37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 041
CONTENTS
Monday, April 2, 2001
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| CETACEANS
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Motion
|
1105
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1125
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1130
1135
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1140
1145
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1150
1155
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1200
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1205
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-2—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1210
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Report stage
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1215
1220
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1225
1230
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1235
1240
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1245
1250
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1255
1300
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1305
1310
| Division on Motion No. 4 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 8 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 9 deferred
|
| Recorded divisions deferred
|
| FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-8. Third reading
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1315
1320
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1325
1330
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-18. Second reading
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1335
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1340
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1345
1350
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CHILD CARE
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
1400
| HELGE INGSTAD
|
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| YOUTH SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| MUSIC WEEK
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
1405
| UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À RIMOUSKI
|
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| PROSPECT HIGH HEAD
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| YOUTH
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1410
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1435
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1440
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| FINANCIAL INFORMATION STRATEGY
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1445
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1450
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1455
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1500
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITION
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Transport and Government Operations
|
| Mr. Ovid Jackson |
| PETITIONS
|
| Canada Post
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1505
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| Oil and Gas Exploration
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Poverty
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Health care
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Trade
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Marital Separation Code
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Genetically modified organisms
|
| Mr. Andy Burton |
1510
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Foot and Mouth Disease
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-18. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1515
1520
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1525
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Canadian Human Rights Commission Report—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
1530
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-18. Second reading
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1535
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1555
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1600
| Division on motion deferred
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
|
| Bill C-17. Second reading
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1605
1610
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1705
1710
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1715
| Hon. Robert Thibault |
1720
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1725
1730
1735
1740
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1745
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1750
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1755
1800
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1805
| Mr. John Williams |
1810
1815
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1820
1825
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Report Stage
|
1845
1855
(Division 61)
| Motion No. 4 negatived
|
(Division 62)
| Motion No. 8 negatived
|
1900
(Division 63)
| Motion No. 9 negatived.
|
(Division 64)
| Motion No. 10 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
(Division 65)
| Motion agreed to
|
1905
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-18. Second reading
|
(Division 66)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Lumber Industry
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1910
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Multiculturalism
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1915
| Mr. Derek Lee |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 041
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 2, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
CETACEANS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans should decree an immediate moratorium on the live capture
and trade of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises).
1105
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House
to bring forward the motion for debate because it is a very
topical issue and something that I think is of great interest to
Canadians. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans should decree an immediate moratorium on the live capture
and trade of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises).
I will begin my remarks by explaining why I have brought the
motion forward.
The reality is that Canada lacks any regulation. In fact Canada
has chosen not to regulate the import, export and interprovincial
trade in marine mammals or to regulate their breeding in
captivity. This is in very sharp contrast to other countries,
especially the U.K., which has very tough legislation regulating
marine mammals in captivity.
The purpose of my motion is to engage in a very important public
discussion among Canadians about the ethics, the problems and the
issues with the trade and captivity of marine mammals.
I believe that Canadians care deeply about marine mammals and
what happens to them. We need as public legislators to start
making decisions about how to protect the species.
The current situation in Canada is actually something that is
quite sad. Going back to 1992, we have a good initiative in that
the then minister of DFO, Mr. Crosbie, announced that he would no
longer consider any application for the live capture of beluga
whales from Canada to other countries. However this only covered
belugas. It did not deal with interprovincial trade within
Canada. Unfortunately it has occurred in practice only, that is,
it has not been followed up in any policy sense or in any
legislative sense.
I think we have to ask the question: Why has the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans deemed it inappropriate to export belugas to
other countries but has left it quite open that other marine
mammals are unprotected within our borders?
If the motion before us today were taken up by the government,
which I hope it will be, who would be affected by this
moratorium? Currently in Canada, we have three aquariums which
feature captive whales and dolphins: the Vancouver Aquarium; the
West Edmonton Mall; and Marineland of Canada in Niagara Falls.
The West Edmonton Mall personnel have indicated that they will
phase out the dolphin show and not replace the dolphins upon
their deaths.
The Vancouver Aquarium, as a result of many years of public
lobbying and very strong public concern, has stated that it will
no longer acquire whales and dolphins from the wild and will no
longer keep killer whales. In fact, the last remaining orca
whale, the Bjossa, is slated to go to Sea World in San Diego very
shortly. However, the situation at the Vancouver Aquarium is
that it still left open the possibility of securing marine
mammals already captive at other facilities. The reason I
brought forward this motion is that it would put a stop to that.
The other aquarium in Canada, Marineland, currently has 10
beluga whales, 7 bottlenose dolphins and 7 killer whales. It has
a history of breeding animals and may be poised, unfortunately,
to become an international source for the captive whale and
dolphin industry unless it is regulated.
This is a very serious subject. There is a lot of ambiguity and
confusion about what Canada's position is on the issue due to the
lack of regulation and legislation.
The Vancouver parks board, which I visited last Monday night,
March 26, was considering its own bylaw that would theoretically
prohibit the importation of live captive whales and dolphins.
Unfortunately, the bylaw was so ambiguous that a lot of concerned
groups and individuals in Vancouver lobbied the parks board for a
clear bylaw that would prohibit the live capture and importation
or trading of whales through the Vancouver Aquarium.
1110
When I spoke at the Vancouver park board it seemed to me that it
would make much better sense to have a national policy and/or
legislation that would clearly outline Canada's position and
protect these magnificent animals from live capture and captivity
in aquariums and trading.
In doing research on this issue, one of the things I found to be
most disturbing was that not only does Canada have a lack of
regulation and a lack of policy on this issue but we also have
become a haven for what is called whale laundering. This is
something that is very serious and is not known by many people.
Some countries, such as the United States, have much tougher
legislation governing the capture of marine mammals for
captivity. To avoid these rules, some U.S. facilities can
capture animals in a third country, Russia for example, and then
house those animals in facilities here in Canada. The practice
has been that after a short period of time, maybe a year or so,
they are then brought into the United States. This process has
allowed U.S. marine facilities to bypass their own tough
legislation and to avoid public scrutiny. They are using Canada
and our facilities to do that.
There is no question that Marineland and the Vancouver Aquarium
have served in this capacity in the past. In doing so, I believe
that our Canadian facilities undermine marine mammal regulations
in other countries and indeed internationally.
I will now spend a few minutes on the cost of government
inaction. Canada's Marineland has been very active in the
international whale and dolphin trade. Since May 1999, it has
imported 12 beluga whales and six bottlenose dolphins from
Russia. Two of the belugas have since died in captivity. The
capturing of these animals happens in the most inhumane fashion
imaginable.
On Friday, when I held a press conference on my motion, we
showed a video that was taken in Russia on the capture of beluga
whales. It showed the absolute inhumane conditions that are in
complete violation of international rules for aviation, travel
and transport as well as for the capture of whales.
The video was most graphic and disturbing. It showed the cruelty
and abuse these animals suffer only to end up captive in a marine
facility where they are put on public display. My fear is that
if the minister does not act soon Canada will become known as a
warehousing facility for marine mammals to other facilities
around the world.
Government inaction is not only lamentable but it defies both
logic and compassion. I know the minister has received thousands
of letters asking him to act. I also know that during this past
week about 100 e-mails, letters and faxes in support of the
motion came through to the minister's office.
Last Tuesday I attended the Pacific headquarters of the DFO in
Vancouver and delivered to the minister's office copies of all of
the e-mails that I have received as well as a presentation from
Zoocheck Canada of a very serious graphic representation of a
whale inside a sardine can. We know what we see when we peel
back a sardine can. We see sardines squished together, lined up
one by one in those tiny cans. Imagine a poster of a sardine can
and when it is rolled back from the corner what we see is a
whale. That representation really symbolizes what this issue is
about in terms of captivity.
Further to the governments inaction, one of the things that is
really of very grave concern is that in 1998 the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans commissioned Dr. Jon Lien, a respected
marine mammal scientist from Memorial University in Newfoundland,
to examine the practice of live capture and captive maintenance
of marine mammals in Canada.
1115
In that report from 1998, not only did Dr. Lien call for a ban
on new live capture and imports, but he also called for a
moratorium on the captive maintenance of marine mammals. The
department and the minister have now had this report sitting on
their desks for two years and have chosen not to act on the
recommendation from Dr. Lien.
I have to ask the question today: why has this report not been
acted on? Why has this issue been left not even on the back
burner but just gathering dust on a shelf while we still have
live capture, trading and captivity of whales and dolphins in our
country and are now warehousing them for other groups around the
world?
Animal protection groups such as Zoocheck Canada have made
numerous attempts to meet with the minister and/or DFO staff in
the past year, but those requests have been denied. Yet I was
astounded to learn just a few days ago that the department is
currently meeting with industry officials in secret and looking
at developing supposed educational standards in regard to the
captivity of whales and dolphins.
Again I have to ask why there is a double standard here. Why do
we have a report that has not been acted upon when there is
intense public interest in the issue? Why is it that the
department is meeting behind closed doors when there should be
open public disclosure and debate about the very important
ethical, educational and scientific issues involved in the
captivity of these marine mammals?
I want to make it clear that the motion today is not asking that
Canada take a leadership role on the issue, because a number of
countries around the world have already imposed bans on the
import of whales and dolphins, including Argentina, Cyprus,
Hungary, India, Israel and Chile. What we are asking in the
motion is that Canada play its role, that it display progressive
and positive decision making to protect these magnificent animals
from further abuse and from further live capture and captivity.
I believe that the quality of life for marine mammals in
captivity is inhumane. There is very strong evidence for this.
Far from being a far ranging, deep diving, constantly moving
creature, a captive whale becomes essentially a sedentary animal,
spending most of its time at the surface swimming in circles in a
small concrete tank. In some cases, such as Marineland of
Canada, this means keeping an adult orca in a 25 foot diameter
tank for long periods of time so that it has nothing to do but
float motionless at the surface. Is this educational? Is this
what we consider humane treatment?
Orcas, dolphins and beluga whales use echolocation or sonar
ability to navigate at night and to find food. In a concrete
tank which never changes and has no textural variety to it, they
almost never use this critical behaviour.
Whales and dolphins are among the most socially complex
creatures on earth. They live in close knit groups that often
consist of multiple generations of the same family. The life
expectancy of marine mammals in captivity is greatly reduced. In
the wild, orcas can live into their 80s, while in captivity few
have lived into their 30s.
Clearly there is an ethical issue about whether or not these
animals are being kept in captivity for so-called education or
simply for entertainment. It is clear that we need to do
something. It is clear that we need to act upon the
recommendations in Dr. Lien's report.
I want to thank many people and organizations such as Brian
McHattie from Zoocheck Canada, Shelagh Macdonald from the
Canadian Federation of Human Societies, Annelise Sorg from the
Coalition for No Whales in Captivity in Vancouver, and John Mate
from Whale Friends. They have taken up this issue with
passion, have not let it go and have demanded that the government
determine why this report from two years ago has not been acted
on.
I look forward to the responses from other parties today in the
House. I hope there will be a positive response. If we
genuinely believe there should be protection for these
magnificent animals, then that report must be acted on by the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
1120
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, the member for Labrador, to rise in the
House today to respond to the motion put forward by the member
for Vancouver East.
First I would like to thank the member for Vancouver East for
her continuing concern and interest in the live capture and trade
of whales and dolphins. I think it is very important that we
outline the facts as they exist and the work the government and
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been doing in this
area.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada takes the well-being of aquatic
animals, including those in aquariums, very seriously. For
decades all applications for live capture have been carefully
scrutinized to ensure that the well-being of these creatures is
always the first priority. Applications are examined to
determine the adequacy of each aquarium's facilities, the quality
of its staff and veterinary support and a range of other
considerations. If there is any doubt in these areas, the
application is turned down.
While keeping whales and dolphins in aquariums is generally seen
as both safe for these creatures and a useful educational tool,
DFO is well aware of the concerns expressed by Canadians about
keeping whales in captivity. It is true that the long term
effects of captivity on whales and dolphins are largely unknown.
For these reasons, in 1992 Canada placed a moratorium on the live
capture of whales and dolphins for export. The moratorium is
still in effect. There has not been a live capture in Canadian
waters since that time. I want to emphasize that: there has not
been a live capture in Canadian waters since that time. In fact,
since 1992 there has been only one application for the live
capture of a whale for a Canadian aquarium. That application was
rejected.
To develop long term policies for live capture, however, DFO is
working to improve its knowledge on the effects of captivity on
whales and dolphins and to clarify the various jurisdictions
involved. Allow me to present the details of the review.
An independent scientist commissioned by the department
conducted a comprehensive review to provide recommendations about
the relevance of live captures to DFO's role in marine mammal
management. To do this, he travelled across Canada and consulted
a wide range of interested groups. While the review acknowledged
the benefits of live capture and gave qualified support for
whales in aquariums, it also pointed out specific deficiencies
and provided a series of recommendations on how to improve marine
mammal management in three key areas: one, whales in captivity;
two, care and maintenance standards; and three, international
trade.
The first group of recommendations, however, whales in
captivity, is one where the federal government can do little.
Under the constitution, the holding of animals in captivity falls
under the responsibility of the provinces. DFO has legal
authority only over the live capture of whales from wild stocks
in Canadian waters and their release back into the wild.
In the meantime, however, in keeping with the spirit of the
review the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is looking at other
ways to address the recommendations outlined in areas where the
department can in fact make a difference.
The second group of recommendations, care and maintenance
standards, is one in which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
is looking to make progress. Once again, while care and
maintenance of these creatures is a provincial responsibility,
DFO is examining opportunities within the federal jurisdiction to
work closely with organizations such as the Canadian Council on
Animal Care to establish voluntary standards for aquariums as
well as a process for their independent verification.
Indeed, preliminary discussions are confirming that Canadian
aquariums and their association, the Canadian Association of Zoos
and Aquariums, are generally supportive of a set of formalized
care and maintenance standards as well as an independent
verification process.
1125
For the third area of interest, international trade, Canadian
legislation is already in place to deal with the protection and
trade of species, particularly endangered stocks. The 1996 Wild
Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and
Interprovincial Trade Act addresses any threats to wildlife that
may result from trade. In effect, the act implements the United
Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Flora and Fauna, or CITES as it is generally known. This
is an international treaty designed to protect various species,
including a number of whales and dolphins. Canada is a party to
this convention, along with 151 other nations.
Under the convention any trade in rare or endangered species is
not permitted for commercial purposes. Species that are not rare
or endangered but that could become so if trade is not regulated,
such as beluga whales, which the member mentioned, are also
covered by this convention. Under the regulations, trade in
these species is subject to an export permit from the country of
export.
Once again, I should reiterate that there is presently a
moratorium in Canada on live capture of whales and dolphins for
export. At this time, banning imports of dolphins and
non-endangered whales such as the beluga whale, as put forward in
the member's motion, would be inconsistent with the convention
and perhaps also with obligations to which Canada is subject
under other international trade agreements.
Having said that, let me point out that DFO is currently
reviewing the question of live capture and is considering
appropriate alternatives.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that Fisheries and
Oceans Canada takes the well-being of all aquatic creatures very
seriously. The stringent application process that has long
governed the live capture of whales and dolphins and the
moratorium that has been in place since 1992 provide effective
protection for wild animals in Canada. These measures, along
with the comprehensive review currently being examined by DFO,
demonstrate the importance the department places on this subject.
Until concrete recommendations are developed there is no
pressing reason to change the mechanisms in place with regard to
live capture. As I mentioned a moment ago, Canada fully supports
CITES and has domestic regulations that fully implement our trade
obligations under this convention. Clearly it would not be
appropriate to adopt a proposal that is inconsistent with our
international obligations. For this reason, we are unable to
accept the member's motion to decree an immediate moratorium on
the live capture and trade of whales and dolphins at this time.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in the House
today to speak to Motion No. 75. I thank our hon. colleague from
the New Democratic Party for bringing this to the attention of
the House and giving us an opportunity to debate the issue.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans should decree an immediate moratorium on the live-capture
and trade of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises).
I freely confess that I am not an expert in zoology, biology or
any other animal husbandry field, but like many others in this
country I do have an opinion on this issue and I think it is
reflective of how many Canadians feel. Let us not forget that an
issue like this has many aspects to it. These aspects contain
safety, humanitarian, educational research and emotional
components.
1130
Today's motion is not votable but I believe that we have the
opportunity to further the debate in a very calm and rational
manner. Issues such as these often become strictly an emotional
one rather than looking at a situation from several different
points of view.
Over my years I was privileged to visit many of the fine zoos,
wildlife preserves and the like which we have in Canada. Coming
from a west coast riding, perhaps I am more aware of whales,
dolphins and porpoises and their natural environment than many of
my colleagues from inland provinces.
Just last year my family and I had an opportunity to go on a
whale watching excursion off the Victoria harbour. My friend
runs a company that does this. He is very respectful of the
natural habitat of whales. It was an incredible experience to
see these animals in their environment. A small minority of
people are able to do that. Most of the people who were on the
tour that day were tourists from Japan and Germany.
As we consider this motion calling for an immediate moratorium
on the live capture and trade of cetaceans, the term moratorium
can mean several different things. My understanding of the term
could be threefold. First, it could be a legally authorized
period of delay in the performance of a legal obligation. Second,
could mean a waiting period set by an authority. Third, it could
be a suspension of activity altogether. While I believe I
understand the member's motion to mean the third of these
possible definitions, perhaps we should more closely frame the
debate in the future.
With regard to the many different ways to view this debate, I
would like to briefly comment on several different aspects.
With regard to safety concerns, I believe most people would
agree that any animals held outside their regular environment
should be held in a very safe and humane manner. By this I am
specifically referring to the safety of the animal. The safety
of the animal also runs in tandem with humanitarian concerns. I
recognize that there will be a broad range of thought
specifically on this issue. There will be those who feel that
the only humanitarian place for an animal is in its natural
environment. There are others who feel that it is humanitarian
to have captured animals in an environment that closely resembles
their natural habitat.
I have seen some of the video clips that the hon. member
mentioned depicting the live capture of cetaceans. What I saw
did raise some personal concerns. I was concerned over the
humanitarian treatment of these animals during capture. I fully
realize these clips may not accurately depict everything that
goes on at the time in other places, however the treatment I saw
was certainly not humanitarian.
If whales are going to be captured for research, observation and
the like, then I would personally rather see stricter guidelines
that clearly state how animals must be treated. If Canadian
aquariums are found purchasing from these organizations that
practise inhumane capture and flaunt the international laws
governing such, then these aquariums and societies ought to be
punished by law and prohibited from doing so.
One of the factors that is often overlooked is the one of
education. It is one thing to read a book, watch a video or
listen to an expert. I believe it is also important to have a
tactile experience wherever possible. If we want to learn more
and teach our younger generation about these amazing creatures,
we still need to have the ability to show our children what they
look like and how they behave.
As I mentioned earlier, yes, there are boat tours available.
However quite frankly most of those activities are outside of
many family budgets. Often the only means available for
thousands of Canadians across this country to see these amazing
creatures is through an aquarium setting.
We have learned much about cetaceans. We learned that they are
very intelligent creatures. It was not that many years ago that
killer whales or orcas were thought to be extremely dangerous and
hated creatures. We have since learned much about the true
nature of these animals. However we still have much to learn.
It is certainly true that research can and must be done in the
wild. However there are times when that research cannot be
achieved and learned without a controlled environment.
1135
The emotional side of this debate is often the most publicized.
Yes, we can and we should have feelings. However all too often
we have allowed our emotions to overrule all other parts of the
debate. We need to keep all the parts in balance. We cannot
rely solely on emotions and ignore other factors when we are
debating issues such as this. We must make decisions based on as
much of the information as possible that is available to us.
I must confess that I would have been much more supportive of
the member's motion if it had called for a ban on commercial
whale harvesting for food and other purposes. I am particularly
concerned about reports of Russian and Japanese fishers not
adhering to the accepted international whaling rules. In today's
world I do not believe there is any need to harvest whales for
food or process them for other products. Yes, they were used for
food, oil and many other products historically. I believe we
have moved well beyond the need to harvest whales for this
purpose.
We need to ensure that the historical use of these animals is
not a reason to continue their harvesting. Just because we did
something in the past does not mean we should continue to do it
now or in the future. We can probably think of many examples of
the past where this would be true.
When I step back and consider all of these issues together, I
believe that at the end of the day there would probably more to
be lost through this motion than gained in its present form. What
I would be more supportive of is a set of guidelines or
legislation that states how these animals may be captured,
studied, housed and viewed in a humane way. I believe we have a
responsibility to ensure that unscrupulous people cannot take
advantage of or abuse these creatures. However thousands of
Canadians who have never had a chance to view these magnificent
animals up close should not be denied the opportunity to do so.
The much needed research on these animals close up should be
permitted, albeit in a limited fashion.
It has already been pointed out by the hon. member across the
floor that the care and maintenance of these animals in aquariums
is really a provincial responsibility. It seems to me that the
hon. member from the NDP ought to take her cause up with the
provinces in this regard.
At the end of the day, I believe that more can be gained through
bona fide research, public, environmental and conservation
education. I thank the member for her motion and the opportunity
to participate in this debate today.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased
to rise in support of Motion No. 75 by the hon. member for
Vancouver East. The Bloc Quebecois supports this motion and
also calls upon Canada to take positive steps and adopt positive
guidelines concerning cetaceans, their conditions, protection of
their lives and trade in these species.
The main objective of having a zoo or aquarium is to enable
people to observe the animals in a cage or pool. According to
an organization called Zoocheck, each visitor spends an average
of 60 seconds observing each exhibited animal.
The problem in this situation is the cruelty inflicted on marine
mammals when they are captured.
The capture is often extremely violent. It is not a rare
occurrence for females to abort their young, or for animals to
beach themselves or drown.
Specimens may be pursued for hours. Once caught, they are
hauled out of the water. A number of unscrupulous hunters will
haul them out by the tail. They are then transported on a sort
of stretcher. Because they are out of the water for a number of
hours, their skin rapidly dehydrates, they have difficulty
breathing and they develop sores wherever their skin rubs
against their restraints.
A long flight may follow. Shipping one killer whale to the
aquarium that had purchased it took 68 hours.
It took 18 hours to fly two dolphins from California to Florida.
By the time they arrived, their blow holes had become so
obstructed that one died within days.
1140
Recently, Lufthansa Airlines decided that it would no longer
transport captive dolphins because doing so caused the animals
suffering and was too risky.
Another problem is the environmental imbalance and threat to the
survival of certain species. According to Cetacean Societies,
which was written last year by an American collective, 66% of
all mammals captured worldwide are adult females.
Because of the essential role played by females, this has a
serious effect on the group's reproductive rates and social
cohesion.
On March 14, 1990, the U.S. government decided to suspend any
captures of bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico because
the species was seriously in danger of disappearing.
Right now, the dolphin population in the Black Sea is endangered
because of the combined effect of population depletion and
captures by zoos and aquatic parks.
Arriving in a pool is a triple shock for a newly captured
dolphin: first, its living space is suddenly and spectacularly
reduced; second, it is put into close and unconstrained contact
with human beings and other dolphins not members of its own
family; third, it is forced to consume dead fish rather than the
live prey to which it is accustomed.
Because of these traumas, aquariums must confine dolphins to an
isolated pool for periods that can sometimes last as long as one
month in order to help them adapt to their new life.
They are then force-fed dead fish, which must be an absolutely
dreadful experience for the dolphin. Fifty percent of captured
dolphins die within days of arrival at an aquarium.
The amount of activity and space is very important for
cetaceans. In the wild, a normal grouping of dolphins totals
about thirty. They range throughout a territory some 125
kilometres
long and frequently travel beyond it toward other groups.
Pacific dolphins like to dive down to 535 metres in depth while
the Atlantic dolphins frequently stay at a depth of 390 metres.
They spend a scant 20% of their time on the surface. Their time
is mainly spent searching for bottom-dwelling invertebrates,
exploring long distances, and hunting as a group.
Dolphins culturally transmit many things to their young in a
variety of ways: socialization, games, vocalizations and how to
raise and protect offspring. Young dolphins are protected for
five to fifteen years and intergenerational contacts remain
frequent once they have reached adulthood.
No matter how large an aquarium pool, it forces cetaceans into
inactivity. They have no control whatsoever over their
activities and mating behaviour. This limited and artificial
environment and the social interaction with only a few
individuals is the reason captive animals suffer and die.
The restriction of movement leads to muscular sclerosis, or to
some muscles developing more than others. The mammals are
constantly stressed and nervous, as well as more aggressive.
They also lack appetite because of their lack of exercise.
Their health is also affected by the fact that the water in the
pool is chlorinated and lacks nutrients and sunlight, and that
they are constantly on antibiotics.
In the wild, even violent conflict rarely leads to serious
injury, because the male who is losing can always admit defeat
and flee. The females are the ones most dominant.
In captivity, the largest male dominates all the rest. During
breeding season, the fights between males are extremely violent.
To avoid fights between the males, some aquariums keep only one
male per pool.
1145
In captivity, the make-up of these groups is seriously disrupted.
When they are in their natural habitat, several generations of
females live with their offspring in a specific territory, while
males are gathered on the outskirts, based on complex alliances.
During their adult life, they only make brief visits to their
parents. Families are usually made up of two males and one
female.
When in captivity, this ratio is reversed and females outnumber
males, thus triggering abnormal conflicts between females that
are pregnant or about to give birth. Sometimes, jealous females
will even kill babies. A kind of forced polygamy is organized,
but it does not reflect the natural model at all.
When they live freely, males do not usually socialize for very
long with the female social group. Therefore, living in
captivity deeply affects this type of organization. Adult males
are forced to interact closely, both night and day, with
females. This forced interaction exacerbates male dominance.
Based on what has been observed in basins, it is clear that this
dominance by a single male is the source of many behavioural
problems, particularly among the group's young marine mammals.
When they live freely, female dolphins usually have a baby every
two or three years. The young dolphin receives a real education
to ensure its future survival and allow it to fully develop as a
member of the group.
Fifty per cent of dolphins living in captivity die before the
age of one. Of that number, 23% die during the first month.
In Quebec, there are no cetaceans in captivity. Because of our
geographical location, the industry prefers to promote
observation of cetaceans in their natural environment. Such a
practice, provided it is conducted at a minimal distance, has
much less of an impact on cetaceans then keeping them captive in
basins.
Tourists come from all over the world to have an opportunity to
watch whales and belugas from the Saguenay. Observing cetaceans
like this tells us a lot more about their lifestyle and habits
than watching them for a few minutes while they are in captivity
or performing tricks.
I will stop here and reiterate my support. The Bloc Quebecois
supports Motion No. 75.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to address Motion No. 75 put
forward by the member for Vancouver East.
The motion would see stronger protection put in place for
cetaceans, especially a moratorium on the live capture and trade
of whales, dolphins and porpoises. The member for Malpeque said
that a moratorium on the live capture of cetaceans, whales,
dolphins and porpoises has been in place since 1992.
I would be interested in hearing the member's response to my
questions, but unfortunately we do not get the opportunity for
questions and answers. I am sure the member for Vancouver East
was dying to ask some questions. There needs to be a broader
debate on the entire issue. Through that type of debate we can
get down to the fact of whether we should or should not be
supporting the live capture of whales, dolphins and porpoises.
There are two sides to the issue. First, the live capture of
whales for display in aquariums allows scientists and researchers
to discover significant amounts of information about the
lifestyle, reproduction and communication of these mammals and
preserves what can be an endangered species for future
generations.
Second, whales are very intelligent animals. When caged in
aquariums it is believed they can lead bored, lonely and
stressful lives. The last orca whale in the Vancouver Aquarium
is being sent to San Diego SeaWorld so that it can interact with
other whales.
Public opinion has played a significant role in Canada's
attitude toward the live capture of whales. After much public
outcry, the Vancouver Aquarium decided that it would not capture
or bring any whales captured after September 1996 into the
aquarium. However the aquarium can still exchange whales with other
facilities. Currently there are 30 whales in aquariums within
North America and 21 outside the continent.
1150
At the same time information about cetaceans may improve by
studying these mammals in captivity. As a result of studying
whales in a controlled environment researchers realized that the
gestation period for whales was longer than previously thought.
This information resulted in the International Whaling Commission
reducing Norway's whale quota to reflect this longer timeframe.
The long term survival of the species may be facilitated by
research that is conducted in a controlled environment and that
would be difficult to conduct on a species in the wild.
Orcas off Canada's west coast are low in numbers and have
recently been declining. The orca herd on the east coast, from
Iceland through to Newfoundland and off the coast of Greenland,
seems to be in much better condition than the ones on the west
coast. Environmentalists and biologists are not sure of the
cause of the decline, but one factor may be the high level of
contamination in the food chain. Orcas consume vast quantities
of food and are at the higher end of the food chain, causing high
levels of PCBs to build up from the number of seal and salmon
consumed.
Another issue that would be a factor in their decline is a lack
of sufficient food. Salmon numbers are also declining and this
may be preventing orcas from finding enough food to meet their
daily intake requirements.
In any case numbers are declining. We need to question once
again whether it is important to support the live capture of
whales so that more scientific research can be conducted into
this decline, or whether we are simply appeasing our desire to
have the opportunity to see these creatures in accessible
settings and increase tourist numbers.
There is little question that whales in particular attract human
attention. The rising number of whale watching operations and
the increased number of visitors to aquariums when whales,
dolphins and porpoises are part of the exhibit attest to their
popularity.
While orca numbers are declining other whale populations are
increasing. The grey whale count is estimated at 26,000 off the
coast of British Columbia. It is suggested that overpopulation
is the reason there are increasing numbers of grey whales washing
up along the coast.
On the east coast there has been good news lately regarding
whale populations, particularly the northern right whale which is
considered the rarest of the large whales. Researchers with east
coast ecosystems in Nova Scotia recently announced that the
number of newborn whales reached 25, the largest count since 1980
when births were first recorded.
It is widely believed by a number of scientists on the east
coast that there is a rogue pod of right whales that are deep
ocean whales. We do not see them in the inner Bay of Fundy and
other areas, but they are actually interbreeding with the right
whales that are there now.
This whale is certainly not anything close to emulating the
escalating population that is occurring for grey whales, but the
small number of existing northern right whales is encouraging,
particularly after disappointing birth rates over the past couple
of years. These numbers are especially encouraging when we
consider that the entire population of right whales along the
eastern seaboard is optimistically estimated at around 350, a
very low number.
There are significant hurdles that young whales have to overcome
if they are to reach maturity. Many die within the first six
months possibly from chemical contamination, while others become
entangled in fishing gear or are struck by ships. A biologist
with the University of Oregon has been quoted as saying that
about one-third of all animals found dead are from ship
collisions. Over two-thirds of the population is scarred from
entanglements in fishing gear.
That makes this especially troubling since recent cutbacks by
the current federal government have forced the coast guard to
terminate its effort in freeing whales trapped by fishing gear.
With two-thirds of right whales scarred from having been caught
in fishing gear this is not a service that should be eliminated,
not if the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is serious about
whale conservation.
Efforts need to be made to try to reduce the number of whales
caught in fishing gear. By eliminating this service by DFO, the
government is once again signalling that its commitment to whale
conservation is in words only.
Collisions with ships are one of the major hazards facing right
whales, with 16 of the known 45 right whale deaths since 1970
resulting from such collisions. Half the remaining whales
congregate in the Bay of Fundy between Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick from June to December. This makes whale watching a
profitable enterprise in the area, but unfortunately the shipping
traffic and fishing vessels in the area make it dangerous waters
for the right whale.
1155
East Coast Ecosystems Research has worked hard to promote whale
conservation and has set up a whale sighting protocol. This
program monitors right whale sightings and provides information
to boats in the Bay of Fundy and along the Scotian shelf of Nova
Scotia so that vessel operators are aware of whales in the area.
Marine Communications and Traffic Services officers advise
vessels traversing these waters that they are passing through an
area where whales may be found. They provide co-ordinates of
sightings and possible actions to divert a collision.
Perhaps we need a moratorium on the live capture of cetaceans
but I am not entirely sure that we do. There are a number of
things that we can do to help not only whales and dolphins but
other marine species.
It is the government's responsibility to bring forth such
legislation and to debate these issues in the House. We need to
ensure that all sides of the issue are represented so that we can
make decisions to the benefit of all Canadians and to the benefit
of the mammals we are discussing.
It is clear that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
recognizes the need to help protect right whales, but its actions
do not support its stated commitment to whale protection. It is
time for the department to re-evaluate its plans in relation to
right whale protection.
While we have taken steps toward conserving whale population
there is still a long way to go. Scientists and biologists, not
parliamentarians, need to debate whether the live capture of
whales helps to increase public perception and knowledge of the
plight of whales and other cetaceans, or whether there is more
harm than good by keeping such mammals in aquariums so that they
can be studied and examined.
There is one good example of scientific knowledge in the live
capture of animals. It is taking place on Sable Island off the
coast of Nova Scotia. I first went to Sable Island in 1980.
That year we counted 60 or 70 dead horses on Sable Island because
the government did not allow the live capture horses to be
brought ashore when populations reached too high a point.
There was nothing wrong with those horses. They could have been
brought ashore and homes could have been found for them. That
did not occur because they were protected and the government did
not allow their live capture. Sometimes there is a reason for
live capture of animals.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this
issue. I compliment the hon. member from the NDP for bringing
the motion forward.
I would like to raise an extremely important issue. This is the
proverbial canary in a mine shaft and it has to do with whales.
Beluga whales are dying in the St. Lawrence Seaway. The amount of
carcinogens and teratogens in their flesh is actually
extraordinary. It is a direct result of the pollution that is
taking place there.
I would like to present some of findings. Autopsies were done
on 179 belugas over a 15 year period. The beluga whale
population in the St. Lawrence has not improved at all and
scientists are asking why. Scientists found extraordinarily high
rates of malignant tumours, perforated ulcers in their bellies
and diseases that compromise their immune system. They also
found a whole range of illnesses never before seen in whale
populations. The member from the NDP described the problems that
these intelligent creatures have in captivity. They are no less
threatened out in the wild sea.
I urge the government to look into these mammals because they
are a harbinger of the toxins and pesticides that are in the St.
Lawrence Seaway right now. The same content of DDTs, mirex and
other cancer causing agents that we are exposed to are found in
these mammals. In fact, the blubber in belugas would be
considered to be toxic waste if it were lying on the ground
because the levels are that high.
I also draw attention to the fact that the numbers in whale
species that exist right now are not increasing. We have heard
about the northern right whale in our waters but we have not
heard about the blue whale, the largest creature ever to live on
this planet.
There are only 3,000 of these whales left. Many of them
congregate in the Gulf of St. Lawrence every year along with
other protected species such as the northern right whale.
1200
Unfortunately the Norwegians, the Icelandic and the Japanese are
slaughtering whales under the guise of scientific research. They
simply cannot get around the moratorium that was put on whaling
in 1971.
Our country has an enormous opportunity to bring the issue to
the forefront. I strongly urge the government to work with our
partners to stop international whaling and to look into the
deaths of beluga whales. They are the canary in the mine shaft.
They have high rates of cancer causing agents. It is what we are
exposed to as human beings. I urge the government to look at it
and clean the area up for everyone's sake.
The Deputy Speaker: While the Chair takes note that other
members indicated their desire to speak, we have only four
minutes left under right of reply to the member for Vancouver
East.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank members who participated in the debate today. I especially
thank my friend from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke in support of
the motion. I certainly appreciate the support of that party.
I appreciate the support of other parties as well. In listening
carefully to the debate it seems that all members who spoke from
the Liberal, the Alliance and the Conservative Party outlined the
fact that they had concerns with Canada's lack of policy for the
protection of whales and dolphins in captivity. I certainly
agree that there are huge issues regarding the ecosystem and the
environment in the wild and that they are being undermined and
violated.
The motion today deals with trade and captivity. I will set the
record straight. The hon. member from the government side seemed
to suggest that somehow we already had a moratorium in place and
that what Canada was doing today was adequate.
I must say very strongly that is not case. What we are doing
today is clearly inadequate. The 1992 moratorium of which the
member spoke was for belugas only. It was not for all whales and
dolphins. When Marineland's request to capture belugas from
Churchill was denied, what did it do? It went offshore. It went
to Russia. That is where it found belugas and whales for capture
and import into Canada.
It begs the question. Clearly our existing practice is not
adequate. It does not even come close to dealing with the
concerns expressed today.
I was also very surprised to hear the government suggest that
somehow the issue of captivity and maintenance is a provincial
responsibility. It seems the government is very strong on its
intent in terms of trade areas. Clearly this is a trade issue in
terms of the import, export and trade of whales and dolphins.
I was very interested to hear the comments of members of the
Canadian Alliance about how whale watching was something many
people enjoyed. They argued that because we did not all have the
opportunity to whale watch we needed captivity and aquariums.
This is a very important ethical issue. Do we have the right to
take animals out of their natural environment, place them in
small tanks in captivity, separate them from their natural family
group and somehow say that it is natural and educational? I
would argue that is not the case.
I urge the government to adopt the recommendations in Dr. Lien's
report. He outlines that we need a moratorium to further analyze
and debate the issues raised today in the House regarding ethics,
education, and the long term impact of captivity and the ongoing
trade. I urge the government to follow that report.
In closing, I thank the organizations that helped bring the
motion forward. It continues to do outstanding work in putting
pressure on the government to accept its responsibility, to make
sure we have humane policies and rules, and to see that we get a
moratorium on the capture and trade of whales and dolphins. I
seek unanimous consent of the House to make the motion a votable
motion.
1205
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent to put the proposal?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired. Since the motion has
not been deemed votable, the item is dropped from the order
paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
BILL C-2—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that
an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 78(2) has been reached
with regard to the allocation of time for Bill C-2. Therefore I
move:
That in relation to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Employment
Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations,
not more than one further hour shall be allotted to the
consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day
shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill
and, at the expiry of the time provided for the report stage and
at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for
Government Orders on the day allocated for the third reading
stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be
interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in
turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of
the bill then under consideration shall be put and disposed of
forthwith and successively without further debate, amendment or
adjournment.
Once the motion is passed, assuming it is, I would return to the
House and I think there would be consent that the vote be
deferred until this evening, to be taken at the same time as
other votes.
Perhaps we should do it in steps. I will move the motion and
then I will be back to Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. Could we have a few minutes before a decision is
made on this? We would have some checking to do on the motion
that has just been brought forward.
The Deputy Speaker: If I may make a suggestion, while I am
checking the wording of the motion moved by the minister,
perhaps these discussions might take place.
1210
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I heard the terms of the motion which will be put to a
vote shortly. I assure the government once again that we have
just two speakers left on the bill. I do not think it necessary
to time allocate it, because we can get through it without such a
measure. Either way, we are happy to see the legislation dealt
with quickly.
The Deputy Speaker: I am not certain that was a point of
order, but I think the negotiations have been completed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I heard you say
that there is consent for this motion, but there is not consent
from all opposition parties.
The Deputy Speaker: If I may, the consent mentioned
in this motion refers to Standing Order 78(2) that says—all of
the exact wording escapes me, but I could quote them—that the
motion requires the consent of the majority of parties.
[English]
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.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you would seek it, I think
you would find unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for the
conclusion of report stage of Bill C-2 later this day, one hour
from now, be deferred until the conclusion of government orders
later this day.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Don Boudria: Given the motion that has just passed
and the unanimous consent, I would like to clarify the business
of the House because it has been changed. In any case, there
have been consultations about future business which I would like
to share it with the House.
After completing the debate on Bill C-2 at report stage, the
House will return to third reading of Bill C-8, the financial
institutions bill. After this we will call Bill C-18, the
equalization bill; Bill C-17, the innovation foundation; and Bill
C-22, the income tax bill, in that order.
Tomorrow shall be an allotted day, as already announced.
Wednesday shall be the day allocated for third reading of Bill
C-2. I understand there will be some co-operation to ensure that
all parties have a spokesperson on Wednesday. I intend to do my
part on this side of the House in that regard.
On Thursday we shall resume the list from today, adding at the
end Bill C-9, the elections bill. We shall continue the list on
Friday, adding Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendment.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
The House resumed from March 29 consideration of Bill C-2, an act
to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment
Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
debating Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act,
at report stage. Some of the proposed amendment are good, of
course.
However, there is a major item we strongly dislike and that is the
fact that the government wants to get its hands on the
employment insurance fund surplus. The government clearly did
not take this opportunity to make much more substantial changes
to the situation related to the whole employment insurance fund,
and to adopt measures that could have benefited many people who
have been penalized for several years, in fact since 1993 when
the Liberals came to power, because of the way they restructured
the employment insurance system in order to shamelessly grab the
surpluses year after year.
1215
It is most unfortunate that after having created very high
expectations, after having made campaign commitments and after
having the Prime Minister admit he had probably made some
mistakes, the government is now coming up with the same
legislation it had introduced before the election. In many
regions, in Quebec as well as in other provinces, this has
provoked much discontent.
I would first like to draw a small picture of the coverage rate
of the employment insurance system.
In 1993, 65% of those losing their jobs were covered by the
system. The cutting trend had started in the early 1990s, as in
1990, 83% of workers losing their jobs were still covered. In
1993 it was down to 65%. I am not blaming the present
government, as a major restructuring was started by its
predecessor.
In the last six years, this percentage has fallen to 43%.
This is unbelievable. Cuts were more drastic than when there was
an economic crisis, with a dreadful deficit. When the economic
situation improved, the government started to generate a surplus
but reduced the level of coverage. This means that now only four
out of ten Canadians who lose their jobs are eligible for
benefits.
I am not even talking about the level of benefits, but only
about the number of unemployed eligible for benefits.
Those most affected by this are women and young people. For
those between 20 and 24 years of age, one out of four persons
who lose their jobs will be covered by the EI system. As for
women, the percentage is approximately 38%. So this is below
average. They are the ones who have been most affected by the
successive EI reforms.
It has been said many times by many people, but does not appear
to move the government. Once again, what it wants is to shove
some amendments through, rapidly and expeditiously, to send a
message to the public, saying “Look, see the changes we have
made”. A word of warning to all those with high expectations:
better lower them, for in another year or year and a half they
will see that the reform did not amount to much after all.
Some people may still believe that the government contributes to
employment insurance. The fund has no government contribution.
The only contributors are the employees and employers; the
government does not contribute one red cent. It is the one that
makes the decisions, the one that directs it, and now it is
going to give itself more powers than ever, by limiting the
commission's ability to set contribution rates, to define the
size of the surplus to be generated.
Without having to contribute one cent, it is going to direct and
define and also to pocket the surplus funds. This means,
clearly, that every year—I am referring here just to the amount
of the surplus in the fund—the government is going to get
$6 billion from it to add to the general public funds.
The people who pay their contributions into the fund, the
workers and the employers, are funding all manner of things
other than an employment insurance plan. I repeat, this is
supposed to be an insurance program.
Mr. Speaker, imagine if you or other members of this House were
paying house or car insurance premiums and the company announced
to you “Well, we collected the premiums for that but we have
decided to apply them to something else. Instead of
compensating people making claims, we are going to invest the
money right and left, spend it on other things”. That would
make no sense.
An insurance plan should serve those who pay into it.
This is not what is happening with the $6 billion; the government
may well say that it is putting it into health and other noble
causes, but let them have the courage to call it a payroll tax
or an employment tax. That is what employment insurance has
turned into.
1220
Let us look at the figures. For the year 2000, the
contributions, and therefore the revenues, collected by the
government from the employment insurance fund reached
$17.2 billion. The plan itself cost $12.3 billion; therefore,
there was a surplus of $5.6 billion for the year. This means that
$5,600 million was taken from the employment insurance fund.
What would the situation be today if the fund had really been
independent, with a separate bank account? There would now be
$31.4 billion in that bank account. This shows the extent of the
surplus accumulated, mainly over the last six years.
It is true the plan experienced deficits at times, for example
in the early 1990s, during the recession, but the surpluses have
largely covered those past deficits and have grown to an
accumulated surplus of $31.4 billion.
There is no point going looking for that money, it will not be
found. It was added to the consolidated fund and spent on all
sorts of programs. Good or bad, those were not what that money
was meant for. Such a practice is totally unacceptable and
inadmissible. To collect taxes and use them for something else
but their intended purpose is a bad management principle, which
borders on immorality, if not outright illegality.
This situation will not improve because, with the measures being
proposed now, next year's surplus will be similar. Some might
say that we were keeping a reserve in case of another recession.
Let us not kid ourselves.
If there were a recession tomorrow, the fund would be pretty
much balanced. It is structured in such a way that it will not
take a beating, because eligibility has been restricted, the
number of hours needed to qualify increased and the duration of
benefits decreased. The spending that is going to skyrocket if
there is a recession is the spending on social assistance, which
is funded by the provinces. This spending will go up
dramatically and there will be no safety net, while the EI fund
will pretty much balance or show a slight deficit.
Yes, the government could keep a cushion, a reserve, but not on
the order of $30 billion. Thirty billion dollars could cover
benefits for the next three years without a single additional
cent in premiums being received.
If there were a separate account, everyone could be told “For
the next three years they would not have to pay premiums because
they would be drawn
from the accumulated reserve”. Does this not give an
idea of the size of the obscene surplus which has built up but
disappeared because was been misappropriated?
In conclusion, there are a number of things we could do.
The Bloc Quebecois has proposed a series of amendments and we
would like to see the bill improved. For instance, the
government could have abolished the waiting period, created a
separate fund, increased the coverage rate from 55% to 60%,
reduced to 300 the number of hours required to qualify for
special benefits and increased the duration of benefits and indexed
the annual ceiling. All sorts of measures could have been
passed. I have a series of proposals which we have discussed in
committee and have been discussing for a long time.
None of this is irresponsible because it can all be done
without any threat to the fund. Even if all these suggestions
and others were implemented, the fund would still have a surplus
and a slight cushion for contingencies. The government is
turning a deaf ear. The Minister of Finance prefers to rake in
a surplus and do all sorts of things with it.
That is why we will be voting against the bill at report stage
and at third reading.
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when all is said and done, Bill C-2 should be viewed
with some pride and a great deal of satisfaction by all parties
in the House. The bill is evidence of an effective governance
and effective law-making.
In 1996 the government set out to put in place a much improved
plan to assist Canada's unemployed, to help get them back to work
and keep them working. That plan had goals that are as vital
today just as they were then: a fairer system that treats all
workers more equitably; a system that encourages work and reduces
dependence on benefits; a system that provides assistance to
those most in need, namely people from low income families with
children during periods of unemployment; and a system designed to
help people get back to work and help keep them at work.
1225
A very important part of that system included a provision to
continuously monitor and assess the system to see if it was in
fact living up to its design goals. As a result, the EI system
has been adjusted to ensure it continues to serve the purposes
for which it was introduced. Bill C-2 is another step in this
evolutionary process and warrants the support of all members of
the House.
This is how effective programs are designed and implemented. No
regime should be fixed in amber, unresponsive to changing
economic and social conditions. I sense that, in general,
members opposite also welcome the changes proposed in the bill.
However it seems that much of the discussion on Bill C-2 has
focused on the rate setting process for EI premiums. The
government has been charged by members across that premiums are
too high and benefits are inadequate. Surely we must acknowledge
that rates have been consistently reduced in recent years.
The employee premium rate for 2001 has already been set at
$2.25, down from $2.40 in 2000. This is the seventh straight
year premiums have been reduced. At $2.25, employers and
employees will save approximately $6.4 billion in 2001 compared
to where the premiums were at when we took over as the government
in 1994, which was $3.07. That is a total reduction in premiums
of 82 cents. If that is taken as a percentage of the present
rate of $2.25, that is a 32% reduction in rates. That is a very
fundamental reduction.
The argument that a surplus in the EI account is evidence and
that the premium rates are too high does not hold water. The EI
account must be allowed to accumulate a surplus during periods of
improving economic conditions to ensure that premiums do not have
to be raised if the economy is in a downturn which would
inevitably be accompanied by higher unemployment and higher
demands on the EI account.
Surely we do not want to raise premium rates in an already
depressed economy which would put a further damper on economic
growth and job creation. We should bear in mind that during the
last recession a $2 billion surplus in the EI account at the end
of 1990 became a $6 billion deficit by the end of 1993, in spite
of the rise in premiums. As to the adequacy of benefits, that is
precisely what Bill C-2 would propose to improve.
The intensity rule would be removed. The so-called clawback
provision would be adjusted to ensure that first time users and
those on special benefits would be exempt from paying back the
benefits. The re-entrant rules would be adjusted so that
re-entrant parents would qualify for EI regular benefits with the
same number of hours as other claimants when they returned to the
labour force following an extended absence to care for young
children.
The opposition has also criticized the provisions in Bill C-2
concerning rate setting, claiming that the process should be
placed at arm's length from the government. However these
criticisms are clearly beside the point. Even the auditor
general questioned whether an arm's length treatment would
improve the process. Arm's length or not, the question is what
is the rate setting method that would best serve Canadian
workers, employers and taxpayers?
The Standing Committee on Finance recommended the EI premium
rate setting procedure be reviewed. The government is addressing
this question and prior to Bill C-2 made a commitment to review
the rate setting process over a two year period.
1230
The auditor general stated that the review could result in a
better methodology and that he welcome anything that would
clarify the rate setting procedure. However, until such a review
can be completed, the government has provided a means to ensure
predictability and stability in the EI premiums.
The governor in council will set the premium rates for the year
2002-03 allowing time for review and allowing the government to
adjust the changing economic conditions. Researching and
deciding on a sound rate setting mechanism will require taking
into consideration interests of workers, employers and taxpayers.
This is not something we could hope to achieve through Bill C-2.
The Department of Finance, along with Human Resources
Development Canada, will carry out a review during which all
stakeholders will be consulted, including the EI commissioners
representing workers and employers. Surely that is a better
method. I would say that it is the only rational method for
devising a rate setting structure that best meets the interests
of all parties in the longer term. I believe that the hon.
members should reserve their views and feelings on the rate
setting method and permit the review to take its rational course.
The passage of Bill C-2 will present no obstacle to the
successful completion of that review. That is why the House
should give speedy passage to the bill and permit Canadians to
begin benefiting from its improvements to the EI program.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, may I
say that you look very comfortable and proper in that chair. You
are doing a good job in recognizing those of us in the opposition
parties who would like to add to the debate.
I will begin my remarks by registering a grievance of sorts. In
the short period of time that I have been a member of parliament
more often than not when I get up to speak it is during a time
allocation situation. I am not saying that all bills which go
through the House of Commons end up with some form of closure or
time allocation but, by some bizarre freak of nature, every time
I want to speak it is under the circumstances that there has been
time allocation imposed. Frankly, it is starting to jade my
world view of the House.
I want to register as a grievance to the federal government that
my experience in the House is being warped by its abuse of the
system and by its stamping all over the democratic process by
once again implementing time allocation.
Speaking, with what time I have, to Bill C-2, let me point out
that I and the NDP caucus believe that Bill C-2 is fundamentally
flawed, not because of what is in the bill, because there are
elements we support within the bill, but because of what the bill
fails to do.
Bill C-2 fails to recognize the real problem with the EI system,
which is that nobody qualifies any more. It is not an employment
insurance program if unemployed people do not get any insurance
benefits out of it. The very name has become a misnomer. Those
who need the benefits that the EI system is supposed to provide
do not get them.
We are starting from a very dangerous premise here. We have
this revenue generating cash cow for the federal government that
is failing to meet the needs of unemployed workers. We then have
the government ramming this through before substantial changes
can be made to address the real flaws and errors within the
program.
What really bothers me is that even the amendments do not find
their origins in any real desire on the part of the federal
government to meet the needs of unemployed workers. Most of what
we see in Bill C-2 and in any EI reform in the past 10 years
seems to find its origins in this underlying position that there
are lazy people who would rather sit on EI than take part in the
workforce. The government has decided therefore to use some kind
of a tough love policy against these people to kickstart them
into the workforce no matter what their circumstances.
The whole thing finds its origins in the attitude that people
would rather be unemployed and on EI than taking part in the
workforce.
1235
I remember the hysteria and fear in the mid-seventies, when UIC
was available, about the UIC ski team of teenagers in Banff
cheating UIC. During that period of time the government made a
nationwide survey on the issue of UIC fraud and abuse. It found
that there were actually more federal government Tory cabinet
ministers guilty of fraud on a ratio and proportion basis than
there were UIC recipients guilty of fraud.
Every year approximately 200 EI recipients are called to task
for some kind of abuse of the system. During the Mulroney years
approximately 30% of federal Tory cabinet ministers were guilty
of fraud compared to an infinitesimal, an amount almost too small
to count, of EI recipients who were called to task on fraud. The
attitude that there is widespread abuse of the system bothers me
when I know, because I deal with people who use the EI system
frequently, that simply is not true.
I began my speech today by saying that Bill C-2 is flawed
because of what it fails to do. It fails to deal with the
eligibility issue. The fact that less than 40% of unemployed
people qualify for unemployment insurance should strike people as
somehow being wrong? It actually gets worse when we deal with
unemployed women. There is a real gender issue here. Less than
25% of unemployed women qualify for any benefit whatsoever. Less
than 15% of unemployed youth under the age of 25 qualify for any
benefit whatsoever. How can we even call this an insurance
system when virtually nobody qualifies?
Eligibility is the first issue. The rules should state that
when we are unemployed and need income maintenance, the benefits
will be there. When we are forced to pay premiums it is only
fair that we have a reasonable expectation of collecting the
benefit.
The second fundamental flaw is the way the government arrives at
what our benefits will be. Even if we are lucky enough to be one
of those 40% of unemployed Canadians who qualify for benefits,
the way that the government calculates the benefit is so wrong
that we end up collecting far less per week than we used to under
the old rules.
To get any benefits whatsoever is a Herculean task. Once we do
qualify for benefits, the way that the government calculates our
benefits we end up getting far less money. There are fewer
people collecting and those who are collecting, collect less
money. It is no wonder there is a surplus.
The surplus is the third thing I would like to address. I have
said this in the House before and I need to keep saying it over
and over again until it sinks in with the Canadian people just
how badly the program is being abused and milked by the Liberal
government and being used as some kind of cash cow. The surplus
is $750 million per month. There is more money going into the program
than is being paid out in benefits. That is $7 billion to $8
billion per year.
Now we find ourselves in a budgetary surplus situation. Let us
look at the sources of the revenue that the government now calls
its surplus: $35 billion to $43 billion surplus accumulated out
of the EI system alone; $35 billion cut out of programs through
the health and social transfer; and a further $30 billion surplus
that everybody seems to have forgotten about, the public service
pension plan by legislation, by act of parliament, was taken away
from those workers last year.
It is no coincidence that when we add those three up, $35
billion, $35 billion and $30 billion, all on the backs of the
unemployed, working people and those who need social programs, it
adds up to $100 billion, which is exactly what the Minister of
Finance gave in tax cuts to the wealthy and to corporations. I
do not think it is any coincidence that those figures are
identical. I just wanted to point that out.
The last few minutes that I have, I want to point out another
shortcoming in Bill C-2 that is very close to my own personal
experience. The apprenticeship system has suffered terribly
under the changes to EI and, in Bill C-2, the government has
chosen not to correct it.
This is something for which there is almost unanimous support.
Virtually every industry, academic and economist we have spoken
to has agreed that this is wrong, yet it has not been addressed
in Bill C-2. The two week waiting period that unemployed workers
must wait before getting their first benefits is applied to
apprentices when they are going through the trade school
component of the apprenticeship.
1240
In other words, they are being treated as if they are unemployed
when they are not. They are apprentices. They are employed and
have an attachment to the workforce. They are simply going
through the annually scheduled eight week training period in
community college and yet are being penalized with the two week
waiting period at the front end.
This is a new change that was made in 1995-96. It has had the
effect of driving people away from apprenticeship programs. A
lot of young people simply cannot afford to be without income for
that period of time and are choosing not to attend the eight week
scheduled apprenticeship training in community college.
Gradually a four year apprenticeship turns into a seven year
apprenticeship and many simply are dropping out.
It is having a dilatory effect on the apprenticeship system and
on industry because of what I believe is a miserly point of view
on behalf of the Liberal government, using the EI system as a
revenue generating cash cow instead of providing income
maintenance to unemployed workers, and in this case, providing
trade school apprenticeship training to people in the skilled
trades.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect, I know I must address the Chair,
but I also want to address unemployed Canadians, particularly
those from Quebec who are listening and especially the 60% of
them who could not benefit from the EI plan. They were excluded
for many reasons. That is why many amendments to the bill were
requested by the opposition parties.
When a government amends an act as important as the Employment
Insurance Act, there are always questions to be asked.
First, why is it amending it? Because there are pressing
demands, which often come from the opposition parties.
Let us remember that in 1996 the Liberal government made major
changes to the Employment Insurance Act, which included the
infamous intensity rule. With that rule, seasonal workers were
virtually excluded from the plan, to the point where today only
42% of workers who could use benefits are eligible for benefits.
This was a change made in 1996 by the Liberal government. It
directly contributed to the increase in the EI fund surplus.
Since the 1996 changes, a surplus of $5 billion was added to the
fund each and every year.
At the present time, this surplus is close to $32 billion.
Once more, in 2001, the Liberal government is proposing a
legislative amendment. We should always ask ourselves why the
government would change this legislation. The answer should be
that it is for the good of the unemployed in Canada, and
particularly in Quebec.
We know, of course, that the intensity rule, the purpose of
which was to make sure that almost no seasonal unemployed worker
could get employment benefits, will be abolished. In ridings such
as Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, where 65% of the economy is based
on agriculture, forestry and tourism, more workers will be made
eligible for employment benefits.
It must be said that this is something the opposition parties
have been requesting since 1996. The opposition parties
have been asking the government for this for five years.
1245
Finally, it is not the workers of Quebec and Canada who are
seasonal, it the jobs that are seasonal. It is not the workers'
fault they do not have access to an EI plan.
It must be understood that I am talking about an EI
plan. On many occasions I have heard members of the government
describe the employment insurance plan as a social safety net.
The employment insurance plan has never been a social safety
net. It is an insurance paid for entirely, half and half, by the
workers and their employers.
Since this plan belongs to the employers and the employees in
Quebec and Canada, the $31.4 billion surplus belongs to them
also.
We would have expected that the amendments to Bill C-2 would
include, on top of the elimination of the intensity rule for
seasonal workers we wanted, important changes to the plan
because it belongs to the employers and the employees in Quebec
and Canada.
I will repeat, for the sake of workers and especially the
unemployed in Quebec and in Canada who are watching this debate,
that the bill does not improve the plan and does nothing to
correct the decades old inequities under the Employment
Insurance Act.
We still have a waiting period, the infamous two week penalty
for workers.
They do not get any benefits for these two weeks. They just have
to wait.
I find this most unfortunate because it does a lot of damage,
in view of the fact that an increasing number of businesses in
Quebec, among others, are hit with damage or fires, as a result
of which there are temporary closures for many reasons other
than the going out of business.
Once again, workers who find themselves without a job overnight
because of a fire or other disaster are subject to the
qualifying period, the famous two week penalty. They lose the
first two weeks and do not receive any compensation in spite of
the fact that they bought insurance that they have been paying
50:50 with their employer, an insurance policy called the EI
fund. There is still a waiting period.
This is the terminology the Liberal government found to try to
convince them to accept this two week penalty. Notwithstanding
the fact that they have an insurance, they still have a two week
penalty. These two weeks inevitably contribute to increase the
fund. This surplus, this revenue from the EI fund, now totals
more than $31 billion.
Once again, the bill tabled did not contain any of the
amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. This particular
amendment was rejected. We still find in the bill the two week
waiting period, the penalty the workers are facing for losing
their job. Even if the business does not shut down, even after a
disaster, they are still subjected to this two week loss, which
is used, among other things, to increase the EI surplus. So,
there are no major changes.
Let us talk about the $31.4 billion surplus. Why has the
government introduced this bill? As members may have guessed, it
is because the Liberal Party, the government, covets the $31.4
billion that belongs to workers of Quebec and Canada.
Clause 9 of the bill would allow the government to get its hands
on the surplus of the employment insurance fund. The government
wants to do that for its own ends, that is to spend the money in
any other program it deems appropriate but which will not
necessarily serve the interests of workers in Quebec and Canada.
1250
Why does the bill not provide for an independent fund, which
would belong, since half of it is paid for by workers in Quebec,
to workers as well as employers and which would be administered
by workers and employers, who could then choose the appropriate
way to use the fund?
Since I only have a minute left, I will use my time to try to
promote awareness among members on the other side, who too often
take the employment insurance fund, which actually is an
insurance fund, for a social security fund. This is where the
problem lies.
They want to turn employment insurance into a social security
fund, which the government wants to get its hands on and use in
a totally different area, which government members call social
security, while in fact employment insurance is an insurance
fund that belongs to workers and should only be used for them.
We should have an independent fund administered by workers, in
their own interests.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, needless to
say, I am very pleased to resume today on Bill C-2, an act to
amend the Employment Insurance Act and Regulations.
I would first like to congratulate the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, whose great
determination resulted in the passage of a motion on the
employment insurance bill.
As I said in my last speech on February 13, the bill is a
disgrace. This debate began in January 1997 as part of EI
reform. The reform was supposed to meet the needs of the public
and the realities of the workplace. The opposite effect was
felt and observed, and this could have been predicted.
Through this reform, the unemployment insurance plan, which
actually needed to be reviewed but not transformed nor
diminished, has in fact become a plan whereby the government gets
richer but the poor get poorer.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities has concluded its hearings.
The proposed amendments were almost all rejected, with one
exception, because it was not directly related to Bill C-2.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois felt it better not to move any
amendments at committee stage.
However, as I said earlier, a motion moved by the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques was passed, which
will commit the government to consider other amendments to the
Employment Insurance Act as a whole. The motion reads as
follows:
That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities report to the House of
Commons all other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and
that this report be tabled to the House no later than June 1,
2001.
With the passage of this motion, the Bloc Quebecois, as the
party responsible, intends to put all its long sought amendments
back on the table in June 2001 when the committee tables its
report.
After long refusing to abolish the intensity rule, the
government has conceded that we were right. I hope that it will
take the time to reflect on the other amendments which the Bloc
Quebecois will be submitting with the report and admit that we
are right about them as well.
1255
In addition to deleting clause 9, on the setting of the premium
rates, we are going to propose the following amendments:
eliminating the qualifying period; establishing an independent
employment insurance fund; increasing coverage from 55% to 60%—we
have long been asking that benefits be increased to 60% of a
person's income, as was the case before the reform—; extending
the base period from 26 weeks to 52 weeks; allowing self-employed
workers to be insured through voluntary contributions; bringing
back to 300 hours the eligibility criterion for special
benefits; increasing the period of benefits; setting income
increases at 25% for all claimants before employment benefits
are cut; indexing the insurable annual income at $41,500;
changing the process under which the premium rate is set, so as
to give all the powers to the commission; setting the threshold
for the refund of premiums at $5,000, instead of $2,000;
increasing from three to five years eligibility for active
employment measures; eliminating the arm's length relationship
clause—this applies primarily to seasonal workers—eliminating
the divisor rule; providing special benefits for older workers;
investing 0.8% of the total payroll in active employment
measures.
As members can see, our position on Bill C-2 at report stage is
that we are opposed to it if clause 9 is not deleted. The
federal government must listen to the message that was sent to
it time and again by the Auditor General of Canada, the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business, the Conseil du patronat du
Québec and the central labour bodies, and it must delete this
clause, which takes from the commission the right to set the
premium rate under the employment insurance plan and gives it to
the federal government. Removing the commission from the rate
setting process means that these rates could be adjusted on the
basis of the government's needs and deficit, instead of being
based on the needs of the unemployed, and on the premiums
received, as recommended by the chief actuary.
If clause 9 is passed, it will legalize the theft of the
employment insurance fund by the government, which will have
full ownership of it.
The auditor general has criticized the government for its lack
of transparency when it comes to rate setting, saying that
despite the shortcomings and the lack of clarity of section 66
to some extent, in his opinion, it is nevertheless clearer than
the system we would have under the new clause 9.
The people who gave evidence during the committee hearings were
unanimous: clause 9 of Bill C-2 must be rejected. The Canadian
public is expecting more than mere campaign promises. It is
looking for important and concrete corrective measures.
The government is not interested in the plight of the
unemployed, who will be negatively affected by this employment
insurance reform.
The measures proposed in this bill are not enough to correct the
problems caused by the system, notably to seasonal workers, and
particularly those in the regions, to young people, to women and
to workers, particularly older workers.
In conclusion, I would like to remind this House that during the
last six years, employment insurance has been the most important
factor of poverty in Canada. If the government wants to protect
children against poverty, it will first have to protect parents
who are poor. If the government had not made such drastic cuts
to employment insurance, there would be fewer children starving.
1300
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
connection with Bill C-2, the bill to amend the Employment
Insurance Act, we know that coalitions of the unemployed in
Abitibi, Témiscamingue, Val-d'Or and all over Quebec have raised
the awareness of the political parties, both the Bloc Quebecois
and the opposition. Thanks to these groups, the government has
backed down, and that is what is important.
I have heard what my colleagues have been saying about
eliminating the rule of intensity and certain other changes
relating to the reimbursement of benefits and parental return to
the work force. Several Bloc Quebecois members have said that
the government had a fund of $35 billion.
However, we need to look at what the Department of Human
Resources Development is doing with that money. I have a
listing here of some of the programs we need to take into
consideration, including the millions that go to the province of
Quebec in transfer payments each year. This department has been
administering our programs for some years.
As well, we need to look at what is being done in the
communities, whether in the resource regions or in the major
centres. There are partnerships in social development,
community action partnerships, a fund to support the official
language minority communities.
What Quebec is currently doing with the money from the fund
also needs to be considered. It is providing targeted wage
subsidies, help to self-employed workers, contributing to skills
development, providing assistance to employment, research and
innovation.
We must also look at programs that are provided to assist
persons with disabilities, the fund for integrating persons with
disabilities. Programs such as youth international, youth
service Canada and student summer job action are also provided
to help young people and young trainees in Canada. Thus, several
billions of dollars from the fund are invested in Canada.
There are also federal transfers. We know that several
federal transfers were established recently.
I heard Mrs. Marois speech last Thursday.
Mr. Landry said there was a $35 million surplus, but we realize
that it is ultimately a $2.5 billion surplus, thanks to the nice
cheque of about $2.3 billion he just received from our
finance minister, a cheque that was transferred to Quebec and
whose money came from the fund.
I heard the Bloc Quebecois members' speeches concerning the
fund. They said “There is $35 billion, and they are spending
it”. If we spend this $35 billion, it will be for reducing
taxes, for investing it in health and education. One thing
Bloc members often talk about is the $35 billion.
They say this money must be transferred but strangely
enough they do not talk about Loto-Québec, which makes $10
million a day, not a month.
Loto-Québec is now raking in $10 million a day from 15,138 video
poker machines in Quebec. Loto-Québec does not have an
agreement because it is not asking the government of Quebec to
leave the money there and then distribute it to Quebecers. What
is Loto-Quebec doing? We are talking about $10 million a day.
This is $3 billion a year that Quebec taxpayers do not see.
We could also mention Hydro-Quebec, which has just made a profit
of $1.3 billion. This money should go back to those who pay for
electricity in order to help with monthly heating bills
but no, into the fund it goes.
The SAQ is raking in billions right now and Bloc Quebecois
members are talking about creating an independent fund. There
is no independent fund in Quebec.
The only independent funds that are allowed to exist are those
for non-profit corporations. The Landry government's non-profit
corporations, of which there were seven, made $730 million just
two weeks before Quebec's finance minister, Bernard Landry,
tabled his budget.
This money was made during the night because the national
assembly was closed. They made it during the night and said “We
are going to hand out $730 million”. This went to their friends,
to presidents and vice-presidents and all the directors of these
seven non-profit organizations. It is even better this year.
They have done better and taken $950 million and handed it over
to the Caisse de dépôt et placement but nothing is spelled out.
The odd thing is that the $950 million has not been invested. It
is not known what they are going to do with it.
I hope they will invest it in resource regions because certain
points raised by Bloc Quebecois members with reference to the
independent fund—
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member must realize that he switched parties but he
did not change parliaments. We are not in Quebec City, we are in
Ottawa. I want to know if he is still talking about Bill C-2 or
if his remarks are in response to Mrs. Marois' budget speech?
1305
The Deputy Speaker: I do believe that the hon. member is getting
to the main topic.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I realize why the hon. member is
speaking today. There was no room for him in the national
assembly. They shipped him to Ottawa. This is why we are talking
about federal transfers.
Federal transfers are sent to the province in an effort to
improve the situation of Quebecers. When they ask for an
independent fund, we think about the $840 million that the
Quebec government has left untouched in a building on the main
street of Toronto.
There is something truly deplorable about this independent fund.
Perhaps the money will be used for tax reductions, health and
education. The one really important thing is the retroactive
nature of the bill, which will help the unemployed.
Let me get back to Loto-Quebec.
They are talking about an independent fund. Let us compare
Loto-Quebec and Canada's employment insurance fund. Loto-Quebec is
a $3.5 billion business. Indeed, if we take its annual profits
of $3.5 billion and multiply them by 10, we get $35 billion.
This is what they get in Quebec over a 10 year period with a
phantom account. To be sure, the example comes from somewhere.
They claim that it is not the same thing. It is the taxpayers'
money.
It is true that the federal government does not contribute to
the employment insurance fund. It is our workers who do so. The
decisions are made by a commission and they involve employers
and employees.
There are things that need to be improved. We will improve them
together, along with the opposition members who are here.
Again I come back to the comparison between Loto-Québec and the
$35 billion fund that is self-sustaining and at arm's length.
They say that is where the surplus should be put. Multiplying
the $10 million a day that Loto-Quebec makes by the number of
days in a year gives $3.5 billion a year. Over 10 years, it
gives $35 billion.
In any case, the people opposite have been criticizing me for a
while already. The Bloc members in front of me seem to be having
fun. They are smiling. The five of them are shouting like ten.
What is really important is trying to find solutions together
for the unemployed. It is not easy. Looking at people who are
dealing with the unemployed in my area, such as Laurier Gilbert
from Val-d'Or, or Vital Gilbert from Rouyn-Noranda, they too are
trying to find solutions.
They settle cases at the unemployment arbitration board. They
came to Ottawa. They criticized the government.
They were right on many points. It is thanks to them
that we changed the rules last year. It is because the
unemployed were able to shake up the government. They will vote
on that. However, it is together that we will try to improve the
lot of the unemployed.
We do not want them to be unemployed. What is important is that
these people keep their job. That is what is important. Looking
at all the programs that we have here available for the
unemployed, I feel it is thanks to the money flowing from
legislation like Bill C-2.
It has been a pleasure to speak during this debate. I would like
Loto-Québec to give its $10 million a day to Quebec taxpayers.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe some colleagues may well think
that the rule of relevancy has got it in the neck but whatever
the case may be that debate will be for another day.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 4.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1310
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 8 stands
deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 9 stands
deferred.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the recorded divisions
stand deferred until the end of government orders today.
* * *
[English]
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-8, an act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of
Canada and to amend certain acts in relation to financial
institutions, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to speak to the bill particularly surrounding the manner
in which it affects credit unions. As my colleague from
Regina—Qu'Appelle has already indicated when he addressed the
House, we have serious reservations about the bill generally but
do support it to the degree that it deals with credit unions.
Some recommendations for additions to the bill have not been
accepted by the government.
It is really important to set in context the role the credit
union movement from our viewpoint and that of the government's
needs to play in the country. That role is one of the only
alternate systems of financial services we have. Those services
unfortunately are spotty across the country because of the
history of the development of the credit union movement.
Although the bill is designed to provide some strengthening of
the movement to allow and permit for some expansion of the credit
union movement, it simply does not go far enough.
It would allow for the development of what is being called a
national services entity, or potentially even more than one. It
would allow credit unions from various provinces to come together
in a strengthened position. It is still fairly late in the game.
They are at a distinct disadvantage with the banking system as it
exists because of all the privileges and rights the banking
system has been given historically in Canada.
It is important to draw to the attention of the country the role
credit unions can play. Last week I asked one of my colleagues
in the Bloc Quebecois about the role the Desjardins movement has
played in Quebec in solidifying a financial service sector that
is broadly based in response to the needs of its communities. In
Quebec, and to a somewhat lesser degree in British Columbia, it
has been very successful.
I also draw attention to something that I do not think is fully
appreciated: the small and medium enterprise area which it has
been of great of assistance to these communities.
There have been a number of surveys which have shown that small
or medium size businesses get much better services from the
credit union movement. Unfortunately, with probably the
exception of Quebec and maybe British Columbia, in the rest of
the country's small and medium sized enterprises simply do not
have sufficient services available from the credit union movement
and institutions to meet their needs. These amendments in the
form of Bill C-8 will go some distance in strengthening the
movement across the country. However, as I indicated, it is not
enough.
1315
The other area where I think it is really important to note the
strength that the credit unions have provided is direct services
to individuals. In that regard, it brings to mind the movement
by the big banks to close local branches. Of course, we have
heard protests and opposition to the banks when they do this.
An area where the credit union movement helped was in one of the
western provinces when one of the big banks was closing a large
number of local branches. I think it was 13 or 14 branches. The
credit union movement moved in and in effect bought the services,
took over those branches and kept them alive and open for a
number of small communities in western Canada. That, in smaller
scales, has occurred right across the country.
One of the recent credit unions in my home province of Ontario
got started specifically because the big banks were pulling out
of a small community in southwestern Ontario. Nobody was going
to be there to provide services, either to individuals or the
small local businesses. As a result of a movement on the part of
that local community, a new credit union was formed and is
flourishing after several years of operation.
It is important to acknowledge those types of endeavours by the
credit union movement at the same time this bill is passing
through the House.
Again, it does not go far enough. I will not take up my full 20
minutes, but I want to make a few more points with regard to
perhaps encouraging the government to look a little into the
future at other programs and policies it might implement to
facilitate the further development of the credit union movement,
in particular, outside of the provinces of Quebec and British
Columbia where they are already quite strong. However, in the
rest of Canada, the maritimes and Ontario in particular, if
endeavours were made and policies implemented, they might very
well be able to duplicate the success and provide alternate
services we so badly need in the financial services sector.
In that regard, I draw the attention of hon. members to one
of the things the province of Quebec did to assist in expanding
the caisse populaires and the Desjardins movement. It
recognized the need for additional funds to be available to the
movement and to be used in the community to foster local business
and allow the development of smaller communities. It turned the
pension funds traditionally controlled by the government over to
the Desjardins movement. That put at its disposal a huge amount
of additional liquidity.
Although one can argue that no system is perfect, it certainly
had the effect of making that movement in that province very
competitive with the big banks.
Small and medium sized enterprises had alternatives. A financial
service was available to get better services than they
traditionally received from big banks.
1320
I am aware of another area that could be considered in terms of
enhancing the strength of the credit union movement. That has
been to allow them to provide to their members insurance services
such as home insurance, auto insurance and others. This has been
done to some degree in the province of British Columbia. From my
personal knowledge of the experience in British Columbia
involving some very large institutions, they have been able to
use the insurance financial service sector as a profit making
centre, one that in the smaller credit unions and smaller
branches has made them financially viable in small communities.
This allowed a small branch of a credit union to continue to
function by providing all the other financial services such as
mortgages, personal loans et cetera, as well as house and auto
insurance. By combining the two, they were quite viable as an
economic institution. They could service the community by
providing all those financial services. This is something the
government should look at as a way of providing some incentive,
initiative and strengthening of the credit union movement across
the country.
We recognize the resistance the government has in allowing
banking institutions to deliver insurance services. The same
need not be true for the credit union movement. The credit union
movement is dedicated to its members and its communities, not
just to the bottom line. The authority for credit unions to move
into that area would be a boom for them and a very large plus for
their communities.
In conclusion, it is obvious that the bill is going to pass with
the form being proposed at this time. Some of the suggestions I
made with regard to credit unions need to be pursued by the
government. It is very important to Canada that an alternative
source of funding for the financial sector be available to both
small and large communities. Some of the proposals we made as a
party and that I recounted today would take us somewhere down
that route.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
was interested in my hon. colleague's remarks regarding the
service that the credit union movement provides to our
neighbourhoods and communities, specifically in my riding and the
inner city core area of a major city.
The main charter banks have shown the opposite. They have shown
a lack of commitment. They have shown a flight from inner
cities. In my riding alone, 12 branches of chartered banks have
closed in recent years.
Could the hon. member comment on the community reinvestment act
which is a popular theme in the American financial sector? It
mandates that any financial institution operating within a
community show a certain commitment to reinvest in that
community, whether it is with venture capital or keeping its
branches open. Is the hon. member aware of the community
reinvestment act movement? Does he think that charter banks
could do a better job in meeting the needs of inner cities?
1325
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the
legislation, being less than a half a mile from the state of
Michigan. It has that type of legislation because of some of the
problems it had in its inner cities and its need to force large
financial institutions to meet their responsibilities by
providing funds to the local communities.
I must admit I have a mixed response in terms of whether that
would be of much assistance. My general comment would be to
strengthen the credit union movement because it does not need the
legislation. The credit unions are already there and doing that.
They fund all sorts of endeavours.
I can think of some endeavours in my local area. We badly
needed an arena because there was not one in the local
geographical area. The credit union movement, in this case the
caisse populaire, was instrumental in arranging the financing for
the arena. The county could not get it from the big banks. We
already do that. I am not sure that we need legislation as far
as the credit unions.
Do we need it as far as the banks begs the question. It is
obvious that we do. The difficulty I have with that legislation
is the lack of interest on the part of the banks to carry it
through. Even though we could pass the law that would require
and mandate them to spend a certain percentage of their funds,
make them available for lending purposes and provide service in
the local community, it would be done without any enthusiasm on
their part. It is important that a financial institution be
committed to the local community in that regard.
If we pass the legislation, I am doubtful about any kind of a
positive reaction from the banking institutions. From my talks
with some of them in regard to that kind of legislation, they
have responded with less than great enthusiasm.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, one of the other things that
Canadians find galling about the major chartered banks is the
financial compensation of the chief executive officers, when they
are closing down bank branches in an era of record profits. I
once went to a shareholders' meeting of the Bank of Montreal and
the Royal Bank. I moved a motion to limit the salary of the CEO
to 20 times that of the average bank teller. From a morale point
of view Canadians would really appreciate that.
Would the hon. member comment on the unbelievable salaries of
CEOs with the five chartered banks?
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious.
What bothers me about those huge recompenses we give to CEOs and
several other layers of bank executives is the competitive
position it puts us in internationally. We always hear from the
private sector about the need to be competitive internationally.
If we compare those incomes with others around the world, the
reality is they are almost unheard. About the only other place
we see them is in the United States.
Senior bankers, CEOs of banks in Europe make nowhere near the
same types of incomes or benefits that our CEOs and senior
executive people get. They try to keep some kind of a ratio
between their employees and their senior people. That is
important for morale. It is also important for the financial
well-being of the institution.
I do not know how many times we have seen reports, not just in
the banking system but elsewhere where CEOs will derive these
huge incomes or benefits in stock options, et cetera, when in
fact the institution is not doing very well. That is a shame,
but it is also something that from a competitive standpoint
should not be followed as a policy.
1330
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.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
The House resumed from March 28 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-18, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to stand today to speak to Bill C-18. I will be
splitting my time with the member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Bill C-18 is an act to remove the cap on equalization payments
for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1999. The act
concerns me and the other members of the New Democratic Party a
great deal because of the implications it will have for the have
not provinces in Canada.
The equalization program has enabled less prosperous provincial
governments to provide their residents with reasonably comparable
levels of public service and taxation. Equalization payments are
unconditional in that the receiving provinces are free to spend
them in public services according to their priorities.
The NDP has always supported transfer payments and equalization
payments as a way of cementing the country and its provinces
together. Many years ago we had the EPF, the established
programs financing program. It was equal, with 50:50 funding for
established programs within the various provinces. The NDP
believes it was of far greater benefit to the provinces when we
had the federal government in control of implementing national
standards with the funding formula of 50% and 50%. It was
simple. If one of the provinces chose not to comply with the
national standards that were in place, it was jeopardized in that
the 50:50 funding formula was pulled back.
The established programs financing worked very well. We then
saw CAP, the Canada assistance plan, come in, followed by the cap
on CAP. Then came the CHST. Now we are seeing a removal of the
cap of the new ceiling imposed in a temporary way.
In earlier debates, New Democratic Party members pointed out the
devastating impact of the CHST on social programs in the country.
It should be stated clearly and abundantly, so the public hears
it over and over again, that the government stripped 33% of the
funding out of federal social transfers with the CHST. I believe
the total figure since 1995 is $23 billion. The government went
from $19.1 billion to $11 billion in social transfers.
When the equalization program was renewed in 1999, the ceiling
was reduced by roughly $1 billion per year to an arbitrary level
of $10 billion in 1999-2000, in spite of the broad objections
from virtually every finance minister in the various provinces.
It was then indexed by GDP growth in subsequent years.
Adequate levels of equalization and social transfers are
critical to provinces like Nova Scotia. Otherwise Nova Scotians
would not get what they are entitled to under the constitution,
namely, reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable
levels of taxation.
1335
Why do we need federal transfers to ensure that services in Nova
Scotia are reasonably comparable to those elsewhere? We need
them because our economy is smaller and weaker and does not
produce as much wealth as the economies of most other provinces.
Because there is less wealth, tax rates in Nova Scotia need to be
higher to raise the minimum revenue needed to maintain public
services. However, even though we pay a higher rate of taxation
than most other Canadians, when it comes to public services Nova
Scotians pay more and get less.
Nova Scotians value education and the role that good education
plays in making possible a better and more prosperous future, and
we in Nova Scotia invest our scarce resources in education. In
1995 Nova Scotians invested 8.4% of their gross domestic product
in education. That was the highest rate of investment in
education of any province, higher than Alberta, Ontario, B.C. or
Quebec. Only Newfoundland put a bigger share of its collective
wealth into education.
What did we get as a result? Did we get well funded schools,
low pupil-teacher ratios and gilt-edged support services? Not a
chance. Because our economy is small relative to other
provinces, putting more of our economy into education still left
us at the bottom of the class in terms of educational
expenditures per student. I have spoken with many people in my
riding who do not believe for a minute that Nova Scotia students
are enjoying reasonably comparable services when it comes to
education.
Health spending is another case in point. Last year Nova
Scotians spent 11.3% of their provincial gross domestic product
on health. The national average was just 9.3%, but because we
are taking a larger piece of a considerably smaller pie the slice
was not big enough to adequately serve our population. Once
again we paid more and got less. The health care we can afford
left our per capita spending the second lowest in the country. It
was a full 9% below the national average. With that, we are
expected to serve a population that needs more health care, 10%
or 15% more than the national average. With those kinds of
numbers, we have to wonder whether Nova Scotians are getting
health services that are reasonably comparable to those enjoyed
by many other Canadians.
Rather than improving, it is a sad fact that financial support
has been declining since the promises of comparable service
levels were put into the constitution. In 1980 federal transfers
amounted to almost 48% of the revenues available to the province
of Nova Scotia. By 1993 when the Liberal government took office,
the percentage had dropped to 38.6%. Last year it was down to
37.2%.
By lowering the level of equalization payments, which is indeed
where Bill C-18 will take us, the government will be moving us
even further away from the goal of providing reasonably
comparable services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
We in the New Democratic Party oppose Bill C-18. We oppose
further cuts to the baseline equalization payments. In fact, in
a time of galloping surplus we see the need to augment our
equalization payments to allow for equal standards of education
and health care across the country.
Now is the time to correct the crippling impact of inadequate
funding on our education and on our health care, on our schools
and on our hospitals. Now is the time to revisit the
equalization formula to ensure that all provinces are afforded an
equal level of services and all Canadians an equal level of
citizenship.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleague from Dartmouth for those remarks, many of
which I can relate to as I also come from a province that relies
heavily on the whole concept of the redistribution of wealth
through federal transfer payments.
I want to raise something that has come up recently with regard
to the ministers of finance and the first ministers of the
various provinces who recently agreed on the arrangement to lift
the cap for a one year period and to then reinstate it. The
sentiment we are hearing now is that some premiers and some
provincial finance ministers feel this is not quite what they
agreed to, that what we are dealing with in Bill C-18 is in fact
less than what they thought they were agreeing to on, I believe,
September 11, 2000.
1340
For the province of Manitoba this is certainly the case. Is it
true for the province of Nova Scotia? Is there disappointment
that what is being proposed is less than what Nova Scotia thought
it was agreeing to at that meeting?
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case. For
many reasons, the province of Nova Scotia is clearly very
concerned about what it feels is the unfair equalization formula
that now exists. Certainly we in Nova Scotia do not feel we are
getting enough to run our education and health care services.
Another issue that is very important right now is Nova Scotia's
concern that there be a recognition and a commitment from the
government to allow Nova Scotians to maintain more of our
offshore development resources. If we did not have the excessive
federal government clawback, we would be able to use more of the
resources coming in from our new offshore development to pay down
our debt. Certainly that would go a long way in helping us to
get on an even footing with the other provinces.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is one other issue I
would like the hon. member to comment on. It is of a more
general and philosophical nature. Now that we are re-introducing
the cap, albeit at a lower level than we thought, at a level that
we frankly believe is lower than will meet the actual need, could
the hon. member provide her comments on the whole concept of
putting a cap on human need? How do we pick an arbitrary number
and say it is the maximum amount of money that will be spent on
social development in the coming year when we do not even know
what the urgent need will be 18 months from now? Is it morally
right to be putting a cap on need or should we be funding things
based on what is actually necessary and on the urgent need out
there?
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, in a time of enormous
surplus I think it is immoral for us to be putting a cap on the
amount of money we will be spending for health care, for
education and for the very services that allow our people to be
strong. I would say that the best investment this government can
make now is an investment in a healthy, well educated population.
In a country where we have one in five children living in
poverty it is very hard to feel too pompous or too cheerful about
the economic prospects we are facing, because clearly that is not
being shared across the board. As the income gap between poor
and wealthy people in the country continues to increase, we are
sowing the seeds of some very deep misery for an enormous number
of children and vulnerable people.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-18.
As members know, we are against the capping of equalization
payments, especially for provinces like New Brunswick and the
other Atlantic provinces, but also Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
In a country like ours, where we talk about national unity and
where we should be able to work together for our common
well-being, it is important to help each other. The goal of
equalization payments was to get money to the provinces that
needed it, mainly for social programs like education and health.
Now, the cuts imposed upon the provinces create an unacceptable
situation and place them in a difficult situation.
1345
I would like to read a newspaper article published in L'Acadie
Nouvelle, which summarizes what has happened in New Brunswick.
This article, published on March 1, 2000, reads as follows:
The decapping of equalization payments for 1999-2000 will allow
New Brunswick to receive $50 million more from Ottawa than what
was initially anticipated for the fiscal period 1999-2001. New
Brunswick's finance minister, Norman Betts, is far from carried
away by the bonus resulting from the decapping of transfer
payments and prefers to put things into perspective.
“Fifty million dollars represent 10 days in health care
spending.
It represents 1% of our $5 billion budget” said Mr. Betts,
adding that the province could also receive less money because
of the country's economic performance.
Besides, according to official new estimates by the federal
Department of Finance, New Brunswick will receive an extra $5
million for the 1999-2001 period.
For fiscal 2000-2001, New Brunswick will receive $1.207 billion
from the federal under the equalization program. This amount
represents more than one quarter of the province's budget, which
was $4.472 billion in 2000-2001. Before Minister Betts can cash
the $50 million cheque from his federal counterpart, the Commons
will have to pass the bill reviewing the equalization program
formula tabled on Tuesday.
This was for the month of March 2001. The article goes on, and I
quote:
The equalization program was created to close the gap between
the have and the have-not provinces, so that these provinces can
provide to the public services comparable to those provided by
the wealthy provinces. Three provinces, British Columbia,
Ontario and Alberta, get nothing under the equalization program.
As I said, living in a country is something like the unions,
which I will use as an example. Within a union, there are big
locals and small locals but every member is part of the same
union. It is true there are smaller locals with only five, six,
seven or eight persons. It is more expensive to give them
services because they cannot afford to pay for all those
services. I like this example because I think it is a good
illustration of what happens in the case of the provinces.
It is called a union because all the workers of the country, big
groups and small groups alike, are united in one union. That is
how I imagine the country. The country is a group of all 10
provinces and the territories, including the Yukon and Nunavut.
All those provinces and territories form the union which is our
country.
Whenever we are no longer able to take care of the have nots, why
remain a part of it? Why stay in a country if we cannot take
care of each other?
The reason a country takes money from the rich, yes I dare to
say it and I am not ashamed of it, is to redistribute it. This
sharing can be compared to what happens in a family. Sometimes
in families those who have more help those who have less. This
is what a country is all about.
I believe we have a problem today because we are too selfish. It
is everybody for himself. This attitude runs from the top down:
the country, the leaders and the governments down to the
provinces and the families. We have to show that we can take
care of each other. This is why a cap is unacceptable.
If we can help a province to survive and if we are able to
invest to create jobs, I think people will be able to manage on
their own. However, if we deprive them every day of these tools
and if we are unable to make the transfers needed to help those
provinces, I think it will go from bad to worse. This is
contrary to common sense and to national unity, utterly
contrary.
The federal government has a responsibility, which is convincing
people, be they from Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia, that
this is the way Canada works; all the provinces are together,
and we must have a formula to help Canadians all over the
country. We have to recognize this.
For example, if Alberta were to say “We are now rich; we have
oil and we don't need anybody anymore”, I hope they will not run
out of oil, because they might need this formula also. This is
what a country is all about.
1350
In New Brunswick, we never asked that the fisheries go the way
they went, and we never asked for the elimination of groundfish
quotas. We never asked for this. People in fishplants were
working 30 to 32 weeks before the moratorium on groundfish. We
never asked for this closure of the fishery.
It can get tough for any province when revenues do not come in.
Let me take Alberta as an example. I am very glad for Alberta,
because it is a rich province, but when one is rich, one should
share with the poor. I do not mean that our own region is very
poor
but it does have certain needs, just as Manitoba does.
The whole country is glad that we have an agricultural industry
in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Thanks to them, we can have three
meals a day. We need provinces where agriculture can prosper. It
is the same thing in Quebec. Between Montreal and Rivière-du-Loup,
farms line the road on both sides. It is nice that we have
farmers but it is also nice to have fishers.
People like to visit New Brunswick and other Atlantic provinces.
We have people working in the tourist industry. As I said very
often in other speeches, people in Toronto are fond of our two
by fours but to have two by fours, we need lumberjacks.
These people work hard yet they have seasonal jobs. It goes
without saying that seasonal workers cannot pay as much income
tax as if they worked 12 months per year. Our provinces are
losing out on benefits because these are seasonal jobs.
I would like the federal government to show some
leadership in this regard, and to say “This is the rule, this is
the formula that will help our poorer provinces and keep our
country united”. Again, if there is no advantage in being part
of a country, why stay in it? What is the country in the end
when the federal government makes such cuts in health,
education and all the rest?
I will conclude by asking the federal government, the Liberals,
those in power, to show some leadership. This is why we have to
oppose the capping of the equalization program.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member from Acadie—Bathurst for very forcefully
putting into words what many in the room are thinking: that the
redistribution of wealth through federal transfer payments may be
the single greatest achievement of Canadian federalism and the
most important instrument for fostering Canadian unity. That
point has not been made often enough in this room. I thank him
for making it very poignantly.
The question I have is more specifically about the methodology
and formula for the Canada health and social transfer. The hon.
member pointed out, and other speakers have mentioned, that when
the government introduced the CHST the federal transfer was about
$19.1 billion. When the CHST kicked in it was $11 billion. It
is only now inching forward. In other words, the total aggregate
amount of cutback the government has ripped out of the federal
social transfer is $30 billion to $35 billion, arguably even
more.
Would that not constitute a breach of the whole concept of
Canadian unity? Are we not jeopardizing the fragile thing we
call the federation of Canada when we rip the heart out of the
very programs that make it worth belonging to? Would the hon.
member care to comment on the impact felt in ridings like his
when the Canada health and social transfer ripped the heart out
of so many social programs?
1355
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Winnipeg Centre for his question. My colleague talked about
health care. Looking at the history of health care, in 1969 the
federal government used to pay 50% of the cost of health care.
Now it is down to 13%. If the federal government cannot make the
transfers that need to be made to be able to have the programs I
have used many times, then what is the purpose of having a
federal government?
We could go to the vet and not find a dog or a cat in the
hallway. If we go to the hospital where human beings are, we
find them in the hallway or they cannot even get into the
hospital. That is an example of how health care stinks in our
country. It is the fault of the Liberals and the federal
government. In 1969 the government paid 50% of the cost of
health care. Today it is down to 13%.
That is why we could say we are losing the unity of our country.
It is the fault of a federal government that does not know how to
create programs that would keep all our provinces and territories
united. That is what happens with the federal government.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst puts into words exactly what I was thinking. He
does so better than I could. We will feed him another question
and let him try it again.
When the CHST was first introduced, the National Council on
Welfare called it the most devastating social policy initiative
since the great depression. Let us imagine going forward with a
policy that experts in the field cited as devastating.
I ask that we hearken back to a time when we had established
program funding, when social programs were funded at 50:50. Did
the federal government not have a better opportunity to maintain
national standards when the funding level was 50:50? Under that
system, if a province failed to meet national standards it could
be punished by having its funding reduced. Was there not more
capability to have true national standards under that funding
mechanism than under the CHST?
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to answer. When
one does not pay into it one has no say in it. That is what
happens with the federal government.
Let us look at my province, New Brunswick, for example. Could
anyone imagine that one person who goes on welfare receives $269
a month? Two hundred and sixty nine dollars a month is probably
not what a member of parliament gets in one day here, and the
Liberals want a person to live on $269 a month.
The federal government has a responsibility across the country
to make transfers which make sense and with which people can
live. I agree with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre that
government cuts have created a separation between poor and rich
people and poor and rich provinces. We are going backward. We
are going the wrong way. I hope the federal government changes
its mind about the way it is running our country.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
CHILD CARE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Annie Pelletier condemned the Quebec government, because it
“spends $8,000 per year on each child attending a daycare
centre, but does not give one penny to mothers who stay at home
to look after their children”.
The recognition of the parents' role when they look after their
children is also an objective of the national forum, and the
subject of an awareness campaign to change mentalities.
The spokesperson for the Regroupement Naissance-Renaissance added
that “we must stop seeing the birth of a child as the sole
responsibility of the couple”.
“Maternity has an economic value and supporting it is a
collective responsibility”.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, despite persistent assurances and
massive efforts at containment, foot and mouth disease has spread
from the U.K. to France, Ireland and the Netherlands. It is
costing billions of dollars and has resulted in the destruction
of thousands of animals in the United Kingdom alone.
Here at home we are experiencing an outbreak of chronic wasting
disease among elk herds in Saskatchewan.
1400
The minister of agriculture has sent Canadian Food Inspection
Agency veterinarians to the United Kingdom to assist with the
outbreak there. The problem is that they are having difficulty
handling the CWD outbreak we have at home.
Budgetary constraints at the CFIA and Agriculture Canada have
made it difficult for officials to contain and deal with the
outbreak of CWD in Saskatchewan elk herds. They are struggling
just to keep up.
I call upon the minister of agriculture to get his priorities
straight and beef up the resources of the CFIA and his own
department so we can deal appropriately with this important
issue.
* * *
HELGE INGSTAD
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great sadness that I mark the recent passing
of a great world explorer and archaeologist, someone whose
profound contribution to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
to our nation and to the entire world will be remembered forever.
Dr. Helge Ingstad of Norway and his wife, the late Anne Stine
Ingstad, are credited with the discovery of the Norse encampment
at L'Anse aux Meadows on the northern tip of the Great Northern
Peninsula. Their discovery and study of the archaeological
remains of this Norse village have led to its establishment as
the only truly authenticated Viking settlement in all of North
America.
Based on the life's work of the Ingstads, L'Anse aux Meadows is
now preserved as a national historic site within the Parks Canada
system and has been designated as a world heritage site by the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
UNESCO.
On behalf of the House I extend my sincere condolences to the
family and to the people of Norway as we remember the life and
work of the late Helge Ingstad.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUTH SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with pride and enthusiasm that, on Thursday, in
L'Annonciation, which is located in the RCM of Antoine-Labelle, I
attended the closing ceremony of a Youth Service Canada project
that was a resounding success in the community. “Les bons
J.A.C.” is a joint initiative of the Quebec Provincial Police
and the Antoine-Labelle RCM that began in August 1999.
One of the objectives of that program was to allow young people
to gain the basic knowledge and experience that they needed to
enter today's labour market.
For 32 weeks, ten young people from L'Annonciation had the
opportunity to take part in the organization and planning of
activities geared to eliminating, through prevention, awareness
promotional activities, the problems relating to violence and
discrimination.
These young people also helped create a community garden, while
supporting other regional organizations, to bring generations
closer together and create connections between young people and
parents.
During the project, public mischief went down from 16 cases in
1998 to only one in 2001. These figures show that federal
programs for young people are a good thing.
* * *
[English]
MUSIC WEEK
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize Canadian Music
Week, which occurred last week and during which the radio
starmaker fund board of directors was announced.
The radio starmaker fund and its French arm, le fonds radio
star, is aimed at finding the most promising musical talents in
Canada and providing them with the marketing and promotional
support needed to boost careers and create stars. It is a great
example of the radio and music industries working together to
promote Canadian culture.
I wish to applaud the initiative by the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters and its partners, the Canadian Independent Record
Production Association and the Canadian Recording Industry
Association.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I do not want veteran status. Veteran
status is not wanted by every Tom, Dick or Mary who ever wore a
uniform, who ever peeled potatoes in Trenton, who ever spit-shone
shoes in St. Jean or who ever pumped gas in Cold Lake.
What is expected, what is long overdue and what is respectfully
called for is full war veteran status for those who served in war
zones; for those who saw death and destruction; for those who
witnessed the abysmal depth of man's madness in the gulf war, in
Bosnia and Rwanda; for those still serving today; and for those
who came home scarred by their experiences. Let us give our true
veterans the respect they are due and recognize them as war
veterans.
I renounce my unwanted veteran label. This status belongs only
to those who deserve it.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw
the attention of the House and of Canadians to an important
initiative by the federal government in the area of agriculture.
A Liberal task force on future opportunities in farming has been
created. It will consult with and learn from farmers,
processors and other stakeholders. The consultation will enable
the Liberal task force to deliver a report on the long term
opportunities and challenges facing the farm economy.
1405
This sector is integral to our quality of life. Our farmers and
processors provide Canadians and customers worldwide with high
quality, safe food.
The striking of this task force is clear evidence of our Prime
Minister's concerns for the future development of this sector.
* * *
UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À RIMOUSKI
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in September of 2001, the Université du Québec à
Rimouski will be the only Quebec university to offer an
undergraduate degree with a major in maritime shipping and a
minor in administration, as well as the only North American
university providing this course in French.
The program will be available to graduates of the Institut
maritime du Québec who are interested in working in maritime
shipping administration and hold a master mariner or
marine-engineer officer certificate.
The objective is to ensure a supply of well-trained replacements
in a sector where the workers are ageing. The course fits in
with the true shipping policy to be adopted by Quebec between
now and May.
Congratulations again to the Université du Québec à Rimouski for
its leadership and sense of initiative.
* * *
[English]
PROSPECT HIGH HEAD
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's ocean playground just got a little more environmental
protection from the Nature Conservancy of Canada. Prospect High
Head, a craggy stretch of coastline east of Peggy's Cove, is a
favourite spot for residents and tourists alike.
From an ecological standpoint it is a valuable and vulnerable
region. It is one of only two areas in the province known as the
granite barrens.
The uniqueness of the region makes it an important migratory
stopover for birds such as the rare whimbrel and the blue heron
and a feeding area for osprey. A stewardship plan will be
developed by Prospect Peninsula residents and the Friends of High
Head.
Congratulations to the area's residents on achieving this
important environmental protection and preserving the area for
the enjoyment of Nova Scotians and visitors alike.
* * *
YOUTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
UNICEF Canada had an interesting consultation just over a year
ago. It consulted with the youth of Canada to find out what they
thought were the most important rights for them. They brought in
Elections Canada, and although the results have not been well
publicized, I think they are very interesting.
Here is what the kids said were the most important things:
first, family; second, food and shelter; third, health; and
fourth, education. Then they went on to things like rest and
play, protection from harm and non-discrimination.
However number one by a huge majority was the family. I think
this deserves to be celebrated. While adults may push in other
directions, the youth of Canada have the important rights figured
out and in my view in the proper order.
We as adults can learn a lot from our kids. I applaud them.
From the maritimes to B.C. youth are our future.
* * *
[Translation]
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend, Serbian police arrested Slobodan Milosevic.
Milosevic has been indicted by the international criminal
tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity and has been
charged by the Yugoslav government with corruption and abuse of
power.
This move by the Yugoslav government signals the beginning of a
commitment to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
For its part, the Canadian government is urging Yugoslavia's
leaders to facilitate the work of the international criminal
tribunal.
Our Prime Minister said that “The authorities in Belgrade have
an obligation to cooperate fully with the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, including the handing over
of Milosevic. In the interest of justice, and as a decisive step
in the improvement of Yugoslavia's international standing, we
hope that this takes place soon”.
* * *
[English]
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for housing said it loud and clear. “We
are not going back to social housing”, he was reported as saying
in the Toronto Star of April 1.
Could we imagine a country as wealthy as Canada, where a million
Canadians are experiencing severe housing insecurity and
homelessness, and the minister comes out with this outrageous
position?
Many dedicated groups have campaigned for the 1% commitment for
housing, for the right to shelter and decent housing, but the
government says no, a shameful response if ever there was one.
To add insult to injury the only new initiative the government
will undertake is a subsidy program for market housing. Why on
earth would we be lining the pockets of developers?
The government's proposal is based on the theory that if we help
people at the top, eventually that will trickle down to those at
the bottom of the economic ladder. This kind of market driven
ideology will only increase the gap between the rich and the
poor.
We reject the government's private subsidy approach. Community
based social housing makes good economic sense. It creates good
jobs and it helps the people who need it. We need social
housing.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois has great confidence in the ability of our artists to
make their mark in Quebec and internationally. We believe that
the signing of the FTAA agreement will result in even greater
cultural exchanges between Quebec and Latin American countries.
However, sight must not be lost of the fact that Quebec's
culture did not spring up unassisted. The Government of Quebec
has used its authority to step in and assist cultural growth.
This has been done by all the governments of Quebec, regardless
of political affiliation.
It is for this reason that the Bloc Quebecois is insisting that
any continental trade agreement should preserve the Government
of Quebec's present and future authority to take such action.
Culture is our soul and our roots. It is how we speak and do
things. It is therefore important that Quebec be able to speak
on its own behalf and to protect its interests.
* * *
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to stress the openness and the flexibility displayed by the
federal government toward farm producers.
A few days ago, the government announced it would be doubling
the amount of interest-free loans under the Spring Credit Advance
Program. The maximum amount will go up from $20,000 to $50,000
for spring 2001.
This is a timely measure, since producers are adversely affected
by the increase in the costs of fuel and fertilizer.
In the past, that program has proved very useful to farmers. It
has allowed them to get funds in time for spring planting.
A number of income support measures are being put in place by
our government.
I urge it to continue to work with the agricultural industry to
ensure long term stability in that sector.
* * *
[English]
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the United States has formally filed a
countervailing duties application to seek tariffs of up to 40% on
Canadian softwood lumber. This would cost Canadian producers $4
billion per year.
Having had years to prepare, the Liberal government has again
been caught flatfooted with 45 days to go, only now realizing
that a common, uniform trade policy for softwood lumber is not
possible as regional circumstances are too different.
Most Atlantic Canadian woodlots are privately owned. The owners
have enjoyed free trade in softwood lumber for well over a
century, with exports totalling almost $1 billion last year.
Export taxes and countervailing or anti-dumping duties would
prove disastrous for the Atlantic industry. I call on the
international trade minister to ensure that free trade in
softwood lumber continues in our region.
I object to Liberal statements that the government will force
Atlantic sawmills to comply with Canada's export monitoring
system, possibly resulting in an export tax on maritime lumber.
Coupled with a harsh winter, this would devastate the region. It
is absolutely unacceptable to Atlantic Canada.
When will the Liberal government get its act together on this
and other important trade issues?
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
inform the House and Canadians of major environmental
initiatives in the Yukon.
First, the federal government and the Yukon Development
Corporation have announced that they will each invest close to
$525,000 over a three year period, in an energy solution centre
based in Whitehorse.
Second, a new heating system reducing emissions by 1,600 tons
has been installed in several buildings in the town of Watson
Lake. The federal government invested $75,000 in that project,
through the technological component of the Climate Change Action
Fund.
Canadians living in the north have to pay for energy costs and
they will suffer the effects of climatic changes. The federal
government's actions show that it cares about this reality.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Tuesday, March 27, marked the third anniversary of the
Liberal failure to compensate all hepatitis C victims. The
settlement is no closer to reaching victims than it was three
years ago. With each day, month and year that go by, more
hepatitis C victims die and others lose their quality of life.
One of these individuals, Steve Harrison, wrote to me:
I haven't worked since 1996 and my wife is near exhaustion trying
to keep us from bankruptcy. Every month we seem to accumulate
more debt, while trying to keep life decent for my two boys.
Meanwhile, the government is using money owed to me to build up
their compensation fund. I reckon at a modest 5% rate, they have
made 30,000 dollars with my money.
Even if they paid me my compensation tomorrow my problems aren't
over. If I sound frustrated it is because I am. Everyone I talk
to thinks this issue is over and I'm living happily ever after.
The Liberals think this issue is over but to the Harrison family
it is all too real.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on March 26, the Prime Minister wrote that there
are no financial connections between the golf club and the
adjacent Auberge Grand-Mère.
This weekend, the daily Le Soleil wrote that Yvon Duhaime
confirmed, under oath, that “agreements, downpayments and
contracts were made between the Auberge and the clients of the
golf club”. He added that “this accounts for the major part of
the Auberge's revenues”.
My question is simple.
Who is telling the truth? The Prime Minister or his friend the
innkeeper?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is no contradiction. According to my information on Mr.
Duhaime's testimony, he did not say that there were financial
connections or property connections between the auberge and the
golf club during the period of time at issue. So there is no
contradiction. The Leader of the Opposition misquoted Mr.
Duhaime.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it seems that there are more ties and
close promotions between the golf club and the auberge than there
are between the Prime Minister and his Minister of Industry.
We see in Yvon Duhaime's testimony under oath that he is saying
there are contracts between the golf club and the hotel for golf
tournaments booked more than a year in advance.
How could the Prime Minister pretend that by sending money to
the hotel he was not also advancing the interest of his golf
course?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member has not accurately quoted the
testimony of Mr. Duhaime. I will translate freely from the
French.
It says there are contracts between the auberge and its
“clients”. Obviously there are clients, golfers, who go to the
auberge from all the golf courses in the area.
The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister did not have
any financial interest in the golf course during the time he made
inquiries about a loan by the Business Development Bank to the
auberge, so the hon. member ought to withdraw his unwarranted
allegations. He is just embarrassing himself by continuing them.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister should have
finished the quote because Mr. Duhaime said under oath that
actually these represented the majority of the business. He
should finish his sentences.
It seems that every week, every day, there are new revelations
that contradict what the Prime Minister has said. Now we have
Justice William Parker, who conducted the Sinclair Stevens
inquiry, and many other experts in government ethics calling upon
the government to call an independent inquiry.
Along with the majority of Canadians, will the Prime Minister
acknowledge what the majority of Canadians want and call this
independent inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, will the Leader of the Opposition acknowledge that 82%
of Canadians say that the opposition is wrong in pursuing these
questions and that it should get on with other things?
Why does he not listen to Canadians who say that they want real
questions on real issues of concern to real Canadians. Where are
the questions about softwood lumber? Where are the questions
about agriculture? Where are the questions about the economy?
Nothing is there on those real questions. The official
opposition is derelict in its duty to Canadians and it ought to
apologize to them.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that the Deputy
Prime Minister is not our finance minister.
Not even a week ago the Prime Minister claimed that there was no
financial or legal relationship between the golf course and the
auberge but the owner of the auberge swore on the Bible that:
Once again an assertion by the Prime Minister has been shown to
be inaccurate. How is it possible that we can believe anything
the Prime Minister has to say on this file?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my understanding of the testimony of Mr. Duhaime is that
he did not make reference to golf course clients with respect to
the golf course at Grand-Mère. He spoke of clients generally.
If the hon. member wants to keep the respect of the House, which
with her questions she lost a long time ago, she ought to quote
accurately because the facts are that the golf course and the
hotel had no legal, financial or ownership links between them
from a period six months before the Prime Minister assumed his
responsibilities and the procedure at the relevant time—
The Speaker: The hon. member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is respect for the Prime
Minister's Office that he should be concerned about.
Jonas Prince sold his hotel chain for $90 million. He could
have paid for the golf course out of pocket change, but for six
years he refused to do so. While the Prime Minister said that he
sold the shares in November, Mr. Prince obviously believed that
he did not buy them.
Why would a successful businessman like Mr. Prince risk the
wrath of the Prime Minister of Canada and not honour what was
supposed to be a so-called bill of sale?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first thing the hon. member ought to do is look at
the agreement of September 29, 1999, between Mr. Prince's firm
and the person to whom he sold the shares, Mr. Michaud and his
firm.
Mr. Prince says that he received legal advice that Akimbo, his
firm, retained legal title to the shares since November 1, 1993.
This is what Mr. Prince said in a document dated November 1999
confirming that he owned the shares all along, contrary to what
my hon. friend says, who once again is embarrassing herself by
her inaccuracies.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
another statement by the Prime Minister in the golf club and
Auberge Grand-Mère affair has been contradicted.
In the Prime Minister's letter to the leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party dated March 26, the Prime Minister said that
the Auberge Grand-Mère was in competition with the adjacent golf
club but the auberge's owner, Yvon Duhaime, said quite the
opposite in a statement made under oath on November 2, 2000.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister deny the financial link
between the two entities, when Yvon Duhaime swore under oath that
most of the auberge's income came from golfers at the adjoining
club?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
simple truth is that, long before the Prime Minister became Prime
Minister, the legal financial links of ownership had been
completely severed and, during the period in question, Mr. Prince
owed the Prime Minister money, but had no interest himself in the
golf club. That is the truth. Those are the facts.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the facts are that in the September 29, 1999 agreement, the
Prime Minister said that he had relinquished his right of ownership
six years earlier. The same Prime Minister also said that he was
going to protect Mr. Michaud and pay his lawyers if there was a
problem In addition, the auberge's owner, Mr. Duhaime, said
that there is a financial link between the two entities.
Is this not proof that there was a very clear conflict of
interest when the Prime Minister approached the Business
Development Bank of Canada to ensure the auberge's survival so
that the golf club could find another buyer?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the important thing is that the Prime Minister was owed money by
Mr. Prince after November 1, 1993, and this debt was paid by Mr.
Prince. Mr. Prince sold all the shares he bought from the Prime
Minister to Mr. Michaud on September 29, 1999. So there is no
conflict of interest and the hon. member should withdraw his
allegations—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is our
impression that the Prime Minister contributed to keeping up the
value of his stocks in the Grand-Mère golf club by saving the
Auberge Grand-Mère.
The connection between the two was demonstrated by the
owner of the auberge, under oath. He is the one who has said
so, and in so doing has contradicted the Prime Minister.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister not accept, once and for
all, that the Prime Minister is putting them in an awkward
position with his statements that are contradicted—
The Speaker: The Deputy Prime Minister.
1425
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Absolutely not,
Mr. Speaker. The one in the awkward position is the hon. House
leader, because he is the one who said “Table the bill of sale
and we will stop asking questions”.
He has broken his commitment to his colleagues and to the House of
Commons. He needs to withdraw his questions because he made
a commitment to the House to stop asking such questions.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was
understood by everyone that when I said to the Prime Minister
“Table the bill of sale and we will stop asking questions”, that
was because we had his assurance that the bill of sale was
exactly that, and proved that the Prime Minister had sold his
shares in 1993.
What was tabled, however, proved exactly the opposite. The
shares were sold in 1999. That is why we are asking questions.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
the hon. member said “Table the bill of sale and we will stop
asking questions”, he attached no conditions to that commitment.
Once again, the hon. member has broken his commitment and, I
repeat, there is no conflict of interest on the part of the
Prime Minister in this matter.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government is walling off democracy on Shawinigan and on the
FTAA. In Quebec a wall is going up around the FTAA summit site.
At the Canadian borders a wall has gone up to keep out those who
dare to disagree with the government on the FTAA. The Pearson
foreign affairs building looks like fort Pearson.
I ask a question of the trade minister yet again. Will he agree
today to release the text of the FTAA agreement that his
government is supposedly negotiating on behalf of the Canadian
people?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency has primary responsibility for protecting our borders,
those who require further examination are referred to immigration
officers who work for my department, CIC.
All people seeking to enter Canada must satisfy either customs
or immigration that they are here as genuine visitors. Those who
are not genuine visitors are not granted admission to Canada.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, those
who are welcome are those who will support the FTAA and nobody
else. The concrete walls around Quebec and stone walls here in
parliament is an outright denial of democracy.
The government prefers to be accountable to the governments of
Chile, Colombia and Peru, anybody but to the people of Canada. It
prefers to be accountable to the BCNI and America's
megacorporations than to the citizens of Canada. When do
governments get to see the FTAA text? Where is the text? Will
the minister—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian position has been on the
website of my department for a year. Never in the history of
international trade negotiations has there been one as
transparent as this one.
The NDP might well say it is not transparent enough. The NDP
might say do not bother about the rest of the Americas. We know
where the NDP belongs. That is not where Canadians want us to
go.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Yvon Duhaime's sworn testimony specifically talks about golf
packages. The advertising of the auberge specifically advertises
golf packages with the Prime Minister's golf club. Mr. Duhaime
earlier said and I quote:
We send people to play golf and they send people to have
supper...If it weren't profitable, would we continue?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now admit there was a financial
link during the time that the Prime Minister's agent was
negotiating the sale of the Prime Minister's shares?
1430
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand there are as many as six golf courses in
the area and that the auberge welcomes golfers from all the
golf courses in question.
Furthermore, at the time the Prime Minister made representations
for a loan from the Business Development Bank to the auberge, the
Prime Minister had no ownership interest whatsoever in the golf
course. Yes, he had a debt owing to him but he was not connected
in any way, shape or form with the golf course. The value of the
debt did not change no matter what happened with the golf course.
Those are the facts and the hon. member ought to admit this
because he knows he is wrong.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
six golf courses and the only one with which he claims they had
no financial link was the one right next door. What absolute
nonsense.
In September 1996, Claude Gauthier, a friend of the Prime
Minister, a contributor to his campaign and a serial recipient of
government grants, purchased land from the Grand-Mère Golf Club
at a price well above market value.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House if the Prime
Minister, his private company or his agent received any of this
money? Were they privy to decisions as to how that money was
spent?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that the Prime Minister's holding company sold
all the shares that it owned on November 1, 1993 to the company
of Mr. Prince. Therefore the Prime Minister had no interest
whatsoever in the golf course from and after that point. He had a
debt owing to him by Mr. Prince's company and it was eventually
settled. Mr. Prince's company resold the shares that he had
purchased from the Prime Minister to Mr. Michaud. I say to the
leader of the Conservative Party to please address his questions
to Mr. Michaud or Mr. Prince.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in a letter
to Canadians published in the National Post that he would
never influence the Business Development Bank. Later, when the
bank was trying to collect on the loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère,
the Prime Minister's pressure on the bank was revealed in sworn
testimony.
The Prime Minister also said that there were no ties between the
golf course, for which he had not been paid, and the inn, which
he forced the Business Development Bank to prop up against the
bank's better judgment. Now it turns out again in sworn
testimony that the financial survival of the inn was tied to the
golf course.
Would the government explain why sworn testimony keeps
contradicting the words of our Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker
the answer to the hon. member's question is so obvious we do not
need the Minister of Industry to answer.
The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister exerted no
pressure. Suggestions to that effect came from somebody who is
suing the Business Development Bank because of his losing his
job. There are allegations that this particular individual
inflated his pension and things like that.
The member ought to be careful about stating things as fact
which have not been demonstrated as fact. The Prime Minister did
not pressure—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I guess, in his desperate struggles
to defend the indefensible, the Deputy Prime Minister has
forgotten that the Prime Minister himself acknowledged that he
put pressure on the Business Development Bank and phoned its
president on more than one occasion to give a loan to a clear,
money losing proposition.
Would the government get its facts straight and explain why
sworn testimony on more than one occasion directly contradicts
our Prime Minister in the House of Commons?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has not acknowledged putting pressure
on the Business Development Bank.
The quote that is being referred to is a deposition by the
gentleman in question in which he says to the liquor licensing
board that summertime is a good time for him to have a licence
because in the summertime he has golfers, high school graduations
and wedding anniversaries. It appears that all these people like
to imbibe in some cool refreshment. I do not know what the big
deal is here today.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in a recent poll, between 56% and 60% of those who were
polled wanted an inquiry on the Prime Minister's actions, 78%
felt that all the documents should be released, and 63% were of
the opinion that the Prime Minister's behaviour was either
reprehensible or very reprehensible.
1435
Will the Prime Minister realize that not only are opposition
parties demanding an independent inquiry, but that the public
also wants some light to be shed regarding his behaviour in the
Auberge Grand-Mère affair?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to a poll—which is credible I hope—82% of Canadians want
the opposition to move on to other issues.
The Bloc Quebecois obviously has no interest in the real issues
that are important to Quebecers. Where are the questions on
lumber? Where are the questions on the economy?
The Bloc Quebecois is not defending the interests of its
constituents and it should apologize to its constituents,
because they are not—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, let me tell the Deputy Prime Minister that people may be
fed up, but the person responsible for this is the Prime
Minister, who refuses to testify at a public inquiry and to table
all the relevant documents.
Today, he is being judged by the public and 85% of those who
have been polled want us to get to the bottom of this.
Did the Prime Minister think he would get away with it because
he is both judge and jury in this matter?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is displaying a total lack of trust in his House
leader who said “Table the bill of sale and we will stop asking
questions”. He should settle this issue with his House leader.
The ethics counsellor looked into the matter, as did the RCMP,
and no conflict of interest was uncovered, because there is no
conflict of interest.
* * *
[English]
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that U.S. softwood
lumber producers have just filed a multibillion dollar—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps there will be more
general rejoicing at the end of the question. We would like to
hear it.
Mr. Stockwell Day: They are relieved, Mr. Speaker, that
for one second there has been a pause on Shawinigan, but it will
continue just seconds from now.
This multibillion dollar countervailing duty against Canadian
softwood producers is no secret. It is no secret that it has
arrived and it is no secret that it was coming.
For weeks the Minister for International Trade has been talking
about appointing a special envoy to try to do something to avoid
this terrible situation that has hit the industry now. When will
the minister announce the special envoy?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition leader for a
question that really does interest all Canadians. This is a very
important day for Canadians.
We are quite concerned with the wrong allegations that the
Americans are tabling again. The Canadian industry is quite able
to fight these wrong allegations. The idea of an envoy, which
the Prime Minister raised with President Bush, I raised with Mr.
Zoellick. It is still a concept on which we are working hard and
I hope very much that the Americans will take it up as well.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that the
president seems to be open. When I talked with Vice-President
Cheney he was open. This is our appointment. Why are we waiting
for the Americans?
When will the minister bring together the softwood industry
within this country and get them to agree on the envoy? This is
our problem. We need to go after this. We do not wait for the
Americans to appoint an envoy for us.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the mandate right now.
I have already agreed with Mr. Zoellick that at the end of the
week in Buenos Aires we will be discussing the mandate. We are
already working on the Canadian front. It is an idea that we
have been promoting. We will be appointing a co-ordinator for
the Canadian industry, as we have in the last few months, and we
will negotiate a mandate with the United States that will make
sure that these two individuals really have something to
contribute to the long term solutions of this very important
file.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, parliament finds itself in the paradoxical situation of
the Prime Minister being both judge and defendant in his own
case. He is the one who must admit that he placed himself in a
conflict of interest, and he is the one who must agree to an
independent inquiry. In addition, under the 1999 contract, the
Prime Minister himself will have to pay the costs of his
associates' lawyers in the event of an inquiry into this affair.
Is the Prime Minister not very clearly caught up in two
conflicts of interest, rather than one, in the Auberge Grand-Mère
affair?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member's allegations are inaccurate. She has made two
allegations and I say that she is wrong.
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in light of the documents released and the statements
made in this affair, do the Prime Minister's personal interests
not stand square in the way of his ability to satisfactorily
perform his duties as Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Absolutely not,
Mr. Speaker. The response is a categorical no. He is doing a
good job for all Canadians and recent polls bear this out.
* * *
[English]
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, just over an hour ago the United States
administration proceeded to impose billions of dollars in
countervail duties against our forest industry. American lumber
producers are asking for as much as $4 billion to be levelled
against the Canadian industry. Our government has had five years
to prepare for this day.
Is the government prepared to tell the Americans that our
co-operation with respect to energy and on a pipeline from Alaska
to the lower 48th state depends on a positive resolution of the
softwood lumber issue?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me react to the ridiculously high
allocations that the Americans have just, as the member said,
imposed. They are talking now about an allocation of 39.5% on
subsidies and 28% to 36% on anti-dumping. We believe that these
allocations are absolutely wrong and far too high. We are not
subsidizing our industry and this government will act in a very
responsible way. We will not hold our energy industry hostage
to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government's response is not acceptable. The
Americans are speaking louder on our behalf than our own
government.
Republican congressman, Jim Colby of Arizona, recently stated
“Canada shouldn't cave on this. They should stand up and fight
this”. Even Tom Stephens of Arkansas, the former president of
MacMillan Bloedel, said “I would remind U.S. policy makers that
without Canada's energy, they had better learn to speak Arabic
and read by candlelight”.
Why is the minister not prepared to be equally as tough and
blunt as the Americans seem to be and stand up for our own
people?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe the Alliance, in its position, would
like to link these files but that is not the way we do it. We
will stand tough on the softwood lumber issue. We will make
extreme demands for our rights. We want free trade, demand free
trade and deserve free trade. We will be very tough with the
Americans in fighting the wrong allocations that they are making
but we will not link this to other industries.
* * *
FINANCIAL INFORMATION STRATEGY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1995,
as part of its overall strategy to improve accountability and
improve fiscal management and transparency, the Government of
Canada undertook to launch what we call a financial information
strategy. It set the date at the time to be April 1, 2001.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Has the
government fulfilled its commitment in implementing a financial
information strategy.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to announce the successful implementation of the
financial information strategy in all the departments and
agencies on April 1, 2001.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the members of the
Standing Committee of Public Accounts and the auditor general for
their support on the FIS, which we have to realize is the biggest
change in accountability and financial reporting to parliament
since Confederation.
The information that it will generate will permit all Canadians
and parliamentarians to know more about the results of the
programs and related costs.
* * *
1445
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
over the weekend the European Union took the position that it was
going to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Over the same weekend the
Minister of the Environment was in Montreal and was wishy-washy
on the issue.
Could we have a position from the government? Will it ratify
Kyoto in 2002 as scheduled, or not?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has always taken the position
that it will make its own decision with respect to ratification.
When we believe that the time is right to do so, that timing and
that decision will be driven by considerations which are Canadian
made. We will not be driven by decisions in other capitals,
whether that is Washington or anywhere else.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources could take some
instructions from the Minister for International Trade and get
tough with the Americans, condemn them for their position and
ratify the treaty. The Caribbean countries have all indicated
that they will do it. Will the government show some courage and
follow suit?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously in the last number of days the international
negotiations with respect to Kyoto have run into difficulty
because of the position taken by the United States and because of
some of the intransigence shown by other parties, including those
in Europe.
The Canadian point of view is that we need to work very hard in
the international community, not to showboat or to grandstand but
to get an agreement on climate change that will truly work for us
and for the world.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on Friday softwood mills across Atlantic Canada were flooded with
a seven page fax from the Minister for International Trade
outlining the new export monitoring rules they must follow
starting the very next working day.
The minister had five years' warning that this was coming. Why
did he wait until the very last day to saddle the industry with
these new surprise rules and no time to comply, or is this just a
prelude to an export tax?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we decided to put softwood lumber on the
export control list because we needed to have consistent national
data in order to defend ourselves against American charges. This
data will help producers in every province and region.
Lumber brokers are already available to issue permits. The
Maritime Lumber Bureau has been well informed about it and we
have been working very closely with it on that file.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary, the Maritime Lumber Bureau was caught
completely off guard, as were all the softwood lumber mills in
Atlantic Canada, by this surprise announcement.
Traditionally Atlantic Canada has been treated as a region, not
province by province, in negotiations with the U.S. and other
parts of Canada when it comes to softwood lumber. Will the
minister once again treat Atlantic Canada as a region, not
province by province or, again, is this a prelude to an export
tax?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely not a prelude to an
export tax. This is strictly to get consistent national data.
Atlantic Canada is part of the country and we need to know all
exports that are going to the United States in order to correctly
fight charges of the United States.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last week we learned that Canadian productivity
continued to lag over the past five years, coming in at half the
level of the United States. This of course is reflected in a
further decline in the Canadian dollar again today, which is
trading near an all time low.
What is the Liberal response? No budget, no more tax relief and
no real debt reduction.
When will the finance minister finally take action to restore
value to our dollar and growth to our economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's facts are simply wrong. Since 1997
Canada's productivity has been on the increase. It has been on
the increase because of the measures taken by Canadian industry
and by the government.
1450
The fact is that if we look at the other statistics, whether it
be personal disposable income or employment, in virtually all the
indicators Canada is doing much better than the vast majority of
other countries.
Are we being affected by the slowdown? Yes, we are, but we are
in better shape to weather that slowdown than we have been in
decades.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister's facts are wrong. Statistics Canada
said last week that between 1996 and 2000 Canadian productivity
growth was 1.4% compared to 2.8% in the United States, half as
high.
Ten years ago the minister's seatmate said to Don Mazankowski:
The Liberals finally got their wish. Since they have been in
power the loonie has dropped its value by 25%. Today it is
losing value against the Mexican currency becoming the new North
American peso.
Given the finance minister agrees that the value of a currency
is a reflection of our productivity, what does this say about the
Canadian economy under his watch?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is incumbent upon opposition members to be somewhat
consistent in their statements. I would like to quote from the
Edmonton Journal dated June 17, 1998:
The Speaker: Order, please. I think the Minister of
Finance was referring to the Leader of the Opposition, and he
knows he must do that by his title, not by name.
Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the provincial treasurer
of the time, now the current Leader of the Opposition, called:
That was a quote from the Leader of the Opposition. What kind
of question is that? Who is he trying to fool and why?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Order, please. We are wasting time. I know that
there is a lot of encouragement from both sides of the House.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the public,
the newspapers, the polls and the observers are all faulting the
Prime Minister on his lack of ethics.
The Ottawa Citizen summarizes the situation well by calling
upon the Prime Minister to table all the documents or resign.
The choice is up to him.
Is the Prime Minister going to finally face the fact that he
must table all documents and call a public inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, this has no connection with the real concerns of
Quebecers. The hon. member is not asking any questions about
softwood lumber, for instance, or the economy. She is asking
farfetched questions.
Eighty-two percent of Canadians are calling for the opposition
to move on to something else. Once again, however, the hon.
member has broken her commitment to her parliamentary leader by
asking this type of question.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
the Deputy Prime Minister to know that there have been at least
12 questions on softwood lumber so far.
The opposition parties and the editorial writers are not the
only ones questioning the Prime Minister's ethical shortcomings.
Gordon Robertson, former clerk of the Privy Council, who saw
service under four Liberal PMs, says that the position of Prime
Minister at this time is more like an elected dictatorship.
Is the government going to admit that Mr. Robertson is far from
wrong, since the only one who can decide to initiate an inquiry
into the Auberge Grand-Mère affair is the Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has no conflict of interest whatsoever. In my
opinion, the Prime Minister is one of the greatest democrats in
our entire country.
Once again, the hon. member had the opportunity to ask
questions on matters of importance to her constituents. Once
again, she has let the general public down. Why are there no
questions on the real concerns of her constituents, of Quebecers
in general, and of all Canadians?
* * *
1455
[English]
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the United Nations' world conference on racism will
be held in Johannesburg at the end of August. Guess who will
represent Canada? It will be the disgraced minister of
multiculturalism.
Why on earth would the Prime Minister allow her, of all people,
to go to the world conference to represent Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. The disgrace is in his
question. For example, the president of the Canadian
Ethnocultural Council on March 29 issued a statement, which read,
in part:
“The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, has been and
continues to be a strong advocate for anti-racism measures and a
supporter for Multiculturalism in Canada. Under very
challenging conditions she has persevered and advanced the ideals
and principles of equality and justice, the fundamental
principles of a Multicultural Canada” noted Mr. Hagopian. “It
is necessary for all Canadians to reflect in the greater issue of
tolerance and equality for all—
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that the minister has smeared
Prince George and Kamloops nationally in parliament and in the
Canadian media, but now the Prime Minister is rewarding her by
sending her to represent us at the world conference.
Why is the Prime Minister sending this disgraced minister to an
international forum to embarrass us on the international stage?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. He is wrong in not accepting
the minister's apology and her admission of making a mistake in
this area a few weeks ago.
Why does he not accept the very insightful remarks of the
president of the Ethnocultural Council when he said “It is
necessary for all Canadians to reflect on the greater issue of
tolerance and the equality for all”, rather than dwell on
specific unfortunate remarks?
The hon. minister has an outstanding record of fighting racism
and discrimination, and she will represent Canada with honour and
dignity at the conference.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know that asking a relevant question is normally the purview of
the official opposition. Given its fixation du jour, I thought I
would be allowed to ask a question which is relevant to Canadians
and to my constituents.
Sri Lanka has been in the grip of a bloody civil war for almost
the past two decades. After years of mutual acrimony, the
government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil tigers appear to be
approaching a retrenchment primarily through the government of
Norway.
In light of this, could the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific
tell the House Canada's policy with respect to this important
peace initiative?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada believes that this war can only be
brought to a peaceful end through a political settlement that
satisfies the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans and
preserves their country's unity and territorial integrity.
Hence, Canada is encouraged by indications that formal peace
talks being brokered by Norway may soon begin. Canada supports
Norway's efforts and is willing to play an active role in the
peace process upon invitation by both parties.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
with the United States withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol, the
government so far has not answered the question about its
commitment to the protocol.
How does the government plan to reach the 6% CO2 target and at
what cost to Canadians.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question is interesting because of the previous
position taken by the Alliance Party, which has always been to
oppose the Kyoto protocol.
Our view of the matter is that the international negotiations
remain ongoing. Canada will play a very constructive role in
those negotiations to try to achieve an international agreement
that will work for Canada and for the world.
In the meantime, domestically we have already announced our
action plan, which is $1.1 billion that will take 65 megatons of
carbon out of our atmosphere.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, partnership is the key to successful environmental
programs. The fatal mistake that the government made in the
negotiations of the Kyoto protocol was that it did not consult
with the provinces, the industry and the Canadian people. They
were not consulted and they were not listened to.
This time, before the government makes commitments to any
international agreement on CO2, will it publicly consult all the
stakeholders?
1500
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a federal-provincial-territorial process was conducted
before the Kyoto protocol.
Since the Kyoto protocol, in complete collaboration with all the
provinces, all the territories, all the municipalities, the
private sector, the scientific community and environmental
organizations, we have had two years of consultation. Some 450
individual Canadians representing every aspect of Canadian life
have been involved.
Based upon that we have a Canadian implementation strategy. We
have business plan and we have invested $1.1 billion to achieve
the objective.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 54% of the
Liberals who were polled about the Prime Minister's behaviour in
the Auberge Grand-Mère issue feel that an inquiry should be held.
Even members of his own caucus are wondering about the
contradictions between the Prime Minister's statements and the
documents, or between the Prime Minister's statements and those
of Yvon Duhaime.
Is the government not concerned about the behaviour of its Prime
Minister, and should it not put pressure on him to accept that
light be shed on this issue?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Absolutely not,
Mr. Speaker. There is no conflict of interest and the Prime
Minister did table the documents requested by the Bloc and the
other opposition parties.
Now, they are not prepared to make good on their commitment to
accept these documents and move on to other issues.
Quebecers and Canadians are disappointed with the opposition,
because it is not asking real questions about real issues. We in
government are the ones working on problems and proposing real
solutions.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITION
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to one petition.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Committee of
Transport and Government Operations regarding the order of
reference of February 21, 2001, in relation to Bill S-2, an act
respecting marine liability, and to validate certain bylaws and
regulations. The committee has considered Bill S-2 and reports
the bill without amendment.
* * *
PETITIONS
CANADA POST
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition signed by a number of
Canadians who are concerned about the situation facing rural
route mail couriers today.
1505
The petitioners are concerned about the working conditions of
mail couriers. They point out that these hard working
individuals make less than minimum wage. They are not allowed to
bargain collectively. Their working conditions are reminiscent
of another era.
They call upon the government to repeal the section of the
Canada Post Corporation Act which prohibits rural route mail
couriers from having collective bargaining rights.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present a petition on
behalf of many citizens of Manitoba, several of whom live in the
riding of Winnipeg South Centre.
The undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the
House to the fact that the Government of Canada may be asked to
support the U.S. national missile defence program to be operated
by the North American aerospace defence command.
The petitioners call upon parliament to play a leadership role
in banning nuclear weapons in missile flight tests and to declare
that Canada objects to the national missile defence program of
the United States.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36 I am proud to present this petition which is signed by
numerous members of my constituency.
The undersigned appeal to the Parliament of Canada to strongly
urge the—
The Speaker: Order, please. I am reluctant to interrupt
the hon. member, but I am sure he knows it is not order to read
petitions. He can give a brief summary. I would invite him to
comply with the rules in every respect.
Mr. James Moore: Fair enough, Mr. Speaker. I am
presenting this petition on behalf of a number of my
constituents.
They are asking parliament to urge the government of China and
its president, Jiang Zemin, to release Falun Dafa practitioners
from jail and to encourage an open dialogue to allow them to
practise their chosen faith in their chosen way through freedom
of religion.
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise
in the House to present a petition from the good people of Nova
Scotia who are very concerned about oil and gas exploration off
the coast of Cape Breton.
They pray that parliament investigate the powers and the
undemocratic actions of the unelected Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore
Petroleum Board and the National Energy Board.
POVERTY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it also gives me great pleasure to
introduce a wonderful petition by my good constituents of Sheet
Harbour and Port Dufferin, Nova Scotia.
They are very concerned about the rise of poverty in Canada.
They would like the government to bring forth a budget that
eliminates child poverty.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on the
question of health care.
The petitioners of Victoria, British Columbia are very concerned
about Alberta's bill 11 and the creeping privatization of health
care in Canada. They pray that parliament will have some courage
and will stop the privatization of health care.
CANADA POST
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, workers at the North Sydney postal
terminal are very concerned about the fact that many of their
jobs will transferred to New Brunswick.
The petitioners pray that parliament not close the North Sydney
postal terminal.
TRADE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Finally, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of thousands of
Canadians, I present two great petitions on their concerns that
Canada will not be releasing the full text of the FTAA.
They pray that parliament ensures democracy will rule and that
they will be able to see the FTAA text before it is tabled and
seen by other countries.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The
first is from petitioners in British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
They join with thousands of other petitioners who have already
petitioned the government to request the funding and training
necessary for the provision of quality end of life care.
MARITAL SEPARATION CODE
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my second petition today joins
previous petitioners in calling upon parliament to implement a
national strategy to create a non-adversarial marital separation
code.
The object of the code would be to reduce tension and acrimony
among the parties and particularly to protect the children
involved.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased today to present a petition to the House signed by
1,300 British Columbians regarding their concern over genetically
modified organisms.
* * *
1510
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE
The Speaker: The Chair has notice of an application for
emergency debate from the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
under Standing Order 52 I have filed for an emergency debate
regarding a very serious issue facing Canadians. This would be a
non-partisan debate, Mr. Speaker, if you should be as forthcoming
as to allow it. It has to do with the potential problems the
country may face with respect to foot and mouth disease.
We have an $11 billion livestock industry in Canada. We do not
want this to be fearmongering. Nor do I wish it to be a partisan
issue. I simply want a venue in which members of parliament can
put forward precautionary measures that could and should be taken
by all Canadians, not only by those in the industry. The
measures could also be taken by tourists who come and go
throughout the country and by people who import and export on a
continuous basis.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and your office to please allow members
of the House the opportunity to put forward the protective
measures necessary for this terrible disease.
The minister of agriculture has today, with CFIA, put forward an
advertising campaign. I applaud the CFIA and the department for
allowing Canadians to have a better understanding of what we are
dealing with. What better place for parliamentarians to debate
the issue than in the House? That is why I ask you, Mr. Speaker,
in the good graces of your office, to allow us to do so.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris for bringing the matter to the attention of the
Chair. I have carefully considered his request and have decided
to allow it. The debate will take place tomorrow night at 8 p.m.
I trust hon. members will govern themselves accordingly.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an
act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to discuss Bill C-18 regarding equalization from the
federal government to the provinces. The bill, if passed, and I
expect the government will be able to get its members into the
House for an important vote like this one, would lift the cap off
equalization payments for the year 2000-01. Quite simply, that is
what the bill is about.
It is not a complicated piece of legislation. It deals
specifically with an issue and certainly would be a help and a
boon to the provinces that need increased equalization payments,
especially in this fiscal year.
As we are debating this bill today we know that the four
Atlantic premiers, including one of the only two Liberal premiers
in the country, are meeting in Charlottetown to discuss
equalization payments. Certainly what they are asking the
government to do and what we are expecting they will ask the
government to do is permanently lift the cap on equalization.
There are a number of reasons the government should seriously
consider measures such as lifting the cap on a permanent basis.
The concept of providing effectively level taxation or similar
levels of taxation and services across the country is perhaps the
very cornerstone of Canadian social policy. That was said in the
House not long ago by our finance critic, the member for
Kings—Hants. I would like to state—
Mr. John Herron: The vice-chair of the finance committee
is the member for Kings—Hants.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: He is the vice-chair of the finance
committee. He went on to say:
As a reflection of this importance, equalization is the only
transfer program that is actually enshrined in the Constitution
act. The goal of equalization, of providing equality of
opportunity across Canada, is extraordinarily important. We
should also recognize that a goal of equalization should be to
provide a ladder for provinces and individuals in those
provinces, those recipient provinces, to rise from their status
as recipient to the point that they can participate in the free
market economy fully.
1515
That is the nuts and bolts of the legislation. The equalization
system should under no circumstance provide barriers or
roadblocks to success for individuals and provinces as they try
to bootstrap themselves into a more prosperous economy. The
equalization system, as it is formulated, can create and
encourage a continued roadblock to success for these provinces.
That is perhaps the most fundamentally important issue in
equalization which has not been addressed and which needs to be
addressed.
The Conservative Party is concerned that the government, instead
of debating the issue, discussing it over the past five years and
trying to come up with an equalization plan that provides all
regions of the countries with opportunities to succeed, continues
with the same old tired policies that we need to revisit.
If we are ingenious about giving opportunities to recipient
provinces and about eliminating barriers to success, it will take
more than a few hours of debate in the House of Commons and some
witnesses appearing before the finance committee.
We need a new visionary approach to equalization. We need a new
equalization program that provides a ladder to success and not
barriers to success as this one does. Our party believes that an
equalization program is necessary and that we should continue to
protect and encourage equalization as a tenet of Canadian social
policy. We can make it better as parliamentarians.
There are a number of concerns from our provincial counterparts,
especially those in Atlantic Canada. Many of these concerns are
relative to natural gas revenues. Offshore natural gas and oil
revenues for some of the provinces affected, be it Nova Scotia or
Newfoundland, and the opportunities for Nova Scotians,
Newfoundlanders or Atlantic Canadians to bootstrap themselves
into some level of prosperity in the 21st century are largely
contingent on these revenues.
We should be very careful not to create a clawback through
changes in equalization. That is exactly what we have now, a
clawback that effectively eliminates and reduces significantly
the benefits being made by these provinces.
In the past governments made the mistake of trying to protect
regions of the country from risks of the future. In so doing
with social programming and reinvestment in times when the
government is not able to do that, we can create a very dangerous
precedent and a very dangerous set of political dynamics.
At no other time in the history of Canada has Nova Scotia been
positioned as well on the doorstep to the future as it is now. In
no other time since Newfoundland joined Confederation has it been
positioned as well as it is now to enter the country as a
full-fledged partner.
The vision of the federal government must do what it chose to do
from 1957 to 1965 in the province of Alberta when it allowed that
province to keep its equalization payments as well as its
revenues. If we had a similar program in Atlantic Canada for
five years, and if we allowed those provinces to keep their oil
and gas revenues as well as their equalization payments, in a
very short period of time they would be able to be contributors
to Canadian equalization instead of drawing on Canadian
equalization.
That is one instance. There are also other opportunities in
these areas: the gas fields on Sable Island, the stepout wells
that are being drilled this year, the deep water drilling that
will be taking place on the east coast, the potential of the
Laurentian sub-basin, the potential off Labrador, and the
additional wells being drilled off Hibernia. Newfoundlanders,
Nova Scotians, Prince Edward Islanders and New Brunswickers have
their foot in the door of the future.
The government has to show the vision to open that door wider.
We have had Premier John Hamm campaigning in Ottawa. He was in
Alberta a few weeks ago on his so-called campaign for fairness.
1520
This is not rocket science. This is simply saying that the
province, taking Nova Scotia as an example, manages to keep only
19 cents of every dollar of offshore oil and gas revenues in Nova
Scotia. The rest of the money, the other 81 cents, goes to the
coffers and fattens the revenues of the federal government.
There is something absolutely and incredibly wrong with that. We
should not have to discuss the fact that 81 cents go to the feds
and that 19 cents go to Nova Scotia. This is not the scale of
justice. It is not imbalance at all; it is completely out of
whack.
When Nova Scotia and Newfoundland signed the offshore accords,
the intent of those accords was to give undersea revenues to the
provinces that brought those revenues into Confederation. In
1867 when Nova Scotia joined Confederation, it brought with it
those offshore revenues because it controlled those revenues.
That became a net contributor to the economy and in the last 10
years it has been a huge contributor to the economy.
We have to find a way to ensure or enshrine, because the
legislation is protected in the constitution, that some of that
money goes back to the provinces from whence it came, whether
from Alberta with revenues that come from underground, whether
from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland with revenues that come from
offshore, or from any other province in the country. There has
to be some flexibility in the equalization system to accept
varying and differing circumstances at different periods in our
history. What we have now does not do that. We need some
positive change and soon.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for South Shore
talked about the fact that equalization or what Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland are asking for is not rocket science. It is not
rocket science when they are asking for something that no one
else gets, that is preferential treatment.
We should go back to the original principles of equalization.
The way equalization is supposed to work is that when a
provincial government gets better off by a dollar its
equalization goes down by a dollar. When its revenues decline
its equalization increases.
In rare circumstances the federal government has reached some
accommodations with certain provinces that departs from this. It
happened with Quebec for asbestos, Saskatchewan for potash, and
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland through special accords. Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland are allowed to keep 30 cents on the
dollar or more from revenues raised from offshore oil and gas.
It was in the 1980s that the governments of Nova Scotia and
Canada discussed the ownership of offshore resources. Both
governments agreed that Nova Scotia should be allowed to tax
offshore resources as if it owns them.
The member for South Shore talks about the offshore accord. Has
he skimmed through it and does he realize that once triggered
Nova Scotia is able to shelter about 90% of offshore revenues
against equalization? That comes down over 10 years or until it
is clawed back. However the equalization was never meant to
provide an ongoing benefit. It is meant to be a transfer from
the so-called have provinces to the have not provinces.
If oil and gas revenues from Alberta were also excluded, we
might be paying equalization to Alberta. How would the member
for South Shore feel about that?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I have read the
Canada-Nova Scotia offshore accord and it is obvious to me that
the member has not. He should pick it up and take a real good
hard look at it because the accord states that the bulk of the
revenues coming from the offshore should go to the province
involved, either Nova Scotia or Newfoundland.
1525
The separate side deal was for the Hibernia project.
Newfoundland got to keep 25% of its revenues because of the cost
of bringing the project on stream. It was a huge cost and some
of the technology developed for Hibernia was the first time that
it had ever been used anywhere on the planet.
The member's other question is really ludicrous. The principle
of equalization is that when a province makes a dollar the
federal government will claw it back. That is why we are
standing on our feet today discussing the issue. That is what is
not working.
If we read the history books and take a look at what happened
between 1957 and 1965 we find that Alberta kept its equalization
payments. Why not? It allowed the province the opportunity to
build its infrastructure, to dig itself out of the hole that it
was in and to climb up the ladder of opportunity.
We are saying all the provinces should be allowed to do that. It
would not be forever. We cannot expect to implement it forever.
The provinces should be given an opportunity to climb out of the
hole and to get on top of their debts instead of looking up at
them. They should be able to bring in the revenues they richly
deserve.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, with reference to the comments made by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I note that
it was his own Minister of Industry who as premier of
Newfoundland said that the government should seriously consider
allowing provinces for a period of time not to be penalized
through the welfare trap by withholding equalization payments
pursuant to growth through non-renewable resource revenues.
I would like to follow up the remarks made by member for South
Shore. At the outset they confused me. He said that he was in
favour of lifting the ceiling on equalization altogether. That
was not a position taken by his finance critic during his opening
remarks on the bill. Lifting the ceiling on equalization is a
matter entirely different from the substance of his remarks
related to non-renewable resource revenues.
If the member wants to lift the ceiling on equalization, the
federal government will ask that the floor be dropped, which
protects the provinces on the other side. He is treading into
very dangerous waters. I encourage him to focus on allowing
provinces more flexibility with respect to resource revenues than
completely changing the system. We might as well throw the
formula out if he lifts the ceiling, as the floor will go and the
provinces will suffer.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the member's
very good comment. We need a ceiling and a floor. The four
Atlantic premiers are meeting in Charlottetown as we debate the
bill. They are looking at the caps on equalization.
A press release is expected from them by 3 p.m. Atlantic time. I
will let them speak for themselves because it is always dangerous
to speak for someone else. However it is expected that they will
be asking for the caps to be removed in some fashion.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION REPORT—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Before I go to the
next speaker I want to rule on a point of order raised by the
hon. member for St. Albert last week.
On March 29, 2001, the 2000 annual report of the Canadian Human
Rights Commission was tabled in the House of Commons. At that
time the hon. member for St. Albert raised a point of order
concerning the fact that copies of the report were not available
for distribution, contrary to the usual practice for tabled
documents.
[Translation]
I made a commitment to review the situation and report back to
the House.
[English]
I understand that copies of the report were in fact available
for distribution. However the copies of the CHRC report were
packed in boxes under a second report from the commission, a
report on employment equity. Employees looking for the annual
reports could not immediately find them. Only after checking
back with the commission did we learn about the packaging of the
two reports and find the errant copies of the annual report.
These were then immediately made available to members.
I apologize to hon. members for any inconvenience caused by the
confusion that resulted from the simultaneous delivery of the two
reports. Members will be pleased to learn that steps have been
taken to avoid such a situation in the future.
* * *
1530
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an
act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is good to have an opportunity to participate in this
debate on Bill C-18, which really goes to the heart of what we as
New Democrats have been trying to do in the House and what so
many Canadians are concerned about.
It was interesting to hear the comments of the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I want to register concern
about his suggestion that opposition attempts to lift the ceiling
on equalization and to eliminate the cap are in any way, shape or
form preferential treatment for one province over another. His
comments do a great disservice to a fundamental concept, a
philosophical instrument, that has been very much a part of the
history of this country in shaping it into what it is today.
I am not sure what the parliamentary secretary's main point was
in raising his question on the Conservative member's comments
around lifting the ceiling, but it strikes me that what we are
hearing from both the Liberals and the Alliance in this debate is
a fundamental questioning of a principle grounded in the notion
of equality. Surely that is what the debate should focus on.
That is why it is so important for the government to hear and to
act upon the recommendation, which is not just to lift the cap
for the fiscal year 1999-2000 but to in fact lift it permanently.
Many of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have said very
eloquently how important equalization is as a principle in the
country. It has been said to hon. members in the House that
equalization is not only a moral principle but a constitutional
principle. In this debate, we are asking the question: if
something is a moral principle, is it not in fact morally
reprehensible to disband the concept entirely? Is it not morally
wrong to remove or to erode a program that has been fundamental
to the notion of equality in this country? If it is, as my
colleagues have said, a constitutional principle, is the
government not wrong not to address the error of its ways when it
so arbitrarily put a cap on equalization in the past, and is the
government now not wrong not to act to remove it forever?
That is the point of our submission throughout this debate. We
very much believe that equalization is there for a reason. It
has been part of our history for a long time in order to ensure
some measure of equality among all regions in the country. It is
in the constitution for a reason. It has been part of our
tradition as a nation in terms of building links from one end of
the country to the other.
It is our view that it was wrong on the part of the Liberals to
implement this cap on equalization in the first place and that it
is wrong of the government at this moment not to lift it
permanently. Obviously it is a small step in the right direction
to lift the ceiling on equalization for one fiscal year. That is
a tiny step. It is an improvement. It deals with some of the
concerns that have been raised. However, today is an opportune
time and this parliament is an opportune moment for the
government to put back in its entirety the full equalization
program, without its limitations, without its ceilings, without
its caps.
It is interesting to hear such clear support from the
Conservative member, the hon. member for South Shore, for lifting
the ceiling on equalization on a permanent basis. We appreciate
that support and that position. However, it is important to
point out that in many ways today we are in this dilemma of
trying to address and correct a major assault on social policy in
the country because of Conservative policies then and Liberal
policies now.
1535
I do not think we should let this moment pass without
remembering just what kind of damage has been caused to the
social fabric of the nation as a result of the Mulroney
Conservatives and now the Liberal government which has followed
so steadfastly not only in implementing but in adhering to and
accelerating the Mulroney Conservative agenda. It is worthwhile
to point out that we are really talking about a decade or more of
Conservative and Liberal cuts to social programs, a very
deliberate assault on our social policies, which is causing such
serious ramifications today and around which we are trying to
regroup to redress the errors of the past caused by these
governments.
It would be fair of us who have been working so hard on these
issues for more than a decade in terms of the right wing agenda
of both the Conservatives and the Liberals, at least from the New
Democratic Party's point of view, to draw the attention of the
House to the consecutive cuts and the slashing of programs over
the last while, starting with Brian Mulroney and the
Conservatives.
Let us not forget that it was under the Conservatives that a cap
on the Canada assistance plan was first introduced. Let us not
forget that the Mulroney Conservatives used three consecutive
acts to amend fiscal legislation in the country, putting funding
for education and health on very shaky ground. It was under
those steps taken by the Mulroney Conservatives that the country
faced the threat of seeing cash for health care and education
entirely dry up.
Under the Conservatives, the changes to the established programs
financing formula restricted growth in the formula and made it
such that given the combination between cash and tax points, cash
for health care and education would dry up in at least one
province by this year, right at this very moment as we are
speaking in the House today.
Incredible damage was done to our social policies, which had to
be corrected. Unfortunately, the Liberals came into office in
1993 and by and large continued with that kind of slashing and
hacking at our social policies and at our important health,
education and social assistance programs. Let us not forget, in
fact, that the Liberals promised in the 1993 election campaign to
redress those egregious errors and those horrific cuts of the
Conservative government. Instead, they very much perpetuated
that direction.
We had hoped that the Liberals, once back in power, would lift
the cap on CAP and would put back into the formula for health and
education arrangements in order to allow for growth in the
transfers to provinces, so that our provincial jurisdictions
could keep up with the growing threats to the preservation of
health care because of demands, needs and changes in the system.
Instead, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre pointed out
earlier, the Liberal government proceeded to make the most
regressive social policy change in the history of the country. It
took the single biggest bite out of financing and cash transfers
for health and education that we had ever seen in the history of
medicare.
Enormous damage was done by the Conservatives and it was
perpetuated by the Liberals. Today we are trying to catch up. We
are trying to address the fact our medicare system, our public
post-secondary education system and our equalization program, the
programs that are pride of our country, were dealt enormous
damage and are on very shaky ground in terms of meeting the needs
of Canadians. In fact, they are failing to do precisely what
they were intended to do, which was to ensure that all people in
the country, regardless of where they live or what community they
are from, regardless of their income, their cultural background
or their ethnocultural heritage, are able to access those
programs that are considered to be fundamental rights and
fundamentally part of what it means to be a citizen in the
country today.
1540
The Liberal approach has been very much a band-aid one in the
last number of years. We hear a lot of rhetoric about trying to
patch up the system, trying to move forward based on the
resources available and trying to do things in a balanced and
responsible way. However, the band-aids are so small and the
approach is so ad hoc that we are not able to put a stop to the
bleeding and actually start to build again for the future.
For example, I think of all the rhetoric and the great fanfare
from the government around money that it claims to have put back
into transfer payments. In the February 1999 budget the
government made a great deal of the millions of dollars being put
back. In fact, it turned out to be two cents for health care for
every dollar in tax cuts. Then of course last fall as we tried
to convince the government to take its responsibility seriously,
the answer was an supposed additional massive influx of money
through the federal-provincial agreement in the September accord.
That turned out to be enough money to get us back to 1994 levels.
This is hardly the kind of strategy and leadership that one
would expect if medicare was so central to who we are as a
country and if our social programs were so fundamental to the
very definition of what it means to be Canadian. The
parliamentary secretary does a disservice to the definition of
equalization when he talks in terms of preferential treatment.
Probably the accurate definition of equalization is as my
colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona put it: to
ensure a comparable level of public services in the country.
Regardless of the fiscal capacities of the province, regardless
of the wealth each province is able to generate based on natural
resources and other economic advantages, no one region should be
able to have greater benefits.
It would be fair to define equalization as something that was
instituted in order to allow provinces with lower fiscal
capacities to fund health, education and other provincial
programs at tax rates comparable to those in more affluent
provinces. That is certainly the understanding of provincial
governments. That is certainly the understanding of the
government in the province I come from.
In fact, I just quoted from a letter from the minister of
finance from the province of Manitoba. The parliamentary
secretary may very well be aware of a very detailed letter from
that province. I am sure he has received similar presentations
from other provincial finance ministers, who are all concerned
about the way in which this government has failed to address the
concerns that provinces brought to the table and also concerned
about the failure of the government to live up to the Prime
Minister's words and the commitment he made in September 2000. In
fact, the finance ministers in all of our provincial and
territorial governments are very mindful of those words and
hopeful because of the wording that was agreed to in the
communiqué around the September accord.
I would like to quote a sentence from that communiqué because it
shows just how much people and the provinces feel they have been
let down by the bill before us today, Bill C-18, and by the
failure of the government to restore the equalization program on
an ongoing basis and to lift the ceiling on equalization on a
permanent basis. That communiqué states:
First Ministers raised the issue of Equalization. The Minister
of Finance will examine this issue further after consultation
with provincial Ministers of Finance. While final revisions for
Equalization purposes for the fiscal year 1999/2000 likely will
not be known until October 2002, the Prime Minister agreed to
take the necessary steps to ensure that no ceiling will apply to
the 1999/2000 fiscal year. Thereafter, the established
Equalization formula will apply, which allows the program to grow
up to the rate of growth of GDP.
1545
The provinces believed from that communiqué that the ceiling on
equalization payments would be lifted for the year 1999-2000, as
specified in the bill, but they also expected the Prime Minister
to actively pursue an extension to that lifting of the freeze for
at least another fiscal year. They also expected to see the
Prime Minister and the government address their concerns for a
growth factor in the formula so that there would be some way for
less affluent provinces to keep pace with the needs and demands
on their systems.
As an example, I will outline the kind of impact this would have
for a province like Manitoba. Manitoba is a wonderful province
with great potential but it is not one of the most affluent
provinces. It depends very much on the federal government's
fairness and commitment to ensuring that cash transfers meet the
growing needs in the fields of health and education. It is a
province that depends heavily on the federal government to be
firmly committed to the notion of equalization.
In a letter to the government, the province of Manitoba pointed
out that its potential cost for 2000-01, given the government's
failure to lift the cap for that year, was about $100 million.
Application of the ceiling to 2000-01 equalization entitlements
may actually result in lower payments than for 1999-2000, despite
a significant increase in entitlement as generated by the
formula.
The minister of finance for the province of Manitoba, Mr. Greg
Selinger, goes on to make a very important case to the federal
government for lifting the ceiling on equalization for at least
another year and for the government to look seriously at the need
to fully restore the program as it was originally intended.
The most important message we can bring to the House today, in
hopes of shaking up the government and persuading it to amend the
legislation while it has a chance, is to appeal again to the
sense of what it means to be Canadian, what is a part of our
identity and what is very much central to any notion of national
unity in the country today. I do not think I need to repeat this
as many members have said it so eloquently. It is our notion of
equality between regions and between all people in the country.
What we bring to the debate is the notion based on an old cliché
“from each according to his ability to each according to his
need”. That is the essence of the debate. We are looking at
ways to ensure that the wealth of regions can be shared equally
across the country and that everyone has access to decent public
service, universal health care, education, decent housing, clean
water and clean air to breathe. Those are basics. That is the
role of the federal government. That is why we have the
equalization program.
I appeal to the parliamentary secretary, who I know has been
listening intently throughout the debate, to find a way to amend
the bill or to accept our amendment before pushing it through.
The government has the fiscal flexibility today to do that.
I hear the rhetoric time and time again. It is now time for the
government to show what it means to put its money where its mouth
is and lift the ceiling on the equalization program for not only
this fiscal year, which is referenced in the bill, but for the
next fiscal year, and to look at it as a permanent feature of our
system.
As has been noted so many times in the debate, it is a moral
principle, is it not? If it is, how can we in any sense of the
word dismantle a concept that is about equality and about
achieving that kind of adherence to that kind of moral principle?
If it is a constitutional principle, how in any way can we
justify that there should be a cap on a constitutional principle?
How can we justify a cap on morality? How can we justify a
ceiling on equality?
I appeal to the government to amend the bill and to act in the
best interests of all Canadians.
1550
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed the speech from the member for Winnipeg North Centre. I
thank her for raising many very important and very relevant
themes as they affect the province that we share, the province of
Manitoba.
I also thank her for reminding the House of Commons of the many
shortcomings of the Mulroney Tory government. Sometimes I think
people forget that a lot of the negative trends that we are
seeing lately and that we are actively fighting against found
their origins in the philosophy of the Mulroney Tories.
What is hard to imagine today is that even though the Mulroney
years were cruel, heartless, callous and meanspirited, many of us
look back fondly at those times because compared to the Liberal
government today, those times seem benevolent by comparison. The
Liberals have taken those trends farther than Mulroney ever had
the guts to do. Even though he warned us that we would not
recognize the country when he was through with it, frankly, after
seven years of Liberal government, we are starting to realize
that we do not recognize the very country that we are so proud of
building.
Would the hon. member elaborate a little bit more on the
equalization formula in the year following? We all understand
that relieving the cap for the year 1999-2000 is based on the
demands of the various first ministers and ministers of finance
as they met over the years. However, the reinstatement of the
cap in the year following, which, as I understand from the hon.
member's speech, could be at a rate lower than it was before and
would give us a one year holiday on the cap, may in fact end up
being a lower cap than it was originally. In other words, we are
going backward on this idea of greater equalization. That is the
first thing I would like her to comment on.
Second, would the member speak about the clawback ideas? Is it
not true that if we allowed some of the have not provinces to
keep the increased revenue that they might have instead of losing
dollar for dollar, they may climb out of the trap that they are
in now, relying on equalization solely?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
comments from the MP whose riding is next to mine in Winnipeg and
where we share many of the same concerns. These are two
constituencies where poverty is at a very high rate and where
people have felt the impact in real, human, hurtful terms of a
decade of Liberal and Conservative cuts.
It is important for us to remember, not just what the Liberals
have done in the last seven years but what the Conservatives did
leading up to that. Probably the best description of that came
from an article by Daniel Drache and Meric Gertler who, in
describing and summarizing the Conservative's policies, which fit
with those of the Liberals, said:
No area of government policy has been spared. Across a broad
front that includes not only trade but regional development, tax
and fiscal policies, old age pensions, family allowance, labour
market policy, social income programs, and collective bargaining,
the government has moved persistently and systematically to
reshape the institutional and legislative character of Canada.
Its strategy is to water down Canadian redistributional programs
so as to make them equivalent to the lowest common denominator,
and to cut the direct and indirect labour costs to business.
I think that sums up both the Mulroney Conservative agenda and
the Liberals today. We have been dealt one blow after another by
this government and I think the assault on our social programs
has to end.
The question pertaining to the impact of the failure to lift the
ceiling for the next fiscal year on a province like Manitoba is a
very good one and it is a serious problem. I have indicated the
impact it will have based on a letter from the Manitoba minister
of finance. He clearly indicated that with this kind of approach
by the government, Manitoba would be worse off than if the
government had just left well enough alone.
In his letter, the minister of finance for Manitoba said:
I would respectfully suggest that the removal of the
ceiling—especially for 2000/01—does not appear to be an issue
of affordability for your government.
Recently, your Department issued a press release, which stated
that the federal government would have a surplus in 2000/01 of at
least $10 billion. The revenue revisions that would result in
the ceiling being triggered would almost certainly imply that
federal revenue is substantially higher than your current
official projections.
1555
The case has been made by provincial governments for fiscal
affordability in terms of lifting the ceiling on equalization.
The case has been made by provinces like Manitoba about the very
serious impact that would occur if the government does not act.
The fact that the government of Manitoba, like other have not
provinces, would see a tremendous hardship in meeting its needs
without a lift on the equalization ceiling should be enough for
the government to act. That is the only reasonable approach.
I would hope that if the parliamentary secretary has not
thoroughly read this correspondence from Manitoba he will do so
and give us his comments and his feedback.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the
comments by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. In looking at
the federal transfers to Manitoba, a one year removal of the
ceiling on equalization payments was agreed to at the first
ministers' conference. Because of the pressures on equalization
payments, the Prime Minister agreed to lift the ceiling for the
year 2000. After that, it would be based on growth in GDP year
by year. It will go back to the original year so we will not
know what the equalization will be for another year or two once
all the numbers are in.
By lifting the ceiling on equalization payments, Manitoba would
receive a further $76 million, which would be the second highest
increase in equalization payments to Manitoba. In fact, if we
look at total federal transfers to Manitoba for the year 2000-01
it would be $2.3 billion. That would account for approximately
35% of Manitoba's estimated revenues. Canadians are doing a
pretty good job in terms of recognizing Manitoba's needs.
The member is quite right when she says that equalization is
meant to ensure that there is equality in services and programs
across Canada notwithstanding where one lives in Canada. It is
not an exact science but that is the intent. When provinces have
offshore revenues, the idea is to allow them to take advantage of
some of those revenues but over time to bring them back to the
intent of the equalization program.
I wonder if the member knows about the impact on Manitoba as a
result of lifting the ceiling and about how that is good news for
Manitoba.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, we again see the
failure of members of the Liberal government to recognize the
kind of damage their policies have done to provinces like
Manitoba over the last seven years.
It is true that there has been some reinjection of funds through
cash transfers and equalization by lifting the ceiling for one
year, but the amount that flows to a province like Manitoba and
the benefit to less affluent provinces still falls short and
hardly makes up for what was taken out of the system. We are
still dealing with an enormous shortfall and without the
resources to counter the growing demand on the system and changes
in the health and education fields that require a much more
balanced and involved approach by the federal government.
It is true that finance officials from all provinces thought
that lifting the freeze for one year would provide ample room to
accommodate entitlements over the present renewal period.
However, further work and recent estimates have proven these
projections to be incorrect. The current estimate of
equalization entitlements for the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the very
first year of the new arrangement, exceeds the ceiling by close
to $800 million.
1600
The Manitoba government goes on to indicate the impact on
Manitoba. If I had more time I would love to read into the
record every detail of the letter. Suffice it to say, the new
estimates show that the changes will not meet the demand and that
there is a real need on the part of provinces to extend the
ceiling on equalization.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The division on the motion
stands deferred until 6.30 p.m. tonight.
* * *
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
Hon. Jane Stewart (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997
and the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the
opportunity to speak today at second reading of Bill C-17.
The bill amends the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, by
providing funding increases for the Canada foundation for
innovation. It also contains amendments to the Financial
Administration Act relating to the Canada Pension Plan Investment
Board and the borrowing power of federal departments.
I will begin my remarks by discussing the additional funding for
the Canada foundation for innovation. I had planned to talk
about the history of the Canada foundation for innovation but I
think members in the House are familiar with the story. With the
bill, funding for the foundation will rise to $3.15 billion.
That demonstrates the government's commitment to fostering a
knowledge based economy and a climate of innovation.
I will move to the specific measures of the bill which pertain
to the CFI and I will explain the funding provisions in detail.
1605
The $500 million announced last October will be invested in two
ways. First, $400 million will allow the foundation to
contribute to the operating costs of new awards. Second, $100
million will help support the participation of Canadian
researchers in leading edge international research projects and
facilities that offer significant research benefits to Canada.
The recent announcement of an additional $750 million for the
CFI will build on that funding by providing additional stability
to universities as they plan their future research priorities. At
the time of the announcement the finance minister said:
Giving the knowledge economy of the 21st century a preferred home
in Canada will lead to higher incomes, better jobs and increased
opportunities for all Canadians.
In addition to establishing the Canada foundation for innovation
with a series of funding initiatives that now total $3.15 billion
the government has implemented other funding initiatives for
research over the past four years.
The initiatives include: one of the most generous R and D tax
regimes in the world; increased funding to the granting councils,
including the creation of the Canadian institutes for health
research, to maximize the advantage Canada enjoys in medical
research; funding of $900 million over five years for the Canada
research chairs program which would establish 2,000 research
chairs at Canadian universities; increased funding for the
network of centres of excellence; funding of $300 million for
Genome Canada; the sustainable development technology fund; and a
Canadian foundation for climate and atmospheric sciences.
[Translation]
As announced in the Speech from the Throne in January, the
government is committed to at least doubling its current federal
investment in R and D by 2010.
[English]
The Speech from the Throne also specified that during its
mandate the government intends to increase investment in granting
councils, accelerate Canada's ability to commercialize research
discoveries and turn them into new products and services, and
pursue a global strategy for Canadian science and technology so
that Canada can be at the forefront of collaborative
international research.
Increased funding for the Canada foundation for innovation, CFI,
is not the only component of the bill. Bill C-17 also contains
amendments to the Financial Administration Act which I will now
discuss briefly.
I should first explain that the financial administration of the
Government of Canada, the establishment and maintenance of its
accounts and the control of crown corporations all fall under the
purview of the Financial Administration Act, the FAA.
[Translation]
In addition, the Financial Administration Act sets out the
statutory framework under which the government can borrow money.
The Minister of Finance needs authorization from parliament
through borrowing authority acts before the government can borrow
new money. Authority to refinance maturing debt is contained in
the Financial Administration Act. The finance minister is also
responsible for debt management under the Financial
Administration Act.
[English]
The first FAA amendment in the bill concerns the Canada Pension
Plan Investment Board. When the Canadian Wheat Board Act was
amended in 1998, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was
inadvertently deleted from subsection 85(1) of the Financial
Administration Act.
The error meant that legally the Canada Pension Plan Investment
Board was subject to various crown corporation control provisions
under the FAA which put it in conflict with its own mandate.
Clearly that was not intended. Bill C-17 rectifies the
situation.
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board will again be included
in the list of crown corporations exempt from part X of the
Financial Administration Act. The change will be retroactive to
December 1998 to ensure that the Canada Pension Plan Investment
Board has always operated within the laws of Canada.
The second amendment reinforces the authority of parliament over
any borrowing by or on behalf of the crown.
It also strengthens the role of the Minister of Finance in
ensuring the appropriate management of government indebtedness.
1610
The amendment provides for greater certainty that it is
parliament that specifically authorizes borrowings made on behalf
of Canada. Bill C-17 ensures that all borrowings, not just money
but instruments like capital leases, are covered under section 43
of the Financial Administration Act and are subject to
supervision by the Minister of Finance.
In closing I will summarize. The amendments to the Financial
Administration Act are designed to improve the operation of the
act.
[Translation]
The changes to the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, to provide
additional funding to the Canada Foundation for Innovation and
extend its activities are consistent with the government's
commitment to at least doubling its current investment in R and D
by 2010.
[English]
The Canada foundation for innovation is about looking forward.
It is about education and investing in the future. In other
words, it is making a down payment today for a much greater
reward tomorrow. Let me quote the Minister of Finance when he
spoke on October 18. He stated:
—success in the new economy will not be determined by technology
alone, but by creating an environment of excellence in which
Canadians can take advantage of their talents, their skills and
their ideas.
The Canada foundation for innovation and its successes reflect
the minister's sentiments. The CFI deserves this increased
funding so that it can continue to promote research in Canada and
inspire young Canadian researchers, thus contributing to the
environment of excellence.
[Translation]
I am confident that hon. members from all sides of this House
will agree that investing in education, research and innovation
is the most significant investment Canadians can make to foster
future success.
[English]
Clearly the government is on the right track. I encourage hon.
members to give this legislation their full support.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the official
opposition in the debate on Bill C-17. I thank the parliamentary
secretary for mercifully abbreviating his remarks.
I will say at the outset that the bill, as the parliamentary
secretary has indicated, deals with amendments to two statutes.
One deals with funding for the Canada foundation for innovation
and the other deals with amendments to the Financial
Administration Act, the FAA. Neither are related, but the
government has decided to parcel them together in the one bill.
Both elements of the bill are evidence of how the government
approaches legislation in an inappropriate fashion.
Let me address the bill as it concerns the Canada foundation for
innovation. It proposes to give statutory authority to an
announcement already made by the Minister of Industry to increase
funding to the CFI by some $750 million.
I think many of my colleagues will share this sentiment: I find
it troublesome, to say the least, that parliament is constantly
putting forth legislation to authorize spending that has already
been announced as a fait accompli by the government, in this case
by the Minister of Industry.
Rather than coming before the House of Commons to seek the
authority of parliament before making public and political
commitments, the government ignores the ancient prerogatives of
parliament and abuses its executive authority. It makes
announcements outside this place and then later comes along to
say it needs parliament's approval. After 900 years of
parliamentary struggle to give representatives of the House of
Commons the power to scrutinize, reject or authorize the spending
plans of the crown, this is what we are facing.
This is just part of an endless pattern of the centralization of
power, the abuse of power and the contempt of parliament, not
just by this Liberal government, but its predecessor governments,
that increasingly diminishes the prerogatives of this place to
authorize spending.
1615
The government might say that it knows for sure that it will get
these things passed anyway. How does it know that? The last
vote which I was at in this place the government lost. We cannot
be certain that announcements made by the Minister of Industry
will end up as authorized appropriations by this parliament.
There is no certainty in that. To assume otherwise is to
exercise a great degree of arrogance.
Also I found it troublesome that the Minister of Industry, that
very thoughtful, reflective gentleman and that great contributor
to public policy debate in this country, announced this. The
Minister of Industry, that great friend of industry, through the
Voisey's Bay debacle acted like the dictator of a banana republic
by telling a private company that it could not, after having
received all regulatory authorization, benefit from its private
investment in a major capital investment in his own province. It
is an embarrassment that he is the Minister of Industry.
When the minister stood up about a month ago and made this
announcement of $750 million for the Canada foundation for
innovation, he did so in a context that was completely without
any reference in the federal so-called mini budget, the finance
minister's political statement of last October and in lieu of a
conventional spring budget. He announced nearly $1 billion in
new public spending without any broader fiscal context.
We find this troublesome. The fact that he did so at the very
end of the fiscal year, which ended this past week, is part of
the pattern of spend it or lose budgeting, or March madness, of
which this government is a brilliant practitioner. Departments
know if they do not fully exhaust money which is on the table or
which is available in a given fiscal year, it will be returned
and will not be available to them to spend in future years.
The government tells us that this $750 million, and I look
forward to questioning representatives of the ministry at
committee on this point, will be spent over the duration of
something like 10 years. I asked officials in a briefing whether
the $750 million would be spent in 10 years. They said “No,
something like 10 years”. What does that mean? It is nearly a
billion dollars of tax money and the government is not even sure
over what duration this will be rolled out.
One thing is for sure. The government wants to book it all in
this current fiscal year as part of the well established
practice, which has been much criticized by the auditor general,
of trying to diminish the size of the surplus in any given fiscal
year for political reasons. Then the government can turn around
and tell taxpayers that it is sorry it cannot afford to give more
real, meaningful tax relief because the surpluses are just not
big enough. Year after year we hear this sad story, precisely
because the surpluses have been overwhelmingly consumed by huge
spending projects and the March madness represented by the
announcement which found its way into the bill.
Major spending commitments ought to come before this place in a
budget speech in parliament before they are announced by a
hyperpolitical minister, like the minister responsible for
industry. They ought to be authorized by this place in the
context of an overall, long term fiscal plan.
Many private sector economists are agreeing with the official
opposition in its assessment that the government's spending
program is out of control.
Its spending this year will be $35 billion higher than it was
projected to be the year before last. That is discretionary
spending. That does not include things like the increases for
CHST. Spending is out of control.
1620
We see that Canada is headed into choppy economic waters. Growth
projections for the current calendar year have been on average
cut in half from where they were when the minister's political
statement came out in October. At that time he projected a 3.5%
growth. We are now looking at an estimated growth of something
like 1.5% to 2% this year. That will clearly have an impact on
government revenues.
Many economists suggest that in the second quarter of the year,
which we are now entering, there will actually be a flat, if not
negative growth in Canada. We have a dollar which is teetering
on the brink of a near record historic low, having lost 25% of
its value under the tenure of the government. Our dollar is now
declining against that famed currency, the Mexican peso. The
government's reaction is “don't worry, be happy” and that it
does not need to bring forward a budget, as is the convention in
the House, this spring or even next fall. When the Prime
Minister decides by fiat that he is going to deign to come before
parliament with a budget he will do so and not before then,
notwithstanding that the entire economic landscape has changed
dramatically since this government's political statement in
October.
Instead of coming before us with a framework to control spending
in light of these new realities what does the government do? It
presents piecemeal major new spending programs which have not
been accounted for in the overall fiscal framework and which have
no recognition of the new economic circumstances in which we find
ourselves, through the nearly $750 million proposed in the
budget.
While we have great consternation about the manner in which this
is handled, the amount of spending and the lack of a budgetary
authority for it, the official opposition does in principle
support the policy objectives of the Canada foundation for
innovation. We believe that Canada needs to greater investment in
both the public and private sectors in research and development,
particularly with respect to hard applied sciences. We have long
been an advocate of this kind of policy.
It has been widely remarked that Canada's expenditures and
investments in research and development are significantly lower
than the average in the OECD and the G-7. This is something we
need to correct. Toward that end the Canadian Alliance policy
states:
We will appoint a Senior Advisor on Technology with private
sector technology experience to report directly to the Prime
Minister. We will bring the best ideas in business, government,
and universities together to facilitate the transition to the new
economy and position Canada as a global leader. We will increase
support to Canada's research granting councils and appoint a
chief scientist of Canada to co-ordinate science activities in
all government departments and ensure that science, not politics,
prevails.
We also committed further to that in our election platform an
increase in funding for research and development to the various
granting councils of some $500 million, an amount far exceeded by
the bill before us today. While we believe it is important that
both the public and private sectors invest more in R and D, we
think that must happen within the context of fiscal
responsibility. That means every dollar must be watched with
great care.
Another concern that my colleague, the member for Calgary
Southwest and critic for science and technology for the Alliance,
raised was the manner in which these public moneys were allocated
through granting councils, such as the CFI. He interrogated the
Minister of Industry on this point at the industry committee,
that the government had no clear and impartial framework for
granting moneys out of foundations such as the CFI. Also, there
was no clear certainty that grants would be done in a completely
non-political way and strictly on their merits, as pointed out by
the auditor general.
1625
There is no proper reporting on the administration of the grants
at research institutes and universities, nor does parliament get
proper feed back on the results so we can see what bang taxpayers
are getting for their buck.
These are all things that need to be changed. The government
constantly comes before parliament or its committees with new
ideas about spending on science, technology, research or
development. There is a proposal now for major new funding for
astronomy. There are various other projects on the table, all
which have been dealt with in a piecemeal fashion.
We in the official opposition, and I think my colleague from
Calgary Southwest will later speak to in this bill, believe there
is a need for a broader framework for funding of science,
technology, research and development rather than the kind of
political piecemeal approach which we have before us in this
bill.
Let me turn my attention to the second section of the bill with
respect to the legislation affecting the Canada pension plan
investment board and its adherence to the Financial
Administration Act.
I find it quite humorous because there are two things that
happen in the bill. First, clauses 4 and 5 of the bill clarify
the borrowing authority that departments, crown corporations and
agencies have. They clarify what we all know ought to be the
case, and thought was the case, that parliament delegates to the
Minister of Finance the authority to borrow certain sums and he
has the delegated authority to authorize or reject borrowing
requests from various departments, agencies, boards and
commissions.
It turns out that due to typical legislative errors on the part
of the government, there are a couple of departments that are not
covered by this convention, or legal tradition, of delegated
borrowing authority. The Department of National Defence,
apparently, had obtained a legal opinion indicating that it had
the power to borrow money on its own without any authorization
from the Minister of Finance or authorization by parliament. The
legal officials in the defence department and the justice and
finance departments had a great brouhaha over the past year about
whether or not defence department bureaucrats could borrow money
without proper legal authorization by this parliament and the
minister.
How could we have let that situation get out of control? It is
quite conceivable that they could have gone out, done so and
contravened a long standing convention of parliament, which is a
restriction on the borrowing authority. Because of the
government's incompetence and oversights it has taken years to
finally come forward with this amendment to tighten up and
clarify the delegation of the borrowing authority saying that
bureaucrats cannot charge money on the public credit card and
tell taxpayers to “pick up the bill, see you later”.
Today it could happen. After this bill it will not be able to
but this has stood for far too long without correction on the
part of the government.
Then we get to my favourite section of the bill, clause 6. It
is really quite marvellous. The government House leader is so
proud of his legislative prowess. The problem is that he so
often brings bills before this place that are riddled with
drafting errors. I spoke about this in debate on Bill C-22. We
were making all sorts of corrections to legislation to correct
mistakes made in drafting errors in bills brought before
parliament by the government.
Hon. Don Boudria: They're legislative improvements.
Mr. Jason Kenney: The House leader calls them legislative
improvements. Sometimes they are euphemistically referred to as
housekeeping amendments. It just sounds so pleasant.
The real ugly face of it is legislative incompetence on the part
of the government. The House leader is the first, whenever the
opposition drags out debate on a bill as we occasionally do, to
raise the alarm about the cost to parliament and the value of
debating time in this place.
1630
We spend hours, days and weeks in every session debating bills
such as this one, which are, in substance, corrections to
legislative errors that the government made in the first place.
If the government got these things right in the first place, we
would not be spending scarce parliamentary time debating
legislative errors such as those contained in Bill C-17.
Sometimes these errors are not just of a minor, technical or
dilatory nature. Sometimes they are very serious and grave
mistakes. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is a good
example. In the immediate past parliament, the government
introduced Bill C-2 in order to make some major changes to the
Canada pension plan and to authorize and introduce the single
largest tax increase in Canadian history. My colleagues will
recall that massive tax grab that will cost tens of billions of
dollars. They brought—
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I did not want to interrupt my colleague on the other side, but I
was just wondering about the relevance of what he is speaking
about. I have been listening very carefully and I thought we
were debating Bill C-17, which has to do with the Canada
foundation for innovation and the Financial Administration Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sure the hon.
member for Calgary Southeast has listened to the comment and that
he will tie his remarks to the bill.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I am doing precisely that.
This is an indication that the parliamentary secretary does not
even know what is in his own bill. I am talking about the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board, which is precisely what clause 6
of the bill refers to. No wonder the government makes
legislative mistakes when the parliamentary secretary responsible
for managing the debate on the bill does not even know what is in
it. We see this time and again.
The parliamentary secretary wants to know what the relevance is.
If he would listen maybe he would learn something.
With regard to Bill C-2, members of the official opposition
raised grievous concerns about the $120 billion in equity, which
belonged to Canadian taxpayers, that was taken from them through
the CPP payroll tax. The amount will reach $120 billion in about
the year 2015.
We raised grievous concerns about the potential for this or
future governments to reach their politically motivated hands
into that $120 billion pot of taxpayer money and to abuse the
fund either by appointing patronage appointees to the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board or by directing its investment
strategy by stripping cash out of it.
The government at the time said that we should not worry, that
we should not be alarmist because there will be safeguards in
place, that the bill will be exempted from the Financial
Administration Act, and that the finance minister will not be
able to muddy himself in the business of the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board.
Well, lo and behold, what happens? The parliamentary secretary
tries to just skate over the issue very briefly hoping that no
one would notice. When it comes to complex and technical
legislation we often do not have the time or expertise to
understand it, but the parliamentary secretary said that clause 6
in the bill would exempt the CPP Investment Board from part 10 of
the Financial Administration Act, “to ensure retroactively that it
always operates as it was intended.”
What does that mean? It means that there was a drafting error
or a legislative mistake. I do not know if it was a mistake or
if it was deliberate, but today the CPP Investment Board is
covered under of part 10, subclause 85(1) of the Financial
Administration Act, which means that the finance minister could
today, through a ministerial order, strip cash out of the Canada
pension plan fund. He could hire or fire officers who are
employees of the CPP Investment Board. He could change their
compensation. He could reject their business plan.
The minister has all sorts of financial powers to intervene in
the operation of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This
is precisely what we were concerned about when we debated Bill
C-2.
1635
That is the state of things today. The Liberals now say that it
was a mistake. It has taken them four years to figure it out and
finally correct it. That is four years too long.
The opposition will support the amendments. However we will
bring forward one of our own that is similar to an amendment that
we introduced at report stage of Bill C-2. The amendment would
ensure that the operations of the Canada Pension Plan Investment
Board are subject to scrutiny by the auditor general. My
colleague, the chair of the public accounts committee and our
treasury board critic, will be bringing an amendment forward to
that effect.
This is another example of the government committing to spend
money without proper parliamentary authorization. It is doing
this without a budget at a time when spending is growing far too
quickly and when we are headed into choppy economic waters. That
is grounds enough upon which to oppose the bill. The government
is also seizing the parliamentary agenda to correct serious
mistakes which it has made.
It would be refreshing if the parliamentary secretary or his
minister would stand in this place and take some responsibility
for the mistakes which they and the department have made in
allowing the minister to monkey around with the business of the
CPP investment board, and in allowing bureaucrats and the defence
department to borrow money without proper parliamentary
authority.
The government is undermining the long and important tradition
of ministerial accountability and responsibility. It feels that
it can make these kinds of serious mistakes with impunity. The
Canadian Alliance feels that it should be held accountable for
these kinds of errors. There should be some sort of
accountability when time after time it seizes the parliamentary
calendar to correct serious mistakes of this nature.
I will make one additional very amusing point regarding clause 6
of the bill. The parliamentary secretary said that the clause
would retroactively ensure that the bill always operates as
intended. Is that not kind of Orwellian? The government made a
retroactive amendment in the bill. George Orwell's 1984
talks about the ability of totalitarian governments to change
history and facts that have already occurred.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Kind of like a retroactive bill of sale.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes, it reminds me of that marvellous
bill of sale in the Shawinigate affair. The government says it
would never have made the mistake that it is now seeking to
address because the change is retroactive.
What complete and utter nonsense. It is an insult to the
legislative process to suggest that. If the finance minister
wanted, he could interfere inappropriately in the activities of
the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board because of its
non-exemption from the Financial Administration Act. That would
be completely within his legal purview. Changing this
retroactively will not remove the mistake the government made.
Again we see retroactive changes in legislation that in principle
are somewhat offensive. The notion that the government can
retroactively change history is contrary to logic and common
sense.
For all these reasons the official opposition will oppose Bill
C-17. I look forward to the debate and hearing from my
colleagues as they outline ways by which we could increase
financial accountability on the part of the government and invest
more in research and development, but do so in a context that is
fiscally responsible and mindful of the choppy economic waters
into which we are headed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Before resuming debate it is
my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are
as follows: the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Lumber
industry; the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore, Multiculturalism.
1640
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just to put
everyone in context, today we are debating Bill C-17, an act to
amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, and the Financial
Administration Act.
This is the result of several announcements made by the
government regarding, among others, the reinvestment of a further
$750 million in the Canada foundation for innovation, in addition
to the $500 million announced last October in the economic
update.
In their eagerness to go to the polls, the Liberals brought down
a minibudget, which turned out to be the real budget. Since there
is no budget this year, this is how they are putting money into
the Canada foundation for innovation.
I will talk mostly about this part of the bill and support for
research in general, and less about the other measures contained
in this bill, which amends several other acts to correct
mistakes, as mentioned earlier, or add things that were missing
or corrections that had to be made to the Financial
Administration Act.
The federal government, after going through an era of major
cutbacks—mainly in 1995, 1996 and 1997—has now started to
reinvest in support for research. Granting councils and many
other bodies were hit hard, and they had urgent needs. However,
they had to wait and this had a negative impact on their ability
to support research.
Similarly, cash transfers were drastically cut. As we know,
transfer payments to the provinces were used to fund three
different programs for health, education and social assistance.
They were cost shared programs. However, the money was earmarked
and we knew how much of the transfer payments went to social
assistance, health and education.
Not wanting to be blamed for making $1 billion cuts in health
care, $1.5 billion cuts in education and $800 cuts in welfare,
the federal government decided to roll these three programs into
one, which it called the Canada health and social transfer. Then
it reduced the funding under this new transfer, letting the
provinces decide exactly where to cut in those three areas.
The cuts were drastic. Transfer payments fell from about $17.5
billion to $18 billion to a low of $11.5 billion, which meant the
provinces had to make cuts in health care and post-secondary
education. Of course the latter includes a research component.
Now that the government has the financial means to do something,
its first tendency is not to increase transfer payments.
It did increase them slightly but mainly for health care.
Everybody agrees that health care is important but the
government invested very little money in post-secondary
education. This is due to the fact that it chose a more visible
way of investing in that area, a way which could be effective to
a certain extent.
We are not disputing this but the government made this choice
not for the sake of effectiveness but rather because it wanted
more visibility than it would have had by simply putting more
money in transfer payments so the provinces, including Quebec, could
support research initiatives based on their own
priorities.
We are not talking about petty cash. We are talking about
substantial amounts. Of course the granting councils have seen
their budgets increase. I could name each of them individually
but this is not what we want to do today. However, these
councils' regular core budgets are being increased.
It has been said that the government wants to double the
research effort by 2010. A timetable has been established and the
reinvestments are major. There is therefore a reinvestment aspect
in the granting councils.
1645
University research chairs have also been established. We are
talking about several university chairs, with a lot of money.
Funding for this program will be in the hundreds of millions of
dollars over the next few years.
The third component is the Canada foundation for innovation also
mentioned in the bill. The foundation will receive $750 million
more than originally planned. It has already received more than
$3 billion or has assets of over $3 billion. This is a lot of
money.
Later on I will talk about some difficulties, some problems
that are still unsolved. I will first talk about the first
problem that we have with an organization such as the Canada
foundation for innovation, without criticizing the people who
work for the foundation. It is something governments tend to do,
particularly the current government. The same thing happened with
the millennium scholarship fund. The same is happening with the
Canada foundation for innovation. The government is funding an
external organization that does not have the same accountability
toward parliament as the department itself.
For members of the opposition, and it should be the same for
the government members, it is a bit frustrating to see such huge
amounts of money being given to people who are not directly
accountable. Of course they are accountable to parliamentary
committees but they do not have to justify their decisions here
every day.
When a minister is questioned on some contentious issue or a
decision that is not in sync with the priorities of the
government or of parliament, it is something that has to be dealt
with outside the chamber. The minister says that it is an
independent agency that carries out its duties as best it can and
that the minister cannot always interfere in the operations of such
agencies.
Things happen. Take, for instance, the Canada foundation for
innovation. More so outside Quebec but even in several regions in
Quebec, smaller universities are complaining because they do not
have the same capacity as the bigger universities to get the
funding and the projects they want.
We have a moral influence over the foundation. We can raise this
problem and, in fact, we will do so tomorrow. The chair will be
at the committee hearing and we will be able to consider the
issue. Parliament put money into this foundation but not without
adding some requirements as specific as the ones I just
mentioned. That left us with no influence over these decisions
and no influence over a minister who would have some say because
the money would be spent by his department.
The corrective measures are way too slow and too complex and
there is still the problem of accountability. We are talking
about public funds. Taxpayer money is handed out to outsiders
who have to abide by some rules, but are not subject to the same
process as a minister who has to manage a department and account
daily for his actions.
If this principle is that good, we will end up—and the process
is well underway—handing over all government operations to
outside agencies.
What role will be left for parliament to play? We cannot support
this, whether it is a lofty cause or not. We cannot let the
government send money to an outside agency saying “Now you can
manage this money as you see fit. We trust you”.
What I have left unsaid is that appointing board members is a
way for the government to keep some degree of control. However,
this process involves a very small group of people. Very often it
involves the Prime Minister, since appointments are made by his
office, or the minister himself in the best case scenario.
Whatever the case may be, it still creates a situation where the
minister and the Prime Minister can influence the board of
directors or the senior officers of an organization.
Of course the foundation is sort of a more noble organization.
The heads of the granting council are there to ensure a certain
cohesion but the fact remains that it should not be
independently managed. We have no problem with the department
being accountable here. At any rate, when the time comes to make
decisions of a more delicate nature, nobody can be sure that
these people will have enough neutrality to resist pressure from
those who appointed them. It is pressure at a very high level.
Pressure at another level, more appropriate pressure, namely
pressure from the people and their elected representatives, is
much more indirect and much more difficult to exert. That is the
first problem.
1650
For the second problem, taking the case of Quebec, which is in
the process of developing a science policy, it is hard to set
oneself targets, objectives and a work plan when one has control
over only part of the tools. Obviously, there is also health
research, but I will focus more on the education sector because
this is generally where there is more investment in funding
councils and the foundation. The same logic could apply to
health, however.
These are matters that are essentially provincial but there is
a significant portion still administered by Ottawa, or subject to
made in Ottawa decisions or priorities, even if only on the
amounts allocated. After that, the areas of focus need to be
defined.
When the money is there, the complications of jurisdiction are
not something that anyone needs. The government has stupendous
financial means and uses that financial clout to become the
government that plans future priorities. For many
Canadians, this is fine with them.
As for us in Quebec, the principal government of the people is
the government of Quebec. While it does administer
post-secondary education, it does not have all
of the means to properly plan the development of its science
policy.
Adjustments do need to be made. There is always some
way of doing contortions in order to make ends meet. Our system
of universities is highly efficient and so is our research. We
have no complaints about the amount of funding our universities
can manage to get together, for they are successful at getting
the job done. They are very good.
However, it becomes difficult to be consistent in this kind of
situation.
These are the two main problems: accountability and the
increasing inability of the provinces to influence the framing of
a real scientific policy because Ottawa is using its accumulated
surpluses—which came from cuts in transfers, from the EI fund,
and so on—to play a planning role and to impose its own vision.
There is no doubt about that, as evidenced by the fact that the
federal government is not reinvesting any significant amount of
money in transfer payments for post-secondary education. It has
reinvested some money in health care but very little in
post-secondary education. New funding in this area is
administered by the federal government or by an agency appointed
by it, that is closer to it.
I cannot ignore one area of criticism that is beginning to
emerge but it is constructive criticism. Now that we have said
that we would prefer this not be an independent organization, the
ideal situation would be to put the money back into transfer
payments to the provinces so they can do that themselves, we know
it will be very difficult to convince Liberal members to support
us in that regard. The day will come when people will be able to
settle this debate or to put more pressure so we can at least be
more consistent in our actions, instead of having two governments
acting separately. This will not always lead to bad results but
very often it makes things more difficult. A lot of time is
wasted in co-ordination.
Another thing the government must realize is that with all
these investments in research chairs, the Canada foundation for
innovation and granting councils, two very serious problems are
emerging. Clearer directions will have to be given in the short
term to correct a problem which, if we wait too long, will become
even more serious and create a lot of difficulties, especially
for small universities.
Let us be clear. There are not many big universities in Canada.
The vast majorities of our universities are small. In Quebec, for
example, the Université du Québec network is considered to be a
small university by Canadian standards. We have the Université
de Montréal, McGill University and maybe the Université Laval
that might be called big universities.
Quite often smaller universities cannot rely on private
foundations, unlike McGill University in Quebec, or on bequests
left to them by some rich donors. Without such financial
assistance, they have a hard time covering the indirect cost of
the projects. The bigger universities have the same problem but
at least they have more leeway than the smaller ones.
1655
Since smaller universities do not have their own source revenues
and cannot cut their education budget, because they do have
classes to give and not only research to carry out—when they ask
granting councils for a subsidy, indirect costs are incurred.
From what people in the know tell me, on average, for every
project, we have to add 40% for indirect costs.
Provincial programs in Quebec, for instance, pay for about a
third of these indirect costs and the rest of the money has to
come from elsewhere, by cutting something or making hard choices.
Trying to get the money needed to do research can often
penalize universities.
This applies to both the bigger universities and the smaller ones. I
believe things are tougher for smaller universities because they
have fewer tools and fewer choices when cuts have to be made and
priorities need to be set. If we do not react quickly, the gap
between the bigger universities and the smaller ones will only
widen.
The other problem faced by smaller universities is that project
approval is based on peer review, which is carried out by a
network of peers, and they do not feel like they are really a
part of the network.
When these tools were brought in, they were not as ready as the
big universities, which already had their waiting lists, their
contact networks and so on, as well as a much stronger lobbying
capacity. They feel they are at a disadvantage because of the
initial commitments that were made.
This is even more true in other provinces where small
universities have their own specialized areas. Some of them were
successful in the first phases. We will have to remember that.
As with the chairs and all those tools, if we do not pay special
attention to our small universities, they will have difficulty
retaining their good researchers when the big universities or
foreign universities from the States or elsewhere come to
raid our researchers. This is an emerging problem that could
become very serious.
Everybody recognizes that we have to make efforts to keep our
researchers in the country and to make sure that our best minds
are not exported but if this is true for Canada as a whole, it
is also true for the small communities and for the small
universities. I certainly hope the government will soon find
ways to solve the problems of small universities as compared to
bigger universities and of indirect research costs.
Would the best solution be to tell the provincial governments
“Listen, we know that you already have formulas to compute
payments. We will put money back into transfer payments so that
you can better support indirect costs”? It would be one
solution. There could also be automatic amounts.
When the granting councils provide funding, they could
immediately include with it an envelope to help with indirect
costs, as do American granting councils.
There is one problem. There is a link missing in the whole
research incentive operation. Considerable efforts are being
made, admittedly, to increase research capacity. There is also a
message that needs to be sent to the private sector.
As elected officials, we have a duty and a responsibility to get
that message across. Research efforts in any country must not
be the sole responsibility of the government. The government
must do its part but there is something a little disturbing in
Canada.
I will take the case of Quebec. We have very good tax credits
and many tools. The private sector has also come up with some of
its own, although not as many as comparable countries.
A way must be found to stimulate the spending culture, or
investment in research, within private enterprises, because
their ability to be competitive depends on it. It is not always
solely the government's responsibility. Yes, the government
must do its part. It must increase its contribution but private
enterprise must not shirk its duty to conduct research and
always look to the government for help.
The government will always have much of a monopoly on
certain very specialized fields, even if there are economic
spinoffs. This is clear because there are fewer private
enterprises, or because their size does not allow them to
conduct certain more fundamental research activities. Here
again there must be a more direct dialogue with the private
sector to ask it why it is not doing more research than it is at
the present time.
1700
Private enterprise is doing more, or trying to do more, but
there is room for more to be done.
My other colleagues would perhaps like to address certain other
aspects of the bill with which I am less familiar. I am more
familiar with the Canadian foundation for innovation.
We will not be voting in favour of the bill for the reasons I
have given. First, because allocating money to outside
organizations puts them somewhat beyond the control of
parliament, if not considerably beyond its control. Second, it
is odious and has potential for considerable inconsistency for
governments to be competing in the area of public support of
research.
I cannot speak for all the provinces but I can speak of Quebec,
with which I am familiar. Quebec has a science policy. Ottawa
has and spends a lot of money. One does not get the impression
that all this spending is necessarily aimed at efficiency alone.
There is always a kind of war of visibility being waged by Ottawa
and no one finds this healthy.
No one can fault reinvestment in research. That is something on
which we will all agree. However, the primary motivation must be
efficiency and nothing else. I have some doubts on the
government's motivations in this area.
I am convinced
that within these organizations, even within the government
itself, there are some people whose main concern is efficiency, I
am convinced that when the powers that be allocate money, the
notion of visibility is foremost in their mind.
It has been the case with every decision since 1995, by this government,
which is slightly paranoid,
thinking that people supported the yes side for this
reason, because they had not noticed how effective the government
was or because they had seen it as less effective than it really
was. This is something we will debate again when the time comes.
With regard to the bill before us today, we will be voting
against it for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I urge the
government to pay attention to the problems emerging between
small and big universities.
Small universities want to expand. They want to retain their
scientists but indirect costs and possible raiding from other
universities are a problem. And of course there is raiding from
foreign universities, but we have no control over that. I am
thinking about raiding on the part of our major universities if
they are able to raise money faster than our smaller
universities.
This is a very real problem for smaller universities. The
university in Rouyn-Noranda is very effective, one of the most
effective in Quebec in terms of getting funding for research. I
know other universities are effective as well; also partnerships
are formed.
There is something positive in all this funding issue, namely
networks are being created more than ever before. Universities
are forming partnerships and I am convinced they are possible in
many areas, to find a niche. Universities are faced with similar
situations. They can establish partnerships but they need the
resources to do it and right now they do not have enough to pay
indirect costs.
This is the message I wanted to send. Tomorrow, we will have the
opportunity to repeat our message to the chair of the Canada
foundation for innovation, who will be appearing before the
committee, but for the time being we are saying to all the
members of the House and to the government that we want more
consistency. We also want smaller universities to have the same
ability to grow as the bigger ones.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say a few words in the debate on the
bill before the House today. In a way it is an omnibus bill and
it deals with a couple of radically different items.
The first one is the appropriation of considerable sums of money
to the Canada foundation for innovation. In fact we would
appropriate, if this bill passes in the House of Commons, $1.25
billion to that particular foundation. The other item deals with
a small but important change to the Canada pension plan.
I notice a greater propensity now on the part of the government
to introduce omnibus bills and I think it is wrong in principle.
We are dealing with two fundamentally different items here, and
it would be easier to vote intelligently on a bill like this if
these items were separate.
1705
We have just come through that with Bill C-8, the changes to the
financial institutions legislation. There were massive changes
in the bill, which was 900 pages thick and amended 1,400 pages of
statutes. That makes it difficult for members of parliament to
properly scrutinize bills.
That being said, in terms of the Canada pension legislation
change here I would like to say a few words about the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board. They are important to put on the
record. The investment board is an innovation of the Government
of Canada, whereby a small portion of CPP deductions from
employers and employees will be or are invested privately in the
stock market. Overseeing that investment in the stock market and
advising where to invest is of course the new investment board of
the Canada pension plan. The board has 12 directors. If my
memory serves me correctly there is one director per province,
which makes nine, because the Quebec pension plan is a totally
separate organization and institution, and three from the federal
government. The chair of the board is named from among those 12
people. The Minister of Finance will seek advice from each of
the provincial ministers of finance and then appoint the 12
members of the board.
What is missing here is a small move to democratize the board.
The Canada pension plan is a plan which has ordinary Canadian
workers' money in it, so I think that on the board there should
be representatives of the working people themselves, from trade
unions, from retirees, who can provide valuable advice regarding
the investments of the board. When we are looking at the
investment of workers' money this should be one of the amendments
the government should accept, that is, to have on the board
people who represent the workers and the trade unions themselves.
That is only fair in terms of dealing with the workers' money.
There should be representatives of the workers on the board. That
is a fundamental principle of democracy and it is important in
order to democratize that particular institution.
In terms of the Canada foundation for innovation, I think all
parties in the House are in support of the concept or the
principle that we need more money for research and development.
If we look at the history of our country, we will see that we are
one of the few industrialized countries in the world that does
not put much of our GDP into research and development. We have a
very small proportion of our GDP in research and development
compared to the United States, Germany, France or many countries
in western Europe. We have to move more in that direction in
terms of money going into R and D. This is a bill that is going
in the right direction in those terms.
The Canada foundation for innovation became law in the 35th
parliament, which is two parliaments ago. If memory serves me
correctly it became law in April 1997. I had a chance today to
take a look at some of the expenditures of the foundation. I
must add that this is not a foundation that utilizes only public
money. There is also money from the private sector. I assume
the universities and provinces all participate in the foundation.
I would like to take a few minutes to read into the record the
kinds of projects the foundation is supporting. Up to March 31
of this year, 1,175 projects had been funded, for a total of $873
million. That is a considerable amount of money going into
research and development, technology, research centres and so on,
which I believe is very important.
I will round off these figures to the nearest million. In
British Columbia, 134 projects were approved for $110 million.
That represents about 14.2% of the total amount spent by the
foundation. In Alberta, there have been 112 projects for $58.7
million, representing about 7.6% of the funding from the Canada
foundation for innovation. In my province of Saskatchewan, there
were 28 different projects for $20.4 million, which is around
2.6% of the total. In Manitoba, there were 57 projects for $16.3
million or 2.1% of the total.
So far, western Canada has received about 26.5% of the total
amount being funded by the Canada innovation centre. That is
roughly in accordance with our population, which I guess should
be one of the criteria.
1710
Ontario had 434 projects and $311.7 million for some 40.2% of
the funding. The province of Quebec has had 315 projects and
$230.7 million for 29.7% of the funding.
New Brunswick has had 26 projects and $5.2 million or 0.6% of
the funding. Nova Scotia has had 47 projects for $15.8 million
or 2% of the funding. Prince Edward Island has had two projects
for $730,000, which is .09% or one one-hundredth, roughly, of the
funding. Newfoundland has had 17 projects for $6 million, which
is 0.7% of the funding. The total in Atlantic Canada is about
3.7% of the funding.
That is a bit of an update as to where the money has gone. It
is fairly evenly distributed across the country with the
exception of Atlantic Canada, which seems to be receiving less
than its fair share if we divide on a population basis the funds
from this particular program. The program of course is ongoing
and I assume that these figures and balances would change over
time.
I think this is a worthwhile project. A lot of money has gone
into it. I think members of the House would support it.
We would want, of course, to have time to scrutinize some of
these projects to see what their value is and whether the
taxpayers are getting the bang for the buck, so to speak, from
the hundreds of millions of dollars we are investing. That
should be looked at by a parliamentary committee. It might be
one of the projects the committee could undertake in the months
and years that lie ahead.
When it comes to the Canada pension board, we should look at
democratizing the board and bringing in some representatives who
are working people to contribute to the agency. There should be
representatives from the trade unions of the country. Perhaps
there should be a representative of retirees on the board, who
can offer advice from a retiree's point of view. In other words,
the board must be democratized.
If we look at the composition of the board now and at the 12
members on that board, we see that almost all of them come from
business backgrounds and would be acceptable to the business
community or to the business half of that equation of who pays
into the CPP legislation in the country. However, there are
really very few who have a background that might be more relevant
to the ordinary working people or trade unions or retirees across
Canada. Let us make that change.
In terms of the foundation, I think this is a step in the right
direction. It should improve our country's investment in
research and development. The relevant committee of the House of
Commons should look at some of these projects to make sure due
diligence is done. After due diligence is done, the committee
should determine whether or not we are getting the impact in
terms of R and D, learning and innovation, jobs and skills, and
added value to the Canadian economy that is the vision behind the
bill before the House today and that was the vision of the bill
in April 1997.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest, but to only part of the hon.
member's speech, I regret to say, because I was called away.
The hon. member discussed the Canada foundation for innovation
and its allocations and also, perhaps, the research chairs and
the research funding now tied to them. It is very interesting
that not only is the federal government providing, as it were,
the salaries and that kind of thing for 2,000 researchers and
professors across the whole country, but it is also providing
research money to get them started, which I think is very
important.
I think I have the same concern as my colleague from the NDP who
was just speaking. I am concerned about the way in which a
program like this—and I will come to the CFI in a moment—is
impacting some regions and also some of the smaller institutions.
I was very pleased when research moneys were attached to the
chairs themselves, because very often a small institution
receiving one or two or three of these chairs would find itself
faced with additional expenditures simply to take on an extra
employee.
However, with regard to the Canada foundation for innovation, I
would like to ask my colleague a question. He is interested in
the equity of the allocations. So am I.
1715
The purpose of the Canada foundation for innovation is to
provide research infrastructure moneys not only to large research
institutions but to many others. There is one component of it
which is quite different from the research chairs or the money
coming from the research granting councils, that 10% which is
available to community colleges across Canada.
This is something which is quite new. Normally we think of a
distinction between the colleges which are extremely important in
rural areas and in smaller communities and the universities with
respect to research. I was pleased this time that particularly
the applied research role, work which ranges from looking after
senior citizens properly through to robotics, is being conducted
in colleges.
I have a question for my colleague. What are his thoughts about
the fact that the Canada foundation for innovation for the first
time reaches our community colleges and is encouraging the sort
of applied research they do?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that very
difficult question is that I am certainly pleased part of the
funding from the CFI is for community colleges. I believe he
said 10%. I think that is the figure involved.
That is very important. Many community colleges are in the
smaller cities, the rural parts of the country. My province of
Saskatchewan has several community colleges. Many are located in
the smaller towns and smaller cities in particular that would not
have access to this kind of funding unless it were built into the
act itself. I certainly agree with that.
One of the problems in our modern society is that there has been
too much of a shift into bigger centres. I am not talking about
our country only, but in terms of the modern world where bigger
is better. The big institutions are there and one has to always
go to the bigger cities to get better jobs and to have better
opportunities.
With the new technology today it does not really matter where
many of the plants and industries are established. With the
Internet and technology, it can be done in a small town, in a
rural area, in a big city or in a medium size city. They have
access to the same technology. This reflects the reality that we
have perhaps gone too far the other way in terms of all the money
going into larger centres.
One reason I put those figures on the record in terms of the
province by province breakdown was not to criticize the CFI by
saying that there has been too much into certain regions and
areas, but to put on the record that we as parliamentarians
should be watching where the grants go. I should also like to
see a rural-urban breakdown, not just a province by province
breakdown. I should like to see how much of it goes into
communities that have fewer than 50,000 people or fewer than
10,000 people, compared to the 8 or 10 big cities in the country.
It is a legitimate role for parliament to make sure we watch
where the funds go and to make sure there is some kind of a
balance in terms of the overall vision of the country, which is
to provide equal access to opportunity. Whether someone lives in
a place like Peterborough, Montreal, Vancouver, Kamsack,
Saskatchewan, Pembroke or wherever, everyone needs to have equal
opportunities within reason. I think that is one thing we should
be watching as a parliament.
Once again perhaps the relevant committee of the House should
take a look at these projects and do a study to see whether or
not the money is going where the drafters of the legislation two
parliaments ago intended it to go.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite
pertinent that the hon. member points out the distribution of the
funds and the number of programs that were given in parts of the
country.
I recognize, as he does, that the Atlantic participation has
been underrepresented. It has been a little bit less than its
population base would indicate. I let the member know that it is
not lost on this side of the House.
That is why the Prime Minister announced last year the Atlantic
investment partnership. Part of that is a $300 million program
for innovation to help with some capacity building in Atlantic
Canada so that our research institutes and our private sector are
able to benefit or participate equally in the country or within
programs like CFI.
The comments the hon. member made about Canada's role in the
past and in the future on research and development are quite
pertinent. If we want to fully participate in the new economy, I
believe it is incumbent upon all of us to do our very best to
make sure that our institutions and our country in general is
taking full advantage of the opportunities out there, and
research and development is how we will get there.
1720
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, maybe one of the reasons
our standard of living in general has fallen in the last decade
or so is that we have spent far too little in terms of research
and scientific development.
We have fallen behind in many different areas. There are things
we could have done better, things we would be natural at doing
better. I am thinking of the whole agricultural sector because
we are a great food producing nation. I am thinking of
transportation and communications because of our geography. I am
thinking of the mining resource industries because of all our
resources. Maybe if we had spent more in the last 30 or 40 years
in terms of R and D, it would have been of benefit to the country
in terms of a better standard of living.
This is the kind of direction we should be going. Again, let us
keep an eye on it so that we have a balance between rural and
urban Canada in different regions of the country. Then everyone
would be a part of the new and innovative society.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-17 amendments
to the Budget Implementation Act, 1997. The absurd nature of
being in this place in the year 2001 debating retroactive changes
to the budget of 1997 is self-evident. In any case, I will focus
most of my comments on the Canadian foundation for innovation
fund.
The government has consistently, particularly beginning in
1994-95, slashed transfers to the provinces to such an extent
that it created a tremendous vacuum in funding for universities
throughout the country. The provinces were simply not able to
maintain adequate funding to our post-secondary universities and
community colleges across the country.
As a result of the deficit that existed in the funding of
post-secondary education we saw, for instance, the doubling of
the average amount of student debt after a four year program in
Canada. We saw tuition doubling not just in one province but
across the country.
The Canadian foundation for innovation was introduced in 1977.
The government has tried to make up with its federal granting
programs some of the ground it eroded from beneath the provinces
in the disabling effect of federal cuts to the transfers to the
provinces, which created in many ways havoc across the country.
It is still my belief that in terms of education and health care
spending the best decisions are typically made by the government
closest to the people affected by those decisions. As such,
provinces are in many ways much better suited to make long term
and visionary decisions on behalf of the people they represent
than the federal government, particularly in the areas of
education and health care.
While the government has cut and slashed transfers to the
provinces, which are in many ways the most appropriate vehicle
for delivery of funding to our post-secondary education
infrastructure, it has now tried through the foundation for
innovation to make up for lost ground and to try to directly fund
infrastructure investment focused on the areas of research.
The notion of government helping in investing in the research
infrastructure that is so important for Canada's competitiveness
in the new economy is not a bad one. I would argue that the
investment being made by federal or provincial governments,
preferably by provincial governments, is extremely important.
There are some flaws, however, in the Canadian foundation for
innovation model as applied over the last three years.
1725
One benefit in a perverse way of debating amendments to the
Budget Implementation Act, 1997, in the year 2000 is that we
actually have the opportunity to be talking about some of the
devils in the detail or the flaws in the implementation that are
now more self-evident than they would have been in 1997.
In a realistic and applied sense, and not simply as a perceived
issue, there is an anti-small university bias in the Canada
foundation for innovation granting scheme. As a result smaller
universities do not have the same level of access to these grants
as some of the larger universities.
This is unfortunate because one of the cornerstones of Canadian
post-secondary education infrastructure is the network of
undergraduate program universities which perform a very important
service to the future of Canada by providing a steady stream of
enthusiastic graduates in science programs that may perhaps have
graduated with a decision to pursue graduate or post-graduate
studies.
In that way the undergraduate programs are performing a very
important service to post-graduate institutions by providing an
ongoing stream of students and young people with the enthusiasm
to pursue post-graduate studies in many of those areas.
Representing a riding in Nova Scotia, and Nova Scotia being the
cradle of higher education in Canada, there is a strong tradition
in our province of providing some of the best post-secondary
university experiences in the country.
There are some challenges. In my riding of Kings—Hants I am
very proud to have Acadia University. Acadia University, like
many of Canada's smaller universities, simply does not have the
same access to the Canada foundation for innovation funding as
some of the larger universities.
I have heard the arguments about a need to create levels of
critical mass when it comes to research. Some of them are
anachronistic. Critical mass can exist through a less parochial
approach to research. Universities can co-operate to a greater
extent and we should be working to encourage that. Certainly
with the death of distance as a determinant in the cost of
telecommunications, researchers can be connected via technology
and do not necessarily have to be in the same classroom or the
same lab, discussing and sharing their ideas.
We should be ensuring that the parochial approach to research
which has existed in the past in the university environment is
reduced somehow by working with the provinces to ensure and
encourage a greater level of sharing of intellectual property
between universities.
As a country we need to develop a better approach to
commercialization of intellectual property at the university
level and to technology transfer. In many ways American
universities are much more successful at commercialization and
tech transfer than we are in Canada.
As we try to achieve those two goals in that environment we
should ensure that granting programs like the Canada foundation
for innovation reflect the realities of the diversity of Canada's
post-secondary university infrastructure and do not focus purely
on some of the larger universities. It should try to address and
invest in some of the smaller universities which are providing
such an important contribution.
1730
The other issue deals with matching funds. I believe 60% of the
funds need to be matching funds. In provinces like Alberta or
Ontario where there is a stronger fiscal position than there is
in a province like Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, there is an
inability on the part of the provinces to participate to the
extent of the requirements of post-secondary institutions.
The matching fund issue is very serious and needs to be
addressed more thoroughly. We would create a ghettoized
post-secondary education granting system if we only contributed
through matching fund schemes to universities in those provinces
where the fiscal conditions permit an equal or greater investment
by provinces and other entities within those provinces.
There has been a problem in the past where not enough foundation
for innovation grants were making their way to Atlantic Canada.
The government tried to address it last summer with the Atlantic
innovation fund. That program was announced in the summer in a
pre-election Hollywood-style announcement to try to enrapture
Atlantic Canadians with the generosity and general kindness of
the Liberal government. It did not work because most Atlantic
Canadians saw through this shallow and feeble attempt to make up
for past wrongs by a Liberal government that only found Atlantic
Canada a few weeks before an election.
The Atlantic innovation fund has not even congealed to an extent
that it can deliver any funding. Months later that fund, with
its pot of money, is still sitting somewhere in Atlantic Canada
with no notion as to how to deliver the money to the
universities.
What is really bizarre is that while the government
dilly-dallies and dithers with that fund to come up with a
delivery mechanism with which to deliver the funding, the
Canadian foundation for innovation is still in a position where
it is providing money. Over the last several months it has
provided an even more disproportionate level of funding to other
parts of the country. Atlantic Canada is actually getting less
because the notion is that the problem is solved, the Atlantic
innovation fund is in place and the Canadian foundation for
innovation does not have to be as vigilant now in Atlantic
Canada.
That is simply not the case at all. There are also some
concerns with ACOA acting in a role of a delivery vehicle for
that funding. Concerns have been raised by people in the
post-secondary environment and in the technology and high tech
sectors. People in the economic development areas of Atlantic
Canada have approached me directly to talk about this. They fear
there is not enough understanding of technology in ACOA. They
feel that ACOA can be an effective vehicle through which to
develop a delivery mechanism for the Atlantic innovation fund but
that it may not have the level of technical expertise necessary
to develop a delivery mechanism for the Atlantic innovation fund.
It therefore may not be able to achieve the ends that the
government would like to see.
1735
The fact is that if we are to be successful investment needs to
take place in our post-secondary infrastructure. The devil is in
the details. How are we to find the most appropriate way to
ensure that the needs are met and that our competitiveness in
this regard has improved?
There is a $3 billion deficit not just in research
infrastructure but in general university infrastructure. It is a
result of deferred maintenance among other issues and the
government's callous disregard for education and health care
funding. It let health care and education atrophy as it took its
slash and burn approach to fiscal management and offloaded
responsibilities to the provinces without considering what the
end result would be. We will see a significant price paid over
the long term for the loss in future competitiveness in these
areas.
One of the fundamental flaws that needs to be addressed by the
Canadian foundation for innovation would be the anti-small
university bias which denies some of Canada's greatest
educational facilities like Acadia University full and unfettered
access to important funding opportunities.
The matching fund provision also needs to be addressed. It too
discriminates against universities which happen to be in
provinces that are less fiscally sound on a current basis. As a
representative from Nova Scotia, the cradle of higher education
in Canada, it is incumbent on me to defend the interests of my
province in that regard.
Some of the macro issues are not addressed in Bill C-17. They
deserve some level of debate and discussion when we are talking
about amendments to the Budget Implementation Act, 1997.
Looking at Canada over the last 30 years and some of the changes
that have taken place in terms of its competitiveness relative to
other countries, our investment in post-secondary education can
play a role in reversing what has been a very negative trend,
particularly in terms of our competitiveness with the U.S.
However there are other issues too. In 1990 Canada had the
fourth highest standard of living within the OECD. By 1999 we
sank to seventh place with countries like Japan, Norway and
Denmark overtaking us. In the last 15 years our real income per
capita plummeted from 86% to 78% of the U.S. real income per
capita. Ireland soared from 47% to 76%. Over a 10 year period
Ireland increased its GDP per capita by 95%. In that same period
Canada increased its GDP per capita by 5%. Our performance has
been anemic.
We have seen a cyclical decline in the Canadian dollar over the
last 30 years. This decline has become precipitous under the
government. Over nine years of the Mulroney government the
dollar lost one penny relative to the U.S. Since the Liberal
government took power the dollar has declined by 12 cents. In
1990 as a Liberal leadership candidate the current finance
minister said that if he were given the opportunity he would
manage the dollar downward to about 78 cents. He did really
well. He overshot his wildest expectations. The dollar is down
to 63 cents.
1740
The Prime Minister says that is just fine, that low dollars are
good for tourism. The logical corollary of his argument is that
if we reduce the dollar to zero we could be the greatest export
nation in the world and be really successful. We all know how
absurd and perverse is that logic or lack thereof.
There are things we have to do. In terms of government spending
Canada's GDP represents about 40%. In the U.S it is 30%. Thirty
years ago it was about the same, 30%. Our government's program
spending has ballooned in Canada, but it has remained about the
same in the U.S.
We have to reduce taxes. As a percentage of GDP, taxes in
Canada are 10% higher than those in the U.S. We have to reduce
our debt. I will propose one idea that over the next 30 years
the government could address reversing some of these negative
trends. If we were to reduce our debt in real terms over the
next 25 years and apply the interest saved to reducing taxes, our
economy would grow significantly both in real terms and as a
percentage of GDP.
These are the types of forward thinking and visionary policy
measures we do not expect from the members opposite but will see
in the future under a different government.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the higher education part of the member's remarks
with great interest, but I lost interest toward the end when he
moved away from that.
I have great sympathy with his comment about his province being
the cradle of higher education, and conceivably even of education
in Canada. I understand exactly what he means. The role of the
tiny yet high quality universities in the maritimes has been
extraordinary. I am a great believer in cradle to grave
education. I would ask the member, although it is not my main
question: If he knows where the cradle of education is in
Canada, in what region is the grave of education in Canada?
While I understood what he meant I became less sympathetic when
he was talking about the role of the government in higher
education. He did not mention the extraordinary increases in
funding to granting councils, which provide money for research.
For example, the old medical research council which funded most
of the medical research has been changed. Its name has changed
but, more significant, its budget having been increased for a
number of years was doubled last year. The increases in the
other councils were not that large but they were very large. He
also did not mention the millennium scholarships or the Canada
foundation for innovation, which has helped Acadia and other
institutions with brand new money.
I would like to ask the member opposite about a couple of things
which help small universities. One is the network of centres of
excellence which has funded and refunded and is still being
funded by the government for research across the country. What
would his comments be on that?
I would also like to hear his comments on the point I made to
the previous speaker that the Canada foundation for innovation
extended some research moneys to community colleges, I know
there are many of those in the maritime provinces.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the member has an earned
credibility on issues of higher education in this place. He has
defended the interests of higher education quite consistently, if
sometimes wearing partisan rose coloured glasses. He speaks from
behind those specs today.
I was pleased to hear his empathy relative to the situation of
smaller universities and those in Nova Scotia, specifically
Acadia. There is a real and not just perceived anti-smaller
university bias with CFI. I hope the hon. member's words of
encouragement would indicate a pressure on that side of the House
for changes in this regard with the CFI.
1745
He and I differ on the effectiveness of the millennium
scholarship programs. Only 5% of students seeking higher
education have benefited from those programs. A more effective
way to adequately fund higher education would be a full
restoration of transfers to the provinces, transfers his
government played a significant role in slashing and cutting in
the mid-1990s.
Transfers will not reach 1995 levels until April 2002. A full
and immediate restoration of transfers to 1995 levels would make
a big difference in terms of allowing provinces to fund
universities and post-secondary education. We often debate
post-secondary education in this place but we do not talk about
other areas of education. In general we need to invest more in
education. The best way to do that is to restore transfers to
the provinces.
One of the biggest casualties of the health care crisis has been
education. The immediate focus has been on ameliorating the
problems of the health care system because of the crisis mode it
is in. However there has been a neglect of education issues in a
general sense which will cost us dearly in the future. I am
talking about primary and secondary education, not just
post-secondary. The greatest societal return on investment would
be in preschool, head start, early intervention and some of those
areas.
In a general sense we agree that some of the issues relative to
CFI as a delivery vehicle must be addressed. However we may
disagree as to the degree of culpability his government has had
in creating a crisis in education through its Draconian cuts to
transfers in the mid-1990s.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member spoke about our dollar being low.
However I am sure he knows our dollar is doing very well, thank
you very much, compared to all currencies for the last few years.
Today I was following the debate in the U.S. on softwood
lumber. A spokesman from the U.S. government complained that the
Canadian dollar was very low and that exporters and manufacturers
on the Canadian side were taking advantage of the low dollar and
shipping goods to the U.S. at a cheaper price.
I wonder if the hon. member recognizes that. I hope he would
not ask the government to artificially increase the value of our
dollar to compete with the American dollar. I think he would
agree that there is a benefit for our manufacturers and exporters
when our currency is lower than that of the countries with which
we compete, especially the U.S.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite
right. Our dollar is doing well compared to the ruble. However
there are other currencies that are probably equally important.
Given that about 80% of our trade is with the U.S. and that we
depend on American consumption and imports for our standard of
living, the member would be better off to focus on how our dollar
is doing relative to the U.S.
The fact is, under his government, the Liberal government, there
has been a 12 cent drop in the dollar. That precipitous drop has
represented a significant drop in the standard of living of
Canadians. He was asking what we could do.
First, he said that I probably would agree with him that a low
dollar is good for exports. I do not agree. That is a very
short term approach. One cannot, in the long term, devalue one's
wage and prosperity. That is a very flawed economic argument.
Canadian companies can do fairly well in exports in the short
term. They can do so, not by investing in productivity or taking
steps to be more productive in the long term but by simply
enjoying the benefits of a lower dollar in the short term.
1750
In two ways the low dollar has a perverse and negative impact on
Canadian productivity over the long term. First, some of the
productivity enhancement equipment, software or technology, comes
from other countries, particularly the U.S. Canadian companies
will not invest in productivity enhancement if they do not need
to, and certainly not if the cost is elevated by a sinking
Canadian dollar and a commensurately valuable U.S. dollar.
Second, because of the dollar Canadian companies do not need to
make those kinds of investments. In the short term it makes it a
little easier but in the long term it can have a very negative
impact, which is what we are seeing. It becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy.
I would urge the member to revisit that notion. Upon further
study he would see that we would be better off lowering debt and
taxes, strengthening the dollar over the long term and not just
blaming it on monetary policy. There is a fiscal responsibility
that we in this place should address over the long term.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
participate in the second reading debate on this bill. I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Albert, and I am
sure the House will look forward to his comments as well.
Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997
and the Financial Administration Act, has two components. The
first is to add additional funding of $750 million for the Canada
foundation for innovation to the economic statement and budget
update of October 18, 2000.
The second component involves amending the Financial
Administration Act to clarify that parliament must provide
explicit authority for any voting by or on behalf of the crown. I
will deal with that later.
I will now turn to the first part of the bill, the Budget
Implementation Act. The bill seeks to extend funding for the
Canada foundation for innovation by $750 million to include
operation and maintenance costs for research infrastructure. The
bill also proposes to extend funding for the foundation to
include the purchase access to international research facilities
and research projects. The new funding will be spent over an
undefined period of 10 years or more but will be booked in the
current fiscal year.
The foundation's purpose is to combine government and private
sector funding to enhance education and research infrastructure
at post-secondary education institutions and research hospitals.
The government stated that the foundation would be funded by an
upfront investment of $800 million.
In 1997 funding of the Canada foundation for innovation was
included in the deficit as if it were a liability at that time,
even though the foundation did not exist by the end of the year.
The foundation did not exist but the $800 million funding was
included as a liability. This made the government depart from
its own accounting policies, practices and principles for the
third year in a row in contrast to the Public Sector Accounting
and Auditing Board, PSAAB, guidelines. The auditor general
called it inappropriate accounting and a parliamentary oversight.
The foundation is not obliged to report the results it achieves
with $800 million, and parliament may consequently have
difficulty obtaining the information it needs on expenditures.
I will quote from the Canadian Alliance policy. It states:
We will bring the best ideas in business, government and
universities together to facilitate the transition to the new
economy and position Canada as a global leader.
We will also increase support to Canada's research granting
councils, and appoint a Chief Scientist of Canada to coordinate
science activities in all government departments and ensure that
science, not politics, prevails.
1755
Let me make it very clear that the Canadian Alliance supports
research and development. We regret that the government has
overseen and caused our economy to perform so poorly that it is
now necessary for the federal government to step in and apply
massive doses, hundreds of millions of dollars, to R and D.
The private sector is not encouraged to do R and D by the
government because taxes are high. The government is not only
arrogant but weak as well. It lacks vision and we cannot trust
it. It is unclear what criteria the Liberals would use in
granting decisions made by the foundation, which is to be
administered by the Minister of Industry.
During the election campaign, the Canadian Alliance proposed an
additional $500 million in R and D funding. We support increased
funding for research and development. While we support the
objectives of the Canada foundation for innovation, technical
innovation would be more likely to happen in an environment of
lower taxes and less regulation rather than increased
bureaucratic spending with ill-defined funding criteria.
The second component involves amending the Financial
Administration Act to clarify that parliament must provide
explicit authority for any borrowing on behalf of the crown. The
bill would also define regulations surrounding what is considered
to be borrowing of money.
The bill would require the Minister of Finance to authorize
money borrowing transactions. It would give the finance minister
the power to authorize money borrowing transactions under any
terms and conditions he considers appropriate.
Finally, the bill would amend an oversight in which the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board was removed from the list of crown
corporations that are exempt from aspects of the Income Tax Act,
reducing the possibility of ministerial intervention in the
pension board.
The Canadian Alliance policy on financial administration states:
To ensure transparency, accuracy, and confidence in the
government's finances, we will authorize the Auditor General to
examine all federal government documents, including those from
government agencies and crown corporations. The government will
be required to report to the House within one year on how it has
dealt with issues raised by the Auditor General. We will apply
generally accepted accounting principles to government finances.
We will apply them not in the way that suits the government, but
will use generally accepted accounting principles.
The bill would correct a legislative error made two years ago
which opened the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to
interference by the finance minister in various areas such as
cash stripping, appointments, and corporate business plan debt.
The government is again wasting parliamentary time with
amendments to correct legislative mistakes it has made. The
other day I was debating Bill C-4 and was surprised that the
government had to amend its own bill six times. That is how
poorly designed it was. The government has to recognize that it
must draft bills carefully.
Time and again the official opposition finds that we are holding
the flashlight for a weak Liberal government that lacks vision.
The problem is that when the government passed the Canadian Wheat
Board legislation, it took the CPP investment board out of the
Financial Administration Act along with the wheat board.
The fact remains that rather than having excuses from the
government, the minister responsible for legislation should be
responsible for errors. There should be no mistakes because the
minister should be carefully scrutinizing the work the government
does.
In conclusion, we support the part of the legislation that
corrects the government's mistake of two years ago. We support
putting a stop to the finance minister's ability to intervene in
the affairs of the pension board.
We have seen the government engage in cash stripping when it
comes to the EI account. It stripped $30 billion from that
account. We are pleased to put a stop to that.
1800
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my colleague's remarks. I was
intrigued by them.
First we have to remember that the Canada foundation for
innovation was not set up this year. We are discussing
additional funding for it. It was set up three or more years
ago. It was conceived at a time when the economy was nothing
like as robust as it is now, when there was an even more serious
problem about research and development in Canada. There was a
serious brain drain. We were losing some of our best
researchers. At the same time, Canadians who had gone overseas
to be trained were simply not coming home and certainly foreign
researchers were not considering coming to Canada to conduct
their research.
A survey showed that it had nothing to do with salaries, which
people often quote. It had to do with the fact the people here
who were engaged in research projects either had old-fashioned
laboratories or old-fashioned equipment or, in their relatively
short productive research years, they simply did not have the
research support they needed. It was the same thing with people
overseas. People newly graduated from a foreign university could
not come here and conduct their experiments because the
infrastructure was simply not here.
So with regard to the hon. member's remarks, the purpose was to
provide research infrastructure very quickly to attract these
people back here and, by the way, to keep our best people here.
Since then that has happened, but there is one other thing he
mentioned. We have also changed the R and D tax environment
because it was one of the factors the private sector kept telling
us about. We now have one of the best, if not the best, research
and development tax structures. The effects will be seen this
year and in coming years.
We started the CFI and a whole raft of other investments, and we
now have the best tax structure. I wonder if the member could
comment on those things in light of my remarks.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Peterborough for asking the question. The hon. member says
this foundation was set up a few years ago. That is right. It
was set up in 1997, and even when it did not practically exist
yet, the government had $800 million shown as a liability and
charged to its accounts. The auditor general was very critical
about it, but that is another story.
The hon. member mentioned the serious brain drain problems then,
but the brain drain problem still continues. Most of the
engineering graduates and doctors and nurses leave the country.
Last year alone 6,000 doctors and 14,000 nurses left Canada. The
figures are very intriguing.
I understand that the hon. member appreciates investing in
research and development. We support that intent as well. It is
a noble idea. However, the hon. member's party came into power
in 1993. It took four years for it to realize this investment.
It set up the foundation in 1997. If his party was so
interested, where was it for four years? This is too little, too
late.
I would encourage the hon. member to put pressure on the
government to revisit its priorities. It should set the right
priorities and then allocate the money. Rather than distributing
some hypothetical or other grants and contributions or favouring
its friends, it should invest the money where it would be more
productive.
Another point the hon. member mentioned is tax structure. He
said the tax structure with respect to research and development
in Canada is the best. I doubt that. Our taxes are so high with
respect to G-7 and OPEC countries that we are lagging behind in
using our taxation structure as a motivation for investors and as
a motivation for R and D. I think the hon. member should look
into that again. We are really lagging behind.
1805
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to recognize that the member for
Peterborough on the government side acknowledged that there is a
brain drain. I am glad to see that the government side is
finally recognizing there is a problem in the country called a
brain drain and that we should do something about it.
Unfortunately, the government's answer is to throw more money at
the problem. I believe it will put in another $750 million for
research and development. It has already put in $500 million. I
am not sure if my figures are exactly correct, but the allocation
is along those lines. However, that is not for this year. This
is a “when it gets around to spending the money” type of
allocation. It may take the government 10 years to spend this
money on research and development. We are not going to see any
great cash infusion into research and development.
This goes back to 1997, which the member for Peterborough
alluded to earlier. The government set up the centre for
innovation, put in $800 million cash and said “This is good
stuff”. It still has not spent that $800 million. The taxpayer
had to come up with a cheque, it went into a bank account, and
there it sat. I hope it was getting some interest along the way.
It still has not been spent and we will now see the same thing
all over again. We will have to write a cheque for the better
part of $1 billion. It will sit in a bank earning interest
rather than being put toward the research and development we so
desperately need to maintain our competitiveness in the world.
I think back to the millennium scholarship fund that was created
around the same time, with $2.5 billion to educate our young
people in order to make sure we would be competitive in the
world. The money sat in a bank for over two years and just
before the election the government got fed up and started
spending it so that every student in the country was getting
grants and student loans so he or she could go to university in
the election year courtesy of the government.
It is an election ploy. This is not good management. This is
not sound public policy. This is an election ploy whereby the
taxpayer will have to write the cheque now and the money will sit
in a bank while we wait for the next election to come along. The
next thing the government will do is announce all kinds of
research and development projects courtesy of money that has
already been paid by taxpayers and the government will say how
wonderful it is. That is no way to run a country, no way at all.
The other thing is that we do not even get to vote on this in
parliament. We get to vote on the bill, but this is statutory
spending and we do not even get to vote that on an annual basis.
If we could, we would say that we would vote for it in the year
the government spends it, but as for this idea of putting it in
the bank and keeping it there for 10 years or more, I do not
agree with it at all.
The other part of the bill is the CPP investment board. This
just shows how sloppy the government is. When it changed the
Financial Administration Act recently, it dropped the fact that
it had previously made the CPP investment board exempt from large
chunks of the Financial Administration Act. The Financial
Administration Act is the organizational piece of legislation
that details specifically what each department has to do, what
each organization has to do, the hoops that have to be jumped
through, the management of the money, the reporting to parliament
and so on. The government had a blanket exemption that the CPP
investment board, which has $40 billion of Canadians' cash in it,
does not report to parliament, and the government wants to keep
it that way. I think not.
Not only does the government not want the investment board to
report to parliament, but it does not want the auditor general
taking a look at it to see how things are. That does not sound
like good public policy to me, yet that is what the government
wants to do. There is $40 billion of Canadians' money set aside
for their pensions to ensure that they will have some kind of
income when they retire and we have given it to a dozen or twenty
people to play the stock market with, without review by
parliament, without review by the auditor general, and we think
this is good public policy? I think not. It cannot be.
Why would we want to exempt the largest fund in Canada from
public reporting and public scrutiny, especially by our auditor
general? I just cannot understand why the government wants to be
so secretive with Canadians' money. I just cannot believe it.
1810
The President of the Treasury Board says she will overhaul the
human resources management of the public service, and we will get
into all these kinds of things, but when it comes to managing
Canadian taxpayers' money it is all done behind closed doors. The
Minister of Finance wants to sit down and make all of these
decisions on behalf of Canadians without telling them what is
being done, without telling them how the fund is doing. “We do
not want to report to parliament”, the government says, which is
getting to be a bit of a joke.
Last week, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I was up on a point of
privilege, where the Chair of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, who is an officer of parliament and reports to this
House, had a report all over the media the day before it was
tabled in the House of Commons. That shows the disrespect that
the government and the different organizations that report to the
government have for this institution of parliament. I say it is
time that we brought back that respect and got their attention.
Mind you, we got the government's attention last Thursday
afternoon on the vote, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately it was not a
big enough motion to really jerk the government's chain so that
its members would realize that parliament does have powers and
that we are the guardian on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer and
the Canadian people to ensure that the government does things and
does them right.
If that is the case, why would the CPP investment board be
exempted from reporting to us? Why would it be exempted from the
auditor general taking a look in to see how well the board is
doing? The expertise that exists in the office of the auditor
general to perform management audits, value for money audits, is
the best in the country. Our auditor general, who just retired
last Friday night, was recognized around the world as being a man
of integrity and stature and one of the most competent people
around in doing these types of things.
The government does not want to hear about it. The government
does not want to hear about Shawinigan. The government does not
want to hear about the Grand-Mère golf course and hotel and the
Auberge hotel. The government does not want to hear about these
things. It says “don't worry, we're doing fine”. Appearances
would suggest otherwise.
Why would we allow the government to build this wall around the
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board so it can just say “don't
worry, everything is fine” without a real third party analysis
to say “yes, it is fine”?
My colleague, the previous speaker, talked about the Canadian
Wheat Board. For almost 50 years now it has been exempt from
reporting to parliament and exempt from scrutiny by the auditor
general. We know how sorry a state the Canadian Wheat Board is
in, how it has lost the confidence of the Canadian wheat
producers, how it has seen its mandate as selling wheat to
wherever it could find a market, to sell it on credit with the
government picking up the tab, so if it was a bad loan we would
end up giving it away. We cannot get that information because it
is protected and we do not need to know that. We do not need to
know how much wheat the Canadian Wheat Board has sold on credit
for which it has never collected the debt. We do not need to
know how much these commissioners are making. They make maybe a
quarter of a million dollars a year or more, and what are they
producing? The government thinks Canadians should not ask these
complex questions. I say they should.
The Canadian Wheat Board's mandate was basically to sell wheat.
We now take wheat from the Canadian prairies, ship it to the
states where they make pasta and ship it back to Canada where we
buy it, because it was not in the board's mandate to create jobs
on the prairies. We allow the jobs to be created in the United
States because it is easier to sell 100,000 tonnes or a million
tonnes with one contract than have value added pasta
manufacturers across the prairies.
We will see the same situation with the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board. We already see it with the centre for
innovation, where the stated facts from the government are quite
different from the real facts when we get behind them. That is
why we oppose this bill.
1815
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while listening to the comments
of the member just now, I noticed an inconsistency in the debate
that emerged from the Alliance Party across the floor. I was not
totally surprised or shocked by that because it is quite
commonplace.
If I recall, earlier on in the debate the member's colleague,
the finance critic, attacked the amendment that dealt with the
amendments made to the Canadian Wheat Board Act in 1998, and
the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was deleted in error.
The member for Calgary Southeast commented that because of that
the government, through the finance minister, could have been
involved in some decision making with respect to the investment
board. He went on in quite a diatribe about that.
The argument of the member for St. Albert went along quite a
different track. He asked why we would exempt the pension plan
investment board from the Financial Administration Act. It seems
to me that the party is really inconsistent. Could the member for
St. Albert would comment on that?
Mr. John Williams: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The
Financial Administration Act is about an inch thick and has an
awful lot of stuff in it.
This particular bill says that it wants to exempt itself from
divisions I to IV of the Financial Administration Act, which is
the bulk of the Financial Administration Act. We are saying we
have no problem with that, except we should leave in the
small sections that say the auditor general can audit it and that
it should report to parliament.
The amendment says that sections 89 to 119, 127 to 130.2 and 153
to 154 will not apply to the Canada Pension Plan Investment
Board. It is simple to say let us keep the good stuff and exempt
it from the stuff that should not be there. This is not rocket
science. It is called good public policy. Yet the government
just wants to make a blanket policy and exempt it from
everything.
The Financial Administration Act is about an inch thick. We are
saying do not exempt it from everything. Exempt it from the
things that are appropriate and leave it responsible and
accountable for the rest. We thought that was simple stuff.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the
member for St. Albert intently. Does he mean to suggest or tell
the general public that somehow this board will not be audited?
He is leaving in everybody's mind that somehow it will not be
audited. I think what he is trying to say is that he wants the
auditor general to audit the fund as opposed to an outside party.
People have been concerned about their investment funds for a
long time and think that the Canadian pension plan has not been
an appropriate vehicle to see their moneys grow. The government
put this legislation in place to segregate this.
There may well be a good number of people who can see why maybe
they do not want politicians involved in the decision making that
affects their retirement pension because they have had such a bad
track record. Is the member suggesting that the members of
parliament should have some kind of judgmental authority over
people's investment funds?
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, the member is a chartered
accountant. He knows full well that when an auditor audits the
financial statements he or she certifies that the financial
statements are correct.
However, the auditor general has a far greater latitude value
for money management auditing to ensure that Canadians are being
well served. It is not just the fact that somebody did not run
off with the cash, it is the audit of the management of the fund.
He raised another point. We are not asking for politicians to
get involved in the decision making. We are asking for the fund
to report to the House so that all Canadians know exactly what is
going on with their pension plan. Is that too much to ask? I do
not think so.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I know I only have a few minutes, but
I will get right down to business. Bill C-17 is about
innovation.
1820
I would ask the government to allow innovation to start at home
in this House. I have been here for seven years and never have I
been in an environment where we have seen the death of innovation
like this. Every member of parliament has had their rights to
speak out freely destroyed and innovation has been choked off. If
MPs try to be innovative, they are forced to put their ideas
through an interminable series of committees where their ideas
are chewed up and destroyed. At the end there is nothing more
than pablum, gruel and useless stuff that does not challenge the
status quo.
The press cannot speak to MPs. It is directed by parties as to
who it can or cannot speak to. The individual MP cannot be
innovative.
If the public wants to know why their MPs are having a very
difficult time being innovative and challenging the status
quo, it is because they are not allowed to. They are ostracized
if they do. We should be dealing with issues like reforming
health care and saving pensions. We should be putting forward
new ideas to improve our environment. We should be putting
forward new ways to deal with federal-provincial issues, defence
issues, our role in the world, innovation that prevents conflict,
innovation that enables people to get jobs and innovative ways to
reform our tax structure. We should be dealing with large issues
in the House. That is a pox on all of us if we do not do these
things.
The bill before us is about creating a Canada fund for
innovation and spending $1.25 billion. As my colleague from St.
Albert mentioned very eloquently, why not allow the fund to be
audited? Why not allow the auditor general to look at it? Why
leave it up to the government? We know that if governments were
allowed to dispense funds through such a mechanism, those funds
would not be spent wisely. This has to be done in a different
way.
There is a model to do that. The government wisely created the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research which works well. It is a
public-private partnership. It is at arm's length from the
government. It has and will be audited. The institute provides
public scrutiny for the disbursement of funds. It is innovative.
It allows dynamism and flexibility. That is what this fund
needs to be.
It not that we do not support the notion of being able to fund
and give our Canadian researchers the ability to innovate, it is
the manner in which this fund will be disbursed. That is the
problem. It is a matter of accountability and transparency. The
government is sorely lacking in foresight if it thinks the public
will watch $1.25 billion of its money be given away without
having an opportunity to scrutinize it.
There are other things we need to do to allow innovation. First,
we must decrease the tax structure. Second, why not put into the
tax structure our ability to create foundations like the United
States has done? This will enable us to tap into a huge pool of
funds that could be used and dispersed according to what the
foundations wanted. It will provide researchers and
non-governmental and charitable organizations an enormous pool
for innovation.
We should allow individuals to donate to non-governmental
organizations and innovative groups that do research like the
Canadian Juvenile Diabetes Association or the Heart and Stroke
Foundation. We should allow individuals the same tax write-off
that another individual would receive if they donated to a
political party. What is the difference? Why not allow a person
who feels compelled to donate to the Canadian Cancer Society the
ability to have the same tax write-off as somebody who donates to
the Liberal Party or the Canadian Alliance? This is simply an
issue of fairness and equitableness.
While the government has been removing funds from these
organizations, why not allow the organizations to have the
ability to provide for themselves?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not see any relevance in the member's remarks to the bill
which is at hand. I think you should rule accordingly.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I would ask the hon.
member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to tie his comments to the
bill that we are debating.
1825
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will spell it out for
the hon. member. It is called innovation. How do we
innovate? I am talking about new innovative ways the government should look
at in terms of enabling this particular fund to be used wisely. I
am tying my comments to those of my colleague for St. Albert.
I know the hon. member has a strong desire to make sure that
this fund will to be used wisely, not improperly. What we are
doing is saving the government's backside. We are providing it a
way to make sure that this money is spent wisely, with
temperance, and usefully. At the end of the day the money is not
ours, it is that of the Canadian taxpayer.
If we are going to have innovation and spend the money wisely,
it must be spent by those who will be innovating. If we look
into a crystal ball, we will have a enormous lack of individuals
who have the ability to do the innovation. There is a crisis and
it will only worsen because of lack of professors and teachers in
our research institutions. Not only is there the brain drain but
there is not enough money in the system right now to provide for
these people. Many of them are moving to other parts of the
world.
How do we rectify the problem? The following can be done. Let
us get back to basics. Let us make sure our children are taught
properly and that they are taught the basics of arithmetic,
reading, writing and other skills, such as computer skills. We
need national standards. They are important if we are to measure
our functioning and ability against those in other parts of the
world. We need to ensure that we invest in education so that
professors can engage in the research.
We have a serious crisis in our education system today. We need
to address this by working with the provincial ministers of
education. If we do not have the teachers for our youth, they
will not be able to utilize this fund. They will not be able to
interact or be at the centre of excellence. They will not be the
producers of the cutting edge research, which is required if
Canada is to be on the leading edge.
The cost of education has gone up so much. For example in the
field of medicine, I could not go to medical school today because
the tuition fees are about $14,000 a year. The professional
faculties are becoming the purview of the rich.
In my alma mater, the University of Toronto, the average family
income is over $65,000 for those who are in medicine. How can
someone who makes $35,000 a year send their child to medical
school? They cannot do it. As time passes our professional
faculties and the students who attend will merely be children of
the rich and privileged. That is not what we want in Canada. We
want to make sure that everyone, regardless of socio-economic
status, has an equal ability and opportunity to engage in his or
her chosen profession based on the merit of that individual. That
is not happening.
This is a clarion call. It is a call for the government to wake
up and listen, to work with its provincial counterparts to make
sure that we have an education system that is affordable to all
students. We have produced the income contingent loan
replacement plan which would have been very useful in enabling
that to happen.
In closing, we have to innovate in the House, We have to give
MPs the ability and freedom to innovate. We have to revamp this
bill and fund so that it is accountable to members of the public
from coast to coast.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, an act to amend the
Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing)
Regulations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Pursuant to order made
earlier today, the House will now proceed to the deferred
recorded divisions on Bill C-2 at report stage.
Call in the members.
1845
Before the taking of the vote:
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 4.
1855
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Comartin
| Davies
| Day
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
| Yelich – 84
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bagnell
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Clark
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
|
Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
– 152
|
PAIRED
Members
Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bourgeois
| Caccia
| Chamberlain
|
Collenette
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dubé
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
| Loubier
|
Marcil
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Paquette
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Phinney
| Plamondon
| Rock
|
Roy
| St - Hilaire
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Volpe
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 8.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I
believe you would find unanimous consent that members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting no.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Does the House agree to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote yes to the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party present in the House vote yes to the motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party present vote no.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Bellehumeur
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Comartin
| Davies
| Duceppe
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Godin
|
Guimond
| Laframboise
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Stoffer
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 29
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bagnell
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Burton
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chatters
|
Clark
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| Day
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Elley
| Epp
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Fitzpatrick
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallant
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| Spencer
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Yelich – 207
|
PAIRED
Members
Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bourgeois
| Caccia
| Chamberlain
|
Collenette
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dubé
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
| Loubier
|
Marcil
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Paquette
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Phinney
| Plamondon
| Rock
|
Roy
| St - Hilaire
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Volpe
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. If Motion No. 9 is
negatived, Motion No. 10 will be put to the House.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent in the House that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now under
consideration, with Liberal members voting nay.
1900
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present will be voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
will be voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will vote yes.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brien
| Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Clark
| Comartin
| Davies
| Day
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Penson
| Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Toews
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams
| Yelich – 94
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bagnell
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 142
|
PAIRED
Members
Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bourgeois
| Caccia
| Chamberlain
|
Collenette
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dubé
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
| Loubier
|
Marcil
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Paquette
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Phinney
| Plamondon
| Rock
|
Roy
| St - Hilaire
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Volpe
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 10.
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 no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present will be voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party who are present will vote against the motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting yes to the motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Bellehumeur
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cardin
| Casey
| Clark
|
Doyle
| Duceppe
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gauthier
| Guimond
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laframboise
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Ménard
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Venne – 28
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bagnell
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Burton
| Byrne
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chatters
| Coderre
| Comartin
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| Davies
| Day
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Duplain
| Easter
| Elley
|
Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Fitzpatrick
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallant
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McTeague
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Pallister
| Paradis
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| Spencer
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Yelich – 208
|
PAIRED
Members
Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bourgeois
| Caccia
| Chamberlain
|
Collenette
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dubé
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
| Loubier
|
Marcil
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Paquette
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Phinney
| Plamondon
| Rock
|
Roy
| St - Hilaire
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Volpe
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 lost.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find
consent in the House that the 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 way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present will be voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote against the motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party who are present will vote in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to be recorded as having voted in favour of the
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bagnell
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Clark
| Coderre
|
Comartin
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| Davies
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| 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)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| 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'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| 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
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 164
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bigras
| Brien
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Day
| Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Obhrai
| Pallister
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Toews
| Venne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
|
Yelich
– 73
|
PAIRED
Members
Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bourgeois
| Caccia
| Chamberlain
|
Collenette
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dubé
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
| Loubier
|
Marcil
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Paquette
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Phinney
| Plamondon
| Rock
|
Roy
| St - Hilaire
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Volpe
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
1905
[English]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an
act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading
stage of Bill C-18.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe 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 way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no
to the motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bagnell
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Clark
| Coderre
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lanctôt
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marceau
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
| Ménard
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
– 171
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Blaikie
| Burton
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Comartin
| Davies
| Day
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
|
Forseth
| Gallant
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pallister
| Penson
| Peschisolido
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams
| Yelich
– 66
|
PAIRED
Members
Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bergeron
| Bourgeois
| Caccia
| Chamberlain
|
Collenette
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dubé
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
| Loubier
|
Marcil
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Paquette
| Parrish
|
Perron
| Phinney
| Plamondon
| Rock
|
Roy
| St - Hilaire
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Volpe
| Wappel
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise on the question that I raised in the House
some time ago. It turns out that the timing is excellent.
At the time I was asking the government to recognize that the
four Atlantic premiers had sent a letter requesting that the
maritime accord be renewed. Day after day the parliamentary
secretary and the minister would rise in the House and say that
nobody wants the agreements renewed.
However I submitted a letter from the four premiers saying that
they did want it renewed. On Thursday those four Atlantic
premiers signed another letter asking that the maritime accord be
renewed.
The softwood lumber issue is a very serious issue for Atlantic
Canada. On Thursday the mills in Atlantic Canada received a
seven page fax in the middle of the night stating that the rules
were all changed, that they were part of a monitoring system for
national exports and that they must comply with this system.
When the mill owners came to work on Friday morning there was
this whole new regime for them. They had to follow all these new
rules and they had to start following them on Monday.
1910
In the meantime the mill owners had to make arrangements with
brokers and other organizations to make sure their softwood
lumber shipments could continue to the U.S. because it blindsided
the whole industry in Atlantic Canada. There was no preparation
and there was no warning. Even though the government had five
years to get ready for the termination of the softwood lumber
accord, it left it to the last day to tell the industry that it
had to change the way it operated.
It has implemented a monitoring system so that every stick of
lumber from Atlantic Canada to the U.S. has to be registered,
certified and kept track of. This is an extension of the system
that is already in place in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario
and Quebec which now operate under the softwood lumber agreement.
Many people believe, including myself, that by extending those
regulations an export tax will be established in Canada. We hope
this is not the case. The minister says it is not the case, but
everything points to an export tax.
When I asked questions about the issue in question period, the
minister stood and said that this was done to record the wall of
lumber going from Canada to the U.S. upon the expiration of the
softwood lumber agreement. That is not a valid argument because
Atlantic Canada always had free trade. If there was to be a wall
of lumber it would have been last week, last month or last year.
I do not accept his argument or his reasoning for the monitoring
system being applied to Atlantic Canada and being extended from
the four SLA provinces.
I would like the minister or the parliamentary secretary to rise
and confirm that they know that the four Atlantic premiers have
sent two signed letters demanding that the accord be renewed. I
would like them to acknowledge that and to commit that they will
renew the maritime accord as requested by the four premiers.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect
to my colleague, he represents one riding in the Atlantic
provinces. The government has to govern for the entire country.
Softwood lumber is of great interest to every region of Canada,
not just to the Atlantic provinces.
I have no problem in acknowledging the fact that the premiers
recently sent a letter. That is a matter of record. With the
expiry of the softwood lumber agreement our trade is now under
NAFTA rules. The exchange of letters in 1996 confirmed the U.S.
recognition that should a countervailing duty investigation be
initiated during the five year period of the agreement, the
maritimes would be considered not to have subsidized. That will
be of some comfort to the hon. member who represents an Atlantic
riding.
The United States accepted that the maritimes would be
considered not to have subsidized. Our job as a government is to
continue to advocate for free trade in softwood lumber, for free
access to the U.S. market for every region of Canada, not just
the riding and the Atlantic region the member hails from but for
every region of Canada where this is vitally important.
This is not an east-west issue. The member and anyone else who
plays that game does a disservice to what we are trying to do
nationally on this file. This is a north-south dispute; it is
not an east-west dispute. Any MP that falls into that trap is
making a very big mistake and is not helping the national cause
on this file. I would ask my colleague to reconsider that.
This is about market share. Our lumber people have done very
well in the United States. It means that we must have achieved
too much of the market share for the American appetite as we are
up to 34%. This dispute is about protectionism.
The Minister for International Trade has made very clear, we
will continue to vigorously defend the Canadian lumber industry.
We do not unfairly subsidize and that will be proven once again.
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am happy or not
to be rising today on a very serious issue regarding the member
for Vancouver Centre, the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism.
As we all know, she made some unfortunate remarks in the House
which left a bad taste in the mouths of everybody who lives in
Prince George, and for that matter everybody in British Columbia.
1915
I wish to start out by saying that I have honestly seen the
minister from Vancouver Centre in other forums in Halifax and in
my own riding. I have seen her do some very good work on the
promotion of multiculturalism. I have always respected her for
her efforts in bringing that issue to the forefront.
Regardless of the good work she has done in the past, she made a
very serious error in judgment. Although she has apologized in
the House, an apology is not accepted until the people to whom
the slanderous remarks were made against accept the apology. So
far the people of Prince George have not yet accepted that
apology.
I spoke today to his worship, Mayor Kinsley of Prince George,
and asked him what we could do in the House or what could the
minister do to remedy the situation. I suggested and he agreed
that it would be a good idea if she got out of Ottawa or out of
Vancouver and personally flew to Prince George, met with the
mayor and the council, sat down and resolved the issue once and
for all.
A lot of people think of Prince George now in a negative light.
The fact is that last Monday the British Columbia government gave
an award to the city of Prince George for its work in fighting
against racism.
I come from a riding where we have Cole Harbour High School. A
few years ago it was involved in a very serious issue. Those
people got together with the efforts of Department of
Multiculturalism and some dollars from the federal government and
worked to resolve the issue. I know the good work that the
minister's department can do.
It is still left hanging out there. Many people in British
Columbia are still very angry with the minister. Many editorials
and newspaper accounts have said that she should resign to
restore some dignity to that department.
If the minister is not willing to resign or the Prime Minister
is not willing for her to resign, what she must do to resolve
this issue once and for all is to go to Prince George, sit down
and talk with the mayor and resolve this issue. If she did that
I believe we would find a conclusion to this resolve. Then maybe
the minister would learn by her mistake and move forward in the
future.
On behalf of the people of Prince George, I thank the House for
the opportunity to speak. I hope the minister takes that advice
and goes very quickly to Prince George to resolve this important
issue.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
specific reference to the hon. member's original question, I am
informed that the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism did not
personally call or instruct her staff or department to call the
RCMP on this matter.
On Thursday, March 22, the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism rose in the House and stated her regret and gave
an apology to the people of Prince George. She further stated
that it had never been her intent to disparage communities
anywhere in Canada and that she deeply regretted the distress
caused by the statement she made. In the tradition of
parliament, her apology has been accepted here.
The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism also paid tribute to
the people of Prince George and the good work they had done in
setting up a task force against hate activities. She has further
stated that she wished to continue to work with them in their
fight against racism.
I also want to point out for the benefit of the hon. member and
the House that the minister has written to Mayor Kinsley of
Prince George. She has conveyed personally her own regret. She
said that she wanted to convey personally how sorry she was for
the distress which her comments may have caused on March 21.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): 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.
(The House adjourned at 7.19 p.m.)