37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 074
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 7, 2001
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1010
1015
1020
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1025
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1030
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1035
1040
| Motion
|
1120
(Division 127)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1125
| PATENT ACT
|
| Bill S-17. Third reading
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1130
1135
1140
1145
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1150
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1155
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1200
1205
1210
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1215
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1220
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1225
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1230
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1235
| Division on motion deferred
|
| FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-25. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| Motions Nos. 1 to 3 inclusive
|
1240
1245
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1250
1255
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1300
1305
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1310
1315
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1320
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
1325
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1330
1335
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1340
1345
| Mr. John Herron |
1350
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1355
1400
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| Division on motion deferred
|
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| TOURISM INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| NELSON MANDELA
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| TALL SHIPS
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1405
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| WILLIAM SAMPSON
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CRTC
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| SPINA BIFIDA AND HYDROCEPHALUS
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
1410
| BEAUPORT BAY
|
| SOCCER
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| ENVIRONMENT WEEK
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| ENVIRONMENT WEEK
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1415
| DR. STANLEY VOLLANT
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| ATLANTIC SALMON
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1435
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| WATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1450
| CANADA DAY
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. John Manley |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. John Herron |
1455
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1500
| Hon. David Anderson |
| SPORTS
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Talisman Energy
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1510
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Ted White |
1515
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-28. Third reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1520
1525
1530
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1535
1540
| Amendment
|
1545
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1550
1555
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1600
1605
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-23. Third reading
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1610
1615
| Mr. Scott Reid |
1620
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1640
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1645
1650
| Mr. James Rajotte |
1655
1700
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1705
1710
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-28. Third reading
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1715
1745
(Division 128)
| Amendment negatived
|
1755
(Division 129)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PATENT ACT
|
| Bill S-17. Third reading
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
(Division 130)
| Motion agreed to
|
| FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-25. Motion for concurrence
|
1800
(Division 131)
| Motion agreed to
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Motion
|
1805
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD DAY AND THE SIR WILFRID LAURIER DAY
|
| Bill S-14. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Godfrey |
1810
1815
| Mr. James Lunney |
1820
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1825
1830
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1835
1840
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1845
1850
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1855
1900
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1905
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1910
| Mr. Mark Assad |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 074
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 7, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table in the
House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
section of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie, as
well as the related financial report.
The report concerns the meeting of political committee held at
Port-Louis, Republic of Mauritius, from May 10 to 12, 2001.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to the House pursuant to
Standing Order 123(1), in both official languages, the second
report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations
concerning the revocation of section 58 of the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c.285. The text of the
relevant section of the regulations is contained in this report.
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I move
that the first report of the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs presented to the House on Tuesday,
March 20, be concurred in.
It is with mixed emotions
that I rise today to speak to this motion as it concerns an issue
very much in the minds of all Canadians.
The procurement process to replace the Sea King helicopters is
one that we have followed for some time but that has only
recently seized the attention of the House of Commons.
It was last May 18 that my colleague, the hon. member for
Compton—Stanstead, raised the prospect of this government using
the contract for political means. At that time, and then an
opposition member, my colleague, suggested that the government
had a secret agenda, an agenda that involved a specific company.
The government said that my colleague's claims were laughable.
The government said that there was no plan to place one
competitor above another.
Only three months ago the government introduced a procurement
process that was biased in favour of one company only. The
process introduced called for the lowest price compliant bid to
win the day, not taking into account whatsoever fleet commonality
or, more important, better value. This was when the treasury
board's own guidelines specifically urged all government
departments to abide by a best value criteria when launching a
procurement process.
1010
I have been told that in the strict legal interpretation of
Treasury Board guidelines 9.1.1 and 9.1.2, no laws have been
broken. However I must ask a question. Why did the government
choose to avoid the generally accepted practices that have guided
our military purchases in the past?
No matter whether it was a Liberal or Conservative government in
the past, it never followed those types of guidelines. We have
been told that it was to expand the number of Canadian bidders.
Yet in retrospect it is clear that only one wholly owned Canadian
company is in serious competition for any of the related
contracts.
That takes me to the second problem I have with this contract,
which is the fact that the government chose to split the contract
into two parts, one for the basic vehicle and another for the
critical mission systems. If I wanted to play politics with this
one, like some of my colleagues are, I would vote for that
because it would create some jobs in the province of New
Brunswick.
When I was taken out to dinner by the company I said that I
would only have a bowl of soup because no one buys me with
dinner. No one buys me with anything. To this date, no one
does. I guarantee that.
I want to also say right here and now that when it comes to the
men and women who wear uniforms, we should take the politics out
of it. We should give them the tools to do their jobs.
I am not an engineer. I do not have a full appreciation of the
technical difficulties that might come to pass as a result of
buying two independent products. However we all know the reason
this is being done. It is for political reasons because in 1993
the government of the day cancelled the EH-101 and wasted $800
million.
From what we have been told, this is the first such split
contract of its kind since the House of Commons has been in
place. The assistant deputy minister responsible said that this
was the first of its kind, which seems to me to be a very risky
proposition. We must give our Canadian Armed Forces the best
equipment to do their jobs, not only because it is the right
thing to do but because we give them complicated tasks that
always put them in harm's way.
I am unsure of the ethical or moral reasons that we would
put in place a procurement process that would buy the cheapest
helicopter but not necessarily the best. I have for some time
asked the government to reconsider the procurement process. One
potential bidder, E.H. Industries Ltd., has gone to the length of
filing a complaint with both the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal and the Federal Court of Appeal on this matter. The
company believes that by facing this competition on the lowest
price alone, it is at a significant disadvantage.
The House will recall that it was E.H. Industries that
manufactured the EH-101 purchased by the previous government. I
am sure the House will recall that in the election of 1993, as I
have stated, the issue of EH-101 featured prominently in all
debates. The House will certainly recall that the Prime Minister
held his pen up high and said that he would purchase no new
helicopters. Zero helicopters is what was said.
It seems very strange that the only red book promise that
has been kept by this government was the one promise that related
to these helicopters. The GST, free trade and a range of other
promises were quickly forgotten.
I hope the government is not choosing to instigate a procurement
process that would prejudice E.H. Industries' helicopter, the
Cormorant, solely on the basis that it was the successful bidder
10 years ago.
1015
What makes this issue so important to us all is that the
helicopters currently in use are so dangerous. Some of the
pilots have already lost their lives, just outside my city. Some
of the parents of the pilots came to see me. They asked me to
take up their cause and force the government's hand in this
regard.
The Sea Kings have given yeoman service to this country for
almost 40 years, and they have earned their retirement. I have
great compassion for the men and women in uniform who must use
the Sea Kings on a daily basis.
The Minister of National Defence has repeatedly said that unsafe
helicopters will not fly, but cannot explain why our choppers go
down in places like Hawaii, East Timor, and even on the coast of
Nova Scotia. If we cannot predict when a Sea King is safe, how
then do we know which ones to fly? How can the minister make
this guarantee?
At the end of the day, I believe the Minister of National
Defence and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
will have a lot to answer for in this process. I believe the
Canadian people are sick and tired of the government playing
politics when it should be watching the backs of our Canadian
forces personnel and doing what is right for them.
When I was mayor of Saint John I did a number of major capital
purchases, so I can speak with some experience when I say that
this contract process is wrong. It is unfair and places bidders
at a significant disadvantage. Whenever we have the public
challenges to a procurement process, as we have seen with the
maritime helicopter program, we know that something is amiss.
I am pleased, therefore, that in the next sitting of our
parliament the other place will undertake a committee of the
whole to review this entire process. I applaud our colleagues in
the other place for their diligence to duty and their courage. It
is my hope that in the consideration of the Sea King and the
challenges we face in replacing them, we look in the mirror and
recognize we have a duty larger than just helping out some of our
friends.
Page 30 of the procurement study also refers to the fact that
the Government of Canada should convene a national round table on
shipbuilding in Canada with a view to establishing a national
shipbuilding policy. We brought that report in asking for a
national shipbuilding policy in June 2000. We said there should
be a naval shipyard in Canada where we would build all our navy
ships. We should not be buying used submarines in London,
England, only to find out they cannot float, then pay $800
million to try to get them to float. That is an insult to our
men and women in uniform.
Having sat on the defence committee since 1993, I am really
worried when I see what the government has done and the politics
it has played with our military. The duty of government is
clear. The recommendations of this all party procurement study
by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs are clear, and our job is very clear. There was
unanimous all party support for the procurement study of June
2000, yet here it is June 2001, a year later, and the government
did not even listen to its own people who chaired the committee.
I say let us do what is right. The government has not done
anything that is right when it comes to the military. Men who
flew home from Kosovo were asked to take their boots off so they
could be given to those men who were getting on the planes to fly
to Kosovo. If we cannot afford a pair of boots for our men and
women in the military, that is a shame.
1020
I am ashamed of what we are doing with the helicopter
procurement process which is being used. I ask the government
today to please take the politics out of it, put out a tender,
allow everyone to bid, and then bring in its recommendations.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the part of this equation that the Canadian public does
not understand is the $497 million it cost the taxpayer to buy
out the lawsuit. When the present government cancelled the
original helicopter deal after the 1993 election, it did so at a
huge cost to the taxpayers. It cost taxpayers a half a billion
dollars to cancel a deal which the Liberals raged against in the
election, for no other reason than pure politics.
I want to ask the member for Saint John for her impression of
whether or not that is the number, and how many lives the
cancellation of this deal has cost? When can we expect
helicopters, given the present set of circumstances under which
we are operating and given the government's position?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, defence has been
determined that over $800 million has been spent because of the
cancellation of the EH-101 contract. Now not all the Sea Kings
can be replaced. There will be fewer helicopters than what we
had when all Sea Kings were flying.
I have major concerns. When we put the amount of money which
has been spent trying to keep these old helicopters flying on top
of what it cost to cancel out, it will cost taxpayers more in the
end to get a helicopter that cannot fly the distance a Sea King
can. I have major concerns about what is taking place here
today.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it seems to me that what the hon. member for Saint John
and her colleagues are saying is quite true, that this was the
object of some politics in 1993. I remember it very well.
There were good reasons to be against the EH-101 contract, but
the fact remains that the Liberals having cancelled that contract
and having paid a very hefty price for doing so, then did not do
what should have followed from that, and that was to act
expeditiously to get some other helicopters. That is the main
point here, not trying to relive 1993.
The biggest fault of the Liberals is not that they kept that one
election promise. They kept it not because they are promise
keepers but because they wanted a few high profile promises to
keep so they could then break a whole bunch of other promises
with impunity. However that is neither here nor there. The real
tragedy of this is that they have taken eight years to replace
the EH-101s and we are still a long way off from replacing those
helicopters.
That is the real tragedy, the real crime which has been
committed by the Liberal government. The people who depend upon
those helicopters in the armed services and people who might
depend upon them in various situations will still be waiting
years from now thanks to the fact that the Liberals did not
complete the process. When having cancelled the EH-101 contract,
they should have then proceeded expeditiously to replace them
with other helicopters.
1025
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, from the information we
have been receiving through national defence, it could be the
year 2007. Some have said 2005. Think about that. That is
unbelievable. We are not going to have any helicopters flying at
all. I cannot believe that anyone—
An hon. member: He said we do not need them.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Who said they do not need them? That
is sad. I cannot imagine how the members on the government side
can sit there with smiles on their faces and not be worried about
jeopardizing lives of people in the military. I cannot believe
that I see that happening in the House this morning.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a wonderful place for bombast to be continued. I
recognize that a lot of members engage in it so that the practice
will not go into disuse. However, in the course of generating
the necessary requirements for engaging in bombast, we sometimes
overstep the bounds, as I said the other day, of reason.
We have on the table an order that will be delivered for 15
search and rescue Cormorants which will replace some of the
equipment that the members opposite are saying is obsolete, even
though it is still functional.
For the member to suggest that there will not be a delivery of
equipment that is world class, necessary and appropriate for
Canada's needs is to engage in bombast of the worst variety.
Maybe she should reflect on the negatives that she is putting
forward by perpetuating this perception and a wrong-headed view
of what is going on.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I have this
opportunity to respond. It shows that those on the government
side do not understand what has been happening. What he is
talking about now is the replacement of the Labradors, not the
Sea Kings, which are still flying, and they are going to have
less numbers than before.
Do members want to know what happened to the fishing problem in
Newfoundland, for heaven's sake? The government did not have Sea
Kings that could look after the 200 mile limit. Foreign ships
were coming in and dragging the bottom of the ocean. All these
things have had a negative impact, and they sat there. This has
been strictly politics, nothing more than that.
The only reason the government and those who were elected in
1993 said they would cancel the EH-101 was because they thought
it was a popular thing to do, not the right thing to do, to get
votes.
The government should go and talk to those men and women in the
military like the rest of us do and see how they feel. They are
not allowed to come in here and say anything. They are not
allowed to open their mouths, so I am here to tell the government
what they are telling us.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear the hon. member for Saint
John try to clarify some of the misperceptions and the misnomers
about what happened.
This contract was cancelled in 1993 for blatant political
reasons, and it has been perpetuated. The real crime in all of
this, to use the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona's words, is
the further delay, the further politics which are going on with
deliberate attempts to not buy the same helicopters, and having
to display some hubris or eat their own words. We have an
attempt to split the contract to somehow try to avoid buying the
same helicopters.
The hon. member opposite spoke of the Cormorant. That was the
stripped down version of the EH-101. The Prime Minister can talk
with great distinction about the costs that are being saved. What
about the cost in human lives? What about the cost of those
airmen and airwomen who are flying them? What about the costs of
those who are at jeopardy at sea or in some emergency situation
and these current helicopters are unable to aid them the way they
are supposed to?
1030
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague has
stated is the exact the position we are in.
I am going to speak from the heart. The hon. member referred to
the fact that we are talking about lives. I want all members in
the House today to think about their own child or grandchild who
may be a pilot on one of the Sea Kings. We would not want a
family member to be a pilot on one of the Sea Kings today.
If we want to continue to do peacekeeping, we must equip our
armed forces with the best tools available so they can do what
they need to do.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have begun today in routine proceedings with a motion to adopt a
defence committee report that was tabled not long ago in
connection with helicopter acquisitions by the military.
It is clear from the debate so far, although we have really only
had the one speaker from the Progressive Conservative Party, that
the PC Party still appears to be apologizing for the EH-101
helicopter deal that was in place in 1993. It has been indicated
that the contract was cancelled for political reasons. My
recollection was that the contract was cancelled for what we
regarded as blatant profligacy.
At the time the contract was in play, Canada had a $43 billion
deficit, not to mention the accruing debt. Financially it simply
was not sound. The equipment that was intended to be purchased,
was a helicopter that many regarded as very capable and
multi-tasked in terms of its role, but really a Cadillac capable
of filling many different roles and perhaps more roles than we
needed. Therefore, the decision was made by the Liberal
government, which was elected in the fall of 1993, to cancel the
contract.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Cancel the pay raise.
Mr. Derek Lee: We have obviously touched a cord here with
the Progressive Conservatives.
The other issue I want to bring up at this time has to do with
this envelope of equipment acquisition by the Department of
National Defence, specifically helicopters. We all know that the
military has been acquiring new helicopters for about five to ten
years. It was necessary to replace virtually all its equipment
but we were not going to do it in one day.
The first helicopter equipment to be replaced was the HU series,
sometimes known as the Huey helicopter. These were 1950s and
1960s vintage helicopters and they were replaced with the Griffon
helicopter. Those deliveries were commenced and completed over a
period two to four years ago. The Griffon helicopter is
successfully fulfilling its new role in the Canadian armed
forces.
We then got to the search and rescue helicopter, which is a land
based dedicated search and rescue piece of equipment. We have
been flying a Labrador twin rotor helicopter on both coasts for
many years. It is manufactured by Boeing and is a good piece of
equipment. It has stood the test of time but it has outlived its
lifespan.
After the cancellation of the EH-101 in 1993-94, the government
commenced the acquisition process for a replacement of the
Labradors. That particular replacement is known as the
Cormorant.
1035
As everyone will realize, a period of time is required to
commission a replacement, design it and get it constructed. These
are custom designed pieces of military equipment for particular
countries. Canada wants a certain helicopter that will do a
certain job. The frame of the helicopter is essentially off the
shelf but the components and the equipment necessary to allow
that equipment to do its specific role has to be customized and
prepared carefully. The process of replacing the Labradors is
underway.
We are just a few weeks away from the delivery of the first
search and rescue Cormorant. I am hopeful that Canadians will
get a chance to see the first one on the front page of one of the
newspapers. This process has been in play for approximately five
years. I remember, as other colleagues will, when that contract
was being dealt with by the government. We had a number of
incessant repeated questions from the opposition in question
period, scrutinizing, questioning and criticizing the process of
acquiring that particular replacement helicopter. That process
is virtually completed now. Deliveries are imminent and I am
looking forward to the first delivery, as are the armed forces.
The member opposite put her hand on her heart. As people, do we
care about the men and women who fly this equipment? Of course
we do. We have replaced the Hueys, we are about to replace the
Labradors and now we are embarking on the replacement of the Sea
Kings, which are old inventions as well.
I would like to point out that Canada is not the only country
flying Sea Kings. A lot of countries, including NATO countries
are flying Sea Kings. All of us know they are outrageously
expensive to maintain, which is one of the reasons why we are
replacing them, but they have served their role well.
None of our armed forces personnel will fly in an unsafe Sea
King, nor will any member of any armed forces of any country.
They are all safe to fly. It is one of the reasons it costs so
much to maintain them. To maintain them properly so that they
are safe and effective in their role takes a lot of bucks and a
lot of downtime, but when they fly, they are safe.
Once in a while we have a Sea King that gets a flat tire. My
own automobile gets a flat tire from time to time. I do my best
to maintain it. I drive it safely and our military flies its Sea
Kings safely.
Now we are in a process of replacing the Sea Kings. The
government has made a decision to enhance the prospects for
competition, in part to ensure that we get the best price
available. As I said earlier, the frame for the new helicopter
will probably come off the shelf from a multinational aviation
company that produces helicopters and it could be one in Canada.
The components and equipment that go into the helicopter for its
maritime purpose and to primarily fly off the back end of a naval
ship, among other roles, has to be carefully designed and sourced
among competitive sources for price. Therefore, the contract has
been split in two. Rather than being stuck with a situation
where we might have had one, two or three sole source suppliers
for one contract, we now have approximately 13 potential
suppliers for various components of the replacement helicopter.
As we go forward, I fully expect the opposition to ask many
questions and allege many things about the process here. I would
just like all of us to get a grip and to understand the
perspective. We are irrevocably embarked on an acquisition
process to replace the Sea King helicopter. We will get one as
soon as we can for the best price that we can, and we will get
the best possible equipment that we can.
1040
If the only window the public gets on the acquisition process is
questions in question period with 30 second answers, maybe we
should have a debate sometime in the House on the whole process
and on the military equipment, but that would be up to colleagues
in the House on both sides and House leaders. However, right now
today we have other business. Therefore, I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the members.
1120
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Manley
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 153
|
NAYS
Members
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Chatters
| Clark
| Comartin
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duncan
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hearn
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 83
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1125
[English]
PATENT ACT
The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that
Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, for the sake of the House and those interested in the
process and in patent law, I will go through some of the
technical reasons the bill is before the House. It is a bill
that our party is supporting, much to the surprise I suppose of
many across the way. It is not often that we stand in this place
and support a bill brought in by the government.
Following a recent World Trade Organization ruling, the bill was
introduced to bring Canada's patent laws into conformity with our
trade obligations. Under the bill, all patents would last 20
years beyond the date applications are filed. Currently patents
filed prior to October 1, 1989, under the old act, expire 17
years after the date they were granted. We are talking about a
three year extension of the Patent Act.
Bill S-17 would not apply to patents that have already lapsed so
the arguments we have heard in the House regarding that do not
apply. As well, in cases where the old rule provides a longer
period of protection than the new rule, the old rule would still
apply. This would happen in cases where more than three years
have passed between the time a patent application was filed and
the time it was granted.
Bill S-17 would repeal subsection 55.2(2) of the Patent Act
which has allowed for stockpiling of a product prior to the
expiry of the patent.
When we talk about patent protection, what are we talking about?
We are talking about copyright laws that would apply, for
example, to writers, other artists, inventors and so on. Patents
give their holders time to benefit from their research and ideas
and from the money they have spent in developing them. In other
words, they give them time to profit from their work, in many
cases good work.
In this case we are talking about patent drug laws. We are
talking about sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars being
invested by drug companies to develop new drugs to help combat
disease and prevent death. They do that at great expense. By
refusing to invest here until we modernized our patent laws,
these companies were sending a signal to Canada that they would
not build factories and research facilities here unless they had
patent protection to prevent others from copying what they do.
1130
Research communities in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and other
parts of Canada, not just in big cities but in smaller areas,
were being denied the benefits of that type of research and the
jobs and prosperity it brings.
The opposition parties in 1987, the major opposition party at
the time being of course the Liberal Party, raged against the
legislation we brought in, Bill C-22, the first act we brought in
to protect patents.
In 1992 we did the same thing again and made further changes to
improve the intellectual property protection given to
pharmaceutical companies while strengthening the powers of the
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Canada. The argument that
the Liberal Party and the NDP waged at the time was that it would
increase drug prices.
In a very basic sense, the Liberals asked us why we would
provide drug companies with patent protection which would not
allow generic companies to copy their products and which would
outlaw copycat drugs for 20 years. They said that it would not
help or enhance the health care system but that it would hurt and
harm it. They said that it was the wrong thing to do.
The Liberals at the time, including the present Minister of
Industry, who is now spearheading the bill through the House,
argued that it would be wrong and railed against it. We have had
many quotes in the House over the last number of days. Some of
the quotes come from famous statements the present minister then
made in committee and on the floor of the House railing against
the very bill he now supports.
The truth is that what we did then, although some might
disagree, and I know that even some government members disagree
with the present bill, was the right thing. We created thousands
of jobs in the pharmaceutical research industry in Canada. The
evidence is there. Members opposite will tell us that the goal
of the bill was exceeded in terms of jobs and investment in
Canada.
We often talk about the brain drain, and there are a number of
reasons for it. Obviously one of them is our tax regime. Unless
we bring our tax regime in line with our partner to the south we
will always have people leaving Canada to go where they will be
rewarded for their work and not taxed to death. To a degree that
argument is true, although there are other things that hold
people in Canada simply because of our style of life.
Considering the health care and other benefits we have in Canada,
not everyone is attracted by high wages and low taxes.
We are losing a lot of top notch people to the south who go to
work for pharmaceutical and research companies in the United
States. The bill we introduced in 1987, Bill C-22 at the time,
followed by Bill C-91 in 1992, completely stopped the transfer of
talent from Canada to the United States. They worked.
The strengthening of the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board
Canada also worked. As evidence of that, in the United States
today there is a raging debate about drug prices and the high
cost of patent medicines. Why are they so much higher in the
United States than in Canada?
Mr. Dan McTeague: There is a 40% exchange rate.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Considering the exchange rate, and I
know the member for—
Mr. Dan McTeague: Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. There is a
40% difference between Canada and the United States.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, please take note of the
member on the other side of the House who is speaking and allow
him to get up during questions and comments. I will deal with
that when the debate is over.
1135
The truth is that, excluding exchange rates, drug prices in
Canada are cheaper and for a number of reasons. One is the
strengthening of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board
Canada. The other, which I think even the legal minds on the
government side of the House would recognize, is that in Canada
litigation does not play as big a part in the overall cost of a
drug as in the United States.
Our legislation worked in the past and it is working today. The
result is that we have lower drug prices than many industrialized
countries.
I will go through Tuesday's debate to point out what my NDP
colleague next to me, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, had
to say. On page 4651 of June 5, 2001 Hansard she said:
Mr. Speaker, the question about the profitability of brand name
drug companies is a very important one because members of the
four parties who support Bill S-17 feel that the excessive
profits of these drug companies should be allowed to become even
more exorbitant. Profits for brand name drug companies are
already triple the industrial average and this industry is
probably the second, if not the first, fastest growing industry
in Canada.
The member went on to talk about high drug prices in Canada.
However facts point to something different. We do not have the
highest drug prices in the world in Canada. If we compare drug
prices in Canada to drug prices in other industrial nations, we
are at the lower end of the scale and not the higher end.
The bill we passed is working and the current bill will work
because we must provide intellectual protection for this type of
research to happen.
For example, a new drug called Gleevec was just approved in the
United States. I am not sure how long it will be before it is
approved in Canada. It is a new cancer fighting drug that was
brought to market at a huge cost. It cost hundreds of million of
dollars in research to bring the drug on line. It is being used
to cure some forms of leukemia.
In strictly layman's terms, Gleevec attaches itself only to
cancer cells. It does not destroy good cells as does a lot of
chemotherapy, hence the significant side effects of being treated
for cancer. Not only are patients cured but they do not have the
extreme nausea and sickness that comes with normal chemotherapy
treatment. That is a huge advancement and it saves lives. The
question is, would the drug be on the market today if the
company, Norvartis, had not been given patent protection? The
simple answer is no. We would not have the drug.
Another drug, Retuxin, was brought in by another huge
international drug company. The company spent hundreds of
millions of dollars to develop the drug, which helps those who
suffer from non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other cancers. That is a
huge cost.
1140
Hoffmann-La Roche brought that drug online and waited for months
for it to be approved in Canada. Again, it saves countless lives
and frees up our health care system because it means that we can
take a drug at home and be cured outside of the hospital. That
is a net saving to the system. The truth is that we will either
use that drug or something else that has been around for a few
years but has not proven to be as effective. Obviously this is
like anything else, supply and demand, but the truth is that this
type of research will dry up unless these companies have the
protection they deserve. That is what the bill would do.
That is why the industry minister has had to swallow his own
words on the bill. I want to quote the industry minister. This
is the quote that usually sets the members on the government side
ballistic. This is what they call an about turn, an about face,
a complete reversal of position.
Why did it occur? One of the reasons was of course that the
Liberal Party went from opposition to government. It is sort of
like a lynching in the morning: it kind of focuses the mind.
Once in government the Liberals then say there are certain
realities they have to deal with when they are in government. One
is that they just simply cannot hide from the truth. When
something is working they have to embrace it even if they have to
do a complete flip-flop on it. Obviously the GST was one of
those realities. Of course they are trying to do a complete
about face on the helicopter deal and so on and so forth. We
could rage on forever on this one.
The fact is that the minister changed his mind. Why? Because
he was wrong. This is what the Minister of Industry, the former
premier of Newfoundland, often referred to as Mini-Me, had to say
about the bill a few years ago. If only I were a good mimic. I
can see the hands waving now. He said:
It is inconceivable to me that Parliament finds it necessary yet
again to deal with yet another measure proposed by the Government
because it is bound and chained to some ideological dictate which
says this kind of Patent Act is necessary.
He went on to say that we would be taking money out of the
pockets of old age pensioners and so on and so forth, that we
were basically robbing the people blind by giving the patent
protection act some thought here in the House of Commons. The
idea was that it would pass at a huge cost to the Canadian
public. He has eaten those words because we have the
pharmaceutical jobs in Montreal, Toronto and other parts of
Canada to prove that we were right and he was wrong.
I will give the minister some credit. He did stand up in Geneva
not too long ago at a World Trade Organization meeting and say
that Prime Minister Mulroney was right in terms of the free trade
agreement at the time. He basically said that he railed as a
member of the Liberal Party but time has proven that Mulroney was
right, the Conservative Party was right, that free trade does
work.
We have to give him credit for that. That is much more than
just about every member sitting on the government side today
would do. They railed against it. The fact is that the Canadian
economy has expanded dramatically because of that free trade
agreement, not to mention the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
Now we have a bill that would do the same thing, which the
government of course now embraces, with the exception of some of
the members now in the House.
This is Liberal logic at its worst. I have taken the time to
identify some of those members who have actually stood up in
their places in the House and railed against this bill. They
have actually railed against the very bill that the minister has
now on the floor of the House, Bill S-17.
1145
The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge railed against the bill
the other day in the House, as did the members for
Toronto—Danforth and Eglinton—Lawrence, but guess what? When
push comes to shove and it comes down to the final vote, every
one of those members will be standing like lame ducks, voting in
support of the very bill they railed against in the House. It
almost reminds me of the free trade debate.
The member the other day said that we Conservatives air our
dirty laundry in public. That is true. We do air our dirty
laundry. The difference is that those people wear their dirty
laundry year after year.
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I realize
there is a lot of interest in asking questions of the hon. member
on the other side of the floor. We are all very interested in
this issue and the bottom line is the high cost to our taxpayers
and our consumers out there. That is what is of interest to all
of us.
When the issue was before the Senate, the Conservative members
of the House were also very concerned about the issues of
compliance and the regulations. Can I gather from the comments
the hon. member made that in the fall when the minister comes
forth to the industry committee and to parliament, as he has
indicated he will do, the member would support a complete and
thorough review of those regulations?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, we would support a
complete airing of any issue, unlike the party opposite.
It is a good and very thoughtful question. It allows me in
response to talk about a private member's bill I introduced in
the House entitled Bill C-338. The NDP House leader has been
quoted—it will show up in Hansard—as saying that it is
exciting. It is indeed exciting. I thank the leader of the NDP.
It is an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding the
process of approval for new drugs. That is one of the things the
government has to look at in addition to this bill.
The member for Eglinton—Lawrence, I think it is—I can never
get these Toronto ridings right, there are just too many Liberals
in Toronto—is right in some of what he says. I do not want to
discount that. On a very serious note, some of what he is saying
is absolutely right. One of the problems, which I think the
government will recognize, is the fact that the drug approval
process in Canada is excruciatingly slow and very cumbersome.
The truth is that the delay in the approval of drugs in Canada
costs consumers a lot of money. In fact it most likely costs us
lives. For example, it will be months before the new cancer
fighting drug Gleevec, which I mentioned earlier, will be
approved in Canada, at a big cost to the health care system and
individual lives. That is what Bill C-338 would do. It outlines
a process under which we could move the approval process along a
little faster. The bill does not suggest something that has not
been proven. It would be modelled after the European Union
example.
That is very important, because used in conjunction with this
drug it would actually accomplish much more than would be
possible with this present piece of legislation.
1150
In private conversations with the health minister he agrees with
me. The health minister says “Listen, Mr. Thompson”—or Greg
or whatever he calls me on that particular day and sometimes he
is not quite that polite—“the truth is I think it is a good
bill”. However, the money to get this new process going within
Health Canada means he would have to take money from one part of
the department and put it into another.
The truth is that it is something we have to examine. In this
whole process the trick is to move these drugs onto the market as
safely and as quickly as we can, but following experiences of
other nations. If we are part of that bigger community in terms
of trading partners, we should be able to share some of that
basic scientific evidence which allows those countries to use
these very drugs that are being delayed in Canada under the
approval process.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the member for New
Brunswick Southwest struggling to defend an untenable position. I
have a great deal of respect for my colleague as a person. It is
his policies that we have a great deal of difficulty with.
I am sure hon. members would find it interesting to observe this
debate and note that it is the Conservatives in the Chamber who
are promoting the position of subsidies for the wealthy and
public assistance for the corporate sector, while we New
Democrats in the House are pushing hard for competition in the
drug sector to ensure that prices remain reasonable and our
health care system is sustained and supported.
My question for the member is as follows. He will recall that
prior to his former leader, Brian Mulroney, we had a reasonable
system in place which included compulsory licensing and
reasonable limitations on patent protection. Since the Mulroney
era and the beginning of the end of proper and decent public
policy in this regard, we have seen drug prices increase in the
last decade alone by almost 100%.
Surely the member realizes what that does to people's access to
necessary medications. Surely he understands that the return for
that kind of public investment in brand name drug companies is
not at all commensurate with the development of innovative drugs
and breakthroughs for health care in Canada.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that shows members how
much civility there is in the Chamber from time to time. Here we
are side by each and we can agree to disagree.
However members knows they are in trouble when a member stands
up and says that it was an interesting speech or that it was
interesting to listen to, because that is basically the end of
the good news.
The member used the term reasonable. She was talking about a
reasonable solution to the problem, saying that we had a
reasonable law prior to 1987 and prior to the patent law. We did
not. It did not work. It was not reasonable.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Oh balderdash.
Mr. Greg Thompson: The evidence is the fact that
companies were leaving Canada and refused to invest in Canada.
The truth is that the research community in Canada was suffering.
The truth is that there has been a completely turnaround in
regard to that.
The other fact, as true as I am standing here, is that drug
prices in Canada are lower than they are in the United States,
lower than they are in most European countries, and they are
saving lives. There is a cost to research and there is a cost to
not doing something. We can sit down and go on forever with what
we have, but if there is a way to improve it a government takes a
risk and does it. That is what we did. That is what the present
government is doing and I applaud it for that. We need the
research. We need those new drugs and we need those lives saved.
It is as simple as that.
1155
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know time is of the essence,
so I will be very brief. I listened to the comments of the
member for New Brunswick Southwest. The bill would bring the
Patent Act into compliance with the World Trade Organization. I
think most people would accept that.
I think the 20 year patent protection is very appropriate, but
there are generic companies in my riding that talk about the
notice of compliance regulations which, they say, provide these
companies with another three years of patent protection. I know
that regulatory issues are not really tied to the legislation,
but I am sure the member for New Brunswick Southwest has made a
holistic study of the issue.
Does he support the notice of compliance regulations which
appear to add more time to the 20 year patent protection? This
is a provision that was brought in by his own government in 1993,
so I assume that he may support it on that basis alone. I wonder
if he has any policy rationale for that.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, basically a lot of what
could happen could actually happen within the bureaucracy, if we
talk to people who know the issue within the government.
These timely reviews of drug submissions are very important, but
the fact is that we are lagging behind the rest of the
industrialized world, notably the United States and European
countries. I am suggesting that we follow the same model that is
followed in the European Union. It is not new and it is not
innovative. It is basically the bill that I have written. We
took a hard look at the process in Europe versus the process here
in Canada. We are suggesting that without too much money and
without a lot of time we can actually change and improve it. When
we do that I think it will be good not only for consumers but for
the companies involved as well, and certainly for our health care
system.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I think the debate on Bill S-17 is very helpful for those
Canadians who may be listening by helping people to see more
clearly the kind of ideological and policy monoculture that we
have here in the House of Commons.
The member for New Brunswick Southwest remarked on the fact that
he as a Conservative was supporting the bill brought in by the
Liberal government. The implication was that this was somehow
exceptional or aberrant or not something that he would normally
be inclined to do, but I beg to differ.
When it comes to Bill S-17, to the extent that Bill S-17 is part
of a larger way of looking at the world, looking at the economy,
looking at the relationship between property and health, I think
that in fact there is a great deal of agreement between not just
the Conservatives and the Liberals on this, but among the
Conservatives, the Liberals, the Alliance and the Bloc, with
really only the NDP standing out as a party prepared to defend
human health and the Canadian public interest over and against
the property rights, as they are delineated in patent law, of
multinational pharmaceutical companies.
Some people would criticize us for this. They would say that we
are not accepting enough of various economic realities. When
they say that what they are really saying is that we have not
accepted that the power of the multinational pharmaceutical
companies should be a power that is acceded to in the way that
all our other political colleagues have.
The member for New Brunswick Southwest cited the fact that in
1987 a Conservative government, long before the WTO and even the
NAFTA and the FTA, had moved to change the compulsory licensing
system we had in this country by which generic drugs were able to
be produced after only two years.
1200
My memory of that system is that it worked very well. My memory
of that system is that it coincided with a time in which health
care costs in Canada were not soaring in the way they are soaring
now. One of the reasons health care costs are soaring now is the
soaring price of drugs.
The Conservative member might want to argue that there is some
kind of differential between the price of drugs in Canada and the
price of drugs in the United States. If that is true, that can
hardly be blamed or credited to the fact that we got rid of our
generic drug licensing system because the United States has
exactly the same system. It is an argument that does not make
much sense to me.
The point I want to make is that at least with the Conservatives
we kind of know what we are getting. In 1987 they did not hide
behind a free trade agreement, a North American free trade
agreement or the World Trade Organization. They said this was
what they believed. I think it was done largely in the interests
of big multinational pharmaceutical companies located in Quebec
at the time.
Nevertheless it was also consistent with their philosophy, with
their ideology, having to do with property rights, patent rights
and the right of people to exploit each other in the marketplace,
which is one of their fundamental beliefs. They did not hide
behind any agreement although there was some suspicion at the
time that they were setting the stage for the Canada-U.S. free
trade agreement, that in effect it was some form of laying the
groundwork for that agreement.
Leaving that aside, at least they were acting on the up and up,
so to speak. In 1987 when they did this, and of course during
the free trade agreement in 1988 and even leading up to and
including the debate on NAFTA, we had many crocodile tears from
Liberals, crocodile tears of opposition to what the Conservatives
were doing.
Yet the Liberals went on to sign the NAFTA. They went on to
join the WTO and to be part of a system which now enforces the
very thing they said they were against in 1987 when the Tories
first moved to get rid of our generic drug laws.
We have a kind of political monoculture in which the power of
property and the power of corporations are ultimate. Whatever
they want they seem to get. It has been particularly tragic for
our health care system. As the member for Winnipeg North Centre
has pointed out time and time again, the price of drugs has gone
up some 100% in the last decade or so. This what is breaking our
health care system.
There are other stresses on our health care system: the
demographic situation, the development of new technologies and
the development of higher expectations. All kinds of things are
putting pressure on our health care system, but it is very clear
that the price of drugs is one of the main stresses on our
system, so much so that it not only stresses the system but it
changes the system.
One of the reasons people are being sent home earlier from
hospital is that the hospitals do not want to pick up the cost of
drugs. As soon as they go home they are on their own. They may
have some kind of provincial or private plan or they may not, or
it may not be a very good plan. Both the system itself is being
stressed by the high price of drugs and people themselves are
being stressed economically and psychologically by the high price
of drugs.
We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. We are
really not talking about virtue when we think that the same drug
companies the member for New Brunswick Southwest rose to defend
were trying to hold out for their right to make hundreds of
millions of dollars on drugs that treat AIDS. They wanted to be
paid in Africa exactly what they were paid in a clinic in
downtown Toronto for those drugs.
1205
They have finally backed off, but did they back off out of the
goodness of their hearts or did they back off because it was a
public relations disaster? I guess in the end, at one level
anyway, it does not really matter. The fact is they backed off
and perhaps we will be able to get some of those life saving
drugs to the people in Africa who need them.
On a much smaller scale that reality plays itself out across the
world, even in the industrialized world and with respect to
diseases other than AIDS. We have a system which puts the
profits of these companies foremost in the minds of public policy
makers.
The argument is that this leads to more research, which leads to
newer drugs, et cetera, but I am not convinced that in order to
get the kind of research we want in the development of newer more
effective drugs, something of which we are all in favour, we need
the kind of regime that is now in place through the WTO and to
which the bill is responding.
We are very much opposed to the regime that has been set up at
the WTO through what is called the TRIPS agreement. That is one
of the acronyms we find in WTO negotiations and discussions about
the WTO. TRIPS means trade related intellectual property and is
one of the tables at the WTO.
There will be further attempts to exploit the kind of knowledge
that people arrive at through research to patent things that in
our judgment should not be patented. The unfortunate part of the
debate is that there has not been enough opportunity to go into
the ways in which that will happen. The drug patenting system is
a foreshadowing of what the multinational corporations would like
to do in a whole lot of other areas, particularly with respect to
biotechnology, gene therapy, et cetera. What we have in the
patenting of drugs is a paradigm or a model for what they would
like to see happen with respect to a whole lot of other
treatments.
I met not so long ago with some people in the medical community
in Winnipeg who were very concerned, and they have written to the
Minister of Health about it, that once various gene therapies
have become patented they will not only be bad in principle, to
the extent that I do not think these kinds of things should be
patented, but may also again drive up the cost of health care in
Canada. To the extent these therapies become more and more
accepted as ways of treating certain conditions, if it is the
case that every time it is used in a Canadian hospital some kind
of royalty has to be paid to a multinational corporation, that in
itself will drive up the cost of health care.
There are some related issues which we have not had a chance to
debate as much as we would have liked. The government is intent
on getting the legislation through. We understand that; there is
a deadline it has to meet. Is it not interesting that we as a
parliament, a sovereign parliament, are having to do certain
things that are required of us by the WTO?
That is really what many people are concerned about. They are
concerned about the fact that what once would have been a matter
of national public policy making, what once would have been a
matter of domestic decision making, what once would have been a
matter for the Canadian parliament to decide, is now a matter for
the WTO to decide. It is now a matter for unelected trade
bureaucrats and trade lawyers to decide. It is now a matter for
them to decide on the basis of rules designed by and for the
multinational corporations to protect their investments and to
protect their profit strategies.
We cannot figure out what is democratic about that.
1210
I listened to my colleagues on the right, both in the
Conservative Party and in the Alliance. They sometimes talk
about the way they do not like the power of parliament being
usurped by the courts. They are very concerned about the power
of parliament being eroded. Yet they do not seem concerned at
all with the power of parliament being usurped and eroded by
international global and regional trade agreements.
Why is that? Why is there a double standard when it comes to
the loss of parliament's power? I would like that to be
explained to me some day by my colleagues on the right. Why are
they so eager to support the Liberals in their abdication of
their power through their complicity in the WTO, NAFTA, the MAI
had it passed, and the GATS discussions coming at the WTO?
Why are governments around the world, some unwillingly but
apparently willing when it comes to Liberal, Conservative and
Alliance members in Canada, so willing to give up their power?
What kind of sickness is this that makes governments and
political parties that ostensibly want to be able to act in the
public interest or on behalf of the common good so eager to
embrace self-inflicted powerlessness?
This will be one of the things that many theses will be written
about in years to come. What caused this? What kind of
intellectual virus inhabited the brains of many politicians in
the late 1980s and 1990s of the 20th century and in the early
part of the 21st century and caused them to willingly give up the
role and the trust that had been granted them by their electors
and turn them over to unelected people who were making decisions
based not on what is in the interests of health, the public or
the environment but on what constitutes a barrier to trade, a
barrier to investment or a barrier profit, as if it were the
ultimate measure of all things?
We in the NDP do not think trade is the measure of all things.
We believe the measure of all things is what contributes to the
health and well-being of Canadians and people all around the
world. We find ourselves very much at odds with all four parties
in the House. We look forward to the final vote on the
legislation so that it will be very clear where we stand and
where others stand on this issue.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been listening to the debate. I think members on
both sides have taken the opportunity to express their views with
respect to how this piece of legislation does work, will work and
ought to work.
I was a little disappointed that I did not get a chance to
intervene when my colleague from the Conservative Party spoke a
few moments ago. Again, as in the discussions the other day, he
made allegations that were personal in nature but steered away
from the importance of discussing the issue itself. The member
who just spoke is from Edmonton Transcona.
An hon. member: Winnipeg.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Winnipeg, the hotbed of reform. I
think it is just outside Toronto. The member raised a couple of
very important questions which I think deserve our attention.
First, from a philosophical point of view there is some
disagreement. Second, I am not sure it is very productive or
useful to discuss the issue of battles that have been fought and
lost, as we cannot redo those.
The issue I wanted the member to raise and wondered whether he
would address himself to it was his perception of the material
impact of the maintenance of the regulations under Bill S-17 with
which he appears to disagree so wholeheartedly.
1215
In the interest of maintaining a discussion that is factual and
has something to do with the health care system and the health of
Canadians, would he be substantive enough to give us an
indication of the specifics about how that would work or would
not work. Otherwise, we are left to assume that there is nothing
wrong with this.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the member has spoken with
his usual precision and has left me wondering exactly what he
might have been asking me.
I can certainly understand why he does not want to talk about
battles fought and lost. I thought the Liberals won the election
in 1993. They won it on the basis presumably that Canadians
liked some of the positions they had taken prior to 1993. This
is another case of self-inflicted powerlessness. Even when the
Liberals won the election, they thought they had lost, unless of
course the member is referring to the fact that we lost. We all
lost. Everyone who thought the Liberals were telling the truth
prior to 1993 lost. In that sense we did not lose because we
never believed them in the first place. We knew that there was a
convergence behind closed doors on Bay Street and other places
between the Liberal and Conservative Parties.
If I were the member from Eglinton-Toronto or Toronto-Eglinton,
at least I got the words right, it would not take much for the
rest of us in Canada to know more about Toronto than the member
from Toronto knows about the rest of us. He cannot even get
Edmonton and Winnipeg straight for heaven's sake. It is all just
west of the Ontario border as far as he is concerned.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: West of the 427.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: West of the 427, Mr. Speaker. That is
what the people in Thunder Bay say too. People living in Thunder
Bay, Kenora, Rainy River or Fort Francis all feel like they might
as well be in Winnipeg. A long time ago, if we had drawn the
boundaries of this country properly, they would have had the
benefit of being part of the great province of Manitoba instead
of being a neglected hinterland of metropolitan Toronto.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): We are straying away
somewhat from the subject.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to what I
said about self-inflicted powerlessness or this deep political
pathology that so affects the Liberal collective mind. They
signed agreements which make them do things that they used to be
against. Months and years hence they say they have to respect
their international obligations. How did they come to have these
obligations? They came to have the obligations because they
signed agreements in the first place.
The member might want to seek out therapy or something as to why
he finds this to be an acceptable form of political
consciousness.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate and I would
like to make a comment, because I believe that much has been said
that actually gives the wrong impression.
I am not questioning the motivation. However, I question the
ideology of the member of the NDP who denies the reality that
Canada is a trading nation and that we benefit from fair, good
and clear rules. Trade creates an enormous number of jobs in
Canada. Without jobs and prosperity overall we do not have good
health. We know that unless people have the opportunity to work
and no matter how many pills they take, their health status will
not be improved.
I have always been one who has supported fair trade rules and as
open and free trade as possible. I have been critical of trade
agreements in the past that I did not believe provided good and
fair access to markets. However, if the member were being
realistic, he would know that the World Trade Organization and
the general agreement on tariffs and trade has benefited all
Canadians. We have seen our economy grow and prosper as a result
of those trade agreements.
I would urge the member to bring his thinking into the 21st
century and realize how important trade is to all Canadians and
to our prosperity.
1220
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this is part of the big
lie, that because we do not like the WTO or the NAFTA we are
somehow against trade. Of course we are not against trade. We
realize that Canada is a trading nation, and we are in favour of
multilateral trade rules that set up regimes that make fair trade
possible.
The minister who spoke talked about fair trade. The fact is we
do not have fair trade agreements. We have free trade
agreements. She said she was critical of certain agreements in
the past that did not provide for fair trade. I wish she would
have named them because had she done that they probably would
have been agreements still in force that her own government
signed, like the NAFTA. I notice when she listed particular
regimes she did not list the NAFTA.
Someone can be for global trade without having to be for these
agreements. It is an intellectually dishonest argument to
constantly paint people who do not like the multilateral rules
that we have now, which are designed by and for the multinational
corporations, as people who do not like or are against trade. We
are not against trade. We are for fair trade and not free trade.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there
have been numerous comments certainly from the member from the
Conservatives and from across the way with regard to the
agreements. I have a couple of comments.
My colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona will remember back to this
time. He may not remember the exact words and my guess is he may
not remember from which party the comments came. As we are
seeing today, it is not a matter of a different position from the
Conservatives or the Liberals, it is a matter of the same
position given at different points depending on whether they are
in opposition.
The present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
said in 1992 when he was in opposition:
We are asking Canadian consumers to pay roughly $4 billion more
in drug costs in the next 20 years in exchange for $150 million
in research and development. Can you imagine, what kind of
negotiator I would have been in my previous life if I came back
to the membership that I used to represent and gave them those
numbers.
The present Minister of Industry made this comment about the
government when in opposition. I would like the member's
thoughts on this because I know he was in the House the time. He
said:
I want to ask the member and all those members who at some time,
when they screw up their backbones and the courage to do it, have
to go back and face their constituents: Are they really serious
when they say that they expect the sick, the poor, the elderly,
and those who live on fixed incomes have to subsidize R and D in
Canada?
Could the member comment on that?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, such was the Liberal's
charade prior to 1993. Shame on the Liberals for all the lies
they told the Canadian people about their views on these
subjects.
Mr. Larry McCormick: That is too far, Mr. Speaker. The
first time it was a lie. Now it just a big lie.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: There is nothing unparliamentary about
referring to lies that are told by collectivity. It is only when
individual members are accused of doing so.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was remiss. I could not count the time yesterday, so
I did not have an opportunity to finish what I had said in the
House.
I was going to ask the indulgence of the House to at least
consider modernizing our thoughts on what the bill really means.
I think we all agree that the bill is about ensuring it would
comply with the WTO, but there is an opportunity to make it more
than that.
Since I had an opportunity to intervene on this yesterday, a
significant landmark ruling occurred in the United States with
respect to the automatic injunction provision for Canada and the
United States.
I point out to members, Conservative, Bloc, Alliance and of
course Liberals and New Democrats, that the automatic injunction
gives a de facto extension of patent protection beyond 20 years.
1225
I see the hon. member from the Conservative Party shaking his
head saying no. Let me summarize what his senators said in the
Senate just two months ago as they looked at Bill S-17. It
states as follows:
In general, it is the Committee's view that courts are fully
capable of determining appropriate procedures, which should not
differ substantially from one industry to another. Regulatory
interference carries a risk that an unfair advantage may
inadvertently be provided to one side or the other.
My concern therefore is well-founded, not only on the wisdom of
the Senate of the other place, but also in the landmark ruling of
the U.S. federal court yesterday on the question of patent
infringement, bearing in mind there are only two countries that
have it.
Patent infringement claims were made by AstraZeneca PLC,
Europe's largest drug maker, with respect to a product known as
Prilosac, the largest selling drug item in the United States of
America and in Canada. In Canada the drug is known as Losec. The
same issue occurred here where the same individuals tried to
stall this very important product beyond the patent protection
period. It is very clear, with sales of $340 million a month,
why the drug industry wants to maintain its stranglehold even
beyond the agreed 20 years.
Members, especially in the Conservative Party, I think fail to
understand that what they are giving licence to here in
regulation is well beyond anything that was intended by this
parliament. They can go back and talk about what happened 10 or
15 years ago, but I think the people are asking us to address the
current problem for which there is no obligation for Canada to go
beyond the 20th year. The effect of this is not only a means of
destroying due process, but it is disrespectful of the courts of
this country. It confers a privilege that is available nowhere
else in this country.
The reality is we have a situation that we must knock out. It
is called the automatic injunction. My belief is, and I think
the belief of those who have looked at this, that there was an
opportunity to deal with this. Unfortunately, I would ask the
hon. members to consider the millions of dollars that it is
costing the provincial drug plans of their Conservative, Liberal
and New Democratic governments across the country.
More importantly, there are a few issues that have come up as a
result of the comments made by the member for New Brunswick
Southwest. I will not answer all of them, but it is important
for us to also consider the flawed and false methodologies of the
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board of Canada. To suggest that
$900 million in research and development should justify these
extended patents is simply wrong. More than half that money is
nothing more than advertising. There is a push today to make
sure that people get even more advertising from these drug
companies to create the kind of chaos we see in the United
States.
I was trying to intervene the member for New Brunswick Southwest
on the fundamental question he raised with respect to the price
difference between Canada and the United States. It is very
clear to me that the only difference between Canadian new drugs
and drugs being brought in from the United States is the 40%
exchange rate. We do not even have a brand name manufacturer
giving us the courtesy of establishing a head office here in
Canada to give us the kind of benefits we normally see. Instead,
we see ourselves in a situation where we are paying the highest
prices in the world without the privilege of having anything more
than a few warehouses on the island in Montreal and in
Mississauga.
I would like to point out to the hon. members, certainly in the
Conservative Party, but others who lost the opportunity and did
not see it, there is a chance to change this.
Finally, let us deal with the issue of AIDS in South Africa.
There is an opportunity here for us to return to compulsory
licensing. I ask the indulgence of members of parliament to
consider that. There is a pandemic occurring in the world and it
is very clear that the brand name manufacturers have egg on their
faces because they are more willing to be concerned about what
goes in their pockets as opposed to helping the people who are
dying and suffering and where an entire civilization is breaking
down.
Hon. members wake up on this one. I urge and implore all
members to get together and protect the health care system in the
country. We have three months to get it together.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I do not question the Liberal member's sincerity on this
matter, but I have to say we are having a heck of a lot of
difficulty stomaching this kind of policy from the Liberals of
the House.
A couple of members have suggested that the Liberal position is
otherwise. We are dealing with a Liberal government decision to
bypass its own promises made to the Canadian people. We are
dealing with a government that has had ample opportunity to
correct the situation and deal with such matters as the
elimination of the automatic injunction that gives patent drug
companies another two years of protection on top of the twenty
years they now get. We are talking about a Liberal government
that promised the Canadian people a national pharmacare plan and
has done nothing since.
1230
It is one thing for the member to stand up in the House and be a
maverick but it is another to work steadfastly to try to convince
his own colleagues to change the situation.
What did he do in 1998 to stop the Minister of Industry from
bringing in notice of compliance regulations that actually made
the situation with respect to the automatic injunction worse?
What has the member done to convince his colleagues to implement
their campaign promise of 1997 of a national drug plan, which
would help today?
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member turned
the clock back four years, she would remember that it was only I
who put forward a motion before the scrutiny of regulations
committee to basically strip the Patent Act, or Bill C-91 as it
was then known, of all of its offensive notice of compliance
regulations.
This was not lost on some members on this side of the House. It
was certainly not lost on the then leader of the opposition, the
hon. Lucien Bouchard, who lambasted and insulted our government
by saying that it was a humiliation to Quebec that the cost of
drugs would be so high but that instead it would be able to get a
few investments from various companies.
When it comes to the hon. member's concern about my acting like
a maverick, I can tell her that rather than simply talking about
things, I have acted. These are perhaps some of the reasons why
I quite willingly talk about issues when I see that consumers are
being badly hurt.
Canada is not required to do anything more than what its
international obligations are under the WTO. The battle between
generic manufacturers and brand name manufacturers has divided
members of parliament depending on whether they have brand name
or generic companies in their riding. However, that battle is
over. Incidentally, I have two brand name manufacturers in my
riding so I am not speaking from the perspective of those who
might think that it is because I favour generic manufacturers.
People within my own party thought the reason I was concerned
about this issue was that I had a generic manufacturer in my
riding. I can assure the hon. member that is not the case.
I put a motion before the House of Commons with regard to the
issue of automatic injunctions and I thank my colleague from
Churchill for supporting me. Unfortunately, I could not convince
members of other parties to join with me but I am still fighting
as hard as I can. I have been alone before but I know I have a
lot of company with thousands of Canadians who today cannot
afford the decent medical care they deserve because the cost of
drugs is so high.
With regard to the question of pharmacare, I believe if we
cannot resolve this issue and we are not prepared to stand up to
the multinational drug manufacturers in Canada, the Government of
Canada will need to come down and put its money where its mouth
is.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the member wanted to express a greater view on
what the net effect of some of the regulations might be in other
areas of the world. I took particular interest in his discussion
of the sub-Saharan AIDS epidemic and the impact that some of the
companies here might be able to have on that were they given the
tools to do it. I wonder if the member could comment on that.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, there have been ways in
which we can neuter the offensive section on automatic
injunctions. We can repeal section 55.2(4) of the Patent Act to
achieve that.
With regard to the member's question dealing with the AIDS
epidemic in Africa, Canadian drug manufacturers, particularly
generic drug manufacturers, could provide a solution in terms of
the cocktail of drugs that might be made available. However
there are very few of these manufacturers because they are dying,
seemingly by the day. Some are doing very well but most are
either being purchased or are not increasing their viability.
I have met with Médecins Sans Frontières and Oxfam on this issue.
They believe they can do it in concert with the minister
responsible for CIDA as well as with the co-operation of the
government. I believe we are heading in that direction.
1235
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the vote is deferred
until later this day after the end of government orders.
* * *
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, an act to
amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from
the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: Before we begin debate there is a
ruling that I must render. There are three motions in amendment
standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-25,
an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted on
separately.
Before putting the motions to the House I wonder if I might call
upon the member for Crowfoot to seek consent to move the motions.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been
consultations among all parties present and I think that you
would find unanimous consent of the House to have the report
stage motions in the name of the member for Cypress
Hills-Grasslands transferred to the name of the hon. member for
Crowfoot.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-25, in Clause 5, be amended by
replacing lines 12 to 18 on page 2 with the following:
That Bill C-25, in Clause 5, be amended by
replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 2 with the following:
That Bill C-25, in Clause 5, be amended by adding
after line 44 on page 2 the following:
“(f.4.1) dispose of farmland acquired by it, provided
that the disposal is at fair market value and is done as
quickly as possible, and in any case no longer than five
years, after the acquisition.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, again it is a privilege to stand in the
House to debate some amendments to Bill C-25, an act to amend the
Farm Credit Corporation Act.
It was my privilege to attend committee meetings and to hear the
witnesses. We were fairly apprehensive as we went into the
exercise of looking at Bill C-25. After the committee meetings
we were even more apprehensive and maybe more concerned about
some of the legislation that was being brought forward in this
change.
1240
The first amendment is designed to address one of our party's
most serious concerns about Bill C-25, that the corporation would
lose its focus of providing service to farmers because of its
involvement in off farm businesses.
One concern of the Canadian Alliance and other members is that
the Farm Credit Corporation would move away from being directly
involved to the extent it is now in the family farm into a new
realm that is currently controlled or benefited by other
corporations. Consequently we believe the legislation would
allow the Farm Credit Corporation to fund, help and provide
service to larger businesses.
According to the current wording of the bill, the FCC could loan
money to any agricultural business no matter how large or
lucrative. For example, if an application were made by the
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool to the government, the government could
conclude that the FCC could help with the financial requirements
the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool would be after. The amendment would
ensure that any services offered to non-farm operations would
only be given to small and medium size businesses and not to
large corporations.
In committee the FCC and government officials said they would
have no reason to fund the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. That would
move beyond the FCC's mandate. However the legislation as it is
would not limit or prevent that from happening. If that
financing began to happen we would soon see that the family farm
would be put on the back burner and would lose another
opportunity for funding.
The second amendment is designed to ensure that the federal
government does not actively compete with private financial
institutions, banks or credit unions. One of the interesting
facts that came out of our committee meeting was from
representatives of Canadian credit unions. They made very clear
that in a number of instances the Farm Credit Corporation was
directly competing for business the credit unions had already
had.
In one instance the Farm Credit Corporation after hearing what
interest rate percentages the credit union was offering competed
by lowering its interest rate.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Competition is good.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Competition is good. I hear the
Liberals questioning and heckling about competition. We love
competition and a competitive economy, but businesses do not want
to compete with the federal government. They do not want to
compete with their own tax dollars. They do not want to compete
directly with a federal corporation or institution in which they
have put tax dollars.
We are also concerned that the expanding powers of the FCC would
simply duplicate the existing authority of other public financial
institutions such as the Business Development Bank. The Business
Development Bank, which realistically does not have a great track
record, would then perhaps move out of areas dealing with
agriculture.
It would appear that Farm Credit Corporation would simply deal
with agriculture and not the farm. Its name is to be changed to
Farm Credit Canada. Maybe it should just be changed to
agriculture because they have forgotten the family farm.
Our amendment would ensure that FCC's new powers do not
duplicate the authority problem that is currently present in the
Business Development Bank. We are also very concerned about one
aspect which we brought to committee and which the hon. member
for Cypress Hills—Grasslands raised in the House on a number of
occasions.
1245
We are concerned that Bill C-25 will allow Farm Credit
Corporation or Farm Credit Canada to become a significant land
holder. The amendment is designed to ensure that the federal
government does not become a major holder of Canadian farmland.
By so doing it would not influence the market price of land.
I think we would agree on all sides of the House that we have
seen places and times in Saskatchewan when there was a great land
bank. The government owned land that had been turned back to it.
We want to see changes that would prohibit the owning of farmland
by the government, thus influencing the market value of land.
Our concerns on this subject were increased during the clause by
clause debate in committee. The chairman of FCC indicated that
it could consider taking possession of land in the government's
yet to be announced plans to facilitate intergenerational
transfer of farmland. FCC and the government should have no
objections to this motion because the FCC has stated in testimony
before the committee that it was not its intention to become land
holders.
We have seen time and time again that intentions may be the
best, but obviously sometimes legislation allows for loopholes or
just the opposite. Farm Credit has also testified that it works
to ensure that land is sold at prevailing market prices and that
FCC does not influence land values. All members of the House,
even those on the other side, believe that the longer a federal
government corporation holds on to land it will not sell it for
this price because it has money vested in it. As long as that
happens it will influence the value of that land on the market.
Motion No. 3 is similar to an amendment we brought forward at
committee. With the consideration and the wisdom of the House I
believe that all three amendments and recommendations will be
accepted.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am hugely pleased to speak today in the context of
Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to
make consequential amendments to other Acts.
I am also pleased to announce to my colleague in the Canadian
Alliance that the Bloc Quebecois will support the three
amendments he has proposed. Both the Bloc Quebecois and the
Canadian Alliance tried everything in their power, while the
committee was studying the bill clause by clause, to propose
amendments. In some instances, the Canadian Alliance presented
an amendment similar to our own, and we withdrew ours in order to
debate theirs.
Once again, we had the annoying experience of running headlong
into an arrogant government, and an even more arrogant head of
the corporation.
We noted that, basically, we were coming to parliament, but the
die had already been cast. The members can take that as they
will, that is their business.
We came here to legislate what the board of the Farm Credit
Corporation had already decided. So much so that, at one point,
the Bloc Quebecois had proposed an amendment to limit loans to $1
million. In discussions, we went as far as $5 million; actually,
FCC loans should not exceed $5 million.
I know members will be very interested to learn that the head of
the Farm Credit Corporation said “There is no point your
introducing this amendment, my board of directors has already
decided that the maximum loan would be $20 million”. Of course,
we looked completely silly wanting to limit loans to $1 million
or $5 million, when they had already decided they could lend up
to $20 million.
That means that the Farm Credit Corporation wants to change its
mission.
Until now, the Farm Credit Corporation had been helping primary
producers. It tried to help businesses which, very often, had not
been able to get loans from traditional financial institutions.
The FCC was there for the small farmer, the family farm that had
problems making it.
1250
Now, the Farm Credit Corporation will have a new name. It will
be called Farm Credit Canada. It is intended that this new
corporation will lend up to $20 million. It remains to be seen to
whom that money will be lent. This suggests that we could have
unpleasant surprises, because the Farm Credit Corporation could
end up funding businesses that are either upstream or downstream
in relation to traditional farm production and to traditional
small farms.
According to the figures that we were given, currently, 94% of
the corporation's loans are made to primary types of farm
productions. We wanted to put it in the act that we were giving
them a chance. We said that at least 80% of the loans should be
made to primary farm productions.
We are truly concerned that the Farm Credit Corporation will
fund mega-industries. When we look at how this government is
behaving, that concern is justified. Since the past is indicative
of the future, we are justified in being concerned by the
government's action.
Then the government told us “We held consultations in Quebec.
Everyone in Quebec agrees with this”. Everyone in Quebec was
opposed to Bill C-7, but it did not stop the government, which is
now telling us that “Everyone in Quebec agrees with us. They all
agree with the Farm Credit Corporation”.
We contacted the UPA, or Union des producteurs agricoles du
Québec. In a press release—not written by the Bloc Quebecois, but
by the UPA—the union said:
We have reservations about the Farm Credit Corporation
broadening its current mandate to include the funding of
non-farming businesses that are not majority owned by farmers and
to provide venture capital to businesses related to agriculture.
That is the UPA's position, not what we were told, which was
that the UPA was in complete agreement with the government's
bill.
I went further in my quest to check out what I was told. I
always make a point of checking things out. The Fédération des
caisses populaires Desjardins du Québec also told us it had
reservations about the Farm Credit Corporation broadening its
mandate to include companies upstream and downstream of
agricultural production. In the lower St. Lawrence region prior
to 1998, the corporation was not very present and it existed
alongside the Société de financement agricole du Québec and the
financial institutions present in the lower St. Lawrence region.
In fact, the corporation's interest rates were higher, credit
conditions were more stringent, and the Farm Credit Corporation
was less aggressive on the regional market. In those days, the
Farm Credit Corporation was an alternative for farmers when they
were turned down for a loan by the financial institutions or the
Société de financement agricole du Québec.
Since 1998, the situation has changed completely. It must be
remembered that, when the Farm Credit Corporation lends money, it
gets it out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers; this is the
public's money. The corporation takes this money and engages in
unfair competition with caisses populaires and financial
institutions.
What does the Farm Credit Corporation do? It sends its
officials out to the 5th, 6th or 7th concession to visit farms.
They knock on doors and ask “You wouldn't happen to need any
money, would you?” No longer need a farmer go and visit the
banking institution. Now the banking institution leaves Ottawa
and heads for the best farms in Quebec. They are hard to miss.
They find the best, most productive farms, knock on the door and
ask “Could we by any chance lend you some money? Do you happen
to need any? We will give you a great deal. We will lend it to
you at at least 0.5% less than any other financial institution”.
1255
In the City of Laval, they even went so far as to make a loan at
1.5% under the going rate; in Nicolet, for some loans the rate
given was 1.1% under.
When we are told that people in the financial institutions are
satisfied, it remains to see what the banks have to say. The
banks submitted a brief to the Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Agri-Food in which they stated:
Canada's banks are in favour of competition in the marketplace
by institutions that are all subject to the same regulations.
We are, however, of the opinion that government agencies such as
the Farm Credit Corporation, which operate thanks to government
support and are not subject to the whole range of prudent
regulatory requirements, ought not to be mandated to be in direct
competition with private sector financial institutions.
Such a mandate falsifies market competition by enabling such
suppliers of services to carry out activities under conditions
that are not only different but less stringent than those
applied to others in the same field.
Here we have a bill that is extremely dangerous for the
financial institutions of Quebec and Canada. This will be an
institution, an agency, in unfair competition with the financial
institutions, which are governed by very, very strict rules.
As a result, although we in the Bloc Quebecois will support the
Canadian Alliance amendments, we are unfortunately obliged to not
support the government in the passage of Bill C-25.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I seek unanimous consent of the House to introduce a
motion, seconded by the member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, that the House of Commons resolves that Nelson
Mandela be declared an honorary citizen of Canada and that a
message be sent to the Senate requesting that house concur in
this resolution.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have consent of
the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate this afternoon to make
amendments to the proposed changes to the Farm Credit Corporation
Act.
Some Canadians will know that the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food has been considering this legislation
over the past short while. We have heard from some of the groups
that would be affected by the legislation. In opposition to what
we have heard in the last two speeches, the New Democratic Party
caucus does not have major concerns with what has been proposed.
The Farm Credit Corporation was established in 1959. Although
it was originally the lender of last resort to family farms, that
role has changed over the years. Probably most of those changes
were introduced after 1993 when it became a self-financing
operation.
The industry has been changing dramatically since the act was
amended. There are active farmers in the House of Commons today
who can attest to that only too well. There is an ongoing
revolution in Canadian agriculture and perhaps around the world.
It is more complex. There is much greater interdependency among
suppliers, producers and processors than ever before.
Producers are growing new crops. In the standing committee this
morning we had a lengthy debate on organic crops that have been
multiplying enormously over the past 15 years or 16 years. They
are growing new crops. They are diversifying into livestock
production.
They are entering into long term contracts with suppliers and
buyers. Farmers are forming alliances to increase their
purchasing and selling power. These are called new generation
co-ops among other things. Some producers are exploring new
generation co-ops and others are expanding into value added
manufacturing.
1300
In this environment producers need a broader and more complex
range of financial and business management services to help them
achieve the long term success they are striving for. Farm
related businesses need greater access to capital, including
equity and venture capital in order to achieve that growth.
In the winter of 2000 the standing committee was told by the
chief executive officer and other senior officials of Farm Credit
that they had held a number of stakeholder consultations with
more than 100 national and regional organizations to discuss the
proposed changes to the legislation. Almost all those
organizations, we were told, were supportive of the amendment.
Their main concern was that Farm Credit Corporation should
continue to maintain its focus on family farms and on primary
production.
We were told that one farm organization which was strongly
opposed was the National Farmers' Union. The NFU's main
objection, as we heard it and understood it, was that the
proposal before us would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to
finance farm related businesses which were not farmer owned and
controlled.
That is a significant piece of the proposed change to the
legislation. Until now it has had to demonstrate amply that it
is farmer owned and controlled. This change is one that the NFU
believes would enable Farm Credit to act like a private lender
with its only goal being that of maximizing its profits.
The NFU believes that Farm Credit should focus only on family
farms. It is concerned that if Farm Credit is allowed to lend to
agribusiness that is not farmer owned or controlled it will
emphasize operations geared to the export market instead to
domestic family farms.
We have considered that point. We listened carefully to people
who made representations to the standing committee on
agriculture. Notwithstanding the concern expressed by the
National Farmers Union, notwithstanding what my colleagues from
the Bloc and perhaps the Alliance said, we think on balance the
changes are warranted and support them.
Before I get into the Alliance recommendations, there is a name
change. The acronym FCC would be the same but it would now be
called Farm Credit Canada. Farm Credit Canada would be allowed
to provide financial services to farm related business on the
input or output side of primary production. For the first time
FCC would be able to lend money to non-farmers. That is a change
as I mentioned a moment ago.
In addition, equity financing would be extended to producers and
farm related businesses either directly or in partnership with
others.
Mr. Larry McCormick: That is a good idea.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, I think it is a good idea. This
financing would be aimed mainly at new businesses on a venture
basis. There would be a statutory limit on the percentage Farm
Credit Canada would be able to take. There would also be a fixed
date by which the FCC would be required to sell its share back to
the majority owners of the business.
Farm Credit Canada would be able to offer a range of business
management services to producers across the country either
directly or in partnership. These consulting and support
services would include business and financial planning, risk
management, succession and estate planning.
The FCC's ability to offer lease financing directly or in
partnership with agriculture producers would be clarified. Farm
Credit Canada would be able to create subsidiaries to enter into
partnerships with other organizations and offer expanded
financial services.
Just on that point, we heard from the Credit Union of Canada. It
was generally supportive of the legislation. We heard a
different approach from the Bloc member about caisses populaires,
and perhaps it was true, but the Credit Union of Canada
represents caisses populaires, as I understand it, and was
generally supportive of the provisions contained in the bill.
The corporation would also have access to additional financial
management tools to secure its portfolio and fund additional
services. Overall the changes are positive so long as Farm
Credit Canada continues to focus on primary production.
1305
I mentioned that those who came before the committee were
largely supportive. Let me read into the record a couple of
their comments. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture said it
had no objections to the legislation. The Credit Union of
Canada, to which I referred a minute ago, said it had formed a
committee to study the legislation. During the consultation
process it fully supported the proposals as long as credit unions
could participate in some of the new services, equity financing
and partnerships.
Although the NFU is concerned that Farm Credit Canada will
soften its focus on family farms and primary production, the
government and Farm Credit have made a commitment that farming
and the primary producer would continue to be the main focus of
the corporation's work.
We were told that 94% of Farm Credit Canada's lending is
directed to primary producers. An amendment to the act requires
that the primary focus of the activities of the corporation shall
be on family operations including family farms.
I will move to the recommendations before us today. There are
three from the Alliance. One is on family farms. The Alliance
amendment, as we understand it, would remove the references to
family farms. We believe it is important that a reference to
family farms be maintained in the definition of the corporation's
purpose and primary focus. Therefore we oppose Motion No. 1.
On Motion No. 2 the Alliance remains consistent in opposing any
FCC financial services that it feels might compete with the
private sector. We heard the member for Crowfoot on that point a
few moments ago.
In my opinion this would be detrimental to the agricultural
community. A number of private lending institutions in rural
Canada have recently gone out of business. Some of them have
been taken over by smaller credit unions, at least their work and
their mandate. There is not a lot of competition out there.
There is not a lot of choice for farmers to secure a loan. We
oppose Motion No. 2.
We also oppose Motion No. 3. The Alliance was concerned that
FCC could acquire large blocks of land through acquisition, which
would be harmful for private enterprise. John Ryan, the very
well respected president and CEO of Farm Credit Canada, responded
directly to the concern at committee by stating that it was not
the corporation's intention to acquire blocks of land or be in
the land management or land banking business.
He also noted that young farmers in Canada suggested that as
long as there was this kind of leasing arrangement there would be
an opportunity for intergenerational transfer and for new farmers
to get on the land. We support the bill and we oppose the three
Alliance recommendations.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak specifically to the three amendments to Bill
C-25 proposed by the Canadian Alliance Party. I begin by saying
that all three Alliance amendments before us today were discussed
and debated at committee, as I understand it, and were changed
slightly and brought back to the House. Although the member of
parliament for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has modified them
slightly, he has not modified them enough to suit the member for
Brandon—Souris, our agriculture critic, and therefore the tenets
of the Conservative Party.
Motion No. 1 would actually remove the words family farm from
the bill, as was stated by my NDP colleague. Members
of the House and people across Canada have different definitions
of what a family farm actually constitutes, but our party
believes it is important for family farms to be recognized
specifically in the mandate of the Farm Credit Corporation.
I have said at other times in the House that I grew up on a very
small family farm. The farm I actually own today is one piece of
land. It is a piece of woodland and not an actual piece of
agricultural land. It is a very small piece of only 20 acres,
but it has been in my family for five generations. My sons, if
they inherit that property, would have that piece of land for a
six generation.
1310
There are those of us in the House who are not far away from the
family farm. I am quite shocked and surprised the Alliance that
claims to represent large segments of rural Canada would allow
itself to be divorced or separated from the notion of the family
farm, which I think many of us hold very near and dear to our
hearts.
The family farm and primary production should be the primary
focus of the activities of the Farm Credit Corporation, not
simply farming operations, agribusinesses or something that is
divorced and removed from the word farm.
Is that the next to go? Will it be not just family farms but
farming operations altogether? Suddenly those of us who were
farmers in another life will be not farmers any longer but
producers. I am very proud to say I was a farmer and expect to
be a farmer again some day, not a producer which does not mean
anything. I could produce cardboard boxes. A farmer is a
definition that holds a totally different meaning from the word
producer.
By eliminating family farms from the clause would definitely be
a step backward. It would actually do a disservice to family
farms across Canada by omitting them from the bill. Furthermore,
as was mentioned already, John Ryan, president of the Farm Credit
Corporation, stated in the standing committee that discussions
were held with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on the
wording of the bill and ultimately it was satisfied. He also
stated:
So we clearly do, very seriously, take the fact that it's primary
production that's our focus.
Even with that being said, we will not be supporting the motion.
Motion No. 2 speaks to the issue of competition. I find it
difficult to believe that the Alliance Party has actually
introduced this amendment again. The amendment is not only
restrictive and limiting to Farm Credit Corporation activities
but it speaks against the idea of competition. Perhaps it is
another policy shift for the Alliance Party and now it does not
support open competition.
The Farm Credit Corporation should be allowed to compete with
other financial institutions. Competition is healthy. The
mandate of the FCC has been significantly expanded since its
creation. It is no longer a lender of last resort. Nor should
it be. It has tailored its operations to the agriculture and
agribusiness community.
If commercial banks want to enter those areas, and I think we
should encourage them to do so, they are welcome. It is pretty
difficult as a farmer to get any kind of serious loan from a
commercial bank based on the merits of a farming operation. The
competition will only benefit farmers in the end. Again the PC
Party will not be supporting the motion.
Motion No. 3 speaks to the issue of farmland ownership. Once
again this matter was discussed during committee deliberations.
The amendment could place limitations on Farm Credit Corporation
activities. Let us take the example of young farmers and the
opportunity for an intergenerational transfer of farms: for one
to be able to acquire land directly from family members and lease
it back to them over a long period of time so they can eventually
acquire ownership. The amendment could prevent it from happening
if a time limit were imposed.
The president of the Farm Credit Corporation stated in committee
that he would be quite comfortable with a five year limit. That
was consistent with remarks he made at a previous committee
meeting. The average time for land disposal at the Farm Credit
Corporation is actually about eight months, which allows for more
than enough time set out in the amendment.
On the basis of what the president of the Farm Credit
Corporation said, the PC Party will consider the passage of the
amendment, but it is certainly one that we do not look at
lightly. We have deliberated on it and put some serious thought
into it.
In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to remember that
many of us in the agriculture business are representatives of
family farms or people who are first, second, third, fourth,
fifth, sixth generation, or even more, on family farms. For
goodness' sake, let us remember the family farm is an important
institution and should be preserved.
1315
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you very
much for the opportunity to speak to the bill. Farm Credit
Corporation has been very successful across the country and it
certainly looks forward to working even more for the benefit of
the farmers and the primary producers.
I will take a moment to note that I was very glad to hear that
at committee in the past week or two one of my colleagues from
the Alliance Party put the fact on the table that the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food still has the reputation
of getting along better for all the right reasons than any other
committee, in support of farmers across the country. I trust
that we can work together in future in the same way.
I will speak to Motion No. 1. Farm Credit Corporation's
proposed amendment in Bill C-25 is consistent with the current
legislation, with the exception of the following add-on:
The primary focus of the activities of the Corporation shall be
on farming operations including family farms.
Farm Credit Corporation held consultations on the future role of
FCC with over 100 regional and national groups across the
country, more than 100 farm and agribusiness organizations and
all major financial organizations in each and every province, as
well as institutions and provincial governments. Over 400
individuals participated in the consultation meetings across
Canada.
Yes, concerns were expressed that Farm Credit Corporation's
focus could be diverted from the primary producer. However the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture appeared before the House of
Commons standing committee in regard to the bill. The CFA
represents some 220,000 Canadian family farms, many in your
riding, Mr. Speaker. The CFA asked that FCC maintain the focus
on the primary producer. That is what the bill would do. The
CFA's exact words were:
To ensure that the corporation continues to meet the needs of
primary producers, FCC formulated the wording of the clause in
collaboration with the CFA's board of directors. The wording of
the bill expresses the concerns of the CFA word for word. Let me
repeat that it is word for word. The wording is:
The primary focus of activities of the Corporation shall be on
farming operations including family farms.
FCC recognizes the necessity of serving farm related businesses
to benefit producers and rural communities. The corporation's
number one focus will continue to be primary production.
Currently more than 90% of FCC's financing is directed to farming
operations.
According to Statistics Canada, 98% of farms are family owned
and operated. This means that the great majority of FCC services
is directed to family farms and to farm families. For this
reason it is very important that the bill go forward with the
wording as proposed by the FCC.
Because of the importance of the family farm for the social and
economic fabric of rural Canada, the words family farm were
specified in the legislation. The government supports the new
legislation as an important contribution to sustainable growth in
rural Canada and recommends that Bill C-25 not be changed to
remove the words family farms from the legislation.
No one definition exists in common usage that clearly defines
the levels of business enterprise. The continued growth of the
value added industry means that the definition of small and
medium sized enterprises will continue to evolve. FCC's role is
to provide an environment for the growth of the agricultural
industry to occur by continuing to meet the needs of the
industry.
FCC's lending limit established by the board of directors is
currently $20 million and has been since 1995. Limits such as
these clearly indicate that all FCC loans will be to small and
medium sized businesses related to agriculture. It should also
be noted that FCC's average mortgage loan size is $106,704 to
primary producers and $498,909 to agribusiness clients. The
average non-mortgage loan size for personal property loans is
$31,000 to primary producers and $42,000 to alliance clients.
There are currently no plans to increase this lending limit. In
fact our emphasis has shifted over the past few years from doing
full proposals on our own to joint financing with other
institutions. Therefore, the government supports the
legislation.
1320
With regard to Motion No. 2, as introduced by the Canadian
Alliance, it is too limiting. I was glad to hear that my
colleague from Palliser agreed. More than 100 organizations
across Canada also agreed. We cannot agree to Motion No. 2
because farming operations are growing more complex and the
marketplace is more competitive. In order to achieve long term
success, producers and farm related businesses need access to a
broader range of business management services.
Services can be significantly different by geography, making it
difficult to serve those who need a particular service not
available from other institutions in any given area. As a
national organization, the FCC can dedicate its efforts to
delivering services where services are required.
During the consultation process, it was identified that there
was a gap in business services in rural Canada. Certainly we all
agree with that. The Canadian Young Farmers Forum
enthusiastically endorsed FCC complimentary services on a fee
basis, while several groups noted that the FCC does not provide
services already being offered in the private sector. As a
result of this input, Bill C-25 states that the FCC's intent is
to provide business services and products that complement those
available from the public and the private sectors.
The business management services that the FCC proposes would
complement existing services, not compete directly with other
providers. The FCC would work in partnership with existing
service providers to increase access to business services through
its network of 100 offices.
One of the strengths of the FCC is that most of the people who
work with the farmers and the producers have a farming or a farm
related background and do a great job across the country. The FCC
only intends to offer business management services where a clear
need is identified.
The FCC would work in partnership with public and private sector
organizations, wherever possible, to enhance the product and
service offerings available to rural Canada. The FCC has a
memorandum of understanding with BDC and has 27 partnership
agreements with public and private sector organizations.
Over time, financing needs of producers and farm related
businesses change quickly. Private institutions respond to
providing services based on the profitability of products which
can change based on the number of clients in a particular area
and the level of competition.
The government will not support Motion No. 2 because it is too
limiting. The government and I appreciate the hard work of all
our colleagues from all parties.
It is good to be able to say that we will support Motion No. 3
as moved by the Canadian Alliance.
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak on
the amendments put forward by the Canadian Alliance to Bill C-25,
an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act.
Motion No. 3 reads:
That Bill C-25, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 44
on page 2 the following:
“(f.4.1.) dispose of farmland acquired by it, provided that the
disposal is at fair market value and is done as quickly as
possible, and in any case no longer than five years, after the
acquisition.”
The Canadian Alliance is concerned that Bill C-25 would allow
the Farm Credit Corporation to become a significant landholder.
We are seeing that especially in the province of Saskatchewan.
The amendment is designed to ensure that the federal government
does not become a major holder of Canadian farmland and does not
unduly influence the market price of land.
I have spoken to many farmers who have told me that the Farm
Credit Corporation has had an effect on farmland prices. The
hon. parliamentary secretary can come to Saskatchewan and visit
my riding to see the truth.
Mr. Larry McCormick: I have been there and it is a great
riding.
Ms. Carol Skelton: You have not been there long enough
because—
1325
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is on the record
that this committee has wonderful working relations. We also
tend to take pride in our own working relations in the House. The
parliamentary secretary just had the floor and the House was very
attentive. I hope the same courtesy will be given to the member
for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. I would guide or a little bit
by reminding her to make her interventions through the Chair.
Ms. Carol Skelton: Mr. Speaker, our concerns on this
subject were increased during the clause by clause debate in
committee. The chairman of the FCC indicated that FCC could
consider taking possession of land in the government's yet to be
announced plans to facilitate the intergenerational transfer of
farmland. As a mother who has lost two sons from the farm, I am
very concerned about this.
The FCC and the government should have no objections to the
motion because the FCC has stated, in testimony before the
committee, that it is not FCC's intention to become a landholder.
The FCC has also testified that it works to ensure that land is
sold at prevailing market prices and that FCC does not influence
land values. I know in my own riding that it does.
Motion No. 2 reads:
That Bill C-25, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 32 and
33 on page 2 with the following:
The motion is designed to ensure that the federal government
does not actively compete with private financial institutions,
such as credit unions and the banks.
During the committee review of Bill C-25, representatives of
Canada's credit unions indicated that the Farm Credit Corporation
currently actively competes for business. I know it does in my
own riding. One witness testified that his credit union lost a
customer because the FCC dropped its loan rate after learning of
the rate offered by the credit union. The expansion of the FCC's
powers would make this active competitive behaviour much more
likely.
We are also concerned that the expanded powers of the FCC would
simply duplicate the existing authority of other public financial
institutions ,such as the Business Development Bank which, as we
all know, does not have a good track record. The motion would
ensure that the FCC's new powers would not duplicate the
authority and problems of the BDC.
Motion No. 1 reads:
That Bill C-25, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 12 to
18 on page 2, with the following:
This motion is designed to address one of our most serious
concerns with Bill C-25; that the corporation could lose its
focus on providing services to farmers because of its involvement
in off-farm businesses.
According to the current wording of the bill, the FCC could loan
money to agriculture businesses, no matter how large or lucrative.
For example, the Farm Credit Corporation could give a loan to the
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool if the government concluded that this was
the direction in which they wanted to go. The motion would
ensure that any services offered to non-farm operations would
only be given to small and medium sized businesses and not large
corporations.
The government and the FCC should not object to the motion
because they have repeatedly stated that they have no interest in
providing financial services to large corporations.
I ask members sitting opposite to look at our motions and, on
behalf of the rural residents in my riding of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, to respect our opinion as farm
people from western Canada.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to begin by saying that all the motions before us today were
introduced by the Canadian Alliance. The member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands has modified them slightly but they are in
essence the same motions that were presented during clause by
clause study of the bill in committee.
1330
Motion No. 1 would remove the words “family farm” which are
already in the bill. I know members of the House and a lot of
people across Canada have different definitions of what
constitutes a family farm.
I did not grow up on a farm but my family and I have a lot of
friends living on farms. I have to say that there are different
definitions, as stated, of what constitutes a family farm. The
PC Party believes that it is important for family farms to be
recognized specifically in the mandate of the FCC.
It is the family farm and primary production that should be the
primary focus of the FCC's activities, not simply farming
operations in general terms. By eliminating family farms from
the clause, we strongly feel that it is a step backward and
actually does a disservice to family farms across Canada. Not one
of us would be sitting here today, not the young pages nor anyone
else, if we did not have our farmers who produce the carrots,
potatoes, vegetables, milk and meat that we need to survive.
These are produced by our farmers and their families from
generation to generation. The farm is important.
The president of the FCC stated in committee that discussions
were held with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on the
wording of the bill and that ultimately the CFA was satisfied.
He also said that the FCC took very seriously the fact that
primary production was its focus.
That being said, the PC Party will not be supporting the motion.
It is very important that family farms be referred to in the
bill. There is no question about that.
When I went out west in 1993, I met with the Canadian Federation
of Agriculture. We had a discussion at that time that really
shocked me. Where I come from, a large city in the province of
New Brunswick and the greatest city in the east, the farmers and
the people are hurting. When we forget about the family farm by
removing it from the bill, we create a major problem. That will
only be the first change and, before we know it, the needs of the
farmers will not be addressed.
Motion No. 2 speaks to the issue of competition. I find it
rather difficult to believe that the Canadian Alliance has
actually introduced this motion. It is not only restrictive and
limiting to the FCC's activities but it speaks against the idea
of competition. It is another Canadian Alliance policy shift.
Now it seems it does not support open competition.
We have to have open competition because that is when we get the
best prices. The FCC should be allowed to compete with all other
financial institutions. Competition is healthy and no matter
whether it is, farmers, car dealers or whatever is being sold,
competition is good.
The mandate of the FCC has been expanded since its creation and
it is no longer a lender of last resort, nor should it be.
It has tailored its operations to the agriculture and
agribusiness community.
1335
If commercial banks want to enter those areas they are welcome
to do so. The competition will only benefit farmers in the end.
I have to say that the PC Party will therefore not be supporting
this motion either.
Motion No. 3 speaks to the issue of farmland ownership. Once
again this matter was discussed during the committee's
deliberations. This amendment could place limitations on FCC
activities.
I will use the example of young farmers and the opportunity for
an intergenerational transfer of farms. It does not matter
whether we live in rural areas or in cities, towns or villages.
Parents who own their home, their car, a business or a lot want
to leave them to their children.
In this case the farm is their home, their business. That is
the way it is. They want to leave it to the family. It is the
family farm that they want to pass from generation to generation.
This was discussed during the committee's deliberations. This
amendment would place limitations on that. People should be
allowed to acquire land directly from family members. They would
lease it over a long period of time and eventually acquire
ownership. If this amendment's time limit were imposed it could
prevent this from happening.
That being said, the president of the FCC stated in committee
that he would be quite comfortable with a five year limit, which
was consistent with the remarks he made at the previous committee
meetings. The average time for land disposal at the FCC is
actually about eight months, which allows for more than enough
time set out in this amendment. The PC Party will support this
amendment.
I have to say that if members take a look at FCC and how long it
has been in place, they will see it has been there to work for
the farmers, to make sure that the farmers are indeed viable and
that their farms will be there for their children and for all of
us. We must bring forth legislation that is good for the
farmers. The farmers know what is good for them and when they
say it is good for them, then it is good for us. That is why we
have to work with the farmers.
During the first 34 years of FCC and the Farm Credit Act there
were many evolutions and many changes had to take place. The
farmers came forward and spoke about it. I have to say that I
have major concerns about these motions, as do my colleagues and
my colleague who sits on the committee.
On behalf of my colleagues in the PC Party I want to state that
we are addressing these concerns. We hope the House will take
our concerns under advisement. Perhaps there will be amendments
so that we can support all the motions, but as it stands now we
cannot do that.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened to the various members speak on the bill, some of
them extremely familiar with the farming sector, and some not so
much, but who do have a concern for the principle of providing
funds to those who need funds in a way that will enable them to
continue to work and make a living and to hold on, in a lot of
cases, to the property they own.
In my own case I cannot claim to be familiar with the farming
area to any great extent, although certainly in my district we do
have farms, despite what people think about the province of
Newfoundland. A lot of people think it is a rock because it is
referred to as The Rock, but it is a very big island, as we all
know, and there are many very fertile areas on that island where
we have large farming operations.
However, what we are talking about here is not unlike an
industry with which I am much more familiar, and that is the
fishing industry.
1340
When we talk about agencies, whether it be the Farm Credit
Corporation or whether we call it Farm Credit Canada or whatever,
what difference does it make as long they do the job that the
farmers want it to do? If it will be costly to start
implementing changes, although I cannot see why it really would
be, then we certainly should look at why the name should be
changed. Other than that, the bill itself basically is one that
is supported by farmers. The amendments would not be, certainly
not Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
I mentioned the fishing industry. There are commonalities.
Within the fishery we also have agencies that provide assistance
directly to the people in the fishing industry. If they were not
there, the people who participate in the fishing industry would
have no one to turn to, especially the little fellow, as we say,
the person who is operating on his own, who is not backed by a
major company, who is not owned by a company or corporation, who
is trying to operate his family fishing business the same way as
a farmer would operate a family farm, quite often when the going
is tough, whether it is a poor fishing season or a poor farming
season.
If we did not have such agencies it would be the regular bank we
would have to turn to. Banks are great. If we have money in the
bank and are worth a few bucks we have absolutely no trouble
getting money from a regular chartered bank. However if we have
no money in the bank and times are tough, try getting money from
the bank then. A lot of farmers and a lot of fisherpersons are
really left in a bind.
Unless we have assistance groups such as credit corporations
dealing with the various sectors, many of the people who are
trying to operate within these sectors, in most cases
successfully, find the going very tough in times of need.
In western Canada in particular, unless we have a change in the
weather, this year could be an extremely tough year for farmers.
Mother Nature is a very rough person to try to fight, and as many
of us have learned, whether we are farmers or operate on the
ocean, it is a battle we cannot win. As we debate legislation
that is so important to them, they are undoubtedly wondering if
the protective clauses will be there to protect them if they need
assistance from such agencies during the fall.
As we proceed through this legislation, we should try to protect
those who most need the protection. Those who need the
protection most generally are the family farm owners, the small
boat fishermen, the family enterprises. They do not have the
support of the major corporations. They are not owned and
manipulated by the big corporations.
When we hear the words family farm and we hear people talking
about the difficulties some farmers and some families go through,
we all think of the old westerns that we watched when we were
growing up. They are almost gone from the screen. It is very
difficult to see a good John Wayne movie or any other movie. It
may be because of the violence. If those movies caused violence,
we would all be pretty violent people, I would say, looking
around here. We ran around with guns strapped to our hips when
we were young and playing cowboys. However, many of these old
shows talked about the family farm, with the bank holding the
mortgage and calling in the mortgage, whereby the family would
lose the farm except for the hero.
Perhaps in this scenario here the hero is actually the Farm
Credit Corporation or Farm Credit Canada or whatever we want to
call it. It is agencies such as this that the owner of the farm
now has to depend on to make sure that he is not just swallowed
up in the process, that when he is paying his bills there is not
a problem, and that when he runs into difficult times, as we have
seen in the last couple of years and as we may looking at this
year, he needs a crutch to lean on. It is up to government to
ensure that the crutch is there and that the family farm and
farms generally will exist beyond the period of drought, beyond
the period of fires and beyond the period of rough agricultural
times. One of the things we have to remember is that it is the
farmers and the fishermen of the country who provide the
sustenance needed to keep the country going.
1345
We hear people talk about subsidies. What is the alternative to
farming and fishing in this country, the provision of the very
food we need to keep the country going? We must make sure these
people have every break they can get in order to carry on such
worthwhile industries, because they are such worthwhile
contributors to the country themselves.
We support the bill. We cannot support Amendments Nos. 1 and 2
at this stage because of the effects they might have on the
smaller operations within the farming system.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for the opportunity to join with my colleagues here in the
Progressive Conservative Party to speak to this group of
amendments with respect to the Farm Credit Corporation.
The crux of our difficulty is that although we as a party are
indeed in support of the bill itself, as the member for St.
John's West said a few moments ago we have grave concerns that
the amendments before us in this group will indeed have a
detrimental effect on smaller farm operations, the family farms.
As the hon. member for Saint John said, they are indeed the
cornerstone of rural Canada and small rural towns. Those family
farms in fact essentially represent the main street of rural
Canada. They are where people live. They are where they earn a
living. They also provide for the infrastructure that we have in
rural Canada.
My riding, the great riding of Fundy—Royal, is one of the dairy
capitals of this great country. Over half the milk production
for the province of New Brunswick is from Fundy—Royal. Some of
the farm operations are small farms that make a valuable
contribution to the rural community despite the fact that they
may only be milking 35 or 40 cows. The average is more often
than not in the neighbourhood of 80 cows. Whether we are talking
Jerseys, Guernseys or Holsteins, the role that dairy farms play
in my riding in particular and the role these small operations
play are intrinsic to rural Canada and that way of life.
In point of fact we know that the government's record with
respect to agriculture on a broad stroke of issues has been
suspect at best. Members probably recall the federal
government's inability and almost unwillingness at one point to
actually fight on behalf of potato farmers and those small,
vibrant businesses on Prince Edward Island. At that time the
government needed to defend the interests of P.E.I. potato
farmers and point out that the potato blight that was detected
was in one corner of one field and by no means had any kind of
detrimental effect with respect to the potato crop on Prince
Edward Island as a whole.
The Government of Canada really did not step up to the plate for
this. The efforts were made by the Progressive Conservative
Party, by our agriculture critic, the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris, and in particular by the member from the
neighbouring riding across the Northumberland Strait, the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who brought up this
particular issue on the floor of the House of Commons time and
time again.
1350
I would point out that it was the Liberal Party of Canada who
gave us the credit. The Liberals thought they had made the first
correction with the Americans and we were the first people they
tried to attack, to point to, saying that they had solved the
problem. They looked over toward us because they knew it was the
Progressive Conservative Party that was defining the P.E.I.
potato blight issue.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is an ardent
supporter of the supply management regime we have, particularly
in dairy products. If we look at all the other commodities
within agriculture that have difficulty because of international
subsidies, we know that our supply management regime has been
critical to our capacity to maintain a solid market.
However, we need to have proper protection for supply
management. I know the NDP agriculture critic has been an
advocate of this issue as well. We cannot have supply management
unless we protect our borders. It was shameless of the
Government of Canada to do what it did when we went to the WTO
with respect to agriculture issues and protecting supply
management. In place of article 11 we accepted the tariff rate
quota regime.
Here is what happened when the Minister for International Trade
provided ministerial permits so that, in this case, cheese sticks
could come into Canada. That actually consumed the equivalent of
the production of 70 Canadian dairy farms. We gave that away
unilaterally. To show how disingenuous that actually was, it was
done without even informing the agricultural or dairy community
of the country. The government did it unilaterally. It was
almost by accident that the Government of Canada was outed on
this particular issue.
Now the dairy farmers of Canada are saying quite clearly that
they are very suspicious about whether the Liberal Party is in
fact a supporter of supply management to the degree that it
should be. I do not think it supports the same position that I
know the Bloc, the New Democrats and the Conservatives have with
respect to supply management in dairy farming in this country.
We will be here on this side of the House to ensure that the
Liberal government does not squander livelihoods with respect to
supply management and small farms.
There is another case where the Government of Canada did not
defend the rights of the dairy community. It permitted, with
hardly a fuss, the importing into Canada of butter oil and sugar
blends. These butter oil and sugar blends are essentially a
dairy replacement and replaced almost $50 million worth of milk
quota that actually rightfully belonged to Canadian dairy
farmers.
Quite honestly I wish the Liberal Party of Canada would
understand that in Canada we are supposed to milk the cows, not
the dairy farmers. We should ensure that we actually protect
what Canada now freely negotiates at the WTO. We should not give
it away unilaterally. These butter oil and sugar blends actually
displaced $50 million worth of industrial milk and cream that we
clearly could have been purchasing from our own dairy farmers. We
want to take the initiative to defend our dairy farmers.
My colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, is
interested in saying a few words on this bill as well. Given
that our time is running out, I want to make sure that all of us
on this side of the House defend the rights and responsibilities
that the Government of Canada should have in protecting the small
farms, protecting supply management and particularly in
protecting the dairy farmers in this great country of Canada.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from
Fundy—Royal and other members of the Progressive Conservative
Party who have spoken to this bill. Some might view this
legislation as being of little consequence and a case of
semantics because in essence what appears to be the major change
is one of name only, whereby it creates the Farm Credit Canada
logo, the FCC.
1355
However it takes on much more than that. My colleagues have
noted and highlighted some of the changes that would come about
as a result of the legislation. The bill speaks in particular
detail of expanding the financial services available to farm
operations and businesses throughout Canada. The bill would
allow authority to provide loans to businesses related to farming
activities in Canada, in cases where the business is majority
owned by farmers and in cases where it is not. It would touch
upon farming in a critical way.
It goes without saying, but bears repeating, that farming in
Canada is very much in jeopardy. We have seen crises,
particularly in western Canada and the province of Manitoba,
because of the elements and because of flooding. We have also
seen drought in other parts of the country. The expansive size
of Canada and the distances involved in bringing produce to
market is one of the biggest challenges farmers face apart from
the weather.
When it comes to the government's involvement in the farm
industry, we have on many occasions seen farmers throughout
Canada left with a feeling of abandonment when it comes to their
ability to be competitive not only in Canada or North America but
globally. A great deal more could be done.
Members of the Progressive Conservative Party and other members
in the House have spoken at length and quite passionately about
the need for government assistance in times of need, when market
change or legislation has hindered the ability of farmers to get
their produce to market.
That is perhaps one of the highlights of the bill and hopefully
one that can be brought through quickly. It would help farmers
get on with the business of produce and participate fully in the
economy.
The Conservative Party is very supportive of the legislation as
we have been in the past with efforts to assist farmers. My
colleague spoke of the situation in Prince Edward Island with
respect to potatoes. There have been other situations throughout
the country where farmers have been left destitute and literally
high and dry when it came to the government coming to their
assistance when they were most in need.
My friend also spoke of the dairy industry. In my constituency
of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough there are numerous examples.
Scotsburn Dairy Cooperative has a storied and very proud history
of participation in the dairy industry in Canada. It is
continuing to expand and make great contributions on behalf of
its industry, and it is very much a part of the vibrant and
growing economy of Atlantic Canada.
We support the legislation. We are pleased that there is an
opportunity to see the bill pass through the Parliament of Canada
and hopefully come into being in the other place.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
1400
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion No. 2 negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Denis Coderre (for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: The division stands deferred
until the conclusion of government orders later this day.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
TOURISM INDUSTRY
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1999, tourism generated $54 billion in Canada. This is a 7.9%
increase over the previous year.
Allow me to point out the determination and enthusiasm of
residents and stakeholders in the Lac-Mégantic region to
successfully help promote Quebec's tourism industry.
In the past year, eight new businesses in the hospitality
industry opened their doors. This resulted in three new country
inns in our region.
Moreover, four other new attractions, including the AstroLab,
the wildlife observation park and the Maison du Granit, all have
new features this summer to showcase the tourist attractions of
this beautiful region.
These initiatives truly reflect the vitality of the tourism
industry in the Lac-Mégantic region. The region has been in the
limelight since the beginning of the year, including in Le
Devoir, Le Soleil, on the Évasion channel and in the newspaper
La Tribune.
Again, I want to tell all these women and men who devote time
and energy to their community, to ensure that a stay in that
beautiful region is a memorable experience, that I admire them.
* * *
[English]
NELSON MANDELA
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I grew up in Africa. I can personally attest to how
Nelson Mandela is held in the highest regard for his contribution
to the fight for human rights and dignity. His long and lonely
fight for equality makes him a titan among not only world leaders
but all citizens of the world.
As a member of the Canadian Alliance, where equality of all is
the foundation cornerstone, I speak for the majority of our
members in praising Mr. Mandela. However, I think the bestowing
of honorary citizenship requires a procedure that all hon.
members and all Canadians can support.
Motions put forward without debate robs us all of the
opportunity to participate when such a high honour is
contemplated. That is why I propose that the government set up
an all party committee to lay the ground rules for such a high
honour. The committee would continue to accept and ponder
recommendations and debate the merits of each nominee.
I believe this way honorary Canadian citizenship would be widely
supported by all Canadians and be seen as an honour coming from
all corners of the nation.
* * *
TALL SHIPS
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the House
that the tall ships are coming to Kingston, Ontario this summer,
and event organizers are promising an exciting and integrated
showcase of the city.
Plans for several exciting events include a major Canada Day
celebration with parades, fireworks, historical re-enactments, a
ceremonial entrance into the Kingston harbour and feature
entertainment.
1405
The Kingston Tall Ships Challenge will feature between 20 and 30
tall ships visiting Kingston between June 28 and July 2. The
event is part of a series of tall ship sailing races linked by
visits to selected ports in the Great Lakes this summer. Young
people sign on as crew members of tall ships putting their
nautical skills, courage and endurance against each other in
friendly competition. In port the crews relax and meet their
competitors, as well as their local hosts in programs and
festivals designed to show off the ports, the ships and their
crews.
Kingston played host to the tall ships during the summer of 1984
drawing nearly 300,000 visitors. This summer Kingston is the
only major port to host the tall ships exclusively. I know the
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will welcome this. We
agree—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that according to a
Maclean's magazine study, Halton-Peel is the third best
place in Canada for health care services. Among big communities
it ranks second. My riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale
falls within the region of Peel.
This successful rating is a testament to the people who
volunteer, run and staff the hospitals. Their continuous hard
work and dedication to their patients and to delivering various
health care services must be appreciated.
However, health care remains the most important issue to
Canadians, and as the federal government we must continue to
protect our national health care system.
* * *
WILLIAM SAMPSON
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today concerning the case of William Sampson, a Canadian detained
in Saudi Arabia on suspicion of being involved in two separate
bombings, causing the death and injury of innocent people.
Saudi officials have provided their co-operation and assistance
in ensuring that Canadian embassy officials are given unhindered
access to Mr. Sampson, including a complete medical examination
by a Canadian designated medical professional. Contrary to media
reports, this individual was not tortured or physically abused.
I should also add that Saudi officials have made arrangements for
Mr. Sampson's father to visit his son in prison.
Canada and Saudi Arabia have enjoyed excellent relations for a
long time, and I am confident that Mr. Sampson will continue to
receive due process in the course of this investigation.
Saudi Ambassador to Canada, Dr. Mohammed R. Al-Hussaini said “I
urge all parties to handle this case with the sensitivity it
deserves”. To do otherwise is not wise and unproductive.
* * *
CRTC
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the CRTC is out of line and out of
touch with most Canadians. A major cable company is predicting
consumer a revolt if his cable company bundles Pride Vision, a
channel devoted to gay issues programming, with other channels,
if they feel it is forced upon them whether they want to accept
that channel or not.
Pride Vision is among 16 English language digital channels set
to launch this fall which must be carried by all cable companies.
The CRTC will not allow single faith broadcasting, but is quite
free in granting specialty licences to other special interest
groups. I believe the CRTC should get out of the licensing
business. However, if it remains it ought to treat all groups
equally.
If Pride Vision is going to be bundled with other channels, why
not grant a licence to the Eternal Word Television Network? Why
not allow the broadcasting of other specialty programs into
Canada such as radio programs—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
* * *
[Translation]
SPINA BIFIDA AND HYDROCEPHALUS
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that June is
National Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Awareness Month in
Canada.
Spina bifida is a neurological malformation that occurs during
the first four weeks following fertilization. This disease
permanently damages nerves to various degrees, thus causing
paralysis. In Canada, it is estimated that one out of every 750
newborn is affected.
Hydrocephalus, which affects the majority of spina bifida
victims, is caused by an excessive accumulation of cerebrospinal
fluid in the brain. This disease can be treated through surgery.
However, if left untreated, it may cause permanent damage to the
brain and even result in death.
1410
This year, the association is urging Canadian women who could
get pregnant to add folic acid to their daily food intake. There
is evidence that folic acid reduces by up to 75% the risk of
giving birth to a child affected by this disease.
* * *
BEAUPORT BAY
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to draw attention to yesterday's
announcement of phase 1 of the naturalization of the banks of
Beauport bay. Made possible by a joint investment of $200,000 by
the Quebec City port authority and the two levels of government,
this work will help preserve the flourishing ecosystem of this
exceptional site.
Let us hope that, with its change to green thinking, the Quebec
City port authority will be more open to the needs of the public
and will implement a phase 2 for work at other sites it manages.
In fact, the work of stabilizing and naturalizing the banks of
Beauport bay could have been completed for a little more than
$50,000, nearly one-quarter of the cost of the present project.
The beach at Beauport bay continues to provide access to the
St. Lawrence for the people in the Quebec City area. Its
preservation and improvement will directly improve the quality
of life of the people of Beauport and the greater Quebec City
area.
* * *
SOCCER
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, defeat
is never pleasant, but two defeats in a row are doubly
unpleasant.
[English]
I regret to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that for the
second year in the row our MPs' soccer team went down to defeat
facing a very determined pages' team. The score was four to
three in favour of the pages.
The MVPs on our side were the Leader of the Opposition and the
member for Halifax West.
This is the tournament's fourth year, and the games stand at two
for the pages and two for the MPs. We congratulate the pages
very warmly, and thank all who took part in a game where the
spirit of fun and fair play was the big winner.
Special thanks to the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore, the creator and inspirer of the annual
event.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prairie Centre for Agriculture recently released
a study of wheat marketing in 35 nations. It found that Canada
is one of only two countries not moving toward more private
ownership and freer markets.
Incredibly, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board has told western farmers that the solution to their income
crisis is to stop growing wheat. When will the government
realize that the real problem is not the state of the wheat
market, but state control over the wheat market?
Western Canadian farmers have repeatedly called for the freedom
to add value to their produce and create employment in rural
areas. While farmers in other regions of Canada are relatively
free of government control, western Canadian farm families remain
hobbled by a restrictive, Soviet-style marketing system. The
government should just get out of the way of western initiative.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is Environment Week and time to reflect on environmental issues,
such as climate change, the loss of biological diversity,
population growth, pollution, water supply and quality, the
sustainability of natural resources, food safety and genetic
engineering to name a few.
Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations,
recently said:
Unsustainable practices are woven deeply into the fabric of
modern life and myths have taken hold suggesting there is little
alternative to short-sighted and wasteful patterns of consumption
and development.
One myth is the belief that there is a trade-off between the
environment and the economy. Actually they are two sides of the
same coin. We therefore have to learn how to integrate economic,
environmental and social goals for the benefit of generations to
come.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
following and acknowledging the last speaker, it is Environment
Week, and I draw to the House's attention the situation in
Ontario and the crisis we are facing with air pollution.
It causes 1,800 early deaths in Ontario annually. Thousands
more suffer from respiratory ailments such as asthma and
bronchitis. According to the Ontario Medical Association, smog
and poor air quality costs the Ontario economy alone an estimated
$9.9 billion in health care and related expenses each year.
That is almost 10 times more than what the government is
committing to spend on cleaning up the environment, on things
like climate change and air pollution.
1415
I call on the government on behalf of all Canadians to take real
effective action to combat the air pollution problems we have.
* * *
[Translation]
DR. STANLEY VOLLANT
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and all members of
the House, I wish to congratulate Dr. Stanley Vollant on his
recent appointment as president of the Quebec Medical
Association. Dr. Vollant is the first aboriginal to hold this
prestigious position.
The Quebec Medical Association represents some 6,000 of the
17,000 doctors in Quebec and offers its members various training
seminars, as well as useful advice on a wide range of topics.
Originally from Betsiamites, on Quebec's North Shore, Dr. Vollant
was headed for a brilliant career in law when he finally decided
on medicine. Whatever Dr. Vollant's career choices, it was clear
that what he wanted to do was to look after the well-being of his
community.
The Bloc Quebecois congratulates Dr. Vollant and wishes him much
success in his new position.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC SALMON
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Greenland, after a three year suspension, is preparing to catch
200 tonnes of Atlantic salmon, yet the number of salmon returning
to Canadian rivers has dropped to 350,000 from more than 1.5
million in the 1970s.
It is clear that any Greenland fishery is wrong-headed. Salmon
return to their native rivers to spawn after spending one to four
years at sea and the 550 rivers on the east coast will be without
salmon if careless and unsustainable fisheries are allowed to
occur.
On the west coast we recognize that salmon belong to country to
which they return to spawn, not to anyone on the high seas.
Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans prepared to make sure
that similar protection is afforded to Atlantic salmon that we
already give to salmon on the west coast?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, all this week Canadians have been
left wondering what issues are really important to the government
and what issues really require urgent action. There are many
problems that do require urgent action, but I can say for
Canadians that raising the Prime Minister's personal pension by
82%, far beyond what any MP is receiving, is not one of those
pressing public needs.
How can the Prime Minister justify to hardworking Canadians,
many of whom are struggling to save for the future, that he is
now ramming through parliament a personal pension increase of
82%? How can he justify that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as is typical of the opposition member, he does not
check his facts. What he said is not true at all. The article
is based on false information. I have a pension, like any other
member of parliament, as a member of parliament and as the Prime
Minister. The new pension will apply only if I remain Prime
Minister for another five years.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): That is exactly the type of incentive we are
worried about, Mr. Speaker. We cannot afford five more years of
that.
He can try to joke about it but the fact is our senior citizens
are looking on in envy as the Prime Minister looks at ramming
through this personal pension increase of up to 82%. Seniors
cannot even dream about that.
Maybe the problem is that he is just not aware of what seniors
face in terms of hardship.
1420
Does the Prime Minister know what a low income senior with no
other income receives in terms of a monthly cheque from this—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said that was not true. He is not interested in
the truth at all.
I just said that a commission looked at the salaries of members
of parliament and the Prime Minister and concluded that the Prime
Minister of Canada should make as much as a chief justice of
Canada. I do not know how long I will stay because this morning
the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated that he was ready to
take over.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as a leader, I know the feeling of
other people wanting a position. However, I also know what
hardworking Canadians are facing.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation calls this sweet pension deal
of the Prime Minister's “the most sweet parting gift a Prime
Minister has ever given himself”. That is quite a legacy.
How does he justify this huge increase in his own personal
pension to hardworking Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he did not hear me. I have said, and I will say it
again for the third time, what he is saying is not true. He is
still quoting something that is not true. Of course I am not
leaving. I want everybody in the House to join me in making
sure the Leader of the Opposition does not lose his job.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister says the story is not true. I would be very
interested in hearing from him what the percentage increase for
his pension is.
Senior citizens are saying that his pension is just too rich.
Firefighters are saying that it is just too rich. The nurses are
also saying that it is just too rich.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why did he not campaign
on this new pension in the last election? Is this not what we
would really call a hidden agenda?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how many of the poor in Canada drive a
Ferrari. I cannot afford to have one.
The salaries of members of parliament were frozen for eight
years with no increase at all. The legislation calls for a 20%
increase. The commission said that the Prime Minister of Canada
should not make less than the chief justice of Canada, not me.
It is a job and I am trying to do it the best I can.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I notice that the Prime Minister is not talking about
the pension, which is what we are talking about.
Firefighters, by the way, came to the Hill asking for a change
in their pension because many of them have to retire when they
are 55 due to their hazardous working conditions. Do members know
what the Prime Minister said? He said no. He ignored them.
How can the Prime Minister justify his new pension when he
totally ignored the firefighters? Could he tell me that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a wondrous thing to see the Alliance finally
beginning to wake up. The whole issue of the firefighters was
brought to the government's attention by members of this caucus.
We have had extensive meetings with committees of the
firefighters. We are looking very seriously at their situation
as a result of the members of this caucus. The Alliance was no
where to be seen.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
changes made to the employment insurance program following
passage of Bill C-2, are clearly insufficient.
These changes leave too many of the unemployed still out in the
cold. Lobby groups of the unemployed, the unions, even some
Liberal MPs, acknowledge that something has to be done. But the
government will not budge.
1425
If the government has not already forgotten its election
promises, can the Prime Minister commit to providing some help
for the unemployed before the end of this session?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
had promised changes and we have introduced them. We did so
with the very first bill we brought in when we came back.
The unemployed have lost six months because of the blocking
tactics used by the Bloc Quebecois in connection with the
employment insurance legislation before the last election.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that
is totally false. The government was the one that did not want
to debate the matter, failed to introduce the bill, and
preferred to call an election.
The election promises made went far beyond what was included in
Bill C-2. The bill was passed. We are talking about something
else. The situation is clear: the unemployed need help, but the
political will to help is lacking.
Why is the government not in as much of a hurry to do something
for the unemployed as it was to do something for the
billionaires with their family trusts and to raise MPs'
salaries? Why this double standard?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to tell the House of Commons very clearly that, when
we wanted to bring in the bill this past fall, it was the hon.
member for Rimouski—Neigette—et-la Mitis who refused, three times in
a row, to make the consent unanimous, whereas all members of the
other parties were in agreement for us to proceed with the bill.
The ones that blocked the legislation were the Bloc.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's statement is completely
false.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Paul Crête: The day before unemployed workers were to hold
demonstrations in Shawinigan during the election campaign, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport were sent by the Liberal
Party and the Prime Minister to promise these workers that the
law would be changed in the spring of 2001.
Now that the session is drawing to an end and the minister has
the time and money needed, is she prepared to keep the promises
made by her two colleagues and implement the committee's
unanimous recommendations before the end of this session?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government is
prepared to make adjustments to employment insurance based on
conversations with Canadians and the information that we received
from reports, including our annual monitoring and assessment
reports. Bill C-2 is a clear example of this approach.
What is not clear is how the Bloc matches its rhetoric with its
voting pattern here in the House. When it is given the option to
change the employment insurance program in support of seasonal
workers and families, it chooses to vote against it.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Liberal Party
bent over backward to meet with union leaders.
But yesterday, these same Liberals were absent from the Standing
Committee on Finance when it heard from union leaders.
Does the minister realize that the fickle attitude of her
colleagues was summed up perfectly by Félix Leclerc “La veille
des élections, il t'appelait son fiston, le lendemain comme de
raison, il avait oublié ton nom”?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, absolutely I know the attitude of my
colleagues. The attitude of my colleagues is one that works with
the government to pass amendments like those in Bill C-2 that
will reduce the number of hours required to receive special
benefits and that will double parental benefits; and to meet with
me and members with their communities to talk about economic
development.
On this side of the House we know that employment insurance is
important but we also believe in a balanced approach, which means
diversifying economies in those regions of Canada that need our
help.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
shameful to note that the House failed to endorse the resolution
to make Nelson Mandela an honorary Canadian citizen.
South African apartheid was a brutal racist regime. Nelson
Mandela's long walk to freedom was a triumph for his people and
an inspiration to all freedom loving people.
1430
A petty parliamentary incident cannot be permitted to stand in
the way of Canadians honouring this most respected of world
leaders. If the House fails to remedy this embarrassment, what
action will the Prime Minister take to make Nelson Mandela an
honorary Canadian citizen?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased with the question of the leader of the
New Democratic Party. From what I read in the paper I hope they
were misquoted.
This man is a saint if we can have one in democracy. He spent
27 years in jail to fight apartheid and to have democracy in his
country. Parliament will take all the steps after this incident
to make sure he will become a Canadian citizen.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a new
immigration law is making its way through the House. It is a
supreme irony that the law, if it had been on the books 30 years
ago, would have meant that Canada was a not safe place for Nelson
Mandela. A secret immigration board could have branded him a
terrorist and deported him to face torture and imprisonment.
What will it take to persuade the government to change the
immigration bill to protect people like Nelson Mandela from
brutal, dictatorial regimes? Will the Prime Minister commit to
making the necessary changes?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the immigration bill, as the legislation
that has been in place for 25 years, has in place discretion
available to the minister and the government to ensure that cases
such as Nelson Mandela's are dealt with at the highest levels of
government.
However I also want to point out that Bill C-11 which is
presently before the House is no different from the legislation
that has been in place for 30 years. The intention of the bill
is to give Canadian authorities the opportunity to stop those who
are inadmissible, at the same time allowing those such as Mr.
Mandela access to our country.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister said that the Deputy Prime Minister
was not chairing any cabinet committee on the Sea King
replacement. The Minister of National Defence, before the
standing committee in March, said:
Was there a cabinet committee overseeing the procurement of the
Sea King replacement? Was the Deputy Prime Minister involved in
that committee? What is the Deputy Prime Minister's role now in
assessing this project which has profound implications for his
own constituency?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as Deputy Prime Minister he presided over a committee to
look at the process of establishing the bids that are out at the
moment for people to make submissions.
I cannot believe that the leader of the last party, and he
deserves to stay there for a long time, would attack the Deputy
Prime Minister who has served the House very honourably for 39
years. He should be completely ashamed of himself for implying
that because there is a company in his riding he has a conflict
of interest.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, that was a pretty shameful answer. While there is
plenty of appetite by the government to split something as
complex and controversial as a helicopter procurement project,
the government seems completely unable to somehow split a bill
that lumps cruelty to animals together with protecting children.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. On the omnibus
bill, would the minister put aside her partisan rhetoric, her
newfound bombast, and find some way to pass legislation to
protect children before we go home this summer?
1435
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows or
should recall from yesterday, we on this side of the House
offered to pass Bill C-15 in its entirety.
I believe the government House leader did seek unanimous consent
from opposition parties and that it was refused. It seems to me
it is the opposition that is holding up Bill C-15, not us.
* * *
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the industry minister and the HRDC minister are dreaming
up new ways to spend taxpayer money to develop Canada's
infrastructure for research and development. Funding for science
technology is a very worthy cause but business leaders say it is
not enough by itself. They contend that Canada's productivity
cannot be improved without lowering taxes.
It is obvious that the Liberal government is in denial of its
role in the productivity decline in Canada during its reign. When
will it realize that it cannot spend its way to productivity in
Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that this type of accusation is based on
nothing. The incentives for research and development in Canada
are the best in the world.
They always talk about taxes. When our program of taxes is in
place in 2004 the rate of taxes for corporations in Canada will
be lower than in the United States. Today the capital gains
taxes in Canada are lower than in the United States. The stock
option system in Canada is better than the one in the United
States.
We have done a lot. We are better placed than the Americans in
these fields at this moment.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to the tax issue the government reminds me
of the marathon runner that has just been lapped in the race. It
is so far behind it thinks it is ahead.
The government has not even caught up to the tax levels of our
major trading partners who are now embarking on another round of
cuts. These cuts will leave Canada even further behind. When
will the government realize its misguided policies are hurting
the standard of living of Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member simply ought to listen to what was just
said. The fact is our capital gains taxes in Canada are now
lower than in the United States. In the year 2004 our corporate
taxes in Canada will be lower than in the United States,
including capital taxes.
We have brought in the rollover, the angel provisions,
specifically designed to help us in the new economy and we are
now ahead of the United States. The hon. member ought to wake up
and smell the roses.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, employment
insurance recipients—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: It is very difficult to hear the questions and
the answers today, and I do not know why. The hon. member for
Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Employment insurance recipients and
seasonal workers need the government to follow up on its election
promise, because they are not mere statistics, they are people
who, more often than not, have families to provide for.
Could the Prime Minister set aside, for a while, his ridiculous
answers on Bill C-44, because this is not what is at issue? We
are talking about the reforms that must be made to employment
insurance. Will the Prime Minister make good on his election
promise, for the sake of those who believed him?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians, especially Canadians living in
the province of Quebec, know that the Bloc has no credibility on
the issue of employment insurance.
When we asked Bloc members to co-operate with us last fall and
make the changes in Bill C-2, they denied it. When they had the
opportunity to vote on these important amendments in support of
seasonal workers this spring, they voted against them. They
voted with the Alliance.
The questions they ask day after day are nothing more than a
smoke screen. They might as well admit that they were wrong and
that they should have supported the government on these important
changes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
telling the minister once and for all that Bill C-44, which
became C-2 and which let the government siphon off the employment
insurance fund, has been passed. This is not the issue, however.
The unemployed need the act to be improved. Your party is in
office, we want to help, we want to work with the government on
behalf of the people who need these changes.
I say to the minister: seize this opportunity before the House
adjourns and work for the unemployed. This is what we want.
1440
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made changes to the Employment
Insurance Act. We have reduced the number of hours required for
special benefits. We have repealed the intensity rule. We have
doubled parental benefits. On top of that, we appreciate that it
is more than just employment insurance that people in Quebec
want. They want jobs.
Along with my colleague, the minister responsible for economic
development, we are in their communities working with community
members to diversify the economy. The fact remains that they
voted against these changes and they cannot bear to go home and
tell their constituents.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today three representatives of
western Canadian organic farmers clearly outlined why they need
marketing choice. Arnold Schmidt, John Husband and Eric Leicht
gave repeated examples of how members in their organizations had
lost sales because of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The board has completely closed its mind to the requests of
organic farmers for an exemption. Why is the Canadian Wheat
Board minister ignoring his responsibilities and refusing to
introduce the changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act that are
necessary for the development of organic farming in western
Canada?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will examine very carefully the testimony of the
producers that appeared today. I will make sure that testimony
is drawn to the attention of the duly elected producer-directors
of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister has not been paying
attention to western Canadian farmers. He was not even paying
attention to the committee today because the representative of
Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Ken Ritter, was at the committee
meeting. It already knows about this.
Western Canadian organic producers want an exemption from this
monopoly so that they can market their grain at the highest price
possible. The Canadian Wheat Board merely adds costs to
marketing. It does not reduce costs. Will the minister do the
right thing and give an exemption for organic farmers to market
their grain outside the wheat board monopoly?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have indicated repeatedly that the issue to which the
hon. member is referring is a matter that should properly be
referred to the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board.
There are 15 members, 10 of which are farmers elected by
farmers. Obviously the testimony given by farmers today will be
taken very seriously.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
surprised to learn that the democracy clause negotiated in Quebec
City is no longer a matter of consensus among the foreign
ministers gathered in Costa Rica to follow up the Quebec City
summit.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us what happened in
Costa Rica, and specifically why there is no longer a consensus
on the democracy clause?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is still consensus on a democratic charter. But I
can say that, with only six weeks between the Quebec City summit
and the conference in Costa Rica, there was not time for all the
countries represented at the OAS to obtain the support of their
government.
So, it is an ongoing project. There will be another meeting in
three months, and the democratic charter will be adopted then.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister, who chaired the Quebec City summit, plan to
intervene directly with his counterparts in the other countries
to remind them of their commitment to include a democracy clause
and make sure that what the minister has just said actually
happens?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the minister has just said is that the ministers are
discussing certain procedures to implement the decision taken
clearly by all the government leaders at the Quebec City summit.
The democracy clause applies from now on and those who do not
maintain democracy in each of the countries of the free trade
area of the Americas will be excluded from the agreement.
This principle was clearly established by the heads of
government, and I can assure the hon. member that we in Canada,
and I in particular, will remind each of the heads of government
present in Quebec City of it at every opportunity.
* * *
1445
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board is on record as telling farmers to grow
something other than traditional wheat for export. Yet his
legislation is preventing producers from doing just that. The
minister's stubbornness is costing farmers money in their time of
crisis.
During testimony in committee today organic farmers made it
clear that the CWB's board of directors does not represent them.
Yet they must submit to its authority.
Why does the minister refuse to allow these farmers who have
already diversified into niche markets not serviced by the board
the right to market and process their own grain?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in terms of other grains, specialty crops, pulse crops
and so forth, the Canadian Wheat Board is not involved in that
field of marketing activity whatsoever. Its jurisdiction extends
only to wheat and barley in particular circumstances.
With respect to organic farmers, a number have expressed the
views that have been represented in the House today. Others have
expressed other opinions. Obviously both sides need to be
weighed very carefully and the ultimate decision making should
rest with the duly elected producer board of directors.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is classic buck passing. The
minister and his board seem to think that organic producers like
John Husband are threatening other wheat and barley producers
when they ask to opt out of the board's monopoly. This makes no
sense when we consider that the board does not even market
organic grains.
Could the minister explain why giving organic farmers an
exemption from the board system threatens the income of other
wheat and barley farmers in western Canada? He has never given
us an explanation. Organic farmers deserve one right now.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the detailed explanation has been offered, not by the
government, not by bureaucrats, but by the duly elected farmers
who serve on the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The party opposite has argued in the past for democracy in the
administration of the Canadian Wheat Board. The legislation in
the last parliament provided that democracy. Now the opposition
wants to override that democracy by direct edicts by the
Government of Canada.
* * *
WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Could the
minister clarify why an official of his department put out a
tender asking for bulk water export valuation?
The valuation of water studies that includes bulk water studies
contradicts House of Commons Bill C-6. Does this not create
confusion as to what the government's real intention is on bulk
water sales?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I make absolutely clear that there is no change
whatsoever in the stated policy of the Government of Canada not
to export water. I would go further and say our policy is not to
have transfers from one water basin to another and that also
remains the policy of the Government of Canada.
At the same time we have a data gathering project to which the
member referred which is one of scores and in fact hundreds that
take place every year. It is done for other areas of the
environment such as waterfowl and wildlife. These studies have
proved to be very valuable for conservation measures.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the minister responsible for housing will be hanging
his head in shame as Canada gives its report on housing to the UN
this week. What else could he do given the government's dismal
record of cancelled social housing, offloading to the provinces
and homelessness?
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why has the government
failed on its own commitment to Habitat II and housing for all?
When will the government get its priorities straight and provide
a real housing program for Canadians who are desperately in need?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government does have a national housing strategy. We have
provided $1.9 billion annually in housing assistance.
CMHC mortgage insurance helps one in three Canadians access
financing to purchase a home. Through home renovation programs
and housing research we are improving the quality of housing. We
have also invested $753 million to address homelessness.
* * *
1450
[Translation]
CANADA DAY
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we
recently learned that 72% of the year 2000 budget for Canada Day
was earmarked for Quebec. Certain communities in my riding were
given a mere $1,000 to organize their July 1 activities.
Are we to conclude that the amounts earmarked for Quebec was a
federalist tactic?
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage commit to giving more
money to the communities of Canada so that all can share equally
in the funding for this celebration?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Yes.
Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Human Resources Development.
We have learned that the department has struck an internal
review committee to vet the approval of all access to information
requests, but it appears the net result of the committee has been
to deny information to the official opposition. In fact we have
had to appeal to the information commissioner to help us get
answers to 31 access to information requests.
Does the minister think it is appropriate for her officials to
disregard both the spirit and the letter of the access law passed
by parliament?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, the
decisions made on access to information are at arm's length from
my office.
She also will know, I am sure, that there have been a number of
requests made to my department over the last year. In fact we
have had a threefold increase in the amount of information
required. We are responding as quickly as we can. Again, as she
points out, there is an appeal process that she should make use
of.
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, our requests about Shawinigate do not
receive a answer. Questions about last year's disastrous
internal audit are met with months of silence.
We requested a list of HRDC grants and contributions to the
minister's own riding and were told it would cost us $6,000 even
though the information used to be provided to us free.
When will this minister stop stonewalling the official
opposition and start obeying the law?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again let me repeat that the access to
information process is at arm's length.
The hon. member will recognize the amount of information that
has been requested as we have provided hundreds of thousands of
pieces of paper to her party at its request.
We have had a very good track record in my department of
responding to requests. We hope to restore that capacity, but
indeed the process is there if she wishes to appeal.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Last week
there were about a dozen parliamentarians and diplomats visiting
Canada at Russia's expense.
Today there are three Russian police officers in Ottawa to
investigate a fatal car crash involving a Russian diplomat, but
this time Canada has to pay.
If Russia can pay for the diplomats, why is Canada paying for
the police? Will the minister just send the bill back to Moscow?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the hon. member shares with me a desire to see
justice done in the Knyazev case.
The efforts that my department have undertaken to ensure that
the investigation proceeds unimpeded are intended to do just
that, to ensure that there is no obstacle to justice being done
on behalf of the victims, Catherine MacLean and Catherine Doré.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government's new immigration Bill C-11 has been described as
seriously flawed, draconian and even un-Canadian. Most of the
154 witnesses before the immigration committee said the bill
strips the rights of permanent residents and does not provide for
the protection of refugees.
The committee chair from London North Centre said at clause by
clause:
It's lucky I don't have to vote...when they start to sound more
Liberal than we do, I get a little concerned.
Why is the Liberal Party of Pearson, Laurier and Trudeau so
unwilling to entrench the rights of permanent residents and
properly protect refugees in Canada?
1455
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the member
opposite, who has been a member of the immigration committee, is
giving out serious misinformation about the bill.
We live up to our humanitarian and compassionate tradition of
welcoming those who are in genuine need of protection. We
enshrine the rights of permanent residents.
I think his constituents and Canadians would be very concerned
to know he is proposing that we take longer than is absolutely
necessary to remove serious criminals who pose a serious threat
to Canada. I think his constituents would be surprised to know
that he does not want to help us remove serious criminals as
quickly as possible.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the United
States government has assumed responsibility for its military
personnel with Balkan and the Persian Gulf service who are
victims of the gulf war syndrome, unlike Canada, which has chosen
to abandon its servicemen and women.
Given DND's number one priority to put people first and improve
the quality of life of its military personnel, when does the
Minister of Veterans Affairs intend to indeed make people a
priority and to give these personnel veteran status?
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada was the first
NATO country to open post-deployment clinics. These clinics are
open to Canadian forces members and their families and to
veterans of any peacekeeping operation who have concerns about
their health.
I urge anyone who thinks they have a medical problem to make use
of these facilities and to visit one of the centres for injured
and retired members and their families at the nearest medical
facility.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like the
military personnel of other countries, Canada's military
personnel are experiencing real physical symptoms: chronic
fatigue, multiple sclerosis, memory and weight loss, urinary
problems.
Does the Minister of National Defence, whose primary aim is to
make people a priority, intend to immediately order a medical
investigation of all those who served in the Gulf or the Balkans,
to be carried out by a multidisciplinary team of civilian
specialists?
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in addition to a
registry of gulf war veterans with health concerns established in
1995 and 1997, veterans with continuing health concerns were
thoroughly examined and evaluated at a gulf war clinic which was
established for this purpose. Some veterans were later admitted
for additional assessment.
Once again I urge anyone who has a medical problem in the
Canadian forces to come forward to the Canadian forces medical
clinics and be examined.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
here are some facts about Kyoto. The United States has taken its
name off the Kyoto protocol for obvious reasons. Canada still
has its signature on the agreement.
Europe is gathering a coalition to ratify the protocol in Bonn
in July and this can be done without the agreement of Canada, the
U.S. or Australia. Finally, if it is ratified Canada is bound by
the Kyoto targets, which we know we cannot live up to. Will
Canada take its name off the protocol?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The
response is certainly not. We have signed the Kyoto protocol. We
intend to work under the Kyoto system and we intend to meet our
Kyoto targets.
We certainly want to see changes in the American position. We
also have differences with the Europeans, but bargaining hard for
Canadian interests is what we intend to do. We intend to meet
our targets and do it the Canadian way.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, actions, not intentions, are all that really count.
Canada faces international shame if we do not live up to the
targets that we signed.
The Minister of the Environment continues to evade questions
about ratifying Kyoto in the House but has admitted, for instance
in the Hill Times recently:
We won't ratify that here—and I'll tell you why—because we
can't take it to the public at the present time.
The minister is in print saying Canada will not ratify Kyoto.
Again, will the government end this empty talk and remove
Canada's signature from the Kyoto protocol?
1500
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again we do not intend to remove our signature
from the Kyoto agreement. The Kyoto agreement is the best
international effort to deal with a very serious issue.
The very committee appointed by President Bush of the United
States, which has 11 scientists including Nobel laureates, has
said we should continue to regard global warming as a major
threat. It essentially endorsed the findings of the
international panel on climate change.
Canada will continue to deal with this problem which is showing
its effects in the Canadian north ahead of virtually every other
country.
* * *
[Translation]
SPORTS
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all
know that soccer is the sport played most often in Canada, with
800,000 young fans, 40% of whom are girls.
The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport made an important
announcement this morning. Would he share it with the House?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since the MPs were defeated yesterday by the pages,
I had to do something about soccer.
I have the pleasure to announce to members that we have released
a feasibility study in response to the commission that bears the
name of the member for Toronto-Danforth. The Government of
Canada will work with the Canadian Soccer Association to hold the
World Cup in soccer here in Canada in 2010.
I am also announcing a contribution of $500,000 for a world cup
for girls under 19, which will be headquartered in Edmonton.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Trade.
Yesterday, he announced that he would head a trade mission to
India next fall.
In 1998, the Government of Canada imposed trade sanctions to
isolate India and Pakistan following their nuclear testing. Three
years later, they still have nuclear weapons.
Why is this government changing its policy?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government decided to resume relations
with India. I will be extremely happy to head a trade mission,
in the second week of October, to a country that has undergone
significant economic development.
We give priority to certain economic sectors in which Canadian
businesses have significant comparative advantages. I think it
will be in the interests of Canadian businesses to
improve relations with India.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, three years ago the official
opposition said that sanctions were not the answer and to engage
in positive debate was the way to deal with the nuclear threat.
The government imposed its knee-jerk reaction of sanctions on
India and Pakistan in 1998. Our trade with those countries
dropped dramatically. Could the minister inform the House how
much the imposition of sanctions on India and Pakistan cost
Canada in lost trade?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our country is re-engaging now. I can
tell the member that the progress we want to make on trade front
will be quite impressive. We have already formed alliances among
individual companies in India and Canada which intend to good
work on that front.
The mission I will be leading the second week of October will be
a fresh start and will build a solid relationship with a very
important country in Asia, that is India.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Péter Harrach,
Minister of Social and Family Affairs of the Republic of Hungary.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government
House leader if he could advise us of the business of the House
for the remainder of this week, for next week and for the
following week if necessary.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, pursuant to an
order made earlier, the House will conclude third reading of Bill
C-28, the Parliament of Canada Act amendments. Tomorrow we will
deal with third reading of Bill C-25, the Farm Credit Corporation
amendments, as well as report stage of Bill C-24 with respect to
organized crime. Those are the only bills I expect to deal with
tomorrow.
On Monday we will then consider third reading of Bill C-24
regarding organized crime, then Bill S-16, the money laundering
bill, followed by Bill C-11, the Immigration Act amendments, Bill
S-11 respecting business corporations, Bill S-3 respecting motor
vehicles and Bill C-6 respecting bulk water.
On Tuesday we shall deal with an allotted day for the
consideration of main estimates at the end of the day. There has
been consultations among political parties, and I would hope to
take a few minutes on Tuesday to debate and hopefully receive the
consent of everyone for a motion regarding Mr. Mandela.
Later next week, we will deal with any bills listed that are not
yet complete, as well as the report of the modernization
committee. I will consult my colleagues, the House leaders of
official parties regarding business for Wednesday and the days
beyond, should there be such dates. This ends my report.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
TALISMAN ENERGY
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question of privilege arises from answers in the House of May
4 last and prior to that on April 30, and in the standing
committee on foreign affairs May 3, concerning the alleged use of
the airfields by Talisman Energy and by Sudan's military for
offensive military purposes.
In putting questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs with
respect to this issue, I referred to a document which had been
vetted under the provisions of the access to information
legislation, a portion of which had been deleted. That was
paragraph 15 of the document which specifically dealt with the
issue of the use by Sudanese military of Talisman's airfields.
In questioning the minister with respect to this document and
the particular serious allegations of complicity between Talisman
and the Sudanese government, the minister in response indicated
that the deletions to this document had been made “to protect
the lives of Canadians working in the Sudan”.
Subsequently, I obtained a copy of the original document.
Paragraph 15 of the original document made no reference
whatsoever to the lives of Canadians. There was absolutely no
information in that paragraph that could in any way jeopardize
the lives of any Canadians working in Sudan. Indeed all members
of the House would agree that the lives of those Canadians should
be protected and respected.
However, this issue is a very serious one because as a member of
parliament, as a member of the House, as a member of the foreign
affairs committee, along with other members who share concern on
this issue, we cannot do our job effectively as members if we are
given documents which are heavily censored and whited out,
allegedly under the provisions of access to information
legislation. When the minister seeks to explain those deletions
and gives the House and the committee information which is
demonstrably inaccurate, we cannot do our job.
1510
That surely is the essence of parliamentary privilege; our
ability to question ministers, to question the government and to
call them to account, in this case with respect to the position
of the Government of Canada on the use by the Sudanese military,
in its genocidal, scorched earth policy in South Sudan, of
Talisman's airfields.
It is for that reason that I raise this question of privilege. I
would like to suggest to the Speaker that this is a serious
matter and should the Speaker find there is a prima facie case of
privilege here, I would be prepared to move the appropriate
motion to have this matter reviewed by the committee.
In closing, I want to say that I have received from the minister
a copy of a letter which he sent to Your Honour as Speaker, dated
June 6. In this letter the minister stated: “Our principal
concern in reviewing and vetting this document, pursuant to the
provisions of the access to information legislation, our
principal concern was that the document contains information
that, if disclosed publicly, could jeopardize the security of
Canadians working in Sudan”.
Paragraph 15, as I said before, makes no reference whatsoever to
the security of Canadians.
In closing, I just want to make this final point. The minister
then went on to suggest that another potential exemption might be
respecting sensitive information about the quantity and quality
of military assets of a foreign country, for example Sudan.
If this is the rationale, why was that rationale not put before
the House and the committee at the time the question was asked?
I believe this raises very serious questions of privilege that
go to the heart of the ability, not just of myself, but of all
members of the House. I know there are members in all parties
who share this concern and who may wish to speak to this to get
at the truth, so we can do our job on behalf of the Canadians we
have the honour of representing.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, the issue raised by the hon. member was a matter
of procedures in the wrong place.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the justification for excluding
portions of a document that is made available under the Access to
Information Act is appealable to the information commissioner.
The hon. member has every right to do so.
As far as the answers that I gave in the House are concerned, I
gave answers which stated the justification for the deletions
which was used by the person preparing the response to the access
to information request, and that is exactly what I said.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that the document in
question does address the number, location and security
disposition of Canadians in the oil fields in considerable
detail. That is the case, and the hon. member knows that is
true.
On several occasions rebel groups in the Sudan have made threats
against international oil workers. That was the reason that
those preparing the response to access to information deleted
those passages.
In recognizing the risk to Canadians, I think the hon. member
will understand that precautions have been taken to try to
ensure, as much as we can, that those individuals are safe.
In any event, I fail to see how this could be a question of
privilege. There may be a difference of point of view. You have
given the hon. member plenty of latitude, Mr. Speaker, to argue
his policy view with respect to activities in the Sudan. That
was a whole other question that we had the opportunity to discuss
at some length in the committee.
However, if he has difficulty with how an access to information
request was handled, I suggest to him and I suggest that the
appropriate way to deal with that is by appealing to the
information commissioner.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as somebody who has made requests for access to
information on a number of occasions, I am shocked to hear what
the member had to say about the paragraph that was deleted in
this document and his later discovery that the reasons given for
the deletion were not actually fact. It raises the question as
to whether the documents that I and my colleagues have received
over the past few years have the same problem.
I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take serious consideration of
the complaint of the hon. member and to thoroughly investigate
whether in fact there has been a question of privilege here.
1515
The Speaker: The Chair has heard the points raised by
the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas and the member for North
Vancouver. I do not see how this is a question of privilege. I
do not understand from anything I have heard how the privileges
of the hon. member have been affected.
Members have two recourses with respect to documents. First,
they can ask the House to pass an order requiring the tabling of
documents in the House, which is called a notice of motion for
the production of papers. Those motions can be tabled and can
demand the production of documents that might not otherwise be
available under the Access to Information Act.
Under the act, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has pointed
out, there is an appeal procedure available to members. The
minister is perfectly correct in suggesting that the proper
avenue for dealing with the matter is through appeal under the
Access to Information Act and not to the Speaker. I do not think
it is my obligation to rule on what kinds of documents are being
produced either by government departments or members' offices
except in the exceptional circumstances of there being something
done by the House itself.
Clearly in this case it was not a matter for the House. It was
a matter for an officer of parliament. Disclosure was made by
the department under the auspices of an act of parliament. There
is an officer charged with enforcement of the act and I think the
matter should be dealt with there.
There is not a question of privilege raised at this time. I
decline to proceed further with the matter.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Given the government's newfound enthusiasm for resolutions being
introduced in this place through unanimous consent, I should like
to seek unanimous consent to put the following motion extracted
from my private member's Bill C-297:
Whereas the people of Canada are forever grateful to the many
dedicated men and women who bravely and unselfishly gave their
lives for Canada in wars and in peacekeeping efforts;
Whereas their extraordinary courage and profound sacrifice must
never be forgotten by us or future generations;
And Whereas, as a gesture of its respect for these men and
women, the federal government wishes to honour their memory by
promoting throughout Canada the observance of two minutes of
silence each Remembrance Day,
Now, Therefore the people of Canada are invited to pause and
observe two minutes of silence at 11.00 a.m. on each Remembrance
Day to honour the men and women who died serving their country in
wars and in peacekeeping efforts.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the
member that nobody on his side of the House, his House leader or
anyone else, raised the issue at the House leaders' meeting
earlier this week. That is most unfortunate for him.
I respectfully suggest that he might want to do that at next
week's meeting. I will do my best to endeavour to raise it with
him, if his House leader does not raise it.
The Speaker: I take it the government House leader is
refusing consent to proceed with the matter at this time.
Accordingly it will not proceed now.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved that Bill C-28, an act to amend the
Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, be read the third time and
passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak this afternoon on
the third reading of Bill C-28, the parliamentary compensation
legislation.
As I indicated in this House on Tuesday, Bill C-28 is
straightforward. It simply implements the report of the
independent Lumley Commission, a commission created by order in
council last January. The Lumley Commission submitted a report
in accordance with the Parliament of Canada Act. We approved
this report and we are simply trying to implement it.
The Lumley Commission stated that:
A good day's work deserves a fair wage, and there is no reason
that this should not apply to those who commit to public
service.
The Lumley Commission recommendations, which are reflected in
Bill C-28, are in my view fair. And I am very pleased with the
broad support for the Lumley report.
1520
[English]
The House leader for the official opposition supported key
elements of the Lumley report when he said that his party had
called for “an independent commission to make recommendations
regarding MPs' salaries” in the future and that such
recommendations “be done by the people who look at the judges'
salaries, which is independent”. He further stated that his
party had “promoted the concept that MPs' pensions should be
more in line with the private sector”.
The NDP House leader said “the process we have embarked on
today is much superior to ones I have experienced in the past”.
He further stated:
What we have here, with notice being given on a Friday, the bill
introduced on a Monday, second reading debate on Tuesday,
committee of the whole on Wednesday and third reading and final
vote on Thursday...does give Canadians time to get in touch with
their MPs and give them their opinions before dealing with a fait
accompli.
Those are the words of the House leader for the New Democratic
Party.
[Translation]
On Tuesday, the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans said, and I quote:
We in the Bloc Quebecois are of the opinion that Mr. Lumley and
the other two members of his committee have carried out a
serious, detailed and well researched study of the situation.
So, several representatives of the political parties in the
House have commented favourably on this report.
[English]
The subject of parliamentary pensions has been noted by members
of the House during consideration of Bill C-28. The Leader of
the Official Opposition raised it today during question period.
He of course now knows, on verification, that the numbers he
quoted from the newspaper were factually incorrect, grossly
exaggerated and completely off base. I am sure the hon. member
knows not to refer to things that are improperly researched. They
are bound to get people in trouble. He knows something about
that.
I would emphasize that Bill C-28 would implement the Lumley
commission's recommendation that pension provisions be adjusted
to limit the cost of compensation increases. According to Bill
C-28, the accrual rate would be reduced by 25%, from 4% to 3%.
The reduction would result in a saving of $400,000 annually for
the Canadian taxpayer, and we all know why. There are two
reasons. First, the accrual rate would decrease. Second, the
premiums would be paid on a larger amount.
For the average MP, the premiums would be approximately $3,000 a
year more. Because people like myself and the leader of the
opposition get larger salaries, we would pay even more. The
leader of the opposition and myself, and I say that because our
salaries are identical and much higher than those of the average
MP, would pay approximately $4,000 a year more than we pay now in
premiums on the pension plan.
It is interesting to note that in a Toronto Star article
today an evaluation was done on MP pensions, even the one paid to
the Prime Minister. They were deemed not to be overly generous
given the size of the premiums.
Higher compensation levels would of course result in an increase
in pension benefits but those benefits would be fully paid for by
members themselves through their contributions to the
parliamentary pension plan as I have just described.
During the second reading debate on Tuesday, members of
parliament rose to speak about the need for fair compensation for
their demanding workload. Members recognized the Lumley
commission's research in comparing parliamentary compensation
with other professions.
It has been clear this week that almost all members, certainly
the vast majority, agree that Bill C-28 would: first, strike an
appropriate balance in determining a fair level of compensation;
second, reinforce our ability to attract the best and brightest
to public life; and third, strengthen accountability to taxpayers
on the issue of parliamentary compensation, the judges
commission, which will now rule, and so on.
1525
I would remind those who have spoken against implementing the
Lumley recommendations that compensation for MPs rose 6% between
1991 and 2000. Public sector increases have amounted to 15%,
private sector increases have amounted to 22% and the conference
board survey puts executives at 31%. Of course 31% is not even
sought in the bill.
A comparison with judges, and I described it yesterday during
report stage debate, shows that a member of parliament even with
this increase would not be paid nearly what federal court judges
were paid 30 years ago.
A survey comparing the salaries of legislators in 12 countries
ranked Canadian legislators ninth behind those of G-7 nations
such as the United States, Britain, Japan, Germany, France and
others.
Experts on compensation in the private sector have commented on
parliamentary remuneration and the Lumley commission's
recommendations.
Here is what the media had to say about the Lumley report. The
Globe and Mail on May 30 stated:
We would do well to consider this as citizens in pursuit of good
government...What job is comparable to being one of a few hundred
legislators mastering difficult, complex subjects and passing
laws that affect every Canadian's life?
[Translation]
La Presse noted on May 31 that a good MP more than earns his
salary, particularly when his workload and what he is paid are
compared to equivalent jobs in the labour market.
[English]
I will take a minute to talk about the opting in provisions. A
number of members yesterday commented about the opting in
provisions. Under Bill C-28, parliamentarians would be given the
right to decide whether the Lumley commission report should apply
to themselves. I would say to all members that they are being
given a choice and are free to do what they think.
I will say once again, if I can be so bold, that I advise all
members to vote for the bill. Should they not vote for the bill
they should opt in to the program anyway. I would ask all
members to do this because they are all deserving of the salary
that members of parliament are paid.
Opting in provisions have been used many times in the past. Some
members alleged yesterday that it was unprecedented. However
they were sought by members of the House only a few years ago
regarding the pension program.
Mr. Dale Johnston: That was an opt out.
Hon. Don Boudria: No, it was an opt in. The hon. member
says that it was an opt out but that is not correct, I am sorry
to say. If members review their records they will see that it was
an opt in. All members were deemed to have opted out and had to
sign up to be opted in. I am quite sure of that.
A second opting in bill was passed shortly before the last
election to allow members to buy back a second time. That was an
opt in. Again, each member had the choice of doing it. That was
the second one and there are a number of others.
[Translation]
In conclusion, Bill C-28 implements the report of the independent
Lumley Commission.
I congratulate the hon. Ed Lumley, the hon. Jake Epp, and
Dr. Huguette Labelle on their work.
It is easy for all of us to claim that we are opposed to this
bill. I am asking all members to think about what is right for
themselves, for their family and for the work they are called
upon to perform as parliamentarians in the highest court in the
land, the Parliament of Canada.
Again, I ask them to support this bill. It is a good bill.
It is well drafted and it deserves the support of us all, not
just for ourselves, but for the institution in which we sit as
parliamentarians.
I hope that the leader of the opposition and all members of the
House will decide later today to support the bill or at least to
opt back in when the opportunity arises.
1530
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to participate in
the debate today on Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of
Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and
the Salaries Act. I say reluctantly because I believe there are
many other things that we should be dealing with today and in the
days left in this session that are more important to Canadians
than this issue.
Ostensibly the bill is meant to implement the recommendations
that were made by the Lumley commission, which was an independent
commission led by former cabinet minister Ed Lumley and charged
with setting MPs salaries, benefits and pensions. Very few will
actually dispute the need to review the salaries of MPs. I do
not dispute that. We do not dispute that.
We were actually in a bizarre situation where MPs got a basic
salary of $68,000, plus a tax free expense allowance of something
around $40,000, plus additional living allowances, with the
result that when asked the basic question of how much an MP made
the answer was not a simple one.
There is pretty much unanimous consent out there that people
should be able to know how much politicians make. That is basic.
If we are to be truly accountable to our electorate, part of that
accountability involves being transparent where taxpayers dollars
are being spent.
Transparency is not something for which the present Liberal
government is known. The very idea that the salaries of MPs
should be transparent and comparable with private sector
standards is actually one which is deeply held by most Canadians
and by most members of the Canadian Alliance. It should come as
no surprise that the first line of article 70 of the Canadian
Alliance declaration of policy reads:
Parliamentary compensation will be recommended by an independent
commission according to private sector standards.
It is something we believe in and that our grassroots members
across the country have endorsed. On the face of it Bill C-28 is
straight out of Canadian Alliance policy. The Lumley commission
was an independent commission. Its recommendations certainly go
in the direction of basing parliamentary compensation on private
sector standards.
The bill uses the salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of Canada as its reference point and that the salaries of
MPs should be a percentage of that. We could argue about whether
or not that amount is appropriate. Indeed it was actually argued
by the government House leader on Wednesday that it was
appropriate the Prime Minister make the same salary as the chief
justice.
That may or may not be a point agreed upon by all Canadians, but
the fact is that it was out there and a reference point was
sought. The only possible concern is that the chief justice's
salary is determined by the judicial compensation commission
whose recommendations must be passed by parliament. In a somewhat
oblique fashion the Liberals have ensured, if they wanted to, a
stealthy way of continuing to give MPs regular increases. This
is the spend portion of the tax and spend policies which
constitute the ongoing Liberal assault on the beleaguered
Canadian taxpayer.
The Lumley commission did a great service in getting rid of the
tax free expense allowances as we had recommended. This was
appropriate. Just as people cannot understand why the federal
Liberals do not feel that the cost of a mechanic's tools should
be partially deductible if needed for his or her employment, and
that is something we endorse as the Canadian Alliance, most
taxpayers could not understand how our food, clothing,
drycleaning and taxis would come out of a taxpayer funded
non-taxable expense allowance. By making this amount taxable the
Lumley commission has ended the secrecy and put politicians on a
similar footing with other Canadians. We endorse that.
The commission also recognized the need to make the MP pension
plan comparable with public and private sector norms, especially
given that salaries are being raised to private sector levels. It
suggested that the MP pension should be equal to 2.5% of an MP
salary multiplied by the number of years served. It should be
noted that this is actually higher than the 2% rate per year of
service which public servants actually get from a plan that is
administered through the Treasury Board.
Sadly, even the independent commission's recommended above
average rate was not enough for the federal Liberals who jacked
that rate up to 3%. Now we give them half a point out of ten for
lowering it, but it is still not where it would be if and when
the Canadian Alliance government has the opportunity to do that
after the next election.
1535
While it seems that our pay has been recommended by an
independent commission, the reality is that the Liberals have
actually used the Lumley commission's recommendation to jack up
and justify their own pay raises. They have exceeded the pension
amounts and retained the ability to continue to give themselves
pay increases by linking their salaries to the base amount, the
salary of the chief justice, and then actually being the ones who
have the ability to control that. Like most things the Liberals
do, it is too clever by half.
I will be voting against the bill for the principal reason that
I do not think I should set my own salary. It is as simple as
that.
The second sentence of article 70 of the Canadian Alliance
declaration of policy specifically states “The decision of
parliament will be implemented after a subsequent election”.
That is a point of principle of our own policy declaration.
[Translation]
We always believed that we should run any salary increase by the
voters first. We should not get elected and then vote ourselves
a huge salary increase. We are not talking about the legitimacy
of the current salary, but about the principle. Voters should
know before the election what salary we will be getting
throughout our mandate. This is why the Canadian Alliance
proposed amendments whereby this increase would take effect only
after the next election.
[English]
It just makes sense. On the CBC news last night there was an
interview with a fellow at a racetrack who just could not figure
out how MPs could vote themselves a pay increase. He said that
the increase should be for the next guy. That encapsulates the
spirit of our policy. Like most Canadians, the person being
interviewed did not think MPs should set their own salaries.
I will be voting against the bill and encouraging others to do
the same. If we defeat the bill, the Liberals could bring back
an amended bill that would contain many of the same positive
recommendations of the Lumley commission and would add a clause
stating that the increase would only take effect after the next
election. They would also ensure that the base amount would not
be linked to any salary that parliament may control.
I appeal to the federal Liberal MPs to defeat the bill. It
would send a message to taxpayers across the country that they
and not us are the ones who should set our salaries. I would
encourage our federal Liberal MPs to agree with us on this. It
is Canadian tax dollars and they should be the ones determining
what is fair compensation.
The bill has some other nasty features. Section 54.1 makes the
increase retroactive to January 1. In my view that is totally
unconscionable. There is no way on earth we should be voting
ourselves a windfall, especially when taxes are so high for the
rest of our citizens. That is absolutely unacceptable in my
view. The government gave no hint during the last election that
it would be doing such a thing.
The other objectionable clause in the bill is the one which
requires an MP to opt in to benefit from the pay increase. This
is one of the most troubling concepts that we have seen in any
type of legislation. It puts MPs in a situation whereby two MPs
from the same party or from across the floor who do the same job,
or maybe work harder, as some would suggest opposition members
do, but I will not necessarily claim that, would earn two
different salaries. That is in direct violation of the spirit of
equality in our charter of rights and freedoms and is 100%
opposed to the spirit of the October 19, 1999 federal court
decision on pay equity. It is totally inappropriate for that
particular clause to be there.
It also requires an MP to opt in in order to make his or her
salary transparent to taxpayers. We believe that should be
happening but that we should not have to opt in to do that. It
should be part of the legislation that we are getting rid of the
tax free expense allowance, which some people find so troubling.
Finally, the bill says that the opt in or opt out clause,
whichever we want to call it, is irrevocable. This is
astonishing. If MPs opt out in order to defray their increases
until after the next election, to follow our own policy, it would
mean that as long as they continue to be elected they would
forever be operating at a different level of compensation than
other MPs.
It is absolutely unconscionable that such a clause should be in
the bill. It is probably unconstitutional. It is definitely
against the spirit of equality and surely against democracy
itself.
1540
It is interesting to note that at the Quebec summit in April the
government was calling on a democracy clause to be inserted into
the text for the free trade area of the Americas. The government
was of the view that the emerging democracies of the world would
learn from us. We can be honoured to say that many times they do
look to us.
I recently met with President Fox of Mexico. I can say that the
type of democracy being proposed by the federal Liberal
government in this bill is not something I believe that Mr. Fox's
government would follow. I suspect he will be looking for
another role model and that is unfortunate.
There is also a suggestion being made that if members vote
against the bill it would be inappropriate for them to live with
the effects of the bill. I find that a specious argument. I
would make note of the fact that many times MPs on either side of
the House vote against legislation which then becomes law and
they then have to live with it whether they like it or not.
The government proposed certain tax measures only hours before
the last election. We opposed those particular measures because
we did not think they were good tax measures. We are living with
the tax decreases that were passed on and nobody is suggesting
that is inappropriate.
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the Leader of
the Official Opposition but I want to remind the House that under
the special order of debate on this particular bill members have
10 minutes. The Chair will undertake the responsibility of
giving the Leader of the Official Opposition a few more minutes
to complete his remarks. As I say, I hesitated to interrupt but
in fairness to other hon. members who wish to participate I
wanted him to be aware of that.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your
indulgence. I will wrap up at this point.
The suggestion that people who oppose the legislation should not
have to or should not be expected to live within it is
inappropriate. It is a great and sad irony that those who oppose
this type of legislation in order to protect taxpayers are
sometimes pointed at as being the villains of this type of
legislation.
I would also say that it is certainly a matter of principle in
our caucus that whatever an individual MP decides to do following
the bill, whether he or she votes for it or against it, takes or
does not take some of it, be it Liberal, Alliance or whatever,
there will be no personal recriminations from one MP to another
as far as we are concerned. Those will be private matters.
I will close by saying that Bill C-28 should be opposed and
denounced. We call on the government to table new legislation
that respects the recommendations of the Lumley commission, the
prohibition against politicians setting their own salaries and
the fundamental principle in a democracy that if two people do
the same job for the same employer they should get the same
money.
I have an amendment to Bill C-28. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
“Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries
Act be not now read a third time, but be referred back to
Committee of the Whole for the purposes of reconsidering clause
29 to study its impact on the prime minister's pension taking
into account the recommendation from the Lumley Commission that
the changes to members' compensation `not result in any material
impact, either positive or negative, to the benefits that
parliamentarians receive from the pension plan'.”
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment tabled by the hon.
Leader of the Official Opposition is in order.
1545
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to see if there is consent for the following
order.
I would ask all hon. members to perhaps pay particular attention
to ensure that it reflects their views: That at 3 p.m. on
Tuesday, June 12, the member for Markham shall propose a motion,
deemed to seconded by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the
Opposition and leaders of the other parties, the motion of which
he gave notice this day with regard to honorary citizenship for
Nelson Mandela, provided that after speeches of no more than five
minutes by the mover, and one representative from each party, the
question thereon shall be put without further debate or
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent for the government
House leader to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have just a few comments on this because our position has
already been made clear at second reading and at committee of the
whole with respect to our opposition to the bill on the basis
that we believe the 20% raise to be too high.
That is why we moved an amendment which would have had the
effect of reducing the raise from 20% to 10%. It would still be
generous when we consider what many other Canadians would be glad
to receive in the way of a pay raise, but nevertheless something
that we might have been able to justify given certain economic
indicators.
The amendment was defeated yesterday, so we will proceed to vote
against Bill C-28 at third reading. Then we will proceed as a
caucus to all opt in to the legislation because we do not believe
we should either be punished or accept punishment for being
honest about our feelings on the pay package, and the fact that
the raise is too high, especially when we consider there are
elements of the bill which we support in terms of increasing
transparency, and also in terms of creating a mechanism whereby
members of parliament would not have to set their own salaries
again.
I listened with care to what the Leader of the Opposition said.
Perhaps I could just use my time to respond to some of the things
he and the Alliance Party have said in the last few days.
I have had experience with the Alliance Party, and before that
the Reform Party, when it comes to these matters. It is very
good at allowing certain things to happen and even in the past
negotiating certain agreements. Then after having negotiated
those agreements, pretending to be against them.
It happened in the last parliament when I was privy to
negotiations among the official opposition House leader and other
House leaders with respect to the legislation that made it
possible for many Reform members to opt back in to the pension
legislation.
Having negotiated that, I was very surprised to find out that
when the bill came to the floor of the House of Commons the very
people I had negotiated this with were denouncing it and voting
against it. That is bargaining in bad faith. If people are
going to negotiate something, they should at least have the guts
to vote for it.
1550
This is not a similar situation in the sense that it was not
negotiated, but I have heard the Alliance members say in recent
days that this is being fast tracked through parliament and they
did not want to see this happen now. I would submit that there
is also a certain intellectual political disingenuousness
involved here too.
I have defended this process because I have said that this
process is much better than any other process we have ever had
with respect to implementing improvements or changes in our
compensation package. Therefore, I do not go around slamming the
government for this particular process. The Alliance has been
doing this. The fact remains that this happened pursuant to a
House order which the Alliance Party had the 25 members to stop
it. This would not be happening if 25 members out of an Alliance
caucus of 66 or whatever it was had been in the House to stop it.
I would ask the Alliance Party to give us a break and stop
pretending that this is somehow happening against its will. This
happened because there were not 25 members of the House of
Commons standing. The Alliance is one of the parties that had
the numbers to stop it. Having not stopped it, spare us the
theatrics of complaining that this is happening in the way it is.
With respect to opting out and opting in, the Leader of the
Opposition said that this is a terrible thing. We know where it
has its origins. It has its origins in the former Reform Party
demanding that it be allowed to opt out of the pension plan.
Mr. Richard Harris: They are the bad guys though.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Fair enough. I am just saying this is
a fact. I do not blame the Leader of the Official Opposition
because he was not here. The fact is his party has a lot of
responsibility to bear for the fact that this kind of thing is
even part of the political discourse in this place. This is what
was asked for at a certain point. People must be careful of what
they ask for because they might get it. The Liberals took the
Reform Party up on it and provided an opportunity for people to
opt out of the pension plan. That is where this whole opting in
and opting out business came about.
The Leader of the Official Opposition complained about the
irrevocability of the opting in clause or the fact that if a
person does not opt in, that person can never opt in. This also
has its origins in the Reform Party. What this is designed to
prevent is the very thing we had to go through a year or so ago
when we had Reform Party members, both privately and publicly,
trying to crawl back into the pension plan.
What happens is people change their minds and then we have to
have this very undignified process of having members doing
something that they said they would never do. I submit this also
has its origins in the politics of the Reform Party and now the
Alliance.
Some of the things that the Leader of the Official Opposition
said probably would have been better left unsaid for the party's
sake. I could not let the opportunity go by without giving what
I think is a more faithful rendering of what has happened over
the last few years with respect to this issue.
Then the Leader of the Official Opposition said individual
members should not be judged on the basis of what they do or do
not do, that it is up to them. He also said he would not want to
be participating in any kind of group that judged other members
of parliament with respect to the decisions that they make.
Mr. Richard Harris: They are the government. They are
the bad guys.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: They are the government, but they are
not the people who went around putting my name and other peoples'
names in pamphlets judging us for being part of a pension plan
that we did not even have the opportunity to opt out of or opt
into or anything else.
As far as I am concerned, the Alliance Party and the Reform
Party before it have built up a lot of really bad karma when it
comes to this kind of issue. Any discomfort that it might feel,
either individually or collectively, over this kind of issue is
very well deserved, because it is the party that made a political
career out of criticizing other members of parliament who never
had the range of choices of opting in and opting out that it had
to deal with. I must say that it has dealt with it very badly
indeed, both as a group and individually.
1555
I just wanted to put a few of those things on the record because
sometimes what is said in the present has very little connection
with what has happened in the past.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I am pleased to take part in
this debate. It is one of the dark days for parliament, as we
prepare for the summer recess. Members of parliament are in a
very uncomfortable position of being presented with an option of
enhancing their own rate of pay rather than dealing with issues
that we all know in our heart of hearts are much higher on
Canadians' list of priorities.
I would like to speak a moment about the bill itself and the
issues that present themselves. This has come about after a
great deal of consternation over many years about the
compensation package. Without getting into the actual merits of
the pension and the rate of pay, when one looks at what the bill
tries to accomplish, we understand that much of what will be
accomplished is the removal of this uncomfortable situation for
future parliaments, the removal of the unjust ability that
members of parliament have currently in the legislation to
increase and ameliorate their own rates of pay.
The bill would take future pay raises out of our hands at least
directly and tie them into the Judges Act. That is really cold
comfort to many Canadians right now who are struggling with
difficult economic situations or who are currently engaged in
strikes and labour disputes within their own fields. That is
really something that does not seem to appease those individuals.
Yet I would suggest that it will be for the betterment of
parliament that this spectacle of standing up and voting
ourselves a raise will be removed.
There are other elements that the bill attempts to address. It
attempts to bring rates of pay more in line with professions of
equal status or equal value in the country. The increase that is
being brought in arguably could be merited and could be justified
if it was perhaps going to be brought in over a period of time.
That is the 5% or 4% of 6%, whatever the determined amount, would
be phased in over a period of time.
Perhaps more appropriately and more palatable would be to
increase it in the future, which is what the Progressive
Conservative Party tried to do in an amendment that was moved
yesterday. It said in effect that this raise would only occur
and would only take effect after the commencement of the 38th
parliament, after the next election. That would, at the very
least, give Canadians the opportunity to know upfront what
members of parliament intended to do in terms of voting
themselves a raise before they cast their vote. That is what
would be accomplished if that were to occur.
Like many members of parliament, I stand here today not proud.
There is no joy among many members as we prepare for the vote
this evening. We have added to this discomfort this new opt in
provision which was not included in the Lumley report.
I suggest that what the Prime Minister intends to do is to
further embarrass parliamentarians and essentially send the
message that if we dare oppose or dare say anything publicly
against the pay schedule, we will be punished because the media
will be watching, our constituents will be watching, and if we
dare opt in later, we will be labelled hypocrites. We will wear
that crown of thorns.
This trap, this hole in ice which has been left for members to
fall through if they have the audacity to stand up and oppose
what the Prime Minister has put before us has grave implications
because as has been mentioned, this is permanent. Of course
things can change quite radically around here. It seems the law
of the land can be stripped away with legislation. We know that,
yet this legislation is laid before us with this gaping hole,
this bear trap, ready to clamp down on us if we say anything in
opposition.
1600
It is the timing, and perhaps the rate of pay, more than
anything else that offends Canadians. I have heard this from my
constituents and from steelworkers in Trenton who are about to be
laid off. I have heard it from workers in the health profession
who are labouring under extremely difficult situations. I have
heard it from factory workers and fishermen whose industry has
collapsed right out from under them.
It will take a most telling human toll on members of parliament
when the House recesses and we go back to our constituencies,
look them in the eye at summer events and justify our own
existence. The real debate we will embark on this summer is
justifying our own existence and somehow proving that we are
worth it to Canadians. We will have to prove to our constituents
that they were right in electing us and that this pay is merited
and justified, not only the salary we used to receive but the new
salary.
Inevitably there is a sense of uncomfortable shame welling up in
all of us as we prepare for the vote tonight. At the very least
there has been an opportunity for some discourse and that
discourse may lead to some backlash, but at least it is open and
transparent in the sense we are being forced to justify our
decisions.
I will very likely be taking this pay raise. I do not think I
should be prevented from standing here and criticizing the
timing, the mechanism or the way in which the bill was brought in
or be in a position of playing the role of a martyr. That famous
word of an unparliamentary nature, hypocrisy, which we cannot
utter in this Chamber, is what will rain down on us.
In order to fan the flames of that sentiment, the Prime Minister
stuck in a cute little clause that is meant to intimidate. It is
meant as hush money for members of the opposition and perhaps
members of the backbench more particularly.
The backlash inevitably will come and deservedly so. If we as a
parliament collectively cannot get our priorities right, if we
cannot somehow in a more appropriate way align the priorities of
the country, whether they be legislative priorities or priorities
of debate, we deserve the backlash. We deserve the heat and it
will come.
There is ample opportunity to bring in legislation in the form
of Bill C-15 which would protect children from stalkers on the
Internet and would improve the sentencing schedules for police
who are victims of attempts by someone to disarm them. Many other
very important pieces of legislation on the order paper will
languish away. Some may disappear. Some may be dropped from the
order paper depending on how things unfold when we return in the
fall.
If we are to justify both in the Chamber in front of the cameras
and in the foyer why this is happening, we should also be
prepared to examine why it is that we are not prepared to stay a
little longer if we have to, to sit a little later if we have to,
to bring in legislation like Bill C-15. That would perhaps in
some small way, in some tiny, minute way, indicate that we are
thinking about more important issues than the one that has
brought shame on the House in the last days of parliament before
the summer recess.
Members of my party will be voting freely on the bill. No party
discipline will rain down on anyone who votes their conscience or
the wishes of their constituents. We will be voting freely.
Clearly there is an indication that there will be a split among
many parties on how to handle it, as there should be. This is
something that will, if nothing else, cause some reflection on
the worth of our work and the emphasis that we place on certain
elements of that work whether it be legislative or constituency
work.
1605
After all members of parliament have voted and go home I
encourage them to reflect upon the overall picture of what we are
trying to accomplish. Maybe we will be able to band together in
some small way and make different decisions in the future as to
what are the priorities of the House and what the priorities
should be.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
seek unanimous consent of the House to present a motion. There
have been some consultations but given that a copy of this motion
is not with every House leader, I would read it and ask them to
understand it very quickly.
I seek unanimous consent for the following motion to be adopted
without debate:
That at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2001, the member for Markham
shall propose, seconded by the Deputy Prime Minister, the member
for Medicine Hat, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the member for Calgary Centre,
the motion concerning honorary citizenship for Nelson Mandela,
notice of which was given earlier this day, provided that, after
speeches of no more than five minutes by the mover and up to two
members for each party, the question without amendment thereon
shall be put without further debate and any division requested
thereon shall be deferred to the conclusion of government orders
that day.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons have unanimous consent of the
House to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, an
act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, be read the third
time and passed, and of the amendment.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to address Bill C-28 at third reading because some things have
to be put in perspective so that those who are listening
can fully understand the problem this bill poses for
parliamentarians, but also the need to behave in a courageous and
appropriate manner under the circumstances.
First, it is not a coincidence that we are reviewing this bill
now. It is not because we suddenly decided that it would be a
good idea to proceed a week or two before the end of the session.
Rather, it is because the act provides that after an election
an independent committee of experts must be commissioned to
review the issue of members' salaries. The committee has six
months to do its job and table its report.
A few minutes ago a journalist asked me why we were doing it
now and not waiting for the fall? I told him that whenever a report on
members' salaries is tabled, the newspapers and media get hold of
it and begin writing the most incredible headlines before any
member has had an opportunity to express his or her opinion.
This generates confusion among the public and, without a single
parliamentarian having said anything on the issue, people begin
to think that members of parliament voted themselves a salary
increase of x thousand dollars. We have a perfect example of
that today with the Prime Minister's pension.
Being familiar with how pensions are calculated, I know
personally that, on retirement—we all know that it will be in
two years—the Prime Minister will not have a $175,000 pension
because he would have to have paid premiums for five years on his
maximum salary to be entitled to that amount.
I am sure that hundreds and thousands of people are convinced
that what they read this morning on the front page of a major
newspaper is the truth but it is not.
1610
Each time such a report is tabled, reporters seek out all
members of the House to ask their opinion “Do you think it is
enough? Do you think it is too much? Will you accept the raise or
not? Will you recommend that all members of your party vote the
same way or will you have a free vote on this issue?” It is
awful. It is always awful for parliamentarians to talk about
compensation because it is truly unfair that we are forced to
determine the level of compensation we think we deserve, or at
least this is how people see it.
I do not know one person who is listening to us who is not
outraged by the fact that I have to vote on my own salary.
The people who are watching us are probably thinking “If I were
voting my own pay increase, I would get a very nice one”.
That is not how things work. One has to understand that
members—although obviously the government will be making the
decision—have to vote for or against the implementation of an
impartial report prepared by non-members of parliament who know
about our duties and have expertise in that field. The commission
was made of highly competent people who are above reproach and
who have the ability to take a detached look at these issues.
The government has decided to follow up on this report, and I
agree. Our party believes that the report validates the pay
increases recommended in a report prepared four years ago. For
all practical purposes, these two reports are the same, except
for the pay increase, due probably to the four year delay.
What it means is that every time serious experts have looked at
this issue objectively, they have always come up with almost the
same suggestions. I truly believe that our pay level is
reasonable. I do not know of anyone in my riding of Roberval who
thinks it is not normal for the Prime Minister to earn at least
as much as the chief justice of the supreme court.
We are not talking here about the income of the president of a
bank like the National Bank, the smallest of our big banks, who
earns millions of dollars a year.
We are not talking $2 million here, but a salary of $200,000 for
a man who has infinitely more responsibilities than the
president of the National Bank or the Royal Bank. A salary of
$250,000 or $260,000 for the Prime Minister is barely more than
deputy ministers make in certain departments. Do the people of
Canada want to see their Prime Minister earning half what a
deputy minister does? It makes no sense.
Even if the way the Prime Minister is doing his job does not
suit us completely, his salary ought to be comparable to that
earned by the heads of major companies. When it comes down to
it, does he not have greater responsibilities than anyone else?
The same goes for the ministers as well.
No one that I know of in my riding of Roberval does not think
ministers need to earn what their deputy ministers earn, or
close to it, at least the equivalent of an assistant deputy
minister. We should have given them more. Because politicians
are always extremely reasonable in applying these principles, we
say that we should consider that a minister ought to earn the
same as a deputy minister. This is one of the rare areas in
which a boss, with no job security, ends up earning a little
less than the employee who reports to him. We accept this, so
MPs' salaries were set accordingly. That is the outcome of the
committee's work.
There is one point to which I would like to return. Debate
leads to reflection. We have supported the government in all of
the bill, essentially. However one clause is of particular
concern to me.
I met some informed individuals who provided viewpoints on the
debate. I think intelligent people sometimes are the only ones
to see things from a different angle. I think the provision on
opting in that is in the bill, although it may be initially
attractive to the troublemakers who would like to play tricks
with the bill on salaries, should not be included.
Today, it was in fact pointed out to me—I was impressed by the
argument—that I agree with the principle, in a strike vote at a
company, that if 70% vote in favour and 30% vote against, they
do not say to the 30% “You will return to work because you
oppose the strike”. They say “The majority has decided and this
system will apply”.
1615
This is sort of the same thing. In an attempt to trick certain
individuals, to prevent their rhetoric on the bill, I think the
government went a bit too far with this clause.
I do not know whether the government House leader should not
follow along on the route I have taken, which is, to think about
the question and decide, in the end, that some colleagues can
legitimately fight a bill. Either they find the increase
excessive or they find the pension fund inappropriate.
They have the right to express their point of view but they
should not be personally penalized for that.
I consider a member of the House of Commons must be able to do
his job without the threat that he will be denied certain
benefits, which members deserve, I have no doubt, all and
amply. It is a fair salary, as I said earlier.
In this regard, we supported the government, but I would like to
encourage it today—there is still time—to think about the opting
in clause. This may not be the discovery of the century. I
think we would all be much happier to do our job were there no
threat, no spirit of revenge in the bill.
This is the only change I would make to the position we have
held since the start.
We continue to support the bill but we would like to have the
“opting in” clause—now before it is too late—taken out and
withdrawn. I do not think it is a good idea.
[English]
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on June 27, 1788, the Virginia ratifying convention
proposed a series of amendments to the draft federal constitution
then before that body. It was understood by all participants in
the debate over whether to ratify the proposed new constitution
of the United States that if Virginia did not sign on, the new
constitution would be stillborn.
The Virginia delegates made it clear that their ratification was
conditional upon the adoption of the larger portion of the 20
proposed changes to the body of the constitution they had set
forth. These amendments dealt with freedom of speech, the
independence of the judiciary, freedom of religion, the right to
own property, and other key rights.
One of the amendments, which is relevant to today's debate read
as follows. It resolved:
That the laws ascertaining the compensation to Senators and
Representatives for their services be postponed in their
operation, until after the election of Representatives
immediately succeeding the passing thereof—
This proposed amendment was the intellectual origin and the
genesis of the primary principle underlying my decision to vote
against the legislation before us.
The list of proposed amendments was taken to the first session
of the United States' congress by one of Virginia's greatest
sons, James Madison. From it and similar lists forwarded by the
ratifying conventions of the other states, Madison and his
colleagues cobbled together a series of 12 amendments which, on
September 25, 1789, were duly enacted by a two-thirds majority of
each of the two houses of congress and sent to the states for
ratification.
At this point the wording had been somewhat altered to read
thus:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators
and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of
Representatives shall have intervened.
Unlike all but one of the other amendments approved that day,
the amendment on congressional pay was not immediately adopted by
a three-fourths majority of the 13 states. Perhaps this was
because legislators in those days were modest in their salary
demands and there was no need to place controls on their ability
to set their own levels of compensation.
Times change. The willingness of elected representatives to
compensate themselves generously grew to the point that by the
1980s a Texas legislative aide, Gregory Watson, felt compelled to
take up the cause. He built a cross-country coalition that
convinced the legislatures of 32 states to complete the
ratification process. With the simultaneous ratification on May
7, 1992, of the Michigan and New Jersey state legislatures,
Madison's proposal became the 27th amendment to the United
States' constitution.
1620
I have engaged in this long historical digression to make as
pointed a contrast as possible between the right way of reforming
parliamentary compensation and the mess that presents itself to
us today.
Following the 2000 election, a commission, headed by former
cabinet minister Ed Lumley, prepared a series of recommendations
on MP salaries and compensation. Its report was made public last
week. Some of its proposals strike me as excellent, particularly
those which would moderate the accrual rate for the MP pension
plan and which call for openness in reporting MPs' incomes.
I had not known until last week that my total compensation
package under the existing byzantine structure of salary and tax
free allowances added up to $109,000 per year.
Other aspects of the Lumley report, such as the proposal to tie
MPs' salaries to those of judges, strikes me as less
satisfactory. A linkage to private sector compensation would in
my mind have been preferable.
However, the Lumley report is not the problem. It is an
impartial public servant's attempt to come to a reasonable
solution to the question of MP compensation. What has been
distressing beyond all measure has been the government's reaction
to the report.
In the past week we have seen the government fiddle with the
accrual rate of the MP pension plan. According to Walter
Robinson of the National Taxpayers Association, it has done so to
goose up the size of payouts by as much as 42%, make the pay
retroactive to a point far in advance of the date suggested by
Mr. Lumley, and insert an odious and offensive opt out clause to
allow it to tar any member who votes against the bill with the
spurious charge of hypocrisy.
Each of these actions is an offence but the last one is so bad
that I urge every member of the House, regardless of his or her
intentions with regard to opting in or opting out, to vote
against the entire bill on this basis alone.
The worst part of the government's reaction to the Lumley report
has surely been its unseemly haste to ram the legislation through
in record time.
So great was the government's haste that time allocation was
imposed on the debate in the House. The committee of the whole
that met yesterday had only a few hours to discuss the details of
the bill. Each of us was permitted to raise questions only once,
thereby preventing the kind of two way exchange that might have
shed more light on important details of Bill C-28.
So great was the government's haste that its translation of the
bill from English to French contained numerous mistakes which had
to be corrected by amendments in committee.
So great was the government's haste that at committee stage it
failed to group consequential amendments to the bill as is the
normal practice.
Finally, the government's haste was so great that many members,
myself included, were unable to flip through our sheaves of
proposed amendments before the votes had been commenced on them.
We therefore voted in complete ignorance or had to abstain from
voting so as not to vote inappropriately.
All of this does the government a great discredit.
I will say for the record that there are many members in the
House who deserve the increase on which we will be voting this
afternoon. There are some for whom the services to their country
that they are providing here, that they have provided here and
that in many cases they will continue to provide here, far
outweigh any level of compensation they will see.
For that reason I would never condemn a fellow member regardless
of how he or she chooses to vote, whether he or she chooses to
opt into the pension plan, the pay raise or the whole package,
but I cannot and will not set aside any kind word for the process
by which the raise is being rammed through. It is wrong and I
will be voting against it.
I urge every fellow member of the House to do the same,
regardless of party affiliation and regardless of his or her
intentions with respect to the pay raise.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
some other members have said that they are sorry to have to rise
on the bill. I am happy to do so because I believe I can stand
here and represent the sentiment of those who have e-mailed and
phoned me about the issue. Their perception of what is going on
here is that it is wrong and that we ought to reject it.
I will say at the outset that I do not at all like what the
Prime Minister is doing in promoting the bill, a bill which,
among other things, would give him a hefty salary increase and a
pension increase. That of course is true for everyone here
because an increased salary does, over time, increase the
pension.
1625
I would draw to your attention Standing Order 23(1). It states:
The offer of any money or other advantage to any Member of this
House, for the promoting of any matter whatsoever depending or to
be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour,
and tends to the subversion of the Constitution.
That is in our standing orders.
I know we cannot raise it in the House as a charge
because the bill is not a secret handing of money, but it is an
offer of financial advantage without criticism to members who
vote for it.
As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister used the opt in
clause—and it was he who put it in, not the commission—for the
sole purpose of getting people to vote the way he wanted them to.
That is very evident. He practically said it.
Other Liberal members have said the same thing; that anyone who
votes against the legislation and then takes it is a hypocrite.
In other words, the Prime Minister is setting up members who, in
representing their constituents, vote against the bill. I will
be voting against it. He is setting us up as special targets.
You know the terms in hockey. It is a cheap shot,
it really is. If it is defensible the Prime Minister does not
need to do it. If it is not defensible he should not be doing
it. He is saying to anyone who votes against his wonderful bill
that they will be special targets.
What annoys me is that every one of the Liberals on that side
will be getting the raise. Yes, they will proudly stand and vote
for it and will proudly opt in. All the while, the scrutiny of
the media and of the public will be directed at those of us who
voted against it instead of the guys who are putting it in.
It is a clever strategy on the part of the Liberals. They are
not in power year after year, decade after decade, because they
are good managers of our economy or our finances. We know that
from history. They are not in power because they represent the
people who pay the taxes which pay their salaries and pensions.
They are in power over and over again because they know how to
turn the heat on someone else who does not deserve it.
I am calling their bluff. I am voting against the bill. I do
not care what the Prime Minister says. He can try to intimidate
me if he wants. I do not care what the media say. I am standing
up for what is right. I am voting against the bill because there
are a number of offensive aspects to it.
I do not have time to talk about the hasty process. I was going
to say a few things about it but my colleague has done that.
Suffice to say I am annoyed that the government chose to put the
bill through in a three day time line. It introduced the bill in
the House on Monday. We had second reading on Tuesday, which was
confined to two hours, and report stage on Wednesday, which was
also confined to two hours less a delay because of another
process that went on in the House. It extended the debate to two
hours again today, or maybe two hours and two minutes or
whatever.
During report stage I had a very important amendment. I did not
even get a chance to explain it to the members opposite at report
stage in committee of the whole. We had 36 to 40 clauses in the
bill. In report stage we got to clause 3, then the time was up
and we voted on everything. My amendment was in clause 4. We
did not get to it.
I am trying to represent the members of the public who pay the
bills and I did not even get to put in my amendment and tell
members why they should vote for it. They would probably not
have done so anyway, but as a parliamentarian I should at least
have the right to put forward ideas. That is why I was elected.
That is the only reason I can justify receiving any pay in this
place at all.
1630
The Prime Minister, wanting to increase the esteem in which his
members are held, thinks that can be achieved by giving them more
money. No, that can be achieved by allowing us to do our jobs as
parliamentarians.
The bill is yet another example of where we are being inhibited
from doing our jobs by government members in a hurry to jam
through the legislation to give themselves a raise. It is
despicable.
I want to talk about my amendment because it is a good one and
it is one of the reasons I am voting against the bill. My
amendment was not even really considered. In fact I think we
should have a new criterion whereby every Liberal who voted
against my amendment would be eligible for a pay raise if any
Liberal member could stand right now and tell me what my
amendment was. Not one of them even knew what it was. I am sure
of it. They had little cheat sheets from their whip that said to
vote against my amendment, that it was no good.
However it was good and they should have voted for it. The
amendment would have eliminated that part of the bill which
provides for extra pay for members of committees who serve as
chairmen and vice-chairmen. Why am I opposed to that? It is
really very simple. I believe that committee work is part and
parcel of our jobs as parliamentarians. When I was in the
education industry I did a whole lot more than just stand in
front of a class. I did a lot of things on my own time for and
with my students. I did not get paid every time I lifted my
finger for some extra thing that I was expected to do anyway, and
there were some things I was not expected to do. When I taught
high school I ran a chess club with the kids. I did not get paid
for it and I would not have taken it if it had been offered.
My amendment would have taken away that clause so that committee
chairmen and vice-chairmen would not have received extra pay. I
admit that the chairman of each committee has a little extra
work. Occasionally the chairman has to stand in front of the
media and do interviews, but that is what the job is. If one is
elected to be the chairman of a committee, one is expected to
know what is going on in that committee, just like all of us who
are members of a committee. When someone sticks a microphone in
our faces and asks questions about what we are discussing in
committee, any one of us could answer but usually it falls to the
chairman, so we could give the chairman $10 an interview. I
would go for that.
What is the government proposing? The government is proposing
to give a member $9,000 a year to be the chairman of a committee.
The chairman has a staff of at least two people, usually closer
to four, who do a lot of the work. The chairman is a figurehead
and the bill would give him or her $9,000 a year out of taxpayer
money. I am opposed to that.
We should also consider the fact that the government wants to
give $5,000 a year to vice-chairmen. I find this really
offensive. I am one of the members of the finance committee. I
think it is fair to say that I attend more finance committee
meetings than most of the other members.
A couple of weeks ago we were delayed in our committee for about
10 or 15 minutes, with witnesses waiting. Why? Because the
chairman was not there, the first vice-chairman was not there and
the second vice-chairman was not there. I told the clerk that I
was ready to chair the meeting but she said it had to be one of
the elected people. They are elected by some process—and I wish
I could have 40 minutes more to speak—that is nothing but an
appointment by the Prime Minister.
The bill would give the vice-chairmen $5,000 a year. I would
venture to say that the Conservative vice-chairman of our
committee has been there about 50% of the time. I think that the
Liberal vice-chairman has only been at 2 meetings out of 30 all
year. Give them extra pay? No way. Yet my amendment did not
get any consideration.
Mr. Speaker, you do not know how I regret that my time is up but
I know there are others wishing to speak and I need to sit down.
1635
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for giving me the chance to speak briefly on the bill. My
colleagues on the opposition side have been talking about the
whole notion of the amount of the pay as well as when it might
kick in and about whether or not we should be paying a chair or
vice-chair of a committee for the work they do aside from their
responsibilities as members of parliament.
Frankly, what is lost in this whole debate is the fact that from
here on in politicians would not really have the opportunity to
set their salaries. It would be done independently. All of this
decision making would be taken completely out of the process.
As a result, there would be a system in place that would look at
the checks and balances, that would look at the cost of living.
We would follow a formula that is not any different from what
exists in the marketplace, what exists in government. This is
one thing that my colleagues on the opposition side seem to have
missed.
The second thing that has been missed in this debate is that for
the first time in a long time the amount of the pension that a
member of parliament can accumulate over the years of serving in
the House of Commons would be reduced. It used to be 5%. It was
reduced a couple of parliaments ago to 4%. Now it has gone
further down, to 3%. I am sure that if we were to look at the
House now there would be five or six members of parliament who
would qualify. There would be a new system and a new regime for
full pension in the House of Commons. Under the new system it
would take 25 years for a member of parliament to be eligible for
full pension.
We can cry and shout and jump and dance all we want, but at the
end of the day members of parliament do not have the job
flexibility of deciding how long they can serve. A member of
parliament can be tossed out after four years. As a result, that
member of parliament would not be eligible for his or her pension
or any part of it. A member of parliament could serve for two or
three terms and the percentage of what they receive would not be
more than 10% of the $131,000 that is now being proposed before
the House of Commons.
In addition to this, something else was missed in this whole
debate. In regard to the eligibility of a member of parliament
for receiving his or her pension, the age has changed. A lot of
people used to say before this that it was a known fact that
someone could come into the House of Commons at the age of 24 or
25, serve two terms, quit at 31, collect a pension and move on.
That has changed. Under the new regime, not only would a member
need to have served for 25 years in the House of Commons as a
member elected for seven or eight different parliaments, but the
member would also have to be 55. In other words there is no hope
for any member of parliament who is under the age of 55 to
collect a pension. That also was missed from the debate.
Mr. Ken Epp: It is not in this bill.
Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, it is in the bill. My colleague is
saying it is not in the bill. It has been in the bill and that
part of the legislation has not changed. That part of the
legislation is still the same as when it was amended back in
1994-95. A member of parliament cannot collect a pension until
that member reaches the age of 55.
Now the question to ask my colleagues on the opposition side is
whether or not they think it is fair for a member of the House to
serve for 15 years, for example, and not be able to collect 40%
of his or her pension if that member is 55 or 56 years of age. I
am sure they would agree that is a fair thing to do.
Also, the component of this debate that has been missing is the
whole tax free element for members of parliament. This whole
notion has been eliminated altogether. Therefore, finally,
members of parliament would be taxed like other members of the
community. We would pay taxes based on the total amount we earn
as a Speaker or as a member of the opposition or a member of the
government. We would have the transparency that our
constituents, the taxpayers, want us to provide them with. We
would say this is how much we earn and this is the amount of tax
we pay.
1640
That leaves me with one issue. That is the issue of the amount.
Frankly, I think of my colleagues, especially the ones who come
from the west or those who come from far east, who travel in some
cases for 14 hours and languish at airports collecting dust for
three or four hours. If they miss a plane, they might end up
waiting there for an extra six or seven hours and miss all of
their constituency meetings, or if they have a family engagement,
that will go down the tube. I want any one of them to stand up
and tell me whether or not it is fair to say that we should have
a compensation package that is fair and equitable in order to
allow that member of parliament to be compensated fairly. What is
fair?
I want to agree with my colleague who spoke a little earlier.
Yes, there are members of parliament who work their hearts out,
day in and day out, who attend every single committee meeting,
who speak on issues, who participate in communities, who work
very hard and put in 70 to 75 hours per week. There are others
who probably do not work more than five or six or ten or twelve
hours a week. In an ideal world, one might wonder whether those
two groups should be receiving the same amount of pay. I do not
know. At the end of the day their constituents will decide
whether or not they want to re-elect a member of parliament who
is not working on their behalf in the House of Commons.
I think it would be highly unfair for the government to propose
legislation whereby there would be four or five different classes
of members of parliament, where those who put in 80 hours would
receive $131,000 and those who work 20 hours would receive less
and so on. We cannot do that. The issue here is not whether one
member of parliament is working as hard as another one. Frankly,
some of our colleagues probably do not deserve a raise, do not
deserve to be paid at all and do not even deserve to be in the
House of Commons, period. However, who are we to pass that
judgment in a democracy when at the end of the day it is the
people who decide who their elected representative is?
I would say in all fairness that what the government has
proposed before the House of Commons is a fair and equitable
package. There have been a number of commissions that on a
regular basis have proposed to the House of Commons a package
that would reform the system.
There is a gentleman who was once on the opposition side. His
name is Jim Silye. You probably recall him, Mr. Speaker. He is
now in Alberta. I think he was the whip of the Reform Party. He
said at the time he was here that if the government were to bring
in a package that would eliminate the tax free allowance and
would propose $140,000 or $150,000 his party would support it.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: It was $150,000.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, it was $150,000, my colleague
has stated. He said he would support it.
The government has proposed a package of $131,000 absolutely
taxable, whereby it has removed this whole notion of the tax free
allowance, has removed the notion of members of parliament voting
on their own salaries, has changed the pension from 4% to 3% and
has maintained 55 years in terms of the ability of a member of
parliament to receive his or her compensation. To that extent,
this is a fair package. I call on my colleagues to put all
partisanship aside and support the legislation so it can go
through.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 St. John's West, National Defence; the hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River, Immigration.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there are four points to this bill.
In the course of debate a couple of others have been brought in.
I would like to deal with those others first, one of those being
the opt in clause. In my opinion the opt in clause is really not
part of the bill. It has nothing to do with the legislation, the
salary, the pension, the transparency or anything else. It is
nothing more than the pure gamesmanship that is displayed in the
House from time to time, not only by the government but by many
people in the House. It should basically be discarded as if it
were not there. The second thing I have a problem with is not
the legislation itself, but rather the speed with which the
legislation was brought in.
1645
I have difficulty with one the four parts of the bill that deals
with pensions. I have been fighting for years for pension
reform. I attempted to bring in a private member's bill for
genuine consideration by all members. I also attempted to bring
in an amendment, but because of the short timeline and its
complexity it was impossible to put into an acceptable form.
Consequently my amendment, as drafted with the help of
legislative counsel, was ruled out of order. Even if it had been
in order, because of the speed the bill went through committee of
the whole consideration we would not have reached my amendment in
any case.
The bill has four distinctive parts and that is what we need to
look at. The first one deals with transparency, the elimination
of the non-taxable portion of an MP's pay. That is something we
have been fighting for years.
After the 1997 election the government virtually ignored the
recommendations of the Blais commission. It is nice to see this
time, with a couple of exceptions or modifications, it is
following what the report said. It would have been better had it
done that in 1997.
The bill is to eliminate the non-taxable amount and gross it up
so that we would end up with what is supposed to be the same pay.
I will get to that point in a moment because it is not.
It also provides outside linkage for increases in the future so
that MPs never again get into what is tantamount to a conflict of
interest in trying to deal with their own remuneration, pensions
and other benefits inside the House. It takes it out of our
hands and hopefully it will remain out of our hands.
We could argue all day on what it should have been linked to,
whether it should have been linked to judges as it was or whether
it should have been linked to the federal service at large. That
is an amendment I certainly would have supported. At least it was
not linked to something that has no relevance to the House
whatsoever, such as airline pilots, doctors or something of that
nature, because it happened to suit somebody's notion of how to
get a raise.
Then we get to the raise itself. Here is an area where no one
was doing their homework. According to the Debates and the
newspapers we are talking about a 20% increase. That is based on
the assumption that $109,500 is the direct grossed up equivalent
of what we were getting before the bill comes into effect. That
is not the case.
I do not know who came up with that figure or how they arrived
at it, but it does not take a whole lot of homework to check it
out. I phoned a tax accountant in my province of British
Columbia who went through the tax tables and worked it out. The
balanced amount is not $109,500 but $115,100. That means that
the raise is not 20% but about 14%.
It will vary a little bit from province to province. The raise
is a bit more in Alberta, a bit less in Saskatchewan, and in
Quebec taxes are higher still so the raise is even less than 14%.
During the parts of the debate that I heard no one seemed to
raise a fact that appeared in one of the papers I was reading
today which said that we have had a 2% raise every year for the
past many years. The truth of the matter is that over the past
10 years we have had an aggregate total of a 6% increase, which
is far behind any other sector including the public sector.
I do not believe personally that the pay raise is out line.
Backdating it to January is a little inflammatory, kind of like
when the postal strike was settled by legislating a settlement
that was less than the employer had offered. It was one of those
unnecessary movements on the part of the government that only
caused to inflame feelings unnecessarily.
1650
That brings me to the fourth and the only part of the bill to
which I object dealing with the pension. The pension amount
would simply go up because the pay goes up. The intent of the
recommendations made by the commission was that it should go up
exactly in line with the amount we were already getting. Other
than the raise there would be no gain or no loss. Keeping it at
3% gives us a tremendous gain.
The amendment I wished to put forward and my private member's
bill presently before the House at first reading say that after
getting rid of the non-taxable grossing up, as the bill has done,
the pension of members of Parliament should be eliminated in its
entirety. Instead all members should be placed in the federal
public superannuation program, the same as all other public
servants.
That would provide a lot of benefits for MPs without it being a
cost factor to Canadians. It would allow newly elected MPs who
previously worked in government at either the federal, provincial
or municipal level, crown corporations, the RCMP, the military
and many private corporations that have transfer agreements with
the federal program, to transfer their pension and carry on. It
would also allow members who left this place and then worked for
one of those areas to take their pension with them.
When we leave this place our pension is on hold until we turn
55. If someone ends up out of service in their early forties
their pension is based on their salary. By the time they reach
55, it is possibly based on a salary from as much as 15 years
before. It is better to carry the pension with them.
I do not know what I will do when it comes time to vote on the
bill tonight because part of our policy and our principles is
that MPs should not be voting on their pay. Notwithstanding the
fact that the party's policy states that, I have a greater
problem with the fact that voting on this bill places my
colleagues and I in a clear conflict of interest.
I voted for the bill at second reading because I wanted to get
it to committee of the whole stage where it could be amended. It
has gone through that stage without any amendment. I did not
vote on it at committee of the whole stage. I may very well not
vote on it intentionally when it comes up for a vote tonight.
I say for the record so there is no misunderstanding that I do
not intend to opt out of the pay. I earn what I earn in this
place and I work as hard as other members. Any member who takes
an arbitrary stand to turn it down is being foolish. He or she
would be trying to make a point that I guarantee will be lost on
the public.
Bill C-28 is a controversial bill. At least we will be able to
put it to rest. Hopefully we are now balanced and never again
will this type of legislation come to the House.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would love to say it is a pleasure to rise today
to address the bill, but it is not a pleasure because it is a
very difficult issue for MPs.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-28, an act to amend the
Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act and the Salaries Act. I want to address the
general issue of the worth and value of MPs. I recognize that
this issue is a controversial one. It is truly a political hot
potato. That is why I want to address it as reasonably and as
sensitively as I can.
I thank the commissioners for their report. I think they did a
good job. They held as many hearings as possible with Canadians.
They tried to make their report as fair as possible. I thank Ed
Lumley, Jake Epp and Huguette Labelle for their service and for
their good recommendations.
The first good recommendation they made was to make our salary
completely transparent by rolling the tax free expense allowance
into a salary and thus calling it what it is. Basically it has
become a de facto salary over time. It also makes MPs and
lawmakers subject to the same tax laws as Canadians, a
fundamental principle that should be followed in every democracy.
They recommended that the pension contribution rates be lowered
to 2.5%. This was a step in the right direction because it would
move us closer to private sector standards. They also
recommended a 20% pay raise, obviously the most controversial
issue in the House.
1655
This raises the question of what MPs are worth. I welcome this
discussion as should all members in the House. However the
question is very difficult because of the uniqueness of our role.
What is an MP worth? Should we in the House be deciding what we
are worth?
I will be the first to recognize that MPs from all parties do
work hard and deserve fair compensation. Many who serve on
committees do their homework. They come prepared and they do
background research. They also serve their constituents well and
are motivated by genuine interest. However that is not the point
because many Canadians work hard. Many Canadians can point to
putting in long hours, spending time away from their families, et
cetera.
It is the responsibility of the position that basically
determines what an MP is worth and the salary should be based on
this. It should not be MPs in this House who determine what
their salaries should be.
The other aspect is the opt in provision, which was not included
in the report but which is included in the bill. This to me is
not good public policy and not good lawmaking. It puts lawmakers
in such a box that people who disagree with the process cannot
stand up and voice their concern and displeasure with the
process. They are forced to make a choice as to whether they
want to opt in or not. We are boxed in. It separates us into
two categories and that is just not fair.
We all vote on bills in this House that we disagree with, for
example, the gun registry bill and tax cuts, but the fact is that
when the majority votes yea, both in this House and in the other
chamber, the bill becomes law and we are all subject to the same
law. That is the way bills should be made and passed.
My real worry with the bill is the perception by Canadians of
politicians and the institutions. It is fair to say, and this is
truly sad, that Canadians as a whole, certainly since the 1950s,
have had a declining respect for politicians and parliamentary
institutions. I am not gladdened by this at all. We should all
be sad and think about what we can do to change this.
What can we do to change that? We should not implement a
process such as this to implement pay increases for ourselves. My
main concern with this whole issue is the process. We took a
report that was tabled just recently, introduced a bill shortly
thereafter, debated the bill for less than three days and will
soon be voting on it and passing it into law. Most Canadians
must be wondering how we can possibly do this.
In my view, even with respect to our party policy, why not let
the report come out in the spring, let the commissioners go
across the country during the summer to explain what MPs do and
the value of their work, introduce a bill in normal time in the
fall, have a full House debate on that bill and then implement it
if it is fair? That seems to me to be the more reasonable and
rational way to do this, not to pass it just before the summer
recess.
The optics of this are terrible. Most Canadians are upset about
the fact that we are voting on our own pay raise just before the
summer recess. We are adjourning after a very controversial
period because of a lot of statements made by certain MPs from
all sides of the House. I am not trying to highlight that
because it is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that we are
constantly highlighting MPs who make an offhand remark or an off
colour remark. We do not recognize the value of MPs from all
parties who do work hard. We should have used the opportunity to
highlight those things but we did not.
One other aspect that I am really displeased with is the fact
that the bill took the commission's report and changed it.
I recently met the former premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed. I
asked him how he dealt with this issue in Alberta. He said that
he had set up a commission telling the people beforehand that
whatever they recommended would be implemented, that the
lawmakers would not have a chance to amend it, and that it would
simply be implemented as is.
Bill C-28 would change the accrual rate for pensions from 2.5%
to 3%. It would change the retroactive pay from April 1 to
January 1. It would implement a 20% pay raise and has an opt in
provision that was not in the report at all, which to me is the
true travesty of the bill.
How do we deal with MP salaries? How should we deal with them?
1700
First, similar to what former Premier Lougheed recommended to
me, we should do what the Canadian Alliance suggests which is
parliamentary compensation should be recommended by an
independent commission according to private sector standards.
Second, the decision of parliament would be implemented after a
subsequent election. That would take the conflict of interest
completely out of the issue and mean that I, as a
parliamentarian, would not have to sit here and wonder whether I
could stand up and vote against the bill or whether I could opt
in or not opt in, and go through these decisions.
I knew before I ran what the compensation for an MP would be.
Why should I be voting on a pay raise six months after being
elected for the first time?
We should really link the whole issue to trying to raise the
esteem of parliament and parliamentarians in the minds of
Canadians. We could have used this as an opportunity to do so,
but sadly I do not think we have. I know when I go back, I am
going to see more disappointment on the faces of Canadians. It
will not increase the esteem of Canadians for their parliamentary
institutions and that is a true tragedy of the bill.
The last thing I want to recommend, in terms of any pay raises
for ourselves, is that we should always tie it to recognizing our
worth as MPs, but moreover tie it to reforming parliament itself
so that we truly empower MPs and send a signal to Canadians that
their MPs are working very much on their behalf, before any pay
increases are implemented.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought
it a good idea to speak today on a topic that is receiving a lot
of press and on which all Canadians, almost without exception,
have an opinion.
I will begin by making it clear that I intend to support this
bill. I supported it at second reading and it is my firm
intention to support it at third reading a bit later on today.
At the appropriate time, when there are forms to fill in, I
intend to opt in to the new pay plan set out in Bill C-28. I
want this to be perfectly clear.
I wish to point out that some 30 people have contacted me by
telephone or in writing at my office this week. A few of them
were clearly in favour of the bill but most were against it.
Among the latter, reaction was divided.
Almost half of those against it oppose it for procedural reasons
such as retroactivity or application. They would like to see it
apply to the 38th parliament, not the 37th. They are also
unhappy at how quickly Bill C-28 is being passed or how soon the
increase will take effect. Some of them would like it to be
phased in over two, three or even four years. The rest are
simply against it.
Very few mentioned the opting in clause. This clause has led to
another kind of discussion in the debate. Yesterday we learned
that this clause would be permanent.
I hope that, indeed, during the 38th parliament, if members get
re-elected who had chosen not to adhere to the plan, this
situation can be corrected to make things fair. I am also taking
a stand on this issue.
I would like to elaborate on the arguments that we heard in
support of the bill. We heard several. Comparisons were made
with the business world, among others.
Two weeks ago, the Ottawa Business Journal had two full pages
listing the salaries of the heads of public corporations in the
region. Their salaries ranged from $100,000 to $300,000. Some
people earn several millions per year. I do not think it is
appropriate to make this comparison.
The shareholders of a publicly traded company make a choice.
They choose to join in and to buy shares, to become
shareholders. By contrast, taxpayers, who will pay our salaries,
do not make a choice. It is something that is imposed on them.
Our salaries were also compared to those of athletes. It was
even said that the Prime Minister is paid less than the minimum
wages paid in the National Hockey League. We were told that the
average salary in several professional leagues is one million
dollars.
1705
I do not think the comparison is appropriate because the
salaries paid to these players are generated through revenues
that the public is not required to contribute to.
Some also mentioned unions. In yesterday evening's news on the
CBC, Mr. Lumley said that there are 200 union leaders in Ontario
who are paid over $100,000. Again, this is not a perfectly
appropriate comparison, but it is somewhat more, because the
Rand formula requires all members of a union to pay union dues,
but it is not a good example.
Then arguments such as “We work impossible hours” were used.
It is true our hours are long. A typical day for a member may
be 12 or 14 hours, easily, five, six and sometimes seven days
a week.
However, with all the respect due my colleagues, I do not
believe this justifies what Bill C-28 is proposing. My
father-in-law was a taxi driver and he worked 12 hours a
day regularly. He worked as long as I do, so this is not an
issue of hours of work. I have a bit of a hard time with this
argument.
I would like people to not take the issue of hours of work into
account because in my opinion it is not a good reason for
voting in favour of the bill, even though we do work long hours.
We all wanted this job, so we must not complain.
Others cite pressure.
It is true that there is pressure. Often we are bombarded with
requests of all sorts: requests for help or ways to find funding
for a given project. This sort of pressure is perhaps unique
but in our society others who are policemen, nurses, teachers
or air traffic controllers are also subject to pressure unique
to them but real nevertheless. Once again this argument
does not hold as justification for supporting this bill.
[English]
Where I am coming from instead is what we do as legislators.
The three branches of government, the judicial, the executive and
the legislative, are what I believe we should be using as a
comparison basis. It seems quite clear that over the last 30
years we have systematically undervalued the role of the
legislator in our society and in the Government of Canada.
I believe that if one were to stop and think about that, we
would see not only rationale but some encouragement to do what is
being asked of us to do by voting for Bill C-28, which is to
establish a basis of equilibrium between the judiciary, the
legislative and the executive. Not to do that is to undermine
the importance of the legislators of this House and of the other
House in the life of our country and how we govern ourselves.
Some numbers have been given that show in the sixties the role
of the MP was valued slightly more than judges. However over the
last 35 years it has been the opposite, and the role of the MP
vis-à-vis a comparison to the judicial side has been much less.
It has been the same with the executive. We heard numbers that
show what the top executives are paid. I am talking about a
public executive, not someone in the private sector, whether
judicial, legislative or executive who is funded by the same
taxpayer. That range is to $375,000.
If we look at what the legislators were valued at, then we see a
huge discrepancy. I think that is the genesis of some of the
discredit that seems to be attributed to members of parliament,
legislators and senators. It behooves us to turn that around
because the legislative function in a government is essential. It
is a basis of democracy. We have the role of legislators, and we
also have the surveillance role.
[Translation]
The importance of the legislative and monitoring roles of this
House and its members cannot be neglected. We have officers of
the House, such as the Auditor General of Canada, the
Commissioner of Official Languages, the Information Commissioner
and the Privacy Commissioner, who report to the House.
Everything turns upon the House and the legislative process,
which naturally are responsible for setting the policies of the
nation, the country, through the process of drafting and passing
bills, but also through monitoring.
1710
I believe it was vital for a start to be made at striking a
balance between the value assigned to the judiciary, the
legislative and the executive branches. There is nothing
personal involved here. The voters will decide who is sent here
or not in each riding.
I believe that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to
attribute to the legislative branch a value comparable to that
attributed to the judiciary and the executive branch. The
legislative function of this chamber and the other is
essential to the process of government, the democracy of this
country. It would be regrettable if this trend were allowed to
continue.
We have the opportunity to reverse it by supporting this bill.
I would invite all my colleagues to do so, so that we may
recognize and enhance the value and importance of the
legislative process and those involved in that process.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Sometimes we say things when we do not have all the facts, and I
need to make an apology. I stated in my speech that the vice-chair
of the finance committee was only there half of the time.
He corrected me by saying he was there 80% of the time, and I
need to apologize because it was false information.
I also made mention of the vice-chairman not being at a meeting.
I was not aware that he is facing a difficult family situation,
and I apologize to him for that as well.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his
intervention and understanding but it is not a point of order.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the
concurrence of the House is desired.
* * *
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, an
act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, be read
the third time and passed, and of the amendment.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and I will give my
reasons for it.
The reasons are simple. There really is no need to make the
bill retroactive to January 1. It could have been made effective
either at the date of royal assent of the bill or, as we had
recommended, the day after the next election, which would have
then prevented MPs from giving their own raise. That was most
appropriate.
I also reject the bill on the basis that the 20% is excessive,
given that all the other contracts that are being settled in the
nation today are much less than that. If we look at the small
pittance that seniors are given in the country, one could hardly
justify giving 301 members of the House of Commons 20%, when
seniors usually get less than 1% per annum.
I also take exception to the pension plan that was recommended
by the commission to be 2.5%. Somehow when it got into the hands
of the members on the other side it became 3%. Thus the annual
amount that individuals will get ultimately is more than what
they would get today given the increase in the pension amounts.
That is against the recommendation of the commission.
I have been a labour negotiator for a number of years. I have
negotiated labour contracts with various unions around the
country and I have never seen a labour agreement that said people
had to opt in and if they did not they would never get a raise
again. Imagine if I sat at the table with the British Columbia
Teachers' Federation or the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America or the teamsters, which I have, and said
something like that? Imagine what I would be dealing with? That
is the most preposterous position for anyone to take.
The government has a fiduciary responsibility as an employer.
Because it is the majority government in the House, it becomes
the de facto employer when it is dealing with pay and benefits.
No employer in the democratic world would say that if people did
not opt in the employer would establish two pension plans, two
payroll systems and inequity between people undertaking the same
identical jobs. It is unheard of in a democratic society. It is
unheard of at a negotiating table.
1715
I reject this. The trouble is that we are going to be made
hypocrites over it if we do reject it and we end up signing into
it because we would never ever get an increase again. The
government wants to tell the public that people who do that are
hypocrites, which is another sign that the government in its
fiduciary management responsibility with pay and benefits has no
integrity whatsoever.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order
made on Monday, June 4, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose
of third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1745
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Chatters
| Clark
| Day
|
Doyle
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
|
Gallant
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Obhrai
| Pallister
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| Stinson
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Toews
|
Vellacott
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
| Yelich
– 58
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comartin
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
| Ménard
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 206
|
PAIRED
Members
Gagliano
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Tobin
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1755
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marcil
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peschisolido
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 211
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Cadman
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Davies
| Day
| Desjarlais
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Merrifield
| Nystrom
|
Pallister
| Penson
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Toews
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Yelich – 52
|
PAIRED
Members
Gagliano
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Tobin
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, because I abstained from the
vote I wonder if there is a way to have that recorded?
The Speaker: I think the hon. member knows there is not
but I am sure he can get a copy of the video proceedings and
watch himself.
* * *
PATENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-17, an
act to amend the Patent Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading
stage of Bill S-17.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent in the House that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members will be voting yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the members of the Bloc Quebecois vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
will be voting no to the motion.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting yes to the motion.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be
recorded as voting yes to the motion.
Mr. James Moore: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded
as voting yes to the motion.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I am not on the rolls, having
abstained in the last vote, so I would like to be recorded as
voting yea to the motion.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, seeing as I will be
reviewing the videotape along with my colleague, having abstained
on the previous vote, I would like to be recorded as voting yes
to the motion.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, having abstained in the last
vote, I would like to have my vote recorded as yea.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I saw the video and it was
quite pathetic. I would like not to be recorded as voting on
this particular motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anders
|
Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
|
Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Day
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fitzpatrick
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallant
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
|
Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Perron
| Peschisolido
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| Spencer
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood
| Yelich – 254
|
NAYS
Members
Blaikie
| Comartin
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Godin
| Lill
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Nystrom
| Proctor
| Robinson
| Stoffer
|
Wasylycia - Leis
– 13
|
PAIRED
Members
Gagliano
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Tobin
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion for concurrence at
the report stage of Bill C-25.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent that those who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yes.
1800
[Translation]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of
those members who will be directed by their riding associations
and their constituents to vote otherwise, Canadian Alliance
members will be voting no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois are opposed to this motion, except for the member for
Laurentides, the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable and the member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who could not
be present for this vote.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party
who are present will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive
Conservative Party will vote yes.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes on this
motion.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded
as voting yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show that I
will vote in favour of this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bagnell
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Binet
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
| Clark
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comartin
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 184
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Cardin
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Loubier
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| Marceau
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Rocheleau
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 81
|
PAIRED
Members
Gagliano
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Tobin
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
It being 6.03 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. You will find unanimous consent for
the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or the usual practices
of the House, Bill S-27, An Act to authorize the Imperial Life
Assurance Company of Canada to apply to be continued as a
company under the laws of the Province of Quebec, and Bill S-28,
An Act to authorize Certas Direct Insurance Company to apply to
be continued as a company under the laws of the Province of
Quebec, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a
committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in
at the report stage and read a third time and passed.
1805
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous consent of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD DAY AND THE SIR WILFRID LAURIER DAY
ACT
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.) moved that Bill
S-14, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid
Laurier Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker:
Let us now praise famous men,
and our fathers in their generations.
The Lord apportioned to them great glory,
his majesty from the beginning.
There were those who ruled in their kingdoms,
and were men renowned for their power,
giving counsel by their understanding,
and proclaiming prophecies;
leaders of the people in their deliberations
and in understanding of learning for the people,
wise in their words of instruction.
This passage from chapter 44 of Ecclesiasticus reminds us of the
obligation of humanity to honour its great men and women, both of
the present and of the past.
Canadians as a nation are a modest lot, which is in many ways an
endearing quality. I am reminded of the advice I was given many
years ago before I moved to Nova Scotia. I was told that things
would be well if I simply remembered the chief operating
principle of all Nova Scotians: who the hell does he think he
is? I must say that in the past few days as the House has been
considering the delicate subject of pay increases for MPs, I have
heard more than one constituent express this very sentiment.
Canadians, however, for all their becoming modesty, do not seem
well equipped to deal with greatness, to praise famous men and
women. This is partly because by definition greatness is in
short supply at any given moment in history. Indeed when we are
confronted with true greatness, we are startled. We hardly know
how to react, so rare is the experience.
In my time in the House we have met greatness in this Chamber in
the persons of Vaclav Havel and Nelson Mandela. There is
something rarefied in the air, something special which is hard to
define but utterly palpable, something which produces a sense of
awe mingled with excitement.
So too was it when Pierre Trudeau died and his body was brought
last fall to Parliament Hill to lie in state. The spontaneous
decision of thousands of Canadians to come to Parliament Hill
from all over the country to pay their last respects, to line up
for hours before filing by his coffin, reminds us of the power of
greatness to awaken within all of us profound feelings of wonder,
awe and sadness.
1810
Those who planned Pierre Trudeau's last trip to Ottawa were well
aware of an earlier lying in state, that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier
in February 1919. The aptly named Laurier Lapierre, in his book
Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Romance of Canada, describes
the scene:
The country did well by him. All the seats in the temporary
House of Commons in the Victoria Memorial Museum were removed,
except his, and the room was adorned in the purple and black
colours of mourning. He lay in the centre of the room in his
open casket, candles surrounding him, flowers banked in
profusion, and police officers guarding him. After the officials
had passed by, the doors were opened to the general public. From
about 7:00 p.m. on Thursday until the early hours of Saturday
morning, fifty thousand of his countrymen and -women, many with
their children, came to bid him farewell.
Meanwhile, Ottawa, Hull and neighbouring municipalities were
inundated with a mass of humanity. Every hotel, pension,
and empty room was occupied as, by every means of transport
available, thirty-five thousand people came to take part in the
national moment.
Saturday, 22 February 1919, was a calm day with a fluttering of
spring in the air. By 9:00 a.m. thousands of people were already
on the streets through which the funeral procession would pass.
Soon thereafter, close to a hundred thousand were lined, six rows
deep in many places, to await Wilfrid's passage. . .
At 10:30, as the procession proceeded down Metcalfe Street,
every train in the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific,
stopped, wherever it was, for one minute.
This brings me in an admittedly roundabout fashion to Senate
Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir
Wilfrid Laurier Day, which I have the honour of introducing in
the House of Commons today. Its purpose is simple. In the words
of its proposer, Progressive Conservative Senator John
Lynch-Staunton, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate:
The Bill declares the birthday of each outstanding Canadian
(January 11 and November 20) a national holiday as distinct from
a statutory holiday. Canadians too often are faulted with not
being as familiar as they should be with their history,
particularly how Confederation came about and its early years;
honouring Macdonald and Laurier in such a special way will
contribute greatly to correcting this deplorable situation.
As a Liberal member of the House of Commons I am pleased to
support the initiative of my Conservative Senate colleague. It
should be noted that this bill was given unanimous third and
final reading in the Senate.
It is a curious fact that Canada has no equivalent of
Washington's birthday, presidents' day or Martin Luther King day.
The closest we come is Victoria Day and her Quebec cousin,
Dollard des Ormeaux, or perhaps our acknowledgement every
September of Terry Fox. This bill would begin to rectify that
lack by honouring two of Canada's greatest prime ministers.
In some ways they make an odd couple. They were men of totally
different character and temperament. Macdonald was a character,
indeed almost a rogue. What contemporary politician would dare
boast in an election speech as he did “I know enough of the
feeling of this meeting to know that you would rather have John
A. drunk than George Brown sober”? A man of artfulness and
subtlety in politics, he was variously known over the course of
his political life as Old Reynard, Old Tomorrow and The Wizard of
the North. As one anonymous Liberal member of the legislature
was heard to mutter “Ah, John A., John A., how I love you! How
I wish I could trust you!”
[Translation]
Laurier, the first French Canadian to become Prime Minister of
Canada, had a totally different personality. He was an elegant
and refined intellectual, an extraordinary speaker, and there was
a tragic dimension about his persona that was absent in
Macdonald's case.
1815
He had to face difficult tests during his political life,
including the challenge of francophones outside Quebec, the
Catholic Church in Quebec, the threat to national unity posed by
World War I, and the challenge represented by compatriots such as
Henri Bourassa.
[English]
These two great men also had much in common. John Raulston
Saul, in his book Reflections of a Siamese Twin, argues
that Canada was built over a century and a half through eight
dramatic strategic acts. Another term for these is national
projects, deliberate, strategic acts of nation building.
We think of Macdonald and we think of confederation itself, or
the national policy or the building of the transcontinental
railway. We think of Laurier and we think of the building of the
west.
These great national projects were the acts of great men. They
were not incrementalists. They were risk takers.
I would like members to listen to Macdonald defending his
railway policy in 1873:
We have fought the battle of Confederation. We have fought the
battle of unity. We have had party strife, setting Province
against Province. And more than all, we have had, in the
greatest Province, every prejudice and sectional feeling that
could be arrayed against us. I throw myself on this House; I
throw myself on this country; I throw myself on posterity, and I
believe that, notwithstanding the many failings of my life, I
shall have the voice of this country rallying round me. And sir,
if I am mistaken in that, I can confidently appeal to a higher
court—to the court of my conscience and to the court of
posterity.
That is the authentic voice of a great leader. These were men
of vision who were not content to accept things as they were.
They were creators. They were agents of change. They were also
great humanists, apostles of tolerance and respect in an era that
was decidedly less respectful and tolerant than our own.
[Translation]
Here is what Laurier said at Montreal's National Club:
We, people of French origin, have a sense of our own
individuality. We want to pass on to our children the language we
inherited from our ancestors. But while we cherish this feeling
in our hearts, we refuse to admit that it is incompatible with
our being Canadians. We are citizens of Canada and we intend to
fulfil all the duties that this title implies.
This being said, whenever we invite men from another race
to our table, we affirm that they are our fellow citizens,
just like they affirm that we
are their fellow citizens. Our country is their country: their
political opinions are our political opinions; our aspirations
are their aspirations. What they want, and what we want, is that
the rights of minorities be respected; that our constitutional
guarantees be safeguarded; that the provinces remain sovereign
and that Canada be united in its diversity.
[English]
Let the House now praise two famous men, two great Canadians, by
voting to support Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir John A.
Macdonald day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier day.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the official
opposition to address Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir John A.
Macdonald day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier day.
Sir John A. was born on January 11, 1815 and was of course our
first prime minister. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was born on November
20, 1841, and was the prime minister of Canada from 1896 to 1911.
It is my understanding that the purpose of the bill is to
designate January 11 of every year as Sir John A. Macdonald Day
and November 20 of every year as Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day.
I also understand that a variation of the bill was introduced in
the last parliament only honouring Sir John A. Macdonald and to
remove a partisan twinge in the other place, I say the other
place is not represented by the elected commons and therefore
that caveat does not play well here.
1820
I would like to make clear that the bill does not ask for the
declaration of a national holiday. It is simply recognizing two
great Canadians.
We approve in principle any efforts to allow Canadians to
appreciate their history. The fact that these two great
Canadians come from different traditions is a very positive
thing. We feel that the bill will put these dates on the
parliamentary calendar, the national calendar and will provide an
opportunity for teachers, for parents and for Canadian society to
honour the memory of two great Canadians.
Inasmuch as there is no attempt to declare these days official
holidays, there is no financial implications to Canadians,
employers and otherwise. We think that is a very positive aspect
of the bill.
In reflecting on the contribution of these great Canadians, I
came across a debate about the contributions by Sir John A.
Macdonald in the early days when they were considering this
union. I would just like to state a brief quote where Sir John
A. was speaking about this union. He said:
When this union takes place we will be at the outset no
inconsiderable people. We find ourselves with a population
approaching four millions of souls...And with a rapidly
increasing population...our future progress, during the next
quarter of a century, will be vastly greater.
That was received with cheers.
He went on to say:
And when, by means of this rapid increase, we become a nation of
eight or nine millions of inhabitants, our alliance will be
worthy of being sought by the great nations of the earth.
Hon. members responded “Hear, hear”.
It is interesting to reflect that at the time of independence,
1931, Canada's population was around 10.5 million.
Canadians need to reinforce our sense of identity. We do well
to remember men and women of distinction who have contributed
greatly to these institutions of democracy that we now labour to
protect.
Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier are without doubt
worthy of this recognition. We support the bill, and we hope
that it will contribute to our appreciation of our history and
our heritage as Canadians.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I had not planned to speak to this bill, and I apologize
to the mover for not having prepared remarks because I think it
is the kind of topic on which one would have liked to have had
the time to do a little research and perhaps to have come up with
some worthy quotations from both Macdonald and Laurier,
particularly with respect to Macdonald and some of the anecdotes
somewhere along the line already engaged in by the member who
introduced the motion.
I would certainly like to speak in favour of the motion in its
particularity, that is to say the idea of having a day to honour
Macdonald and Laurier. Generally, I would like to speak in
favour of more opportunities for Canadians to reflect upon their
history and for Canadians to know their history better than they
do, because I would say that one of the weaknesses of Canada as a
nation is that we do not know our history as well as we should.
I think it is fair to say that in many of the constitutional
debates we have had in the country we might have been able to
have had more intelligent debates, more constructive debates if
people had been more aware of their history and more aware of the
particular traditions out of which people were operating, out of
which they were thinking, speaking and acting when they were
participating in those debates.
That does not mean to say that it would have eliminated
disagreement, because I think any study of Canadian history will
show that there have always been different ideas about the
country. There have always been different ideas about the role
of the central government ever since the initial debate about
confederation.
There have always been different ideas about how much power
should reside with the provinces. There have been a number of
different ideas about Canada all competing with each other within
the bosom of this great country we call Canada.
1825
To name a particular day after Macdonald and Laurier is
appropriate because within those two names is contained at least
two of the contending views of the country, although there would
be a great overlap between them as well. Nevertheless, one
remembers that it was Sir Wilfrid Laurier who was the first prime
minister to consider free trade with the United States, and it
was Sir John A. Macdonald who was the creator and defender of the
national policy, which was not a free trade policy but rather a
policy which intended to create more of a national economy.
We see that debate being lived out even today within Canada with
respect to free trade, although I must say that the free trade
that we have today is far more extensive and far more destructive
than anything that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had in mind when he
defended the idea of reciprocity. That had to do only with
tariffs. It did not have to do with investment, services and
energy. It did not really have to do with incarnating or
entrenching a whole philosophy.
I do not want to wander into the free trade debate. I want to
stick with the idea that we should know our history better and
that any designation of days, such as the bill suggests, which
would help Canadians to do that should be supported. It might
become an occasion in schools in particular, but also in other
places for Canadians to reflect on their history.
There are many who lament the fact that Canadian history is not
taught as much in our school system as it should be. It seems to
me that we do a very poor job of that. Knowing Canadian history
should not be an option. It should be something that every
Canadian kid should have a good grasp of by the time he or she
gets out of high school.
For children to simply take one course in grade 11, another
course three or four grades back of that, and spend most of their
time learning about the very early days of Canada with regard to
explorers and everything else but never really knowing as much
about our history in both the 19th century and the 20th century
as I think people should know, is a fault of our school system. I
know the history is in the textbooks, but I do not think we spend
enough time on it. I wanted to use this opportunity to register
that particular point.
I hope this is the kind of bill that might pass. I understand
it is votable, although I hope that it does not come to a vote
today because I think other members may want to speak to it.
That is partly why I am on my feet, to ensure that the debate
does not collapse within the first hour. It is something we
would like to hear more members on.
I commend the mover of the motion in the other place and here
for giving us the opportunity to reflect, however inadequately,
on Canadian history and on these two great prime ministers. One
who had this vision of a country on the northern half of the
North American continent that would be different and distinct
from the United States of America and another who had a vision
somewhat later, when we were receiving more immigrants from all
around the world, of a country that was tolerant and diverse and
respectful of minority rights.
Both these visions need to be nurtured. As I already indicated
the vision of Prime Minister Laurier with respect to a diverse
and tolerant society that respects minorities is being nurtured,
but I think the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald of a different
and distinct country on the northern half of the North American
continent is a vision that is in great peril.
1830
An argument could be made that Macdonald would be rolling over
in his grave if he could see the extent to which the country has
become integrated into the North American economy and the extent
to which it has come under the sway and domination, both
ideological and political, of the country from which he sought to
set Canada apart.
Forgive me if I use this time not to make a partisan point but
to talk about something a great many people are very concerned
about, and that is the project we call Canada. The hon. member
spoke of national projects. The project we call Canada has had
various mini projects along the way or various stages of the
project. Our concern in the NDP is that we are in a project now
that is quite antithetical to all previous projects.
We live in a world where we talk about a North American economic
union, adopting the U.S. dollar and continental energy projects.
These kinds of things would have driven Sir John A. Macdonald
around the bend. They might have driven him to drink. Indeed
they might have driven him to have a few more than he might
otherwise have had.
I would certainly ask hon. members to consider this when we
honour our history and honour the ideas some of our prime
ministers had. Let us be vigilant and careful that we are not,
by dearth of uncritical attraction to various new ideas or
so-called new ideas, because some of what passes for new ideas
these days is just old 19th century capitalism being repackaged
and shoved down our throats, that when we pay homage to these
individuals we are not by accident or design destructive of their
visions of Canada.
The hon. member recalled the time of Prime Minister Laurier's
funeral and the most recent time of mourning having to do with
the death of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. We might remember another
time in recent history when Canadians gathered from all walks of
life, and certainly throughout western Canada, to pay homage to
Prime Minister John Diefenbaker who, for all his faults and
certainly his partisan faults, had a vision of Canada as
something very distinct from the United States. He was not a
member of the party I belong to, but certainly a great many
western Canadians and I am certain Canadians from other parts of
Canada, shared that vision with him.
It was a sense that Mr. Diefenbaker had, along with Sir John A.
Macdonald, which sometimes got him into trouble with the United
States of America. I would put that on the record as we;;
because it is something New Democrats hold dear, not the memory
of John Diefenbaker but the idea of a distinctive country on the
northern half of the North American continent, something that is
different, more compassionate, more caring and more sharing. Let
us defend that to the death.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure and an honour to speak this evening to a bill which
has been unanimously passed in the other place and which recalls
the contribution to this great country of two extremely
honourable gentlemen.
When we suggest to others that we are to bring in a bill to
honour Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, there will
probably be other people who will say we should wait because
there are other prime ministers who have made a greater
contribution to the country. Were there?
1835
If we were to give one person credit for bringing this great
country together we would have to focus on the efforts and
leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald, the first prime minister of
Canada. Every time we look at a picture of the Fathers of
Confederation and see Macdonald standing there with his bushy
hair, a lot more bushy than mine or my colleague's from the
Canadian Alliance, he stands out in more ways than one. There is
an awe about him that we see in very few people.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the seventh prime minister if I remember my
history correctly, and the first French Canadian prime minister,
was known to be a silver-tongued orator. Some of the phrases he
issued about the country would make anyone feel proud to be
Canadian.
When I think about what Macdonald and Laurier envisaged this
great country of Canada to be, and then look at the state of the
country today, I can hear Laurier in some of his more pointed
dialogues talking about the unity of the country. I will read
one. I will read a little quote.
He said:
We are all Canadians. Below the Island of Montreal the water
that comes from the north from Ottawa unites with the waters that
come from the western lakes, but uniting they do not mix. There
they run parallel, separate, distinguishable, and yet are one
stream, flowing within the same banks, the mighty St. Lawrence,
and rolling on toward the sea bearing the commerce of a nation
upon its bosom—a perfect image of our nation. We may not
assimilate, we may not blend, but for all that we are still the
component parts of the same country.
How often in recent days or even in recent years have we heard
this type of oration in a place similar to this? I would suggest
it has been quite some time.
Even though Macdonald and Laurier were opponents in and out of
the House, one a Liberal and one a Conservative, they were not
opponents when it came to fighting for what they both believed
in: a strong, united country where everybody, regardless of
religion, race or language, lived and worked together for the
benefit of the great nation.
Laurier felt so strongly about it that he said the 19th century
was the century of the United States in terms of its development,
but that the 20th century would be the century for Canada and
Canadian development. He undoubtedly felt that others who came
after him would show the same leadership and insight as to what
the country could do.
However somewhere along the line we have failed. I think of the
dream of unity and then look at the disunity in the House and
within parties. I look at my friends in the Canadian Alliance
who are conservatives and at my friends in the Progressive
Conservative Party who are also conservatives and they are in the
far reaches of the House at separate ends. I look at people here
who tell us that their job is to take their province out of the
country rather than to use their collective skills and wisdom to
strengthen this great country. When I look at these things I ask
where we have failed Laurier and Macdonald.
1840
What did Macdonald say? In addition to the work he did in
leading this great country and uniting the land physically by the
construction of the railway, he too had some quotes we should
never forget.
Macdonald talked about the French. He had learned that any
relationship with the French depended on respect. If treated as
a nation they would act generously, as free people generally do.
If called a faction they would become factious.
In old age, Macdonald declared:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that
by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress
the one language or render it inferior to the other: I believe
that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be
foolish and wicked if it were possible.
Have we learned from that? I do not know. I guess history will
decide.
When I came here and walked into this honourable Chamber I was
asked if it was my greatest, most memorable political moment. I
said no. My most memorable political moment to date was when I
sat in the legislature in Newfoundland and saw Meech Lake
scuttled. That night I said to myself something, which I hope
will be incorrect, “I think this is the night we jeopardized the
future of this great country”.
It is an honour and a privilege to stand here and talk about
these two great men who made such an impression on this nation,
not only by what they did but by what they said. Their words, if
we read them, listen to them and heed them, can be an example for
all of us.
As the waters from the west blend with the waters that flow
through the St. Lawrence and into the ocean, so too do the
energies of the people of the territories, British Columbia, the
western provinces, central Canada and on to the Atlantic. If we
only believed in this nation as did Laurier and Macdonald, we
would not be having some of the petty problems we are having
today.
Perhaps if we focus a little less on ourselves individually and
a little more on our nation, as did Macdonald and Laurier,
somewhere along the line people might look at us as
parliamentarians and say that we too made a contribution to this
great nation.
I am pleased and proud to support the bill and I hope others
will also.
[Translation]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I welcome this opportunity to comment on Bill S-14.
This bill seeks to honour two of our greatest prime ministers,
Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It would
designate the birthdays of these outstanding Canadians as special
days, helping to commemorate their remarkable contributions to
the building of our nation.
Before commenting any further on the bill itself, I would like
to offer my congratulations to the member of the other place for
his initiative in proposing this piece of legislation. Like the
hon. member of the other place, I believe we must work constantly
and creatively to identify appropriate ways of preserving and
celebrating our shared heritage as Canadians.
Only by fully understanding our history and learning about the
lives and accomplishments of the women and men who have built
Canada, can we know who we are, and fully appreciate what it
means to be Canadian.
1845
The intent of this bill is clear. It represents an act of
respect and acknowledgement for these two towering figures of
Canadian history, one, a Father of Confederation and the first
Prime Minister of Canada, and the other, Canada's seventh prime
minister, one of our nation's most powerful and articulate
advocates for national unity.
I would like to say that Canadians are all familiar with the
lives and accomplishments of Sir John A. and Sir Wilfrid. For
people in this room today, that is almost certainly true.
[English]
However beyond this room in other rooms, other cities and other
places across Canada that knowledge may be less widely shared.
Most Canadians know that Sir John A. Macdonald led the effort to
make Confederation a reality. He drafted the British North
America Act defining the federal system by which the original
four provinces were united as one country on July 1, 1967. He
became Canada's first prime minister and went on to help forge a
strong and vibrant nation. He launched the Intercolonial Railway
which would eventually provide a key physical link for Canada
from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast in the vast largely
unsettled land in between.
What of Sir Wilfrid Laurier? Many Canadians recognize him as an
eloquent and staunch promoter of national unity and as the first
Canadian of French origin to become prime minister, but how many
know that he held the longest unbroken term of office as prime
minister from 1896 to 1911, a period during which his unshakeable
confidence in Canada fostered unprecedented growth and prosperity
for the young country? These are not matters we can take for
granted.
As the member from the other place has demonstrated through his
proposed bill, if we care about preserving and celebrating the
achievements of these great Canadians we must take the initiative
to ensure that their contributions to Canada are recognized. What
is less clear about the bill, however, is whether by moving at
this time to enact it we are taking the most appropriate and
effective means to honour these exceptional Canadians.
[Translation]
Setting aside special days celebrating the achievements of great
Canadians is a well established and time honoured tradition, but
the 21st century offers new opportunities that may be even more
effective in engaging the interest and imagination of Canadians.
New technologies and communications modes are providing
exciting, new ways to celebrate and educate, opportunities to
achieve this same goal.
As more and more Canadians are connected to the World Wide Web,
information on virtually every aspect of our society, past and
present, has become accessible to citizens, no matter where they
live.
If I had a computer with me right now and I initiated a search
for information on Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
I would have instant access to a combined total of more than
18,000 websites devoted to these great Canadians.
Literally, at my fingertips, I would be able to draw upon an
astonishing range of information and visual images. I would be
able to review speech texts and quotations, copies of historical
and more recent media commentary, academic analysis, and on and
on.
The information revolution and the advent of new technologies
are making it increasingly possible for Canadians to log on to
their history, as well as to the latest stock quote or sports
score.
The Government of Canada, in recognizing the value and potential
of the Internet, is committed to help Canadians exploit the
opportunities being made possible by the Web. This recognition of
the increasingly important role and potential of the Internet is
at the core of our government-on-line strategy.
[English]
Through government online the Government of Canada is committed
to becoming by 2004 the government most connected to its
citizens. This not only involves more efficient and timely
citizen access to government information services. It also means
using the Internet and new technologies to offer Canadians
greater access to their institutions and their shared history.
1850
Today, by accessing the Canada site on the web, it is possible
to take a virtual tour of the Parliament Buildings and the
parliamentary precinct, including the offices, parliamentary
corridors and House of Commons seats where these two great
Canadians did their important work.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is playing a leading role in
the government online initiatives, especially with respect to
Canadian content. We have an unprecedented opportunity to use
the Internet to connect with our past as well as with each other.
Strengthening this connection is a goal that we all share.
As the bill recognizes, both Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir
Wilfrid Laurier were forwardlooking men who saw nation building
and unity as the road to Canada's future. Each made profound and
lasting contributions to achieving a strong and united Canada.
The proposed legislation presents one very tangible means of
paying tribute to their legacies and, for this reason alone, I
believe the bill to be worthy of support in principle.
At the same time, it must be recognized that enacting the bill
would likely generate calls for similar honours to be bestowed on
other great Canadians. That is not a simple issue to resolve.
At what point do we draw the line in creating recognition days
for those who have played a significant role in building our
country? What standards and criteria do we set in determining who
to honour and, most important, who to leave aside?
[Translation]
In opening the door to demands for specially declared days, we
risk diminishing the value and significance of such an honour,
the exact opposite of what this bill hopes to achieve.
These are points for careful consideration. The good intent and
purpose of this bill are beyond question. What we must not
be afraid to question is whether this proposed legislation
represents the best way to pay tribute to the great Canadians it
is intended to honour.
As I have tried to suggest, there may be other options, such as
the application of new technologies and the Internet, that may
help achieve the same ends.
The decision on which options are best is up to you.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and honour to debate Bill
S-14. I had a similar motion in fact—
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There are two items that have been agreed to by all the House
leaders and I am wondering if there would be consent to adopt
them at this time.
The first item involves concurrence in the 26th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House earlier this week on a committee change to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts. I would be seeking concurrence in
that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I understand that the
second item was also agreed to by all House leaders. It was the
approval of a travel request for the Standing Joint Committee on
Scrutiny of Regulations.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons it is
a pleasure for me to rise to debate Bill S-14 is that it is in
part reflective of a private member's bill I had in this place in
the last parliament which would have formally recognized the
birthday of our first great prime minister, Sir John A.
Macdonald.
I am very pleased to see that one of the great parliamentarians
in the other place, Senator Lynch-Staunton, has initiated this
legislation and that a very fine parliamentarian in this place,
the hon. member for Don Valley West, has chosen to introduce it.
He himself is an advertisement for the need for parliamentary
reform, that a member with such talents should be stuck in the
backbenches. I ask the member to please not include that in his
election brochure against the Canadian Alliance candidate next
time. However I do believe that members such as he are a very
good reason for empowering members of parliament.
1855
I was about to enter the debate by simply commenting on the
importance of the bill and how important it is to have a deeper
understanding of our history. I was hoping to be completely
non-partisan, as is the convention here, but I must say I was
disappointed with the intervention of my colleague from
Parkdale—High Park for whom I have considerable personal
respect.
That speech must have been written by a bureaucrat in the
department of heritage and handed to the parliamentary secretary.
To suggest that we not pass a bill recognizing our two greatest
prime ministers because we are not sure what criteria we should
apply is precisely the problem in Canadians not recognizing our
history in an appropriate fashion. The bureaucratic notion that
the selection of the founding prime minister and the first great
Liberal French Canadian prime minister above others is somehow an
offence to equality or an offence to standards of political
correctness is offensive.
Then we have the idea that we can properly recognize these prime
ministers through some Internet program. How did we get on to
government connectedness and so on? With respect, the attitude
articulated by the parliamentary secretary to the heritage
minister reflects precisely what is wrong about the recognition
of Canadian history by the official culturecrats in the
department of heritage.
That really has me spitting mad because there should be no
question at all. We do not need to devise committees of
bureaucrats, experts or politicians to say that there are two
great and outstanding prime ministers who stand above all others
in our early history, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid
Laurier, and that they deserve some formal institutional
recognition not just of parliament but of all Canadian people.
That ought not to be a matter of contention or debate.
Both these prime ministers recognized that Canada was a unique
experiment in the history of liberal democracy, that it was in
many respects a confluence of our British heritage and traditions
with the culture, language and uniqueness of the French faction
in North America, and in some respects kept an eye on the liberal
republican democratic experiment in the United States.
In that light we can look to how our friends in the United
Kingdom and the United States celebrate their heroes. I submit
that both these countries have a very vivid and robust
understanding of their particular histories, traditions and the
great figures in those histories.
One need only walk down the Mall in Washington, D.C., to see the
statues and monuments of their great past presidents, Abraham
Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, great generals
and figures of American history. They have entrenched the memory
of these men, mainly men, who were central in the history of
their founding.
Similarly in the United Kingdom one can walk down the Mall in
London and in Westminster parliament to see and feel a connection
with history and tradition. One can recognize in a very vivid
and robust way the central role of the monarch as the central
political institution of the United Kingdom. Those traditions
are celebrated in many different and vivid ways.
It is regrettable that in Canada, with those examples before us,
those examples of our two closest and best friends, we lack that
kind of robust celebration of our great historical figures and
the great moments in our history.
This is an important bill. Symbols are important, but
regrettably we do not maximize the values of our symbols in
Canada.
1900
I am sure that if John A. Macdonald or Wilfrid Laurier were to
see the motion before us today they would find it ironic and
would undoubtedly vote against it, in part because they would see
the sort of recognition of mere politicians in a constitutional
monarchy as something inappropriate.
However, I do think that these great men, who contributed so
much to carve out of the northern half of this wild, intemperate
continent a nation as unique as this, deserve our recognition in
a very formal way, which this bill would seek to do by
recognizing their birthdates on January 11 and November 20
respectively.
A couple of years ago a new think tank called the Dominion
Institute conducted a survey of young Canadians to ascertain
their familiarity with Canadian history. Regrettably, it found a
shocking degree of ignorance among younger Canadians about our
central historical moments and persons. In fact, I think fewer
than one-quarter of young Canadians could actually name our
founding prime minister.
Whatever excuse we have had for Canadian history in the school
system has not worked. We need to reinforce national symbols of
our history. Through such symbols people will learn what they
may not learn in school about the central people and events in
our history. That is one reason why the bill should be
supported.
I am glad to see that there is a kindling of understanding about
the need to revive Canadian history. Jack Granatstein wrote an
excellent book entitled Who Killed Canadian History? which
is an excellent survey of this issue. The foundation of the
Dominion Institute itself was dedicated to reviving an interest
in Canadian history. A recent first time publication by
Stoddart, Canada's Founding Debates, is a compendium of the
founding debates at the time of Confederation. It allows lay
people a very accessible window on the debates that founded this
parliament and this Dominion.
Let me quote from an intervention by John Macdonald at the
legislative assembly on February 6, 1865 in speaking about his
plans for this new federation. He said “We should feel
sincerely grateful to beneficent providence that we have had the
opportunity vouchsafed us of commonly considering this great
constitutional change, this peaceful revolution, that we have not
been hurried into it like the United States by the exigencies of
war, that we have not had a violent revolutionary period forced
on us as in other nations. Here we are in peace and prosperity,
a dependent people with a government having only a limited and
delegated authority and yet allowed without restriction and
without jealousy on the part of the mother country to legislate
for ourselves and peacefully and deliberately to consider and
determine the future of Canada”.
This was, in a way, a modest vision but for a very immodest
project, this country. We owe so much to the great and sacred
memory of these two men that the passage of the bill is a trifle.
I hope that the bill is votable and that all members will support
it. I regret that there is one party in this place that has not
even submitted a speaker to this bill, which is a reflection of
the need for us to reinforce our remembrance of these great
figures.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker,
the question I have been asking was in relation to the selling
off of aircraft parts, not that it was done improperly. There
was a tender call for the sale. In fact a number of companies
received letters thanking them for their participation in the
sale of aircraft parts.
However the interesting point about the contract was that it was
changed or amended after the firm got it. Was it to sell off
another handful of aircraft parts? Not so. It was to sell off
10 or 15 jets and something like 40 helicopters.
1905
I equate that to someone calling a tender to sell off used car
tires and when all the bids are in and a favourite bidder happens
to get the nod, the contract is suddenly amended and he is also
asked to sell 40 Buicks and 15 Cadillacs, with the ensuing profit
going to that friend.
Perception is reality. Both the perception and the reality here
are not very pleasant for one to look at or to read about. It is
the type of stuff that governments and politicians should not be
involved with. If there is a bidding process, if there is a
tender call, then whatever that tender call is we should live
with it, not amend and adjust to increase it tremendously for the
benefit of perhaps those who get the job, provided they are our
friends.
Another concern about the sale is that a lot of the parts were
stored in a warehouse in the United States. The people involved
with that were also involved in some illegal activity in that
country, according to the records. That left many people
concerned about the security of the products and whether or not
we could end up losing them if the company involved went into
bankruptcy.
The minister did not give a clear cut answer to either, but he
gave no answer at all to the question as to why the contract to
sell parts was amended. I know the answer will be: What is the
definition of a part? When we talking about parts we are not
talking about Challenger jets or about helicopters. The question
mainly that was unanswered is why that contract was amended to
include them after the fact.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on the
issues raised by the hon. member, Lancaster Aviation was the
company in question which won competitive contracts in 1997 and
again in the year 2000 for the disposal of surplus aerospace
assets, not simply parts. I recommend the member look at the
contract to verify that fact.
The 1997 contract contemplated special project sales such as
planes. When such a need arises the contract called for an
amendment to be made to legally bind the parties with regard to
this special project.
The sale of the surplus aircraft was conducted to the letter of
the law and certainly with the interest of Canadian taxpayers in
mind. The member is quite right that 40 Twin Huey helicopters
were sold to the U.S. department for approximately $20 million
U.S. and 8 Challenger aircraft were sold to DDH Aviation of Texas
as a result of a competitive tender for approximately $30 million
U.S.
Lancaster was paid a fair commission for its services as per the
terms of the contract. It is true that Lancaster was using a
facility in Florida for warehousing purposes only. The assets
were warehoused in Florida because that is where the market is.
The assets are not and were not in danger. They are the property
of the Department of National Defence and are only in the custody
of the contractor. Lancaster is also responsible for the
safekeeping of the assets and is fully liable for any losses.
I would close by saying that if the member has any knowledge of
any illegalities or allegations of wrongdoing, the appropriate
course of business is to refer such matters either to the
minister or to the RCMP if that is the nature of the item.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, the question I asked of the Minister for
Citizenship and Immigration was about why Canada continues to
harbour the criminal elements of the world.
1910
Canadians have read in the newspapers throughout these last few
years about the illegal criminals entering the country. Canadians
are asking why are we allowing these criminals to enter the
country?
Canadians have also heard names like Gaetano Amodeo and Lai
Changxing. In fact they have become household names in the
country over the last few years. We have put a lot of effort
into protecting these criminals who enter the country. While we
do this, we put other Canadian citizens at risk. We put Canadian
visitors at risk. An example is the Sklarzyk family who was
recently deported back to Poland. Who is looking after their
rights? Who is looking after the rights of Serge Kisluk? This
gentleman passed away just recently.
I would like to quote Marsha Skrypuch from a newspaper article.
She is a children's author and met Kisluk while researching a
novel about a girl whose grandfather was accused of war crimes.
She said that she was appalled at the process that had been used
to condemn Mr. Kisluk. She stated:
These are 50-year-old cases, and evidence won't hold up in a
criminal court, so they use the immigration rules instead. The
reality is that there just isn't enough evidence. Innocent people
get hurt. You end up with a bunch of little old men trying to
defend themselves against the state.
Who is defending his rights? Who is defending the rights of
people like Oberlander and Odynsky? How many criminals are
there in Canada? I do not think anyone knows. What we do know
is that there are at least 15,000 warrants out for people who are
in the country who should not be here. They should have left a
long time ago.
We are letting too many criminals through the front door. Why?
Because the front door is wide open. The Canadian Alliance has
said for a long time that there should be necessary screens put
in place to screen out the undesirables so they do not enter the
country. Certainly with technology that should not be an
impossible task. In fact the standing committee recommended that
in its last report to the minister.
In closing, I would say that Canadians support an open
immigration policy but not at the expense of national security.
The minister, as the auditor general has said in his report, can
improve the system without Bill C-11. In fact Bill C-11 would do
very little. It would basically penalize the legal migrants and
refugees to this country. So instead of just talking about doing
the job, I would only hope that the immigration minister would
walk the talk.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like
to deal with the main issue raised by the member.
[English]
Obviously he made reference to a specific case which we cannot
go into any detail on. However I can assure the hon. member that
the processing time for applications for permanent residents is
not static. They vary according to how many applications are in
the process at any given time and available resources to process
them.
I will give an example. In the year 2000, 50% of all the
applicants who applied for permanent residence in the business
immigration category took roughly 11 months to process. This
means of course that some were longer than 11 months and some
were shorter. However I can assure the hon. member that in this
case the allegations that were brought out concerning Gaetano
Amodeo were completely and utterly unfounded.
[Translation]
In conclusion, all members of parliament make representations to
the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It is our duty to
do so when our constituents ask us for some information.
Senators, members of parliament, and even our colleague from
Dauphin—Swan River, I am sure, have made representations to the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on specific applications.
Last year, we received 40,000 requests for information. In the
national capital region, there were in excess of 6,000
representations made, some of them by myself.
That is the role we play, our duty to our constituents, and we
play it with the best intentions possible.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): 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.)