities. It is also important to note that
Transport Canada has never downsized its number of aviation
inspectors. The number of positions has continually been
growing. The department has added 179 safety inspector positions
in the last five years.
Transport Canada has initiated a comprehensive program to deal
with identified problems through training, new recruitment
methods and reclassification. Approximately 66% of civil
aviation technical inspectors were reclassified after retraining.
Canada was one of the first developed countries to be assessed
under the International Civil Aviation Organization safety
oversight program in mid-October. We were in receipt of an
interim report and the results were very positive.
The interim report concludes that the civil aviation
organization of Transport Canada has established a very sound
structure for safety oversight. The staff has the proper
qualifications, is provided with appropriate training and has at
its disposal the proper tools to discharge its duties.
The interim report also notes that Transport Canada has launched
a number of initiatives to address recruitment and retention
issues including commissioning the Price Waterhouse review.
I look forward to making the final report public in the near
future—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
parliamentary secretary but his time has expired.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.)