37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 049
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 26, 2001
1010
| BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill S-16. First reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Third reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1015
1020
| Mr. Scott Reid |
1025
1030
1035
1040
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1045
1050
1055
1100
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1105
1110
1115
1120
1125
1130
1135
1140
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1145
1150
1155
| Mr. John Bryden |
1200
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Ted White |
1220
| Division on motion deferred
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-24. Second reading
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
1225
1230
1235
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1240
1245
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1250
1255
1300
1305
| ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Third reading
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1310
1315
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1320
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1325
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1330
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1335
| Division on motion deferred.
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading
|
| Hon. John Manley |
1340
1345
1350
| Hon. David Anderson |
1355
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| ISRAEL
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1405
| INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| UNKNOWN SOLDIER
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| VOLUNTEERISM
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| ORGAN DONATION
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1410
| UNKNOWN SOLDIER
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| CHERNOBYL
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| CERCLE DES FERMIÈRES
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1415
| ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1430
| FINANCE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1435
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1440
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| WINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1445
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| STEEL INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1450
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1455
| Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| FRANCOPHONIE GAMES
|
| Mr. Serge Marcil |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1500
| Hon. David Collenette |
| INCOME TAX RETURNS
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| The Speaker |
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1510
1515
1520
1525
1530
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
1535
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-25. Second reading
|
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1610
| GOLD MINES
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Motion
|
1615
1620
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
1625
1630
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1650
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1655
1700
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1705
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1710
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
1715
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 049
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 26, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1010
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that Mr. Dick Harris of the electoral district of Prince
George—Bulkley Valley has been appointed as a member of the
Board of Internal Economy in place of Mr. Chuck Strahl, member
for the electoral district of Fraser Valley.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
* * *
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) Act be read a first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
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: Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be
read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak briefly today on
the bill which proposes a few amendments to the Canada Elections
Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
As members of parliament will know, from time to time we need to
revisit our laws to make sure they keep up with the changing
needs of Canadians.
[Translation]
Sometimes this entails introducing totally new legislation as
happened with Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act, in the last
parliament.
While the impetus for change usually comes from the public
or this House, it can also be the result of rulings by the
courts. An example is the Figueroa case heard recently by the
Ontario Court of Appeal.
In this case the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of
the provisions in the Canada Elections Act relating to the
registration of political parties.
He argued that requiring a party to nominate 50 candidates
before it could be declared a registered party, and thus
before having tis name appear on the ballot, violated section 3 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since smaller
parties could not achieve this threshold and were therefore
denied some of the financial benefits accorded to registered
parties.
[English]
In its ruling, the court ruled that it was in fact reasonable to
require parties to have 50 candidates before they qualify for
financial benefits. I repeat that the court said it was okay.
The reason it did so and I quote the court. It said that the
requirement “is a reasonable method of distinguishing between
parties whose involvement reaches the appropriate level of
participation and parties whose involvement does not”. That was
a quote from paragraph 88 of the court's decision.
The provision of the Canada Elections Act pertaining to the
eligibility for financial benefit remains unchanged.
The plaintiff also challenged those provisions requiring parties
to have 50 nominated candidates before their names could appear
on the ballot.
1015
The argument was that having a candidate's political affiliation
on the ballot was desirable since it provided voters with
important information they needed before making an informed
choice. In other words, if there were two John Does on the ballot
and one of them was John Doe from such and such party, as opposed
to John Doe, independent, voters would have the right to know
that it was John Doe from such and such party.
[Translation]
In this case the court ruled that this use of the 50
candidate threshold was not valid and represented an
unjustifiable limitation on the right of voters to make an
informed choice since it denied them important information
about candidates, as I have just shown.
As such, it violates section 3 of the charter. Consequently
the court referred the offending portions of the act back to
parliament and gave it a specific time frame to take remedial
action.
This is why it is important to respond to its ruling.
[English]
The bill before us responds to this part of the ruling by
proposing to lower the threshold for including party affiliation
on the ballot, in other words the informative part, to just 12
candidates, which is less than a quarter of what it would have
required before.
I spoke in committee to why the number 12 was used. It was used
because it is a threshold with which we are familiar. It is one
that exists elsewhere for political parties, namely 12 is the
minimum number of members of parliament to be recognized by the
Speaker as a party for the purposes of the House. That would
suppose that a party with 12 candidates would elect all of them
all of the time. Although that is unlikely it is at least
possible, and that is the number we used.
We could have used a slightly higher threshold, namely 15,
because it was the one recommended by the Lortie commission. The
Lortie commission, appointed by the previous Conservative
government, had made such a recommendation in the past. In any
case, certainly if 15 works 12 is a number that is even less
onerous and therefore would work not only as well but some would
argue even better.
All these issues were studied by the parliamentary committee. I
thank the committee for the excellent issues that were raised. I
did not always agree with everything that was raised by some hon.
colleagues in committee, but largely they were very constructive,
as they usually are. I hope my responses to them in committee
were as equally informative as their questions were interesting.
During these hearings the question of how many candidates should
be required was discussed at length. There were members who
called for a far greater number than 12, while others wanted to
lower the number. As a matter of fact, there is a private
member's bill before the House by a member of the Canadian
Alliance arguing for a stronger threshold.
There must be a threshold some place. The court spoke to this
eloquently. It said the designation on the ballot had to be what
it called a party in the real sense of the word. That was the
expression used by the court. One person is not a party. I,
running under my own party, would not have the status of a party.
A party that would bear only the individual's name would not
satisfy that criterion. Again the court referred to that in its
decision.
The balanced approach was required. To use a threshold that had
foundation in law, the number 12 certainly has that and the
number 15 as well. Both were reasonable and we used one of them.
It is the balanced approached. Mr. Speaker, you will be very
familiar with the government's usually balanced approach to most
things, if not everything.
Voters could be, as I said, misled if a ballot indicated a
candidate was affiliated with a political party that was in fact
not a political party.
That would not serve to make the system more transparent but
could arguably make it less so.
1020
As a matter of fact, one colleague was very concerned about the
fact that people could put their names on a ballot for the
purpose of giving publicity to a commercial enterprise. In other
words they could simply satisfy the criteria for the ballot and
advertise. One hon. member gave the example of her real estate
office or something like that. That is not what the ballot is
designed to do. It is difficult to reconcile all these things,
but we tried to use the number that would make it all work.
As I mentioned, the rationale for choosing 12 is already found
in our parliamentary system. Once passed, this measure would
allow political parties with at least 12 candidates to have their
names appear alongside those of their candidates. In other words
the ballot would say that John Doe is running under the XYZ
party, if that happened to be the name of the particular group of
people.
[Translation]
As to the other provisions, I will mention them briefly before
concluding. These tend to be technical amendments designed to
correct a few anomalies that have become apparent since the new
Canada Elections Act came into force and terminological changes
aimed at making the English and French versions more consistent.
As such, they should make our existing electoral laws even
better.
I wish to thank parliamentarians from all parties who took
part in this exercise, and I mean this sincerely.
I also wish to thank those who worked hard on drafting Bill C-9:
the people at Elections Canada, the Department of Justice, Privy
Council, my own team, and of course all those working on the
bill right now.
I will conclude by repeating the promise I made to the
parliamentary committee. What we have before us today is not an
overhaul of the Canada Elections Act. It is simply a response
to the court and the correction of certain technical details,
certain anomalies.
Nevertheless, we remain committed to again overhaul the Canada
Elections Act, as must be done, particularly on the heels of an
election and following the report and recommendations of
Canada's chief electoral officer, which will probably be
released shortly.
Later there will have to be consultations with the
political parties, not just in the House but within the parties
themselves because sometimes political parties
have important things to say and they are not just said by
parliamentarians. There will have to be this kind of
consultation with them and with the general public
in due course.
That is not what is before us today. We are looking
only at the corrections I have just mentioned, but the firm
undertaking to improve the Canada Elections Act in general
remains and I wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate this
in the House, as I did in committee a few weeks ago.
On that note I will close because I know that parliamentarians
will soon want to move on to Bill C-24. In order to speed
things up a bit, I will conclude my remarks here.
I thank my colleagues in advance for the contribution they will
make to this debate.
[English]
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the hon. member for
Surrey Central.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but he needs unanimous consent to split his
time. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for
Lanark—Carleton to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if unanimous
consent was gained because hon. members realize I will have 10
minutes less to speak, but at any rate I am grateful to the other
members present for giving their consent.
1025
I want to start today by making a few general observations, by
dealing with some philosophical points, by creating a larger
framework, and then perhaps by delving a little into the details
of the bill.
Our parliamentary system in Canada is derived partially from
that of the United Kingdom and partially from that of the United
States. This surprises some people who think it is entirely
derived from the United Kingdom, but we have a written
constitution like the Americans, a Senate with set membership
like the Americans, and a charter of rights similar to the
American bill of rights.
We can learn about the motivating spirit of our democracy by
dipping into the writings of the great constitutionalists of both
of the world's streams of democratic thought. From the British,
for example, we can read Bagehot, Dicey, Acton and Sir Henry
Maine. We can go back in history and read Blackstone. When it
comes to the Americans we can look and learn from the writings of
Madison, Jefferson, John Taylor of Caroline and of Alexis de
Tocqueville.
I draw the attention of the House to a particular well known
statement made by Thomas Jefferson. He made the observation once
that the natural course of things is for liberty to give ground
over time to tyranny. He then tried, through his great student
Madison who was present at the constitutional convention in
Philadelphia in 1789, to build institutions which would prevent
that natural course of events from taking place.
I should point out that Canada's constitution was designed with
exactly this purpose in mind, but unlike the Americans we had a
wealth of experience upon which to draw. We had the British
example and we drew upon that extensively and wisely.
The Fathers of Confederation also drew extensively upon the
American example, so much so that A. V. Dicey, the great British
constitutionalist, made the observation that although the
preamble to the Canadian constitution, the British North America
Act, talks of a constitution similar in spirit to that of the
United Kingdom, the word kingdom could have been withdrawn and
the word states put in its place and it would be equally true,
according to Dicey. We could learn from both these examples and
from what has been said by the great scholars of both these
traditions.
Some of the protections in the American system for individual
liberty and freedom that we built into our own system are
federalism, being the most obvious and powerful example, and a
Senate with a fixed membership and regional representation. Of
course the British house of lords does not have a fixed
membership and it does not have any form of regional
representation built into it.
The dates for elections could not be postponed beyond five
years. That was written into our constitution without very
substantial consent within parliament itself, whereas in Britain
parliament has always had the unilateral right to change the
period between elections without notice. This was done in the
18th century when the period between elections was changed from
the traditional level of three years to seven years which
remained throughout the 19th century. It was then changed again
to five years. In Canada the five year level was set.
These are all indications that we looked at the British model
and saw much that was wise there, looked at the American model
and saw much that was wise there, and together tried to integrate
them to build truly profound protections for liberty to ensure
that Canada would be the freest country in the world. To a large
degree the Fathers of Confederation were successful.
We also gained, in our initial constitutional arrangement,
certain benefits for liberty that were taken from the British
model. I would like to cite some of those. Initially judicial
review of our laws was placed in a non-resident institution, the
house of lords and typically the judicial committee of the privy
council. That was done to ensure that we could not have any kind
of political control ultimately over rights. There was an
institution that would protect us from that.
We were subjected originally to the colonial laws validity act
which was designed to ensure that no law repugnant to the laws of
Britain could be passed in Canada, or indeed in any of the other
countries that in those days were characterized as British
colonies, which would take away rights from individuals.
That law was subsequently removed in 1931 by the statute of
Westminster. Again, it is an indication of the number of
protections that we thought were important for liberties and
democracy in the country.
1030
The most important protection in the eyes of our founders for
liberty in the country was that we were a monarchy. We had a
monarch chosen by the lottery of birth who, as Bagehot said,
would bear the dignified portions of the government, whereas the
efficient portions of governance would be carried out by the
House of Commons and our Senate. This was seen as a way of
ensuring a tremendous respect for liberty and a protection that
would go beyond that which was available either in Britain or in
the United States.
I take a bit of time to make the point that our tradition is one
which is very respectful of democracy, of liberty and of the full
right of participation for all Canadians regardless of their
political views in the process on a level playing field. It
seems to me that in recent years we have seen an erosion of some
of these rights. That concerns me a great deal.
We have seen, for example, a persistent effort on the part of
the current government to ensure that third party advertising is
restricted as much as possible. This has been pursued with a
tremendous amount of tenacity by the government in order to
ensure that private parties are unable to participate in the
electoral process and that competition is largely shut down.
We saw a refusal to implement legislation that would permit
citizen initiation or review of legislation on the Swiss model.
We saw the erosion of rights of members of parliament. We saw
the extreme use in this place of votes of confidence. Everything
is a confidence motion. That has had the effect of enforcing
rigid party discipline and taking away the ability of members to
speak their own minds freely in a way that would reflect the will
of their constituents and of the Canadian people.
We also saw an absolute refusal of the government to make
non-partisan appointments to the Senate or to recognize Senate
elections. There was a very reluctant willingness on the part of
the prior prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, to allow one elected
senator from Alberta, the hon. Stan Waters, to take his seat as
the voters had decided. Similar respect for the voters of
Alberta has not been shown in its choice of Professor Ted Morton
and of Bert Brown, who were fairly elected.
When we looked to the United States, which at one point had an
appointed senate, we saw that the process of developing elected
senates started when the state of Oregon elected its senators and
the senate itself allowed them to sit. This led to a rapid
spread of senate elections and eventually an amendment to its
constitution. These are all valuable changes that would make the
country more democratic. Preventing them from occurring keeps
the country less democratic.
In addition to the prevention of an expansion of democracy, we
see an actual clamp being put on free democratic expression and
the ability of parties to compete on an equal playing field. This
is what we see when we turn to the present piece of legislation
and the ancestral pieces of legislation passed over the prior
eight years by this government and the prior government.
There has been a systematic attempt to cut off the privileges of
minor parties. If we go back to 1993, legislation was passed at
that time which was clearly designed to make it impossible for
two new parties, which at that point did not have substantial
representation in this place, the Reform Party as it then was and
the Bloc Quebecois to compete on a level playing field.
The legislation said, among other things, that if there were
less than 50 candidates on the ballot the name of the party could
not be placed on the ballot. The party could not issue tax
receipts. The party could not have assets. Its assets would be
forfeited immediately to the Receiver General for Canada and
money could be spent only on activities that related to that
forfeiture.
This did not of course have the intended impact which was to
ensure that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois could not
contest an election on a level playing field or indeed on any
terms at all because both parties were able to produce more than
50 members in that election. Even though the two parties for
which this was intended managed to overcome the hurdle, the law
remained in place and was clearly a pernicious law.
1035
Let us consider an example. There are 75 seats in Quebec. The
Bloc Quebecois naturally had more candidates than the minimum
amount permitted under this legislation. However let us say
there was a smaller region that wanted to put forward candidates
to represent its interests, for example, a maritime rights
movement. I remind the House that in the 1920s there was a
maritimes rights movement which was very active and represented
some very legitimate interests.
Let us say for the sake of argument that advocates of the
maritime rights movement wanted to put forward candidates. There
are not 50 seats in the maritime provinces, therefore they would
deprived of the right to issue tax receipts, put their name on
the ballot, to have assets and function in any way as a party.
Yet that would be a legitimate interest.
There could be other regions of the country where the same thing
could occur. I will return to this a little later, but it is
interesting to note that right now the 50 candidate rule still
remains law for certain provisions of the original law and has
not been struck down by the courts. It is still impossible to
issue tax receipts. This law does not deal with that.
No longer does a party has to forfeit its assets if it has less
than 50 candidates. That is not because of anything this
government has done. The original court ruling that dealt with
the Figueroa case struck down that provision of the law and the
government realized it was constitutionally indefensible chose
not to appeal it. However it attempted to appeal the ruling that
the name could go on the ballot with less than 50 candidates but
it was struck down again. This time the court said a lower
number had to be put into the law within six months.
The government waited until three days before the six month
period and let an election go by which ensured parties could not
function during that election under the new rules mandated by the
court. It then puts forward an absolute minimum rule, which is
applied in the minimal manner possible with the court's ruling,
and allows 12 candidates as the standard for getting a name on
the ballot. However it has done nothing else which the court has
not forced it to do. That is clearly highly objectionable.
The minister spoke very eloquently in favour of the merits of
using 12 as our number. An equally eloquent argument can be made
in favour of two. However there seems to have been a consensus
among small parties before the court case that 12 would be okay.
If that is such a good rule for putting names on the ballot,
then why on earth is it not also acceptable to issue tax
receipts, or having access to advertising that is set aside by
the Canada Elections Act, and for all the other privileges? The
only reason I can think of is that there is still an attempt to
freeze out small parties. We have the parties which exist now
but perhaps there are future problems that could arise for the
government. I think the government wants to keep on ensuring
that no one else can enter into this place. It wants to make it
is impossible for other parties to get in.
I should point out that this is a pattern we see occurring
elsewhere. It is a regrettable pattern. We are not unique in
the world in having this.
I want to point out some of the dangers that can occur if we go
too far down the road of trying to restrict the free right of
small parties to contest elections on the same terms as the major
parties.
Let us look at the United States for example. The tangle of
election laws in the United States has ensured that incumbents in
the house of representatives enjoy a 98% re-election rate. They
are nominally the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. On
some issues they differ but in many respects there are critics
who say it is really one party, the incumbent party. When it
comes to dealing with electoral law that is a fair statement to
make.
The whole focus of American electoral law reform for the past 30
years has been to ensure that independent candidates cannot make
it in. That is if a Republican is the incumbent in the seat it
is hard for a Democrat to make it in and if a Democrat is the
incumbent in the seat it is hard for a Republican to make it in.
Therefore congress becomes a cozy little club in which there is a
great deal of collegiality. It is a club in which democracy is
not operating as it should, as Madison and Jefferson would have
wanted it to operate. Both of men would have been absolutely
appalled by this spectacle.
1040
We can see how this works. From the point of view of a ruling
party, the ideal is to have a permanent division of seats in
which the smaller parties are ensured some representation and
some privileges. However they never actually contest the ability
of the dominant party to control at least half the house and
therefore 100% of the legislation in the house. This is
absolutely contrary to the beliefs of our founders, the Fathers
of Confederation. This is a terrible shame.
While I do not think it is intention of the government to take
us down the same road as the Americans, the danger is there. The
government ought to reconsider very carefully what it is doing.
We are well on our way down that road.
I do not think Canada wants to head in this direction. I would
never impugn that kind of motive to anybody. The danger is a
country could wind up with the kind of situation that existed in
Poland in the mid part of this century, from the late 1940s to
1989, with the de facto one party rule.
There were three parties represented in the Polish Sejm, that is
the Polish Diet or legislature. The three parties were the
Polish United Workers Party or the Communist Party, then the
United Peasant Party and the Democratic Party which were smaller
parties that had a limited number of seats, no influence on
legislation and served essentially to provide the illusion that
there was a functioning multiparty democracy.
That is the extreme. I do not believe Canada is heading that
far but that is the model we have to avoid. The government
should be proactively saying what it can do to ensure that
smaller parties have the right to contest elections on exactly
equal and fair terms with the larger parties like the Canadian
Alliance, the Liberal Party and the other parties represented
here.
When we heard the testimony that was given at committee by the
leaders of the Christian Heritage Party, the Communist Party and
the Green Party, we heard tremendously eloquent and thoughtful
people. They were presenting points of view that were not the
same point of view that the minister nor I share. However they
were profoundly intelligent points of view that deserved to be
heard by the Canadian people on exact and equal terms.
If Canadians decide that they should put their trust in one of
those parties, the parties should have the right to receive that
trust. Those parties must have the right to present their case
on exactly the same terms that those of us who are here today
enjoy. Anything less is undemocratic, unfair and unacceptable to
the spirit in which our constitution was crafted and to the
spirit that is the heart of every Canadian, which is that this is
a truly free, truly democratic, truly pluralist country in which
every point of view is valid unless it is intolerant or hate
filled. None of the people who represent those parties have that
kind of sentiment or intolerance.
We need to set an example that shows that we are, as our
founders intended us to be, the freest and most generous country
in the world. Anything less is unacceptable and that makes this
bill unacceptable. I urge every member of the House to consider
those facts and to vote against the bill.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, I
am very pleased to participate in the third reading debate on
Bill C-9, the Liberal government's proposed changes to the
elections act.
Before I begin my remarks I want to commend the hon. member for
Lanark—Carleton for his significant contribution to this debate.
His comments are highly appreciated.
The bill has two main focuses. First, Bill C-9 would amend the
Canada Elections Act so that candidates, other than those of
registered parties, may have the option of indicating their
political affiliation on the ballot. Second, it provides for
various technical amendments that would correct certain details
of the new Canada Elections Act. The bill is supposed to amend
the Canada Elections Act that became law on September 1, 2000 in
the last parliament.
The Liberals passed the bill only a few months ago. The bill we
are debating today is the Liberal government's attempt to correct
the mistakes they made in the previous bill in the 36th
parliament.
1045
The official opposition is continuing to try to force the
government to do its work, as we asked it to do in the 36th
parliament. I spoke to that bill in the last parliament and I
warned the government about the pitfalls which it did not
prevent.
As I said at second reading of the bill, I do not mind helping
the Liberals to do their homework. I will present some ideas
which the government can listen to and adopt amendments to the
bill so that it does not have to amend it again after a little
while.
The chief electoral officer appeared before the procedure and
House affairs standing committee that conducted hearings on the
bill last month. He said that these technical amendments did not
raise any administrative concerns, apart from the fact that they
were not exhaustive. The chief electoral officer also said that
he had discovered other provisions that would warrant revision
since some of these technical amendments created undesirable
effects. The light is flashing, but I do not know if the
Liberals are listening.
For example, Bill C-9 does not resolve the incongruity of the
situation in which eligible and suspended parties are considered
exactly like third parties. There should be some difference
between a small political party and one that has been suspended.
These two types of party status are seen as the same. However
they are different and our laws should reflect that. At this
late stage of the bill's progress, that is third and final
reading, I ask the government what will it do about the fact that
suspended parties are treated the same way as a small party. It
is unfair.
There is also a concern that parties, which are not represented
in the House regularly, raise questions about their participation
in the electoral process. The chief electoral officer is
concerned about the frequency and wide range of complaints about
how smaller parties are treated and the obstacles they face
trying to compete with large, more established political parties
like the governing Liberals. Our electoral system should be
fixed so that everyone is treated fairly and equally. The weak
Liberal government that lacks vision is not addressing these
problems in the bill.
The chief electoral officer will be tabling a report in the fall
of 2001 wherein he will suggest ways to improve the current
system. We look forward to his report, but I am sure that
members on the government side do not.
The bill's provisions regarding the identification of political
affiliation on ballots raises another question. It creates a two
tier political party system, with different kinds of benefits
accruing to political parties, depending on whether they are
large parties with 12 or more candidates or small parties. The
Liberals are only passing the bill because they want to limit
their competition. That is undemocratic.
During the debate at second reading we heard many speakers
indicating the problems they had experienced with Elections
Canada during the last election and in the previous election. The
government could make improvements to the way we conduct our
elections. The Liberals have refused to pass Canadian Alliance
amendments proposed at committee stage. Those amendments would
have made the bill more acceptable to smaller parties.
1050
For example, leaders of Canada's smaller political parties
testified before the procedure and house affairs standing
committee on the invitation of the Canadian Alliance critic for
intergovernmental affairs. Ron Gray, leader of the Christian
Heritage Party; Chris Bradshaw, leader of the Green Party; and
Miguel Figueroa, leader of the Communist Party testified to the
discriminatory spirit of the bill.
Under the bill proposed by the Liberals, large parties with 12
or more candidates or registered parties would have the right to
receive final electors lists, issue tax receipts, reimbursement
of partial election expenses, broadcasting time on national TV
and preferential rates during prime time. Smaller parties and
independent candidates are barred access to those resources.
At committee stage of Bill C-9, the Canadian Alliance tried to
have several amendments passed but the Liberal dominated
committee refused them. We tried to have the Liberals adopt the
following amendment:
The Chief Electoral Officer shall deliver a printed copy and a
copy in electronic form of the final lists of electors for each
electoral district to each candidate.
We wanted to change the word party to candidate. This would
make the act more democratic. There is no reason to prevent any
candidate from receiving that list. It would be undemocratic if
candidates were not treated fairly and equally and were not given
the electors list so that they could do their campaigning. How
could we prevent them from having access to the final electors
list while candidates from established larger political parties
have access to that list? That is very unfair. The Liberals
refused to accept that amendment.
Another amendment submitted by the Canadian Alliance would
strike the phrase, in the preceding election, from subclause
12(2)(d). In the case of a general election a party has
candidates whose nominations have been confirmed in at least 12
electoral districts.
The way the clause reads now and would continue to read prevents
a candidate in a byelection from having the party name with which
he or she is affiliated appear on the ballot unless the party was
qualified to have its name appear on the ballot in the previous
general election. This again is an unfair situation that new
political parties would face in a byelection.
The Liberals should not be afraid of new political parties. The
government should be careful not to put any barriers in the way
of new parties. This would encourage democracy to flourish, but
the Liberals do not want that.
In clause 17 of Bill C-9 we tried to have subsection 335(1) of
the act replaced with the following:
In the period beginning with the issue of the writs for a general
election and ending at midnight on the day before polling day,
every broadcaster shall, subject to the regulations made under
the Broadcasting Act and the conditions of its licence, make
available, for purchase by all political parties for the
transmission of political announcements and other programming
produced by or on behalf of the political parties, six and one
half hours of broadcasting time during prime time on its
facilities.
Once again, the official opposition was pleading the case of
smaller or newer political parties. We wanted to remove the word
registered from appearing before the word party so that any party
could have access to broadcasting time, thus giving all parties
an equal opportunity.
We tried to make it possible for a party to become a registered
party if it could obtain the names of 5,000 electors who were
members of that party or who supported the right of the party to
be a registered party.
It would be fair and make our democracy more open and
transparent. However the Liberals refused it.
1055
Most Canadians feel that under our electoral system every
candidate in Canada must have equal access to the electoral list
and the ability to issue tax receipts regardless of political
affiliation, but the Liberals do not want that. They are so
arrogant and heavy-handed and into power and control that they
want to crush even the smallest voices in our electoral system.
The bill is all about incumbency protection.
It is apparent that the Liberals would go to any length to
protect their seats and even deny the democratic rights of other
Canadians. We must not forget that the bill is the government's
response to the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling on Communist Party
leader, Mr. Miguel Figueroa's challenge to the limitations
imposed on smaller parties as a result of Bill C-2 that came into
effect in November 2000.
Bill C-2 was flawed. The Liberals did not listen to the
opposition, other Canadians and witnesses who appeared before the
committee. I spoke in the debate on that bill in the previous
parliament and I warned the Liberals that their phony bill would
be challenged in the courts. I warned them that they would lose
the case. It was challenged and they did lose the case.
The Communist Party has pledged to sue the government as soon as
Bill C-9 is passed. I warn them again. I may have to speak
again when the bill comes back before the House. I remind them
that it is the opinion of the four political party leaders who
testified before the committee that the Liberal government is
only grudgingly complying with the Ontario court's decision. It
is doing so in the narrowest possible sense. Anyone supporting
Bill C-9 is pulling up the drawbridge to the House of Commons.
If these measures had been in place 10 years ago, new parties
like the Reform Party of Canada would have been barred access to
the vital resources that facilitated its rise to the office of
the official opposition and now the Canadian Alliance Party.
Among other technical matters Bill C-9 also stipulates that if
the chief electoral officer wishes to examine alternative voting
processes such as electronic voting, the alternative cannot be
used without the approval of both the House and the Senate
committees. Under the current legislation only approval of the
House of Commons committee is required to give the chief
electoral officer the freedom to examine alternatives that are
innovative and could help modernize our electoral process, which
is a good thing.
However on this side of the House our ears perk up when we hear
the word Senate. Are the Liberals preparing to have the Senate
kill any innovative ideas the chief electoral officer wants to
propose? We know for sure that we cannot trust the government.
At committee hearings the Canadian Alliance proposed to amend
this part of the bill but our amendment was again struck down. We
know that the Senate is not elected. How could it interfere with
the election process when senators are not elected? It is very
unfair and undemocratic. The Canadian Alliance policy declares:
To improve the representative nature of our electoral system, we
will consider electoral reforms, including proportional
representation, the single transferable ballot, electronic
voting, and fixed election dates, and will submit such options to
voters in a nationwide referendum.
Bill C-9 does not go far enough to democratize our electoral
process. We believe all parties should be treated equally and
fairly, not merely those with 50 or more candidates or 12 or more
candidates.
1100
It is unfortunate that when the House was debating Bill C-2 in
the last session the Liberals ignored the Reform Party's
recommendation to drop the 50 candidate rule. As usual, the
Liberals were forced into action not by the wishes of Canadians
but by a court ruling.
When Bill C-2 was before the procedure and House affairs
committee, constitutional lawyer Gerald Chipeur made it clear to
the Liberals that the 50 candidate rule would be struck down. The
Canadian Alliance always rejected the Liberal's claim that the 50
candidate rule was designed to protect voters from frivolous
parties.
The Canadian Alliance believes that voters and not the
government, this arrogant, weak Liberal government that lacks
vision, should decide whether a party or candidate is worthy of
their vote. If Canadians feel a candidate or political party is
worthy of their vote then they should vote for them. It should
not be up to the government to tell Canadians which candidate or
party is worthy of their vote.
The Canadian Alliance is very unhappy that Bill C-9 creates two
classes of political parties. There should be an equal and fair
opportunity for each party and candidate in the electoral
process. However the bill denies that. It creates two classes
of parties.
The Canadian Alliance believes the Canada Elections Act should
be neutral and treat everyone equally and fairly. Bill C-9 is
not neutral because of the reasons I have mentioned. It creates
two classes of political parties and does not give equal
opportunity to all candidates. We are therefore left with no
option but to oppose the bill.
The government still has time to give Bill C-9 a second thought.
I know it is late, but the government should have given it a
second thought and accepted the amendments, listened to the
witnesses in committee and given every candidate and party an
equal opportunity.
The bill is not only undemocratic; it is anti-democratic. We
have an elected dictatorship in Canada and that will not change
if the bill is not changed. Let us see how Canadians feel. We
on this side of the House oppose the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased in turn to speak to Bill C-9 at this final stage.
I would like to indicate right away that our political formation
will support this legislation, but without any great enthusiasm.
I would even say that we do it out of pique, in a way, because
we recognize that parliament must abide by the court decision in
the Figueroa case.
We also recognize that there are in the current Canada
Elections Act, resulting from the reform adopted in the last
parliament, a number of mistakes, all in all minor, that could
nevertheless have had some rather dramatic effects in certain
respects.
There are problems of agreement between the two texts, of poor
translation from English to
French since this bill was obviously first drafted in English.
There are also a number of mistakes in the numbering of some
subsections and paragraphs. Again, this may seem trivial at
first sight, but on closer look this could have had in the last
election effects that although not dramatic could certainly
be described as prejudicial.
Basically we should correct these difficulties, these small
problems, these technical mistakes as I call them, in the
Canada Elections Act.
1105
If some technical mistakes were introduced in the elections
act, I think we have to recognize that it is simply because we
have proceeded hastily—unwillingly, I may add—with the elections
act reform in the last session of the last parliament.
We proceeded with too much haste and this haste was dictated to
us by the government, whose motives were—we saw it later, but we
had suspicions at the time—essentially political and partisan.
The government wanted to campaign under the new act, and since
the government party was planning an early election we had to
pass the new elections act as quickly as possible.
We had to proceed hastily, which prevented us from doing the
work as conscientiously as we wanted to or as we should have,
and the main result was that we were unable to make substantive
changes to the elections act.
There were certainly very interesting changes, which had the
effect of improving the act or the Canadian electoral system.
However the fact still remains that we should have certainly
examined changes that were much more substantive, but with the
limited time available we obviously were unable to do so.
I must tell the House that as representatives of the people of
Quebec and Canada in this House we should be deeply
troubled and concerned by the rate of participation in
elections, which is constantly declining.
We were able to see, particularly during the last federal
election, that the rate of participation was dramatically low.
We were able to see, particularly during the last federal
election, that the rate of participation was dramatically low
in spite of all the efforts made by the chief electoral officer
to inform Canadians and Quebecers of the procedure to be
registered on the voters' list and to exercise their right to
vote.
This drop in the rate of participation also occurred in spite of
the many changes made to the act to make it easier to vote. In
fact, it is possible to vote under almost all circumstances in
Canada and abroad. Some would even say that the Canada Elections
Act is written in such a way that makes it easy, and a few
journalists demonstrated this in the last election, to vote
fraudulently.
We facilitate as much as possible the exercise of people's
right to vote. In spite of that the participation rate is
getting lower at each election. As I said, as parliamentarians
I think this worrisome trend in our democracy must be cause for
great concern.
If people are losing interest in politics and in
the election process, we must draw certain conclusions and make
certain changes.
We must carry out a reform of parliament that takes the
expectations of the people we represent into account. They must
be absolutely convinced that what we are doing here is being
done on their behalf, that we are representing them, that we are
protecting their interests and that we have a real say.
There is cause for concern with regard to for
what I would call the democratic drift that threatens the
process of globalization we are going through and the
negotiation of the FTAA in which parliamentarians are
definitely not involved.
1110
We do need to change our parliamentary system, and that
includes an indepth reform of the Canadian electoral system.
When we examined Bill C-2, which was supposed to
be one of the most major reviews of the Canada Elections Act,
we could have made substantial changes. We agreed with those changes but for
political and partisan reasons we did not make them. That resulted, as we
know, in the participation rate during the last federal election
being one of the lowest since 1867. We missed a unique
opportunity to carry out an indepth reform.
We must recognize that since the beginning of this new
parliament the government has been dragging its feet somewhat
on parliamentary and electoral reform. With this bill we could
have started afresh, but no, the government has chosen to make
cosmetic changes, to correct some technical mistakes to which I
alluded and to abide by the court's decision in the Figueroa
case. I will come back to these two issues a little later.
I would like to talk briefly about what we could have done. I
hope the government House leader is listening to what I am saying.
I hope we will have the opportunity very soon, after the chief
electoral officer tables his report or his recommendations
following the last federal election, to review, amend and reform
much more thoroughly the Canadian electoral system so that our
fellow citizens will feel that this system is relevant to the
decision making process.
We might examine the voting procedure and the representation
system. We had a debate in the House some time ago and we
discussed the possibility of striking an all party committee to
look into all these issues. The government has unfortunately
shown very little interest in the idea of even discussing a more
thorough reform of the electoral system.
I was surprised to hear the government House leader say that we
would have the opportunity to examine more thoroughly the issue
of the electoral system once the chief electoral officer has
stated his position on the subject. I must say that he missed an
excellent opportunity of showing tangible interest in this when
we debated a motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party.
We might examine the representation system. Would it be relevant
or not to integrate into Canadian legislation an element of
proportional representation in our electoral system? Should we
adopt a purely proportional electoral system? Of course there
are pros and cons. We have already had an opportunity to discuss
this.
As for the advantages, there is the fact that it would
eventually allow for a better representation of women and young
people in parliament.
As far as the electoral process is concerned, minority groups
would be better represented, and election results would better
reflect the various points of view and ideologies in society,
including some of the more minority ones.
With a proportional representation component the system will
avoid the distortions sometimes created by the first past the
post system which makes it possible for a government to gather
almost 100% of the power with only 40% of the votes. A
proportional representation system would allow for better
co-operation with the opposition and would encourage government
to take into account the opinions of the opposition.
1115
Of course, there are some disadvantages to such a system. We
will have to take them into consideration when we consider the
system so that the necessary corrective mechanisms can be put
in place. Instability can result from pure proportional
representation and sometimes from a system with a proportional
representation component.
There is also the risk that a proportional representation
component could also create two classes of members: those who
have ridings and constituents to whom they are accountable and
to whom they must provide services and those who are appointed
from the party lists.
To whom are the members accountable? To the people who elect
them or to the party who puts them on the ballot? Those are
questions that still need to be asked if we at some later
point come to question the appropriateness of integrating
proportionality into the Canadian electoral system.
We could have examined the system of appointing returning
officers, a system that gives Canada the image of a democracy
that is somewhat behind the times, somewhat aging, somewhat
archaic. I, an opposition MP, am not the only one who says so.
Canada's chief electoral officer said the following when he
appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs on October 28:
—when I go out on the international scene I do not recommend that
the Canadian system be emulated where it comes to the
appointment of returning officers
I clearly indicate, as I do in Canada, that the appointment of
returning officers under the present system is an anachronism.
The Lortie commission, in volume I of its report at page
483, stated as follows:
A cornerstone of public confidence in any democratic system of
representative government is an electoral process that is
administered efficiently and an electoral law that is enforced
impartially. Securing public trust requires that the election
officials be independent of the government of the day and not
subject to partisan influence.
It must be acknowledged that in the present system returning
officers are appointed by the governor in council, that is to
say the government. They are not appointed as the result of a
call for nominations.
They are not appointed as the result of an independent
examination where they will be selected on their intrinsic
abilities, their own qualifications. They are appointed as the
government sees fit. They are appointed according to their
political stripe.
In my opinion this is basically undemocratic and archaic in a
democracy that claims to be modern. Returning officers need to
be appointed by the chief electoral officer. They need to be
dismissable by that same officer. They need to be appointed
after a public call for nominations and selected in an
independent process of examination of their ability to carry out
their duties. They need to be answerable to the chief electoral
officer.
I trust that we will eventually have an opportunity to address
such an amendment.
It is high time we brought this change in the Canada Electoral
Act. It will be noted that all opposition parties agree with
this and that the only one against it is the government,
because incidentally it has the privilege of appointing
returning officers.
I hope we will also have the opportunity to examine the whole
issue of political party financing, which is a basic issue in a
democracy. In a democracy it is one person, one vote; not one
dollar but one vote.
It is important that we consider the facts.
This government has been elected on a platform of honesty and
integrity and of condemnation of the previous Progressive
Conservative government for its spending and mistakes, but
experience has shown that, with the present government there is
sometimes a very strong link between contributors to the Liberal
Party of Canada and people who are awarded contracts by the
Liberal government.
It is strange and surprising. This patronage system where
contracts are awarded to contributors to political parties is a
remnant of the past.
1120
That system should be influenced only by those who are entitled
to vote on polling day. If the influence must also express
itself with a monetary contribution, those who are entitled to
vote on polling day should be the only ones to be able to
exercise that influence in between elections and during election
campaigns by giving money to political parties. Only the voters
should have the right to finance Canadian political parties.
That is what we have in Quebec: financing of the political
parties by the public.
Quebec's party financing system is held up around the world as
one of the most modern systems, since we can be absolutely sure
of its probity because only voters can contribute.
Members on the other side might tell me “Yes, but it is well
known that this legislation encourages people to circumvent the
law, since businesses may well contribute to a party through an
individual”. The Quebec election act clearly prohibits this.
Penalties are therefore imposed for contravening not only the
letter but also the spirit of the law.
The Quebec election act also provides for a cap on election
contributions.
In Canada the people watching us and the people in the gallery
will be perhaps surprised to know that there is absolutely no
ceiling. A company can give any amount to a political party.
There is no limit to contributions in Canada. There are limits
to election expenses but not to contributions. In Quebec
contributions are limited to $3,000 per voter. There are
therefore two components to public funding: the contribution
ceiling and a clear definition of who can contribute, that is
voters only.
At the very least we might have expected that the federal
government would agree to set a limit, a ceiling, for
contributions if it did not want to set very strict limits on
the source of the contributions,
but even that is too much to ask it. Why would the
government deny itself generous contributions when it can
count on them year after year? The major banks give the party
in power tens of thousands of dollars. It would certainly not
deprive itself of this manna falling in its lap which it
generously repays, as the facts indicate.
We would also have the opportunity perhaps to consider, or we
might have had the opportunity if we had made the effort to
really do so last time, incentives to increase the proportion of
women involved in the electoral process and consequently
taking part in public affairs and the political process.
France has just passed legislation requiring half the assembly
to comprise women, which will mean that half the assembly
will comprise women. Some of the Scandinavian countries have
established legislation setting a minimum for the proportion of
women in their legislatures.
There could be this sort of legislative incentive or financial
incentives to encourage political parties to promote the entry
of women into politics, which might encourage them to increase
the number of women candidates in the running at elections.
I want to point out in this regard that it was the government
House leader himself who, during the review of Bill C-2
introduced in the last parliament, urged members of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to propose
such an amendment to the Canada Elections Act. At the time the
hon. member for Longueuil presented an amendment, but it was
subsequently rejected by the government.
1125
Where is the consistency when the government House leader asks
members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs to propose measures to increase the number of women
involved in the political process, only to then have the
government defeat an amendment to this effect? There is a lack
of consistency and there is a problem in terms of real political
will to make substantial amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
We also raised a number of lesser issues such as the tax
credits for contributions to political parties.
The policy currently followed by the government is fundamentally
discriminatory because the tax credit program is unfair to low
income taxpayers making contributions to political parties.
If a low income taxpayer makes a contribution to a political
party, chances are that the tax receipt which he gets will make
absolutely no difference. If his income is not taxable, his tax
receipt is absolutely worthless.
What is the value of a contribution by a low income taxpayer who
takes the trouble to donate part of his savings to a political
party and to make a financial contribution to the exercise of
democracy? The state generously rewards those who make handsome
contributions and have sufficient income to claim a tax credit
but does not encourage in any way low income earners who wish to
take part in the electoral process by making contributions to
political parties.
We raised this inequity but the government refused to remedy
it. The elections act contains another inequity. It was
acknowledged by everyone in committee, even the Liberal members,
yet they refused to make any changes to the elections act
relating to the participation of self-employed workers in an
election campaign.
If I am a self-employed carpenter with my own company the
elections act does not allow me to work for one candidate or
another, for example to make lawn signs, because that would be
considered a contribution or a campaign expense.
There is something abnormal about treating the self-employed
differently from any other citizens when they want to take part
in the electoral process. If a carpenter working for a company
does the work, this is allowed provided he does so as a
volunteer. Yet if a self-employed carpenter wants to do the same
in order to be part of the electoral process on behalf of
one or another candidate, he is not allowed to do so because
this would be considered a contribution or a campaign expense.
Clearly there are flaws in the Canada Elections Act.
Certain features must be completely overhauled. The government
has shown no interest in moving ahead with this until now. I
hope that it will demonstrate a much more open attitude in the
future, considering the fact that the public's interest in
politics is now declining.
We must take note of this and have the courage to make the
decisions required under the circumstances so that the
electoral system the political system and the parliamentary
system better respond to the expectations of the people we wish
and claim to represent in the House.
Let us now get back to the central features of the bill under
consideration. First, Figueroa forces the government to
reduce the number of candidates that a party must nominate in
order to have its name appear on the ballot.
Obviously this has no impact on the 50 candidates that a party
must have nominated in a general election to qualify for tax
benefits, financial benefits, from the government. Now,
however, only 12 candidates will be required in order for the
party's name to appear on the ballot.
Obviously there is a rationale behind this. The rules used
were those that apply in the House, which require that in order
to have party standing a party must have at least 12 members.
Similarly a minimum of 12 candidates is required for a
political party to have its name appear on the ballot.
Fine. This is a formula whose value we can certainly recognize
and accept.
1130
This being said, it must also be recognized, as pointed out by
Canadian Alliance members, that for all intents and purposes we
are creating a new category of recognized political party. Of
course this is not what the wording of the bill says, but this
is what it means. Political parties that can have their names on
ballots and those that run a number of additional candidates may
be entitled to the benefits enjoyed by the government.
It must also be understood that this new provision, which seeks
to comply with the court ruling in the Figueroa case, has one
major flaw regarding byelections. A political party can be
created between two general elections and be recognized by the
public as such, but under the rule just proposed by the
government that political party will not be allowed to put its
name on the ballot. This is under the ruling of the court
itself a violation of the rights of citizens to be informed of
the party being represented by the candidate running for office.
We have a prime example of this in the case of a member now
sitting in the House.
In 1990, when the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie became the
first Bloc Quebecois member to get himself elected, no one in
Quebec would have challenged the fact that the Bloc Quebecois
was a political force, a political party in the making but a
political party nevertheless.
The rules that prevailed at the time did not allow
the current leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for
Laurier—Sainte-Marie, to put the name of his political party on
the ballots. However, under the government's proposed rules, he
would still have been in the same position because his party would
not previously have had 12 candidates running in a general election.
I proposed an amendment to the government House leader that
could have corrected this discrepancy. It must be understood
that this discrepancy leaves the government open to new legal
challenges, which will again be very costly for taxpayers and
which it again risks losing. According to the words of the
judge in Figueroa, the voter's right to be fully informed of a
candidate's political affiliation must be maintained. This
applies in a byelection as well.
What I proposed point blank to the government House leader was
that a party be officially recognized as a political party as
soon as it agrees to present 50 candidates at the next general
election.
Naturally the reply was “Yes, but what if it does not present
50?” The elections act must provide a way for the government to
recover the money it would have given this party. Provision
must be made for this, of course.
However this would at least mean that this party's candidate
could put the name of his or her party on the ballot in the
meantime. The advantage of this proposal was that different
categories of parties would not be created and the discrepancy
that will remain in the elections act after Bill C-9 is passed would
have been removed.
There is also another provision that is somewhat disturbing to
us. Before dealing with it I would simply like to say
concerning the proposal we made that members of parliament will have
understood well what I said, that is that the government House
leader rejected this proposal out of hand, saying “You know,
this goes beyond the scope of this bill” and so on. The
result was the same: the government refused to consider a
substantive proposal from the opposition. This is probably
because simply it had not come up with the idea itself, as seems
to be its way of running things since 1993.
1135
I was going to say there is another provision in clause 2 that
seems unacceptable to me. It is the one aimed at ensuring that
when the chief electoral officer wants to test new voting
systems, and in this case we are thinking more particularly about
electronic voting, he will not be able to proceed without the
prior approval of the procedure and House affairs committee
which has to examine all matters related to the Canada Elections
Act.
The government, after a Liberal senator woke up and said
“They forgot to include the Senate”, said “Yes, this is true.
Oops, the Senate has not been included. We should also ask
the approval of the Senate committee responsible for electoral
issues”.
When an unelected institution demands to be given a voice we
realize how outdated the Canadian political system is. Maybe we
would have agreed, and we moved an amendment to that effect but
it was defeated by the government, that the Senate could express
its views. There is something of a paradox here when the
approval of an unelected house is required for a proposal of the
chief electoral officer on the exercise of the right to vote.
Once again the government's argument has been that as long as
the Canadian constitution has not been amended in order to
reform or abolish the Senate both houses have to be included in
any legislative process.
This is not a legislative process but a consultation process.
The chief electoral officer needs the approval of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is not a
legislative process in any sense. We are talking about
consultation.
We might have agreed to let the Senate express its views,
but that is a far cry from giving it the right to approve a
proposal by the chief electoral officer who is responsible for
the implementation of the elections act and who is very
knowledgeable about our electoral system and the exercise of the
right to vote. He would have to present his proposal for
approval by senators who are not elected but appointed by the
government of the day.
The government's desire to include the Senate committee in this
provision of the bill is certainly questionable because this is
not about a legislative process. We are talking about
consultation on whether the chief electoral officer should go
ahead.
Bill C-9, which we are considering, also raises a number of
questions relating to the possibility for an independent
candidate to have access to the revised electoral list.
Questions were raised and some are still unanswered. There are
still many reservations about the bill. I think the
government, if it has clear answers, did not give them to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Maybe there
was once again too much haste because several members came
out of the committee process with unanswered questions and
concerns.
According to several of us, every candidate in an election, no
matter whether he or she is associated with a political party or
independent, must be on a level playing field and have the same
tools as any other candidate. In this regard there are
obviously unanswered questions in Bill C-9.
I can hear the government House leader saying “No, no”. As I
said before, if the government had clear answers on the question,
it neglected—I will put this politely—to give them to
members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
because some members still had some concerns after the minister
appeared before the committee.
Obviously for the government, we disagree, because
we have missed the point. For the government the failure to
understand always lies with the other party. It is always the
opposition which has failed to understand. This is perhaps an
indication of one of the problems we have in the Canadian
parliamentary system, one which makes us think about the changes
that should be made. That is another matter entirely.
In conclusion, since we indicated our willingness to vote in
favour of the proposed legislation from the start, we might at
least have expected the government to demonstrate a certain
degree of openness to our proposals, given that we showed
openness by indicating from the start that we were going to
vote in favour of this legislation.
1140
In the case of Bill C-2 the government was
completely unreceptive to any substantial amendment that might
come from opposition members, particularly Bloc Quebecois
members since, as I said, we indicated that we were going to
support the legislation proposed by the government.
Outside the Liberal Party there is apparently no salvation. If
a party other than the Liberal Party makes a substantial
proposal, and we have seen this in the past, not in connection
with this bill, that proposal can only be a bad one.
Regardless of how positive and worth while it might be, it
absolutely must be rejected.
I see this as evidence of this government's narrow mindedness
and arrogance once again. It attaches little importance
to members of the opposition, although they were elected just
as democratically as the members of the government, and any
differing views expressed in the House.
In closing, to give credit where credit is due, despite the
reservations I have just been expressing, I must thank all those
who made consideration of Bill C-9 possible.
I would like to particularly thank and congratulate the
committee members and the MPs from our party and others who
have expressed their views in the House on Bill C-9.
I also want to thank those who appeared before the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the committee
staff who provided us with a great deal of support in our
consideration of this bill.
I also want to thank all those who were involved in the drafting
of this legislation, the Privy Council staff, Michael Pierce,
Ms. Mondou and their team; the people at Department of justice; and of
course those at Elections Canada.
Again I thank the staffs of our party and other parties who
made a contribution. I would be remiss in not
noting the contributions of my own staff, particularly Patric
Frigon, for so much support in my consideration of this bill.
I will conclude on that note, with the comment that I hope the
government will learn something from the speed with which we put
electoral reform through in the last parliament, which now
obliges us to make changes, cosmetic ones in some cases because
of that excessive haste. I also hope we will be able if the
opportunity arises, and I hope the House leader is open to this, to
carry out an indepth reform of the Canada Elections Act to
bring it in line with the expectations of our fellow citizens.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
doubt very much if I will take the full 20 minutes, therefore
leaving time for members of the government side or opposition
benches.
I am very pleased to be able to put forward our party's position
on the third reading of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act.
I would also like to commend and congratulate my colleague, the
House leader of the Conservative Party and the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who has the carriage of this
piece of legislation. In my opinion he does yeoman's duty in
making sure that positions are put forward. In fact maybe even
the government could take notice of the quality of the
suggestions put forward.
Perhaps it could even accept some of those suggestions for the
future because, as was mentioned earlier by the previous speaker,
the government has a part to play in this piece of legislation.
The part that it has to play is to look at the process used to
put forward Bill C-2 prior to the last surprise election called
in October 2000. Bill C-2 came forward and there were many
problems with that piece of legislation, as we have now
identified. There were many difficulties with that legislation.
1145
Had the government listened to opposition members and looked at
the very valid amendments that were put forward, it would not
have had to rush through a very bad piece of legislation that now
has to come back with another amendment, Bill C-9, to be able to
fix the myriad of problems that it faced.
I will deal specifically with Bill C-9 as it is before us. The
bill reduces from 50 to 12 the number of candidates a party would
have to field for purposes of having its candidates' party
affiliation indicated on the ballot. It also clarifies and
harmonizes certain provisions in the act and proposes one
amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
I should also say that we in the Progressive Conservative Party
will be supporting the legislation for any number of reasons, one
of which is that the Senate still has the opportunity of
reviewing it and perhaps making some clean up changes that are
necessary.
Also, despite the work accomplished by parliamentarians in a
very short period of time when Bill C-2 was under consideration,
the government admits that certain translation and concordance
errors between the English and French versions slipped through
into the new elections act. It was sloppy workmanship and I am
sure the government will accept its full responsibility for that.
When Bill C-9 was debated at second reading, the government
House leader said that the application of the new legislation had
revealed a number of irregularities that had to be rectified.
That is in Hansard at page 1053. Some of these could have
caused problems because, as we see further on, they went beyond a
simple act of concordance between the English and French
versions.
A member of the government said that the government did not have
to worry about that because it was not its job. Well it is the
government's job to make sure that legislation is in fact the
right legislation for Canadians, particularly when it deals with
the Canada Elections Act. This is what is at the heart of our
democracy and at the heart of what we as parliamentarians in the
House should be dealing with, where the electorate, the public of
the country, have the right to put the people who they want in
the House for a particular time.
The legislation is too important to simply say that it was not
the government's fault. It was the government's fault and we are
trying to fix it now.
The integrity of the electoral system is important to Canadians.
There is no doubt that errors could have been avoided if the
Liberal government had given parliament more time to consider the
provisions of the new Canada Elections Act with greater care.
I would like to spend a few minutes outlining some of the
specific amendments that are dealt with in Bill C-9. As has been
mentioned before, and I am sure I will repeat some of the
comments that were made, I will touch briefly on some of the
areas that are of particular concern to me and certainly to my
colleague for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
The first part that we heard about earlier was party affiliation
on the ballot. When Canadians go into a polling booth and look
at the ballot they know that my name is associated with a
particular political party, as are other names of people sitting
in the House. The amendments proposed in Bill C-9 are due in
large part to the court ruling in the Figueroa case.
In response to the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling, clause 12 of
Bill C-9 would amend subsections 117(2) of the act reducing from
50 to 12 the number of candidates required for their party
affiliation to be indicated on the ballot. This new provision
would apply only if the nomination of the 12 candidates had been
confirmed for the general election or, as in the case of a
byelection, in the immediately preceding general election.
While the Lortie commission report recommended 15 candidates as
the minimum, the Liberals have chosen 12 because that is the
number of members of parliament that a political party requires
to be officially recognized in the House of Commons.
The fact that this legislation deals with 12 as being the number
for party affiliation is accepted by our party. Certainly most
of the parties in the House have been represented by
substantially more candidates than have run in previous
elections. The fact is that we do have party affiliations. I am
very proud of my party affiliation with the Progressive
Conservative Party.
Therefore, I believe, and my party accepts the fact, that the
affiliation should be identified on a ballot so that when
Canadians go to the polling booth they will know exactly who and
what party they are voting for to sit in the House of Commons.
1150
Currently section 18(1) of the act currently provides that the
CEO may carry out studies on voting, in particular with respect
to alternative voting means, and devising and testing an
electronic voting process for use in a future general election or
byelection.
The use of such a process must be approved in advance by a
committee of the House of Commons that normally considers
electoral matters. This is an accepted part of the legislation
but I do put a caveat on that. We must be very careful when
dealing with any type of alternate way of counting ballots. As
we have seen just recently in the United States election, there
are a number of different processes used and some of them are not
quite as competent as perhaps others. We should be very careful
when suggesting that an improvement to the system will make it
better because in some cases it does not necessarily do that.
During the consideration of Bill C-2 by the Senate, a number of
senators, both Progressive Conservative and Liberal, said that
they were disturbed to see that the Senate was excluded from this
process.
Pursuant to the commitment made by the government to members of
the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
during the consideration of Bill C-2 in May 2000, Bill C-9 would
amend section 18(1) to include in the approval process the Senate
committee that considers electoral matters. Normally such
matters are referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs. The input from our colleagues in the
other place is an important aspect of this process and one which
I am pleased to see included in Bill C-9.
We heard comments from my colleague from the Bloc who suggested
that his party will put forward an amendment or subamendment to
change this particular clause. Our party agrees with what has
been put forward in Bill C-9 which was not put forward in Bill
C-2. We can sit in the House and debate the legitimacy and the
necessity of the other House but I am not prepared to do that
right now. What I would like to say is that there must be a
backstop when a majority government puts forward legislation in
this House. There must be a second opinion of the legislation.
A perfect example of that particular situation was when Bill C-2
came forward. It was pushed through with very little discussion,
if any, and no changes were made to a very bad piece of
legislation. It has now come forward again because of that. This
is a prime example of why the Senate must have an influence on
this legislation. Bill C-9 speaks to that and we are very
pleased that the government has corrected this very glaring
error.
Another part of the bill deals with the registration of the
electors themselves. Subsection 44(1) of the Canada Elections
Act requires the CEO to keep a register of electors, in other
words, a permanent voting list containing the names of all
Canadians qualified to vote.
Under subsection (2) of the act, the list shall contain each
elector's family and given names, sex, date of birth and civic
and mailing addresses, as well as any other information that the
CEO may require under section 55 of the act. Section 55 allows
the CEO to communicate information in the register to a province
when it decides to establish a list similar to the federal one.
Information compiled by the CEO under section 195 of the act,
statement of ordinary residence by an elector belonging to the
Canadian forces, may not be communicated to the provinces because
the wrong provision is cited in subsection 44(2).
Clause 4 of Bill C-9 would amend subsection 44(2) to correct
that error, an error that should not have gone forward but did.
It is subsection 195(7) and not subsection 195(3) that allows the
CEO to communicate to a province information about the ordinary
residence and members of the military.
A substantial amount of Bill C-9 deals with third party spending
reports. Subsection 353(1) of the act requires third parties to
register with Elections Canada once they have incurred election
expenses of more than $500.
Subsection 359(1) requires third parties to file a report
documenting the value of expenses and advertising, as well as
their funding sources during the campaign and for the six month
period prior to the issuing of the writ.
Clause 20 of Bill C-9 would amend subsection 359(1) to specify
that only third parties required to be registered with the CEO
must file such a report.
1155
When Bill C-9 was tabled, several observers thought that the
government would propose amendments dealing with the ceiling on
expenses imposed on third parties during election campaigns.
Under section 349 of the act, a third party is defined as “a
person or a group other than a candidate, registered party or
riding association of a registered party. It could mean an
unincorporated trade union, trade association or any other group
of persons acting together by mutual consent for a common
purpose.
The Canada Elections Act passed in May 2000 provides that,
during a general election, the ceiling on third party election
spending is $150,000 at the national level and $3,000 for each
electoral district. In a byelection a third party may spend
$3,000.
On October 23, 2000, Mr. Justice Cairns of the Alberta Court of
Queen's Bench granted an injunction prohibiting Elections Canada
from enforcing the third party election advertising spending
limits in the Canada Elections Act.
Originally the injunction was to be in effect until Judge Cairns
handed down his ruling on the main matter before him, that is,
the constitutionality of provisions relating to third parties in
the new elections act. The injunction was upheld shortly
afterward by the Alberta Court of Appeal.
The injunction was granted in response to legal action
undertaken by the National Citizens' Coalition led by a former
Reform Party member, Stephen Harper. The coalition is currently
contesting the new provisions.
However, on November 10, 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada
lifted the injunction in its ruling in Canada vs. Stephen Joseph
Harper. Eight of the nine justices were in favour of staying the
injunction until the constitutionality of the contested
provisions could be ruled on or by the courts. Only Mr. Justice
John Major opposed this decision.
In paragraph 11 of the judgment, the majority opinion of the
court held that:
In response, Elections Canada announced that the provisions
regarding third party spending would not be enforced for the
period from October 22, 2000, the date that the writs were issued
for the general election, to November 10, 2000. They would
however be enforced after that up to November 27, 2000 which was
polling day.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has still not ruled on the
constitutionality of the Canada Elections Act provisions with
regard to third parties.
While we welcome legislation, perhaps this should have been
avoided if the government had not done such sloppy work on Bill
C-2.
We will be supporting the legislation going forward for a number
of reasons, as I have tried to indicate in this dissertation. We
would also suggest very strongly that one of the reasons we
support it is that it will have an opportunity to be heard on the
Senate side. We will have an opportunity to discuss, debate and
perhaps put forward amendments to legislation that could be
better enforced and put forward better in the Senate.
I hope we have learned some lessons from the inconsistencies and
problems that came forward with Bill C-2 and do not repeat them
with Bill C-9. Hopefully, when we bring in legislation, put them
to a committee, and listen to legitimate concerns, complaints and
suggestions as to how they could be made better, that maybe the
government will listen to those concerns and suggestions openly
and honestly, and make those changes at that point in time, as
opposed to taking forward legislation that is inaccurate.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an occasion for which I as a
parliamentarian am deeply grateful that this institution exists
and I have an opportunity to express myself when I have serious
misgivings about legislation that is passed through the House.
By coincidence, the member who spoke before me, the member for
Brandon—Souris, touched precisely on the area of concern that I
wish to devote my remarks to, and that is the question of third
party advertising and how it was dealt with in Bill C-2, the
previous legislation, and how it should be dealt with in the
future.
1200
I have to give some background just so people will understand
what happened. The member for Brandon—Souris in fact gave some
of the background and I am grateful that he has done so because
it saves me going over that ground.
I think the general public should understand that the Canada
Elections Act sets limits on campaign spending by candidates. In
each riding it varies a little according to geography, size and
population, but most candidates for a federal election are
restricted in their spending during the campaign to usually
around $60,000. I think my campaign ceiling for election
expenses is around $65,000.
Going back a little, during the 1993 election campaign, which
was my first experience in running as a candidate, the law was
such that there was a limit under the law on third party
advertising expenditures. There was also a blackout period.
What is being referred to there is the idea that people or
groups who are not related to the political party or the
candidate might wish to buy advertising during an election period
to support one candidate or another, or one party or another, or
to advance a controversial issue during an election campaign,
hopefully to get a debate going among the candidates.
In its wisdom, parliament, prior to the 1993 election, put
restrictions on third party advertising. The idea was that the
limit of expenditure on groups who wanted to take out advertising
during election campaigns supporting one candidate or another was
restricted to $1,000. Indeed there was a very long blackout
period.
The theory behind that limitation was that if candidates were
restricted in their spending, they were restricted in their
spending so that there would be an even playing field. Whether
one is a candidate from the government in power, an incumbent, a
candidate from a party in opposition or a candidate from a small
fringe party, everyone faces the same amount of potential
election spending. It is relatively modest at $60,000. Most
groups and organizations can raise the amount of private
donations necessary to reach that objective in spending, so it is
quite reasonable.
However, when we add third party advertising into the equation,
as it exists in the United States where there is a great deal of
soft money around during an election campaign, then there is a
danger of distorting the process. There might be a situation
where a special interest group, a corporation or whatever
else—and this does happen in the United States—spends enormous
amounts of money, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars even in
a single riding, to run advertising election material with the
specific intent of seeing that one particular candidate, whether
it is an incumbent or otherwise, does not succeed in the
election. The restriction in my view in 1993 was very
appropriate.
As was described by the member for Brandon—Souris, that
provision was challenged prior to the 1997 election by the
National Citizens' Coalition on the charter grounds that it
limited the right to free expression during an election campaign.
This provision prior to the 1997 election campaign was suspended.
This was my second election campaign, Mr. Speaker, and I should
tell you that in my first mandate as a member of parliament I
undertook quite an initiative to bring special interest groups
that were receiving public funds to account. I put out several
reports calling for transparencies of such groups and I named
some of these groups.
Needless to say, during the 1997 election, when the limit on
third party advertising disappeared, what happened was that I was
enormously attacked by television ads, by print ads and by radio
ads. The spending to attack me as the candidate by these special
interest groups, some of them charities but most of them not for
profit organizations linked to various charities, was easily far
more than I spent. In fact in the 1997 campaign, even though my
election spending ceiling was about $65,000, I only spent
$32,000.
1205
The reason is that I am very much a grassroots candidate. I
have no corporations behind me. I have no big interests behind
me. My campaign donations are exclusively from the ordinary
people in my riding who have confidence in me as an individual.
It is more their confidence in me as an individual than my party
affiliation that has enabled me to raise the money in my riding
that permitted me to run the campaign. I have received no money
even from the party during my election campaigns, not only in
1997 but in the year 2000.
After the 1997 election campaign the government undertook,
through Bill C-2, to address the challenge that the National
Citizen's Coalition had succeeded in. When the Alberta court
ruled that the limits on third party advertising expenditures
were unconstitutional, the government undertook to redraft the
law in Bill C-2 in which it defined limits on third party
advertising expenditures.
What it said basically in Bill C-2 was that third parties that
wanted to engage in buying advertising during an election
campaign should be required to identify themselves and they would
be limited to only spending $3,000 in each riding, to a maximum
of $150,000 across the country.
There is the problem, and that is why I am here speaking today
and why I am so very concerned. When Bill C-9 came forward it
was an attempt to correct the problems that exist in Bill C-2,
but there was no opportunity to address the problem of third
party advertising because Elections Canada had still not reported
on the effect of third party advertising under the new rules, who
indeed had registered and what they had done.
I have here a printout from Elections Canada that describes the
registered third parties that participated in campaign 2000. I
got this only when Bill C-9 was in committee, so there was no
opportunity to discuss it before committee and I have to bring it
before the House. What we have here is the name of the
registered third party and the name of the applicant who
submitted an address, and that is the complete information.
Not surprisingly, what we have here is a number of special
interest groups and organizations. We have unions. We have the
Canadian Medical Association. We have an animal rights
organization. None of that is surprising. We also have third
party organizations that identify themselves only by name. We
have Rick Smith of Red Lake, Rod Gillis of St. John's and Liz
White of Toronto. That is all we know about them.
Bill C-2, the law that exists, requires no more information. It
is sufficient to register a personal name. The people who are
making the application are the people who take the name of the
third party that is actually buying the advertising, presumably
to take one stand or another for or against a candidate or for or
against an issue that may be before the electors.
There is one set of third party registrants that I would like to
draw to the attention of the House. The first one is the
coalition for the Liberal member for Edmonton West. The next one
is the Edmonton supporters for the Liberal member for Edmonton
West. The third one is Edmontonians for the Liberal member for
Edmonton West. The official titles of these third party
organizations contesting this election name the member for
Edmonton West. That member is the sitting justice minister.
Here is the problem. I am pleased to be able to say that there
was no attempt to hide anything. These three organizations made
it very clear that they were taking out ads under the law to
support the Liberal member for Edmonton West. The problem is
that under the current legislation, given that each third party
organization that wishes to take part in the election campaign in
a riding can spend $3,000, these three organizations were enabled
to spend $9,000 in advertising to support the member for Edmonton
West, the justice minister.
1210
Indeed, had there been 10 such individuals who wished to be
third party organizations buying advertising during an election
campaign, they would have been able to spend $30,000 supporting
the hon. member for Edmonton West. Twenty individuals would have
been able to spend $60,000 supporting the hon. member for
Edmonton West.
We can see the problem is that there is no control whatsoever on
individuals, separately indeed, deciding to support an individual
candidate in a riding and investing more money than that
candidate himself or herself would spend in the riding. We have
a problem there. The whole spirit of a ceiling on candidates'
expenses could be circumvented by all the members of a riding
association, for instance, deciding to take out third party
advertising.
This is a dramatic example. I am actually very grateful that
these people who were supporting the justice minister were
upfront so that I can actually present this very dramatic example
of what is wrong with the act.
Mr. Speaker, if you do not think that is meaningful you should
be aware that the hon. member for Edmonton West won her seat by a
single vote in 1993, and that in the year 2000, when these three
third party organizations were buying ads in support of her, she
won her riding by only 730 votes. If anyone should think that
third party advertising does not have a bearing on an election
campaign and cannot influence an election campaign, I assure them
they are wrong, particularly if the campaign is closely
contested.
When campaigns are closely contested, the real problem is that
Bill C-2, as it exists now, makes it possible for organizations
that we cannot clearly identify as to intent to spend enormous
amounts of money to support one particular party or candidate in
an election. In other words, Bill C-2, because it is loosely
written, opens up the same opportunity for abuse in election
spending as now exists in the United States.
I should say that it is not just a case where, as in the case I
cited, an incumbent is getting support. There is also another
organization which very amusingly calls itself the Zap-a-Rock
organization, and it was obviously raising money in Etobicoke and
we presume that it was aimed at the health minister.
What we do not know is the intentions of organizations like the
International Fund for Animal Welfare, which is a very aggressive
international for profit animal rights organization that makes a
great deal of money by promoting animal rights causes. We have
even here the Christian Heritage Party of Canada which has taken
out third party advertising spending status and it, in the
previous election, was a registered political party.
The point always comes down to this. As the legislation is
written now, we have no guarantees as individual candidates that
there cannot be spending on advertising in our riding by a dozen,
60, 50 or 100 special interest groups whose combined spending can
more than overpower the campaign ceiling on expenditures that we
are required to meet ourselves as candidates and that is defined
by the Canada Elections Act.
It something so fundamental to our democracy that anyone in this
country should be able to run for high office, for federal
office, and not have to curry favour among outside organizations
to enable them to spend money on advertising either across the
country or in their ridings.
1215
In my particular case, as someone who had alienated an entire
sector, the not for profit sector, by criticizing numerous
charities and by criticizing numerous non-profit organizations,
in the election of 1997 they banded together, they grouped
together and brought out advertising against me. The current
legislation prevents that from happening, but there was nothing
stopping every organization that I criticized from separately
taking out $3,000 worth of advertising and going after me.
That is a chill on a member of parliament doing his duty,
whether it is not for profit organizations or for profit
organizations or any other special interest group out there. If
members have to worry about organizations being able to buy more
advertising against them during an election campaign than members
are entitled to spend on the entire campaign, then I am afraid
sitting members of parliament will think twice before they speak
their minds in the House, will think twice before they
aggressively go after those organizations they feel are not doing
a proper job in this society or, indeed, are even questionable in
the most literal sense.
We as members of parliament need to have a situation whereby the
spending limits during an election campaign are known, are
precise, and if organizations are dissatisfied with individual
candidates, then the way they should go after those individual
candidates is by investing in the parties in opposition to those
candidates or in the candidates themselves of those parties, but,
Mr. Speaker, it is very, very wrong, very, very wrong and
dangerous if we have a situation where individuals, be they
individuals as groups or individuals as persons, can separately,
buy advertising during an election campaign, separately, that
cumulatively might be an expenditure in the hundreds of thousands
of dollars against an individual candidate. This is a very
serious threat to our democratic process.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to the
charter and freedom of speech, it is understood that there have
to be reasonable limits on freedom of speech. If freedom of
speech is interpreted as allowing an open field of election
spending against candidates when the candidates themselves are
restricted in that spending, then I think we are all in serious
trouble.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the speech just made by the member
opposite and I know he has made this type of speech in the past,
indicating that he really does not like third party advertising.
I think it is most unfortunate that he somehow misrelates
spending to voting. He thinks somehow that the amount of money
spent determines the outcome of an election or a referendum or
any electoral event. That is simply not the case. There is not
a scrap of evidence from anywhere in the world showing that the
amount of money spent on an electoral event can guarantee the
outcome.
We can look at the Charlottetown accord, for example, as one of
the cases. It was a big referendum here in Canada, where the yes
side spent 10 times as much as the no side but the no side won.
There are studies of referendums in Switzerland and in the United
States. In all the states that have referendums there have been
studies done comparing the amount of money spent by people
arguing the yes side or the no side. There is absolutely no
correlation between the amount of money spent and the electoral
success, because it is the issue that counts. It has nothing to
do with the amount of money spent. If voters have a valid issue
to consider, they will consider the issue and they will make the
right decision, because the voters are not stupid.
I think one of the things, unfortunately, that the member
opposite assumes is that the voters are so stupid that they can
be bought, that somebody who comes into the riding and spends 10
times as much money automatically has 10 times as much success.
As I said, there is not a scrap of evidence to show that is the
case.
1220
There is plenty of evidence and there are plenty of studies from
everywhere in the world where there are democracies that exactly
the opposite is the case and that it is the issue that determines
the outcome.
The member defeats his own case by talking about the charities
that organized opposition to him in his own riding. He complains
that they organized and they ganged together against him, but he
was re-elected. He defeats his own case with that argument,
because the charities did not have an issue that was valid.
The public understood that the member opposite had a valid
complaint about these charities, that he was justified in
questioning the way they spent their money, that he was justified
in challenging their books and asking them to show the validity
of their operations. The public understood that and that is why
he won.
It had nothing to do with how much money was spent by the third
party. That is why the government has had every one of its gag
laws struck down as unconstitutional. It has not been able to
prove any connection between the amount of money spent and the
outcome. The expert witnesses it has had in court have never
been able to cite a single study that shows any correlation
between the money spent and the outcome.
That is why when the supreme court delivers its decision on the
latest challenge of the National Citizens' Coalition to this
elections act I am certain it will again strike it down. Four
attempts have been made by governments in the last 10 years to
institute these gag laws. They are unconstitutional. They are
undemocratic. They cannot be supported. The member defeated his
own argument when he stood here 10 minutes ago.
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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the vote stands deferred
until next Monday at the end of government orders.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from April 23 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and
law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to stand in the House
again to debate a bill that is being brought forward. Our party
commends the government for bringing forward Bill C-24.
Organized crime poses an enormous threat to Canada. It poses an
enormous threat to Canada's national security and economic
stability. Therefore we on this side of the House welcome Bill
C-24, the subject of today's debate. It is a piece of
legislation that the Canadian Alliance has been demanding for
some time.
In the Canadian Alliance Party we believe we need to put in
place the resources to fight crime, to fight all elements of
crime. As we look at the daily papers and as we turn the
television sets on, we see that organized crime is becoming more
prevalent on a daily basis. In 1998 the commissioner of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Philip Murray, said:
Organized crime in Canada is now so pervasive that police have
been reduced to putting out isolated fires in a blazing
underworld economy.
What Philip Murray was saying was that in regard to organized
crime there is a huge bonfire, with the whole land ablaze, and
our police force has very limited resources to put out what we
might call small brush fires.
1225
An Ottawa Citizen article dated March 3, 1999, explained
the prevalence of organized crime. It states:
Canada is particularly vulnerable to drug trafficking—the
principal source of revenue for most organized crime
groups—according to the Drug Analysis Section of the RCMP.
Smugglers are attracted to Canada because of the low risk of
arrest due to limited police resources that have stymied
investigations, relatively light penalties, and our sprawling,
largely unmonitored borders.
This article highlights three of the huge concerns dealing with
drug trafficking as well as organized crime. The first is
limited police resources. The second is light sentences. With
the light sentences being handed down, people understand that
crime sometimes does pay. Of course the third point is the
geographic location of Canada and the fact that it has such huge,
long, unmonitored borders.
International drug trafficking is an organized criminal activity
that threatens democratic institutions, fuels terrorism and human
rights abuses and undermines economic development. Drug
trafficking is an inherently violent activity. Violence is used
by involved organizations to protect turf, settle disputes and
eliminate those who oppose them. Some of those who oppose them
are government members, the judiciary, investigative journalists
and reporters, individuals who are willing to take a stand. We
all, as a joint body here, need to be willing to take a stand.
The Canadian government estimates the revenue involved. It
shocked me when I heard that the amount of revenue our Canadian
government estimates is in the underground illegal drug market in
Canada is $7 billion to $10 billion.
The Canadian drug market is dominated by many foreign
organizations. We know of many of the countries that are
involved. There are Italian based organized criminals who are
involved in upper echelons of the importation and distribution of
many drugs. Asian based groups are active in heroin and,
increasingly, in cocaine trafficking at the street retail level
in Canada. Colombian based traffickers still control much of the
cocaine trade in eastern and central Canada. As well, outlaw
motorcycle gangs play a major role in the importation and large
scale distribution of cannabis, cocaine and other chemical drugs.
Motorcycle gangs and those involved in organized crime are not
in only one or two provinces. Provinces throughout this nation
are now recognizing and understanding the concerns in regard to
organized crime as they deal with the motorcycle gangs and
especially the drug trafficking of those gangs.
Most illicit drugs arrive in Canada by aircraft, marine
container or truck. More than 9 million commercial shipments
enter Canada each year, 75% at land borders and the rest at
international airports, marine ports, postal facilities and
bonded warehouses. Approximately 1 million marine containers
holding illegal drugs enter Canadian ports annually and another
200,000 enter by truck or rail after being unloaded at United
States marine ports and then moved out.
In 1995, 5.2 million trucks entered Canada from the United
States. Three years ago it was estimated that by the year 2000
this number would reach 6 million to 6.8 million. We have a
customs inspection rate of less than 2% and we are talking about
5.2 million vehicles that are estimated to contain drugs and are
crossing the border.
At least 100 tonnes of hashish, 15 to 24 tonnes of cocaine and 4
tonnes of liquid hashish are smuggled into Canada each year.
Some 50% of the marijuana available in Canada is produced in
Canada, but the other 50% is brought in from other countries.
1230
The domestic production of marijuana is estimated to be at 800
tonnes. In 1994 an RCMP operation found that $10 million worth
of marijuana was exported from British Columbia to the United
States.
To exemplify this point I again quote from a news article, this
one appeared in the Globe and Mail in April 1999, just two
short years ago:
Dale Brandland, a sheriff from Washington State, testified that
many marijuana growers have moved to Canada in recent years to
escape harsher U.S. drug laws. U.S. police have said that
organized crime groups, including the Hells Angels and various
Asian gangs, are shipping the highly popular drug back into the
United States, sometimes swapping it pound for pound for cocaine.
The 1998 sentiments expressed by the former commissioner of the
RCMP regarding the prevalence of organized crime was recently
echoed by the president of the Canadian Police Association who
has said that organized crime is gaining the upper hand on law
enforcement and it is time for tougher laws. Canadian Police
Association president, Grant Obst, said:
Things are going out of control and it is time to do something
about it. The biggest problem organized crime has is they have
too much money. And our biggest problem is we do not have
enough.
Regarding resources this is what the president of the Canadian
Police Association said:
We are fighting a battle with a group of individuals who have it
would seem an unlimited amount of dollars available to them.
The old saying goes that it takes money to make money. In
Canada it takes money perhaps to be involved in organized crime
and it would be very obvious that they seem to have that money.
We need to put in place resources for those individuals who are
willing to fight organized crime. It is time our country takes a
stand and provides them with the right resources.
Through Bill C-24 the federal government is injecting $200
million over the next five years to implement the legislation and
related prosecution and law enforcement strategies. This funding
is to build on the $584 million that the RCMP received in the
2000 budget to help fight organized crime.
Although the money is a welcome addition it simply is not
enough. I have already discussed that the drug trafficking could
be close to $10 billion per year and we are throwing $200 million
more at the problem. It seems to be a drop in the bucket.
Canada's national police force cannot fulfil domestic
obligations, let alone our international obligations to provide
legal and police assistance in countries such as Colombia and
Peru due to the previous cuts. The report on plans and
priorities for the RCMP funding for 1998-99 to 2000-01 showed a
continuous decline in spending for federal policing services.
The cuts affected policing services in the area of drug
enforcement, customs and excise, proceeds of crime and
international liaison. The cuts affected policing services in
the area of drug enforcement. That is organized crime. The area
of customs and excise is directly related to organized crime. The
area of proceeds of crime and international liaison is also
related to organized crime.
There was to be a 65% reduction of the 1996-97 funding levels
for the anti-smuggling initiative despite the fact that larger
sophisticated criminal organizations continue to successfully
engage in the smuggling and distribution of contraband goods.
Without adequate increased funding and more highly trained
skilled provincial police and RCMP officers, the bikers, the
Mafia and the Asian based organized criminals will continue to
have a free run and to smuggle drugs across our borders.
1235
As we have seen in Edmonton and Calgary they will have the
ability to kill innocent bystanders who are caught up in turf
wars and caught up in money laundering. They will continue to
intimidate and threaten. They will continue to injure and kill
members of the judiciary, crime reporters, correction officers,
and maybe even some day members of parliament.
I would therefore urge and recommend a significant increase in
the expenditures proposed in Bill C-24. I do so with the
confidence that the majority of Canadians would agree that
fighting organized crime is a top priority.
A 1998 report of a national survey on organized crime and
corrections in Canada revealed that Canadians support increased
funding for the RCMP to combat organized crime. I will quote
from page 3 of that document:
Virtually all respondents want government to spend more money to
fight organized crime; in a forced-choice situation, respondents
picked organized crime as a spending priority over all other
proposed options except health care.
I have only scratched the surface of this most important piece
of legislation. I hope to get another opportunity in the near
future to speak again to this criminal law bill. Some of the
other points in the bill are well worth supporting.
We need to have a concentrated effort on everything it would
take to fight organized crime. Canadians want to feel safe. We
want to feel safe in our homes, in our communities, in our
provinces and in our country. When we look at the survey we
understand why Canadians want more money for health care. They
want to feel safe. They want to feel if they become ill that the
resources are there to help them.
Canadians want to be safe on their streets. They want to know
the Canadian government is absolutely committed to keeping
communities safe. The great fear many Canadians face is the
onslaught of crime. I do not mean petty crime although we want
to fight that as well. They fear organized crime because it is a
direct threat to our society, to the well-being and safety of our
communities, and to our children and our grandchildren.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. member for Crowfoot. I acknowledge
there is no question the federal Liberal government has been
absolutely irresponsible in its failure to properly fund social
programs, the RCMP and a number of other departments and programs
throughout the country. As a result, we have a very critical
situation in a number of different areas.
The hon. member mentioned a number of different things such as
the need for people to feel safe and to attack organized crime.
The people most vulnerable to organized crime are people who are
poor and living in very austere conditions. They end up buying
drugs or becoming victims of the abuse that goes along with
organized crime.
The Alliance Party has been absolutely brutal any time there is
a suggestion that funds should go to improving housing, to people
living in poverty, to improve conditions or to provide programs
to help such people. His party has been absolutely brutal in
attacking any kind of funding for those programs.
His party and its pressure, its constant bickering and belly
aching about government expenditures, were ultimately behind the
cuts in those services and in policing. It gave the government
the opportunity to cut various things to make sure it had a
balanced bottom line. It was his party that did that.
Did he not see the domino effect of that kind of attitude and
the consequences that Canadians would feel as a result?
1240
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for a very good question. She suggests that when we are dealing
with something as important as criminal law and fighting
organized crime it comes back to a housing project or education.
Perhaps we should take a look at a whole umbrella of things that
have caused it.
The answer is that obviously we need to look at social concerns.
We need to have social programs, but police forces are asking for
the resources to fight organized crime and the New Democrat Party
is saying that we need housing programs. Our party has talked
about balance. We want strong legislation that would give the
resources to the police forces and all people who fight crime so
that they have the ability to do so.
The president of the Canadian Police Association says that the
forest is ablaze and we are standing there with our squirt guns
trying to put out a little bushfire. The New Democrats, I would
suggest, are coming forward with the same rhetoric we hear day
after day, hour after hour, of throwing another social program at
the problem.
We need balance for all. Provincial and federal governments
need to work together in areas of their own jurisdictions. When
we are talking about justice and bills, the federal government
needs to say we need social programs but we also need resources.
Some other parts of the bill I want to discuss at the next
opportunity in the House deal with the application of the
criminal code which we have been concerned about in the past.
Certain parts of the bill would give police officers the
opportunity to fight and would provide for indictable offences
under the criminal code and other acts of parliament when police
forces are fighting crime. It would give them the ability to go
in quickly with pre-emptive strikes to fight organized crime.
Again my answer to the hon. member is that we unquestionably
need social programs, but with organized crime it is not only
those who are impoverished. It is not only those in organized
crime who get caught up in drug trafficking and living off the
avails of drugs. It is a blue collar problem. It is a problem
in every area of society. Much work needs to be done
internationally as well.
I was reading in the paper this past week about other
governments being concerned about the war against drugs. A
terrible atrocity took place, I believe in Chile or Peru or one
of those countries, two governments that are very proactive. It
was thought that aircraft were leaving with drugs on them and an
error in judgment was made. We saw a tragedy where three or four
missionaries from the United States were travelling and the plane
was shot down. A mother and small child were killed.
We need to be very aware that we need to fight crime where it
is. It is an unfortunate situation and circumstance, but we need
to fight crime. The bill moves us in the right direction. I
encourage members of the New Democratic Party to say is good
legislation and they will support it.
There could be amendments to it. We would like to see more
money given to the police forces, to the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, but let us applaud the Liberal government when it finally
brings in something for which we have been calling for years. Let
us give a bit of credit and say that it is moving in the right
direction. Let us all jump on board and support the bill.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the
member's comments, without question we must fight organized crime
and we must ensure the resources are in place to deal with
organized crime, but it is crucially important that we get to the
root of the problem and address all the issues.
1245
In my question to the hon. member I was suggesting that the
government go beyond just looking at this issue of organized
crime. The government should start putting some of the dollars
needed into other areas to also help with that problem. It
should not always come out with that last minute attempt to
get some press and some headlines by saying it wants to keep
people safe, when a lot of what it is doing is what is making it
impossible for everybody to be safe.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, this is not a war on
headlines and press. This is a war on crime. Without doubt the
New Democrats would suggest that we need to throw money at the
problem. We need to direct money. It not just more money
continually thrown at something that is going to solve the
problem. It is a balanced approach to directing the moneys that
are available to programs that are needed.
I agree with the member wholeheartedly that if there are social
concerns we need to dwell on them. These social concerns are the
root of much crime. We need to support the measures this bill
would put in place, the deterrents that would fight crime.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
know how much I have been concerned about organized crime and
the fight against organized crime as the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
I have to say right off that I find this bill introduced by the
Minister of Justice and her colleague, the Solicitor General of
Canada, extremely positive. We will certainly have to work in
committee to improve it, but I think our colleague, the member
for Berthier—Montcalm and Bloc Quebecois justice critic, has also
said he is relatively pleased.
I recall that in the early 1990s, we
learned as parliamentarians
with some stupefaction just how deep the roots of
organized crime went in our societies. We were used to calling
ourselves a country of law and order, where basic freedoms
thrive and where there is essentially no political corruption.
This remains the case and continues to be relevant.
We came to realize in the early 1990s that the
real threats we faced as parliamentarians representing a
challenge for the future for all of our societies included
those related to organized crime.
I think members will remember that the catalyst, the event that
triggered this realization, was the killing, the car bomb that
went off in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on August 9, 1995, which for
the first time in the history of crime claimed an innocent
victim, a young lad of 11, Daniel Desrochers.
I do not think I am wrong to say that because of this event we
as politicians realized the scope of the threat of organized
crime in our societies.
This was followed by action, which I and other parliamentarians
joined in. Not only did politicians realize the scope of
organized crime. So did the agencies responsible for law
enforcement. Police forces also called for more resources.
Members will also remember that in 1997, two years after the car
bombing, the House passed a bill creating the new offence of
participation in a criminal organization. A new offence was
added to section 467.91 of the criminal code, namely the offence
of participating in a criminal organization, of gangsterism.
1250
That bill was passed very quickly. We were fairly convinced that
it would provide a useful additional tool to law enforcement
bodies and police forces.
One must admit that we had underestimated the incredible
adaptability to change of biker gangs.
When we think about organized crime there are two or three
realities to keep in mind. The first one is that
organized crime exists across Canada. There are 36 biker
gangs in all the provinces.
The most powerful ones are those that have ties with
the Hell's Angels which have managed to set up chapters
across Canada. For a long time they had been excluded from
Ontario, but last year they managed to move into the
Ottawa—Vanier area.
Organized crime has three features. It is a criminal
organization that is motivated by the prospect of money and it
is generally a transborder organization. It must be realized
that organized crime is involved in the import-export business.
Some conditions must exist for organized crime to prosper.
In the early 1990s, when I began to take an interest in this
issue as a member of parliament, I met a number of police
officers.
The officer who has been the most helpful, the best trainer and
the one who gave me the most judicious advice was at the time
the officer in charge at the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police and the officer in charge of organized crime in the
Montreal urban community police department. This officer was
Pierre Sangollo, who today is on duty in the small city of
Sainte-Julie.
Pierre Sangollo had told me “Never forget that in order for
organized crime to proliferate, prosper and expand in a society
it needs at least three conditions”. It needs a
society with a minimum of wealth since organized crime gets
richer through extortion, plundering, robbery and fraud.
Therefore organized crime needs an environment where there is a
minimum of wealth.
It needs a society where there are rapid means of communication.
When we look at the strategies used by organized crime we see
that its members often have contacts in the harbours, in air
traffic and in areas where one can make rapid connections with
various continents.
To proliferate, organized crime also needs a bureaucratized
society. The Canadian charter of human rights is a positive
document, in its own right. Everybody is in favour of a society
where the rule of law is paramount, where everyone is equal
before the law and where constitutional protections exist. I am
sure parliamentarians who passed the charter of human rights
in 1982 never expected there would be such obstacles to the
fight against organized crime, for the charter has proved to be
in certain respects an ally in the proliferation of organized
crime.
I will give you an example of this.
Some clauses of the charter provide that everyone has a right to
full justice. Some natural justice principles are entrenched in
the charter of rights. My colleague and friend, the member for
Chicoutimi, knows that principles of natural justice are
entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In the early 1990s the supreme court handed down a ruling,
called the Stinchcombe ruling.
Under this ruling crown attorneys have to disclose all the
evidence they have against the accused.
1255
When the subcommittee of the justice committee was struck it
travelled across Canada. Crown attorneys told members that a
criminal investigation involving some shadowing of members of
organized crime can easily cost the state, the crown, $1
million.
With the Stinchcombe ruling members can imagine the
reproduction and reprography costs involved when there are tons
and tons of documents by the boxful.
When I travelled to Vancouver I was shown, while the crown was
preparing the trial of some members of organized crime, a room
the size of the House containing full boxes of documents used by
the crown to prove its case. These documents had to be copied
and provided to the defence.
This had to be done because of a principle entrenched in the
charter of rights. One can imagine how complicated it can be for
those implementing the act to deal with such situations.
In order for organized crime to prosper a certain number of
conditions are required: a bureaucratized state where there are
constitutional guarantees for all, a society where routes allow
transborder trade, and a society which is
bureaucratized and often acts as an ally of members of organized
crime.
In spite of all this, in 1997 we passed it in good faith. I
remember that the five parties in the House at the time were
unanimous. We passed the bill in less than one week at all
stages. In committee everyone worked in good faith; everyone
acted quickly.
We had with Bill C-95 a new tool that we thought would be
effective in the fight against organized crime. What was that
tool? It was a definition in the criminal code creating an
infraction for gangsterism. When five people were convicted of a
crime punishable by a five year term in prison they were
considered to be a gang. To take part in a gang crime, to take
part in its money making schemes and to commit a crime for gang
members was punishable by a 14 year prison sentence.
We were convinced that with this tool, Bill C-95, we could bring
down the heads of organized crime. In 1995 there were 36 biker
gangs: Hell's Angels, Rock Machine, the Outriders and so one.
There were 35 of them across Canada. Believe it or not, in five
years, with Bill C-95, we have been able to press charges in only
three cases.
Between 1995 and 2000 no more than three trials in all of
Canada were conducted on the basis of Bill C-95 and the new
infraction in the criminal code.
Why were we not able to bring the leaders of organized crime to
justice? Because organized crime is smart. Organized crime has
means. Organized crime is rich and has a formidable capacity to
adapt.
What did the leaders of organized crime do? They set their
various groups up as satellites. The Hell's Angels created
affiliate clubs: the Spartiates and the Nomades, to name
them. These affiliates recruited young people without records,
people who had not in the previous five years committed an
offence punishable by five years' imprisonment and who could not
therefore be brought before the courts.
1300
This is why the crown prosecutors told us “The tool you gave us
with Bill C-95 does not work, and the definition of organized
crime has to be changed”.
I would like to give an example of how ineffective the tool we
adopted was. I have to say that the government did not drag its
feet with respect to organized crime. There are at least six
laws that were amended, including the proceeds of crime
legislation, the Witness Protection Act, and the law that
permits shadowing and setting up storefronts legally. As
lawmakers we have been extremely busy with legislation on
organized crime.
It has not been a partisan issue in recent years.
I have a number of examples. Dominic Tozzi, one of the greatest
money launderers ever caught in Canada, got out of prison two
years after being sentenced to 10 years in penitentiary for
laundering $27.2 million. Dominic Tozzi laundered $27.2 million.
He was sentenced by a court of law to 10 years in prison, but
with the applicable rules of law he was released after two
years.
Antonio Volpato, one of the major figures in the Montreal Mafia,
was released after serving one year of his sentence instead of
six. The sentence arose from a charge of plotting to import 180
kilos of cocaine. It is rather a
lot in terms of an offence.
There is also Joseph Lagana, a former lawyer and financial
adviser
to the mafia who served two and a half years of a 13 year
sentence for importing 558 kilos of cocaine and laundering $47.4
million.
Even after passing Bill C-95 and amending
six acts recently, there have been situations involving
known members of organized crime. We are not dealing with young
offenders subject to the Young Offenders Act but rather known
criminals capable of laundering $47 million with the support of a
huge network.
These are all challenges we had to overcome in order to fight
organized crime. I am sure members all have in their
ridings, and there may even be some in the gallery today, people who
think it is easy to crack down on criminal organizations. As
parliamentarians we now know that it is extremely hard and that
we need much more powerful tools than the ones we have now.
Faced with this problem the justice minister, with whom I
regularly train in the gym, introduced a bill that would change
the definition of organized crime slightly. The organized
crime offence will be much easier to prove in court. It will no
longer be necessary to have five people who have committed
punishable offences in the last five years.
Organized crime and the related offence of gangsterism are now
defined as participating in or contributing to any activity that
helps a criminal organization achieve its objectives.
It is also provided that a well known leader of a criminal organization
like Mom Boucher is liable to life
imprisonment. This is interesting. For a long time that was the
problem. We were able to convict members of criminal
organizations but not their leaders.
1305
With the proposed amendment to Bill C-24 this should be much
easier to do.
I will conclude by pointing out another positive aspect of the
bill. The notion of offence related property will be broadened
so that the proceeds of crime money laundering act will be
used a lot more. This is another very positive aspect of the
bill.
In conclusion, every citizen must feel concerned by the issue of
organized crime. Organized crime affects all communities. It
does not affect only poor communities.
I believe that Bill C-24, which can be improved on in committee,
is an excellent piece of legislation. I will be pleased to work
with the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm and with members from
all parties to improve this bill in committee between now and
the month of June.
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.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred
to a committee)
* * *
[English]
ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
The House resumed from April 25 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public
Participation Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-3, an act to
amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture
Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.
I do not think there has been any doubt where the New Democratic
Party is on the bill. It was indicated yesterday by speakers
from our party that we intend to oppose the bill.
I just want to give a bit of a summary for Canadians who are
listening to what is happening in the House. I am pleased to
indicate that when I go around my riding there are a number of
people who watch what goes on in the House, so it is important
that we take the time to have some discussion in debate and to
maybe let Canadians know exactly what is entailed in the
different bills that come before the House.
The bill relates to the mandatory provisions in the articles of
Cameco Corporation, formerly Eldorado Nuclear Limited and
Petro-Canada. Bill C-3 was first introduced in the 36th
parliament as Bill C-39 and subsequently died on the order paper
with the dissolution of parliament in the fall of 2000 for that
wonderful election time.
The enactment provides that articles of Cameco Corporation will
have to contain a 15% individual non-resident share ownership
limit for voting shares, as well as a cap on aggregate
non-resident share ownership voting rights of 25%. It stipulates
that the articles of Petro-Canada will have to be amended to
allow for a 20% individual share ownership limit, while the
aggregate non-resident share ownership limits will be eliminated.
In addition, the prohibition of the sale, transfer or disposal
of all or substantially all of Petro-Canada's upstream and
downstream assets will be replaced with a similar prohibition on
the sale, transfer or disposal of all or substantially all of its
assets without distinguishing between the upstream and downstream
sectors of the activity.
I am sure that left a lot of people out there guessing just what
the heck we were talking about. The bottom line is that once
again it is the sell off of Canadian resources to foreign
companies with no other party in the House speaking out against
it except the New Democratic Party.
1310
Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources made some comments about it not being a big worry
because there was only a certain percentage of foreign shares in
Petro-Canada. Even though it could be as high as 20%, there are
a mere 6% or thereabouts that are under foreign shares. We are
going to open the door wide and say that we are for sale.
Petro-Canada, the last hold on any kind of control over that
energy resource in Canada, is up for sale. We are going to throw
it out on the open market. This is the last opportunity for any
kind of control, as limited as it is, because the previous
federal governments put it up for sale like they did with so many
of our other very important national programs.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
indicated that he did not see it as a big issue, that he did not
see anyone buying it and that it would still be controlled by
Canada. People will have to excuse me for not having much faith
in that because that was the same argument the previous
governments used for CN and CP, and will probably be the same one
this government will use for our airline industry. Little by
little it is chipping away and saying that Canada is for sale.
Canadians will no longer have control over our important
resources and programs. Therefore I obviously have very little
faith in that.
When it was indicated that I would get an opportunity to speak
today, I reviewed the debates that took place yesterday. I was
extremely impressed with my hon. colleague for Palliser and I
want to thank him for his in-depth speech. If anyone wants to
really get the true picture of what is going on, one needs only
refer to yesterday's Hansard and read the hon. member for
Palliser's comments, his experiences and the situations that are
out there.
As I read his comments, as well as some of my other colleagues'
comments, I also had the opportunity to read the comments of one
of the Alliance members. I was shaking my head and thought that
this is truly the form of the Alliance. It was the ultimate
double speak that I had ever read at any one point, and I want to
make reference to it.
I have been quite surprised that politicians literally speak out
of both sides of their mouths. They are in favour of this or
that because they want to use their householders or ten
percenters and have everyone on their side. The bottom line is
there are differences. We cannot always be on everybody's side
because there are times when there are important issues and
politicians want to be there for Canadians and support what is
beneficial for them. A politician does not want to get every
vote. There are principles involved.
I want to reflect on the double speak from yesterday. It was
the member for Athabasca who was speaking. His comments were:
I am pleased to see that the legislation is mindful of the
possible consequence of high levels of foreign ownership of
uranium resources.
The New Democratic Party has always been concerned over the
possible consequences of foreign ownership of our very important
natural resources. The Alliance member is acknowledging that,
but then goes on to say:
The lower limits on Comeco shares reflect across the board
government restrictions on foreign activity in uranium mining.
He is saying that because we do not allow more foreign shares to
be sold that is a real issue. That means we have to be concerned
about foreign shares, but then we are concerned that we cannot
sell them. He goes on to say:
While the Canadian Alliance is all for Canadian businesses having
all the opportunities to succeed, we must also be conscious of
the need to keep such potentially volatile resources within
Canadian control.
He used the words volatile resources in Canadian control. Then
his next line is:
The bill allows for greater flexibility in the selling of shares
in Canadian companies, and I support that effort.
Has anyone ever heard more double speak in such few short
paragraphs? It got better when he went on to talk about
Petro-Canada and basically said much of the same thing.
1315
I say to parliamentarians and to all Canadians that uranium is a
volatile resource but so are our oil and gas resources. Are they
not crucial resources to Canada? Should we not be concerned over
the total sell off of those resources to foreign companies?
I wonder if members of the Alliance, Liberals or Conservatives
believe that it is okay if they are bought up by Americans? There
is a serious risk in selling off our resources in totality to any
foreign company. We as Canadians must retain control of those
resources.
I would like Canadians to recognize the type of doublespeak that
goes on here and to emphasize the importance that the New
Democratic Party places on having Canadians controlling our
natural resources. We felt that way about our railways, our
airlines and our water because they were serious issues.
When I hear this kind of doublespeak from members of other
parties, I wonder how they would protect our water resources.
Would they do things any differently when all they can see in
their minds is the ideology of privatization? Their answer is
that everything is for sale.
I am sure that if they could find out how to privatize the sweat
off somebody's back and make a profit from it, and they do those
kind of things anyway through their labour legislation, they
would figure that is okay too. They believe anything can be
privatized. It is time that members of parliament and all
Canadians take a serious look at the drastic consequences of
allowing open season on all our natural resources.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the member who just spoke raised some very interesting
questions. I faced the same dilemma with one of my neighbours
not very long ago when we got into a debate. He has a little
farm in Alberta that he wanted to sell because it was just not
viable any more. He wanted to get rid of it. He did some
advertising and he was offered $100,000. A foreign buyer came
along and said that he would give him $250,000.
Here is the dilemma. I object to foreigners buying land in
Canada and yet how could I say to the farmer that he should be
forced to take $100,000 for his land and not accept the $250,000,
which is a little closer to what it is actually worth? What
mechanism do we use to assure that Canada stays Canadian? It is
a concept in principle with which I agree. However, what is the
New Democratic Party policy? Do we compensate people with
government tax money or do we make it illegal for them to sell
their product or property at the higher price?
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, there is no question
that Canadians do not want to see all of Canada for sale. They
do not and that is the issue here. We had legislation in place
and I see no reason that it had to be changed. I would have
preferred seeing these companies continue as totally Canadian
government owned, the way they were at one time.
We have legislation in place and these companies are doing well
financially. Why is there a need to suddenly change it, unless
it is to say that there is an open sale on resources in Canada?
It is an issue in the area of farming, but some provinces have
rules in place where they have limits on the amount of foreign
ownership allowed, whether it be in farming or in tourist areas.
It is a concern right now in Nova Scotia where a great length of
the coastal shore has been bought out by foreign individuals who
do not live there.
1320
That is the same situation with farming. If a farmer moves to
Canada my guess is he will end up being as Canadian as most of us
if he is farming that operation. No one would argue about that.
We need that balance.
When we reach a limit we need something in place to make sure
that other farmers or industries that may wish to sell are able
to get a reasonable price for their property. Banff went through
the same as far as foreign ownership is concerned. There are
ways of doing that without selling our country.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a comment to make on the issue of privatization.
There is one story I like to tell about privatization that for me
says it all. It has to do with the privatization of the Manitoba
telephone system which was done by a Conservative government. It
said that it would never do such a thing and then did after it
was elected. Many friends of the government made a lot of money
by buying cheap shares and having them escalate in value.
The story is about a phone located on the perimeter highway in
Winnipeg. The phone was placed there for people whose cars broke
down or who had some kind of emergency or whatever. As long as
the phone was publicly owned it was fine because it was
cross-subsidized and was available as a public service. It was
there to serve a public need.
As soon as the Manitoba telephone system became privatized and
shareholder value became the guiding principle of that
corporation, rather than a public service all phone stations were
evaluated. The company felt that phone did not pay because it
was only used 75 to 150 times a year. Boom, out went the phone.
To me this says it all.
With privatization comes a value system. Only those things
which are profitable for shareholders are to be valued. Things
that at one time under a different ethic and a different form of
ownership served other needs, other than the profit strategies of
the corporations and the needs of shareholders, were put in
place. With privatization we see the disappearance of these
things.
It is true with railways, airlines and telephone companies and
it will be true with water if we allow our water system to be
privatized. Water is the next thing on the hit list of global
corporate privatizers. We make no apologies for having been
against this trend when it first began and we are still against
it.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my
colleague raised this issue. I had the opportunity in my
comments but I had so many other things to say that I never got
to it.
The situation he talks about with the Manitoba telephone system
is one of the most despicable things the Conservative government
in Manitoba did. We had a viable telephone operation that was
beneficial to the whole province and people in my riding.
I have a very remote riding. Some 27 communities do not have
all weather road access. A number of communities had a few
phones and most often they were pay phones. MTS came in and that
is where the pay telephone story comes into play.
The school and the nursing station got a phone and one other
phone went in. These were not pay phones. The only pay phone in
town was pulled out because there were now three other phones
that everybody could run and use. That is the type of approach
taken when profit is the only motive.
One of the partners in that process is now the hon. member for
Portage—Lisgar. There was an open sale of MTS. The people of
Manitoba ousted the Conservative government directly as a result
of the sale of MTS because they were not happy about it.
1325
It increased the cost of phone service on an ongoing basis. The
cost of a phone has been increasing. The service is far less
than it ever was. We had by far the best phone system in the
world. Now there are problems after problems. MTS does not put
any money back into the service. It is willing to sell it at
whatever the rates and does not put the money back in. It is
definitely a big issue.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will take only a few minutes. I know the government is anxious
to bring this to a close. The hon. member for Churchill said
that the privatization of MTS was the most dastardly thing the
Conservative government of Manitoba had ever done. That reminded
me of an even more dastardly thing that was done by the Liberals
when they came to power in 1993. I am referring to the
privatization of Canadian National Railway which was perpetrated
by the Benedict Arnold of transportation, the hon. Doug Young. We
are forever grateful to the member for Acadie—Bathurst for
removing that political scourge from the House of Commons.
Mr. Yvon Godin: He is a lobbyist now for CN.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Now he is a lobbyist for CN. I am sure
he is doing quite well. I do not know what the ethics counsellor
thinks of that. I suppose he passed through the required time of
cleansing and everything is being done by the rules, however
inadequate those rules may be.
It was a travesty. I remember when we had a publicly owned
Canadian National Railway infrastructure from coast to coast. It
was operating on business principles but nevertheless from time
to time could do things that served the needs of particular
communities or regions.
Now we have that same Canadian National Railway, no longer
worthy of that name, which is becoming more and more of an
American railway. It merged with the Illinois Central. There
are more and more American senior managers coming up and running
the CNR according to American railway principles.
Who really owns the CNR? Up to 60% of its shareholders are
Americans. We had a vast public infrastructure paid for over the
years by the Canadian public which was turned over for a very
cheap price to what are now American shareholders. We no longer
have control of that enormous piece of transportation
infrastructure.
It was part of the common wisdom of the country and of
parliament for years that given the size of Canada transportation
was a critical thing the government had to have some say in.
Through the privatization of the CNR and through their relaxing
of the regulations that used to attend the regulation of railways
we now have a toothless organization. Whatever Paul Tellier wants
Paul Tellier gets. Whatever the CPR wants the CPR gets.
Some members may remember when we had a Canadian Transport
Commission that could actually make railways do things they did
not want to do because it was in the public interest to do them.
The CTC could prohibit them from doing things that were harmful.
1330
When the history of Canada is written it will probably be in the
past tense and will focus on the major decisions that led to the
country's disappearance. Today we hear the Toronto-Dominion Bank
saying that in 10 years we will be American dollarizing our
economy. When the history of Canada's disappearance is written,
the Liberal government of the day and its minister of transport,
Doug Young, will figure prominently in its demise.
It is the most shameful thing the Liberals have ever done.
There are Liberals over there who cannot say so, but many have
told me privately that it was not one of the high points of their
political life. They did what not even a Conservative government
would do.
Even during the Mulroney years the Conservatives did not have
the nerve to do what the Liberals did. They might have thought
or fantasized about it, but they did not have the nerve to
actually commit such a foul deed. That was left to the Liberals.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, by
speaking about my predecessor, Doug Young, my hon. colleague has
given me the opportunity to tell a little story and make some
comments.
As the hon. member has said, Doug Young left politics in 1997.
In the fall of 1998 he was quoted in the Telegraph Journal
as saying he had privatized CN himself and that it was now the
best client he had ever had. This was Doug Young, a Liberal
minister on the other side of the House. That same article
quoted him as saying he was one of the directors who had
privatized the four lane highway in New Brunswick. There again
he was making millions of dollars on the backs of New
Brunswickers.
They sold CN to the New Brunswick East Coast Railway and we lost
a bridge in Bathurst, New Brunswick, about 10 months ago which
had been owned and maintained by CN. The federal government had
also been involved with the bridge. It was on one of the busiest
streets in Bathurst and now everyone must go around it. This has
forced businesses to close. We lost CN in Bathurst because of
privatization. The government has simply washed its hands and
said it has nothing to do with it.
I have a question for the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
He has had more than 20 years of experience in parliament and has
seen privatization coming all along. I am sure he has seen other
cases where Liberals were involved in privatization after leaving
politics. Does he wonder whether they are doing it in the best
interest of Canadians or the best interest of their own pockets?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that
newly privatized companies, not just in Canada but around the
world, are rife with former government officials. They tend to
move into sectors which have been privatized and are doing very
well in terms of shares, stocks, contracts or whatnot. None of
that is necessarily illegal but it does raise questions about
what the agenda really is.
There are plenty of examples, both provincial and federal, which
arouse the well founded suspicion, shall we say, that while it is
done partly out of ideological fixation it is also done to serve
the interest of certain friends of the government who are doing
the privatizing.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we have a problem right now because of our very low
dollar. The business of the country is for sale at bargain
basement prices on the international market, so it is a problem
indeed.
One thing the bill deals with is privatization, and I believe it
includes elements of the Petro-Canada deal.
1335
The hon. member who just spoke will recall that it was a number
of years ago that Petro-Canada was created. I do not know
whether he was in the House at the time. As part of the bill we
are now divesting ourselves of Petro-Canada. I would like to
know whether the hon. member supported a nationalized oil company
at the time and whether he supports the part of the bill that
would now get rid of it. How far would he take the
nationalization of these industries? Would he encourage Canada
to gain control of all its major oil companies? How far would he
take it?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to divest
the last vestiges of government ownership in Petro-Canada. If
the member knew his history he would know that the NDP was
instrumental to the formation of Petro-Canada. It was one of
things the NDP leader, David Lewis, and his caucus pressed for in
the minority parliament of 1972 to 1974. Petro-Canada came into
being shortly thereafter and perhaps even during the life of that
minority parliament the groundwork was laid for it.
We had always felt it was a good idea to have a publicly owned
oil corporation but we were not always happy with the way the
Liberals ran it. Over time the Liberals gave public ownership a
bad name. All too often they saw it as an opportunity for
patronage rather than a chance to do something better than could
be done by the private sector.
One of the problems we therefore had, along with others who saw
a role for public ownership in certain sectors, was that the
Liberal Party of Canada gave public ownership a bad name. It
became something we wanted to defend in principle but not always
in practice.
We still think a measure of public ownership in the oil industry
would be a good idea. That is why we have opposed the
privatization of Petro-Canada. However Petro-Canada was not
created through nationalization as the member suggests.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until
next Monday evening at the end of government orders.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters
Treaty Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I begin by asking consent to divide my 40
minute time slot with my colleague the Minister of the
Environment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1340
[Translation]
Hon. John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House
on second reading of Bill C-6, an act to amend the International
Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
All Canadians recognize that water is a natural resource unlike
any other. It plays a key role in every aspect of our daily
lives: at home, at work and many other places or occasions. A
bountiful supply of fresh, clean water is the basis for much of
Canada's economic and agricultural development, and the towns
and cities of our nation.
Last, but certainly not least, it plays an absolutely critical
role in ensuring the continued health of Canada's ecosystems,
and every living thing that depends on them.
Canadians look to all levels of government to take action now to
protect Canada's water. We must ensure that our children and
grandchildren inherit a Canada in which our freshwater resources
are secure.
[English]
For decades Canadians and the Government of Canada have given a
consistent response to extravagant schemes to redirect the waters
of the North American continent: Canada's water is not for sale.
Many such designs have involved the Great Lakes, which contain
20% of the world's fresh water.
The government is taking action now. Bill C-6 would protect
boundary waters, including the critical resource of the Great
Lakes, from bulk removal under federal law.
The existing act implements the 1909 Canada-U.S. boundary waters
treaty. It is one of our oldest treaties and a landmark in
Canada-U.S. relations. With over 300 lakes and rivers along the
Canada-U.S. border, the drafters of the treaty recognized the
critical role played by water and the importance of providing a
structure and mechanism to prevent and resolve disputes between
the two countries. Ninety-two years later we are using the same
mechanism to ensure these waters will be protected for future
generations.
[Translation]
The amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act
in Bill C-6 are based first on Canada's treaty obligation to the
U.S. not to take actions in Canada which affect levels and flows
of boundary waters on the U.S. side of the border. I would note
that the U.S. has the same obligation to Canada, that is, not to
take actions in the U.S. which affect levels and flows of
boundary waters on the Canadian side of the border.
The amendments also have a second objective, to protect the
integrity of boundary water ecosystems. The amendments have
three key elements: a prohibition provision; a licencing regime;
and, sanctions and penalties.
[English]
The prohibition provision imposes a prohibition on the bulk
removal of boundary waters from the water basins. Exceptions
will be considered for ballast water, short term humanitarian
purposes and water used in the production of food or beverages.
While many boundary waters along the Canada-U.S. border are
affected by the prohibition, the main focus would be on the Great
Lakes. This would enable Canada to stop future plans for bulk
water removal from the Great Lakes.
There would be a licensing regime separate from the amendments
dealing with prohibition. Licences would cover dams and other
projects in Canada that obstruct boundary and transboundary
waters if they affect the natural level and flow of water on the
other side of the boundary. Under the treaty such projects must
have the approval of the International Joint Commission and the
Government of Canada.
The process of approving such projects has taken place under the
general authority of the treaty for the past 92 years without any
problems. In essence the process would not change except that it
would now be formalized in a licensing system. The licensing
regime would not cover bulk water removal projects. These, if
proposed, would be covered by the act's prohibition provision.
1345
[Translation]
Bill C-6 will also allow for clear and strong sanctions and
penalties. This will give teeth to the prohibition and ensure
Canada is in the position to enforce it.
I would also like to set Bill C-6 in the general context of
Canada's strategy announced on February 10, 1999, to prohibit
bulk removal of water out of all major Canadian water basins.
Why did the Government of Canada take this initiative? The
removal and transfer of water in bulk out of a water basin may
result in irreversible ecological, social and economic impacts.
We want to ensure, for future generations of Canadians, the
security of our freshwater resources and the integrity of our
ecosystems.
However, any credible policy approach to the issue of bulk water
removal must address two important elements. First, the
management of Canadian waters involves multiple jurisdictions.
Second, any approach should take into consideration the many
factors, man-made and natural, which exert significant stresses
on our water resources.
To pretend that one government can solve the issue with a wave
of the legislative wand, or that the issue may be simply reduced
to one aspect, such as “water export”, in the words of some
critics, is unrealistic, ineffective and undermines the goal we
all share.
[English]
Flowing water does not respect political boundaries. In the
case of the Great Lakes system, two federal governments, eight
state governments, two provincial governments and a number of
regional and binational organizations are involved in managing
and protecting freshwater resources.
The question of bulk water removal involves the significant
pressure and uncertainty of removals, diversions, consumption,
population and economic growth, and the effects of climate change
and variability. Finally, we must factor in the important
influence of the cumulative effect of all these factors on our
water resources.
All levels of government must act effectively and in concert
with their respective jurisdictions, hence Canada's February 1999
initiative included three parts.
First, Canada would act within its jurisdiction. Bill C-6
fulfils this commitment.
Second is the recognition of the primary responsibility of
provinces and territories for water management. The Minister of
the Environment proposed a Canada-wide accord to prohibit bulk
water removal out of major Canadian water basins. As of today
all provinces have put into place or are developing legislation
and policies to prohibit bulk water removal.
Third, Canada and the United States agreed on a reference to the
International Joint Commission to investigate and make
recommendations on consumptive uses, diversions and removals in
the Great Lakes, the greatest of our shared waters.
The IJC in its February 2000 final report concluded that the
Great Lakes require protection from bulk water removals and other
factors. Bill C-6 is consistent with and supportive of the IJC's
conclusions and recommendations.
[Translation]
It is self-evident that we must work closely with U.S.
jurisdictions, both federal and state, to ensure that the
regimes on both sides of the border are as consistent and
restrictive as possible. In the years ahead, the Boundary
Waters Treaty will remain a critical instrument in protecting
Canada's rights on the Great Lakes and other boundary and
transboundary waters.
Also, the eight Great Lakes states, and Ontario and Quebec, have
been working for over a year on the development of common
standards to manage bulk water removal on the Great Lakes.
The draft plan, unveiled for public comment in December 2000 by
the Council of Great Lakes Governors, attracted a good deal of
criticism in both the U.S. and Canada as being too lax. The
Government of Canada shared these concerns and made its views
known.
1350
[English]
Earlier this month Ontario and New York State announced that
they could not support the proposed standard. In future
discussions we will urge these governments to consider seriously
the recommendations contained in the IJC report.
By adopting Bill C-6 parliament would set down in law an
unambiguous prohibition on bulk water removal in waters under
federal jurisdiction and especially in the Great Lakes. This is
a forward looking action which places the highest priority on
ensuring the security of Canada's fresh water resources. It
demonstrates leadership at the federal level. It affirms an
approach which is comprehensive, environmentally sound,
respectful of constitutional responsibilities and consistent with
Canada's international trade obligations. I urge all members to
give their support to Bill C-6.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join with my colleague, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, in speaking to Bill C-6. The
protection of freshwater is a global as well as a major national
responsibility. Canadians are deeply concerned about the long
term security and quality of our freshwater resources.
There are concerns for Canada's freshwater on a number of fronts
ranging from the safety of our drinking water, and I remind
everyone of the problem of Walkerton, to pollution, to floods and
droughts, and to the potential impact of climate change on the
future availability on our freshwater resources. We are working
with the provinces, the territories and internationally to ensure
that these and other issues are addressed and that Canada's water
is protected and conserved for future generations.
Last June my provincial and territorial counterparts and I
agreed that we all share the common objective to ensure a clean,
safe and secure water supply for our country. In meeting those
objectives all orders of government, whether territorial,
provincial or federal, and all Canadians have roles to play.
[Translation]
Among the issues of concern to Canadians is the possibility of
removing and exporting large quantities of water from Canadian
watersheds.
In February 1999, the government announced a three part strategy
to prohibit the bulk removal of water from large Canadian
watersheds.
When we talk about protecting wildlife, we also want to protect
watersheds. The strategy recognizes that the safest and most
effective way of protecting Canada's water resources is through
an environmental approach enabling us to preserve our freshwater
in its natural state, and not through an approach based on trade.
Our goal is to turn off the tap at the source, not at the
border. The bulk removal and transfer of freshwater from lakes,
rivers and aquifers can have profound environmental, social and
economic effects.
We could witness the introduction of parasites, diseases and
harmful non native species, the deterioration of ecosystems and
the disruption of communities that rely on a natural water supply
from a watershed.
The impact is the same whether the water is destined for foreign
markets or other places in Canada.
[English]
Canadians are already informed of these matters based on
experience with project effects of all kinds. To cite one
instance, we continue to oppose the Garrison diversion in North
Dakota on the basis that it would introduce non-native or
invasive biota and pathogens from the Missouri system across the
continent's divide to the Hudson Bay watershed.
1355
Bill C-6 covers one of the three elements outlined in the
government's strategy that I announced in February 1999. I
therefore strongly support the bill introduced by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs as one component of the federal strategy on bulk
water removals, which is intended to cover all of Canada's water
resources and at the same time respect the shared jurisdiction in
Canada over water.
The amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act
would give the federal government the legislative authority
needed to prohibit bulk removals from the boundary waters shared
with the United States, principally in the Great Lakes, but also
on the New Brunswick-Maine boundary.
However the issue of removing water in bulk from watersheds is a
complex one and the consequences can be wide ranging. These
amendments are a key tool for assisting us in working with our
American partners to protect the ecosystems in and around the
Great Lakes which we share.
Freshwater is the glue that sustains the health of the
environment, and if we change conditions in the water we risk
irreversible damage to our North American ecosystems.
[Translation]
This is why the federal government has chosen an environmental
approach to deal with this issue. It has to be a cautious
approach based on objective scientific principles and an
integrated response, taking into account the fact that it is a
shared resource.
With that in mind, we must ask ourselves some important
questions regarding the long term effects of bulk water removal,
particularly in light of the cumulative impact of such a practice
and the potential changes in the distribution and abundance of
water as a result of climate change.
The need for better quality information brings me to the second
component of the Canadian strategy on bulk water removals.
[English]
We requested, with the United States, to have the International
Joint Commission study how water consumption, removal and
diversions could affect the Great Lakes. Our objective here is
to provide a basis for ensuring a consistent management regime
for water shared with our American friends.
In March 2000 the International Joint Commission presented its
final report to the Canadian-U.S. governments entitled
“Protection of the waters of the Great Lakes”. The report is
entirely consistent with and reinforces the federal strategy to
prohibit bulk water removals.
The International Joint Commission concluded that international
trade law does not prevent Canada and the United States from
taking measures to protect their water resources and preserve the
integrity of the Great Lakes. To those watching or to those in
Canada concerned about the issue of the exportation of water, I
urge them to read the International Joint Commission report. They
will find material there of great interest with respect to trade
law and water exports.
This brings me to the third element of our strategy which is the
development of an accord with the provinces and territories to
prohibit the bulk removal of water from major drainage basins of
our watershed.
[Translation]
Each and every province and territory supports our goal to
prohibit bulk removals of surface water and groundwater. Most of
the provinces and territories felt that the agreement was the
best way to protect our resources and that is why they ratified
it.
In fact, I am pleased to say that all of the provinces have
passed or are about to pass legislation and regulations
prohibiting bulk water removals.
Such a high level of commitment guarantees that no bulk water
removal or export project will be carried out in the near
future.
To sum up, Canada's environmental approach, which is to prohibit
the bulk removal or transfer of water from its watersheds, is
the best way to protect Canadian water resources.
1400
Our approach aims at preserving the ecological integrity of our
watersheds. Also, it ensures that Canadians, and not, I repeat,
not international trade tribunals, will be able to decide how
our waters should be managed.
Since my time is running out, I will not go on with the speech I
have prepared, but I do want to emphasize that Bill C-6 must
come into effect as soon as possible.
[English]
This law is for Canadians a major indication of our commitment
as a parliament and of the commitment of the government as the
government of the country in the direction that we wish to go to
protect our waters.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week I was in China to open the famous Canadian Group of
Seven exhibit in Beijing. I thank the Minister of Canadian
Heritage for her support of this exhibition. It celebrates the
achievements of Canada's seven greatest artists of the early 20th
century.
This exhibit gives a unique opportunity to the Chinese people to
understand the land, the people and the culture of Canada. This
not only improved relations between our two nations. It also was
well received with much interest from people of all ages.
Clearly the Liberal government enhances cultural understanding
and the promotion of free expression in China.
* * *
ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 150 Canadians die every year while
waiting for organ transplants. Four thousand people are on the
waiting list. This will double in the next 8 years and will rise
to more than 16,000 in the next 20 years.
What the government has done, despite repeated solutions from
the Standing Committee on Health and motions passed in the House,
is create a council that will increase awareness. That is not
the problem. Ninety per cent of Canadians are aware of and
support organ donation.
What we need is a plan. Here is what the government should do.
First, it needs to ensure that there is a donor form in every
patient's chart. Second, it needs to create a national registry
of donors and potential recipients. Third, it needs to implement
mandatory reporting of all brain deaths. Fourth, all living
donors must have access to EI. Fifth, donor co-ordinators are
needed in all hospitals.
This is Organ Donor Awareness Week. The government should act
on the solutions it has been given and I hope all Canadians sign
their organ donor cards.
* * *
ISRAEL
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
we commemorate the 53rd anniversary of the establishment of the
State of Israel, which comes one week after the commemoration of
the 56th anniversary of the Holocaust.
Indeed we are sometimes told that if there had not been a
Holocaust there would not be a state of Israel, as if the
establishment of a state can ever compensate for the murder of
six million Jews. The reality is the other way around: if there
had been an Israel there might well not have been a Holocaust or
the horrors of Jewish history.
In a word, Israel at its core is the embodiment of Jewish
survival and self-determination, the reconstitution of an ancient
people in its ancestral and aboriginal homeland. May I conclude
with the age old Hebrew prayer for peace:
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Hebrew as follows:]
Oseh Shalom Bimromov, Who Yaaseh Shalom Alenu V'al Kol Israel,
V'imeru, Amen.
[English]
May God Who Establishes Peace on High, Grant Peace for Us All,
Amen.
May this 53rd anniversary herald the end of violence, the
protection of human security and a real, just and lasting peace
for all peoples of the Middle East.
* * *
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to invite members of the House to recognize National
Volunteer Week.
One person can make a difference and nowhere is that
demonstrated more clearly than in the volunteer sector. In
Canada we have 7.5 million people giving their time to make a
difference to our families, our communities and our nation.
I remind fellow members that the year 2001 has been declared
International Year of the Volunteers by the United Nations.
In my riding of Kitchener Centre, it is estimated that one in
ten individuals volunteers to aid non-profit organizations,
charities, sports groups and cultural activities that contribute
to the character of our community and its growth. I commend
these hard working volunteers.
Today, in room 200, West Block, a representative group of
Canada's volunteers accepted the Government of Canada's
recognition on behalf of all their colleagues across the country.
1405
We are proud of the accomplishments of the citizens of this
remarkable country. More important, during National Volunteer
Week and the International Year of Volunteers we thank—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga West.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this year the cities of Mississauga and Kariya, Japan, celebrate
the 20th anniversary of their twinning.
In March, a 24 member delegation from Mississauga, including
Mayor Hazel McCallion and four city councillors, travelled to
Kariya for a week long visit. Thousands of Japanese residents
joined the delegation to celebrate the official opening of a four
hectare park located in central Kariya and called Mississauga
Park.
This event also marked the 50th anniversary of Kariya and kicked
off a summer long initiative called Think Canada 2001. An
initiative of the Canadian government and Japan, Think Canada
2001 is designed to promote recognition and understanding of
Canadian culture, technology and business opportunities through
seven months and some 200 events and activities.
I congratulate my city of Mississauga and the city of Kariya,
Japan, on 20 economically and culturally prosperous years.
* * *
UNKNOWN SOLDIER
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to welcome
and pay tribute to Leah McDonald from Elrose, Saskatchewan. Leah
is here with her twin sister Abbie, her mother Joan, and her
grandparents Helen and Leonard Kutz. I send greetings to her dad
Michael, her sister Lorell and brother Joel back in Elrose.
Leah is a 17 year old, grade 12 honour student who recently won
the “Who is the Unknown Soldier Writing Contest” sponsored by
Veterans Affairs Canada in the prairie region. The contest was
held to inspire students to reflect on Canada's wartime past and
present and on the ultimate sacrifice made by tens of thousands
of our nation's finest.
Leah's poem is a touching reflection on Canada's war dead and is
a beautiful tribute to the Tomb of the Unknown Solider just down
the street in the nation's capital. It is wonderful to see that
our youth are continuing our great tradition of honouring those
who served and died for Canada.
On behalf of all my colleagues in the House I offer
congratulations and, more important, thanks to Leah for her
inspiring work and her tribute to Canadians who paid the ultimate
sacrifice.
* * *
[Translation]
VOLUNTEERISM
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
celebrating National Volunteer Week. Altogether, more than 7.5
million volunteers across Canada have a profound influence on
virtually every aspect of our society. Through their volunteer
work, they are showing the fundamental value they attach to the
wellbeing of their communities.
The year 2001 has been proclaimed the International Year of
Volunteers by the United Nations.
This year, and this week in particular, let us celebrate the
devotion, compassion and commitment of all those whose everyday
actions make the great Canadian community the strong and dynamic
one that it is.
Today on the Hill, a group of 60 volunteers from all four
corners of this country received recognition by the Government
of Canada on behalf of all their counterparts across Canada.
Special thanks and congratulations to all the volunteers in the
riding of Shefford.
* * *
ORGAN DONATION
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
is National Organ Donor Awareness Week.
Becoming a tissue or organ donor is an important personal
decision we need to discuss with family and friends. What we
need to keep in mind during that process is that by agreeing to
be an organ donor, we can one day provide the gift of life to
someone else.
Organ donation has not, unfortunately, always been a tradition
here in Canada as it has in most other industrialized western
countries.
That is why 150 of the 3,500 or so people on waiting lists for
organ transplants die every day for lack of an organ. Yet in
this country we have access to the best transplantation
technologies in the world, and to top-flight surgeons. What we
lack is the needed organs.
National Organ Donor Awareness Week is a time for each of us to
think about becoming a donor, to learn more about it, and to
make a decision—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga South.
* * *
[English]
FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week 95% of the members of the House of Commons voted to
support health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic
beverages to raise awareness of fetal alcohol syndrome.
As we know, this syndrome is incurable but preventable, and
therefore it is timely that today the Government of Canada
launched a new tool in the fight to prevent fetal alcohol
syndrome. The FAS-FAE tool kit has been developed specifically
for senators, members of parliament and other government
officials so that they may better understand the dangerous
consequences of drinking during pregnancy.
1410
It is my hope that all hon. colleagues will take this message
back to their constituencies so that all Canadians can work
together to eliminate fetal alcohol syndrome in our communities.
* * *
UNKNOWN SOLDIER
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to complete for you and
the hon. members what my hon. colleague for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar said and read the poem Who is the
Unknown Soldier?
He is the one who led the way
So the general could make it home;
She is the one who saved the child
And was left to die alone.
His dreams were cut off
by his untimely death;
Her innocence shattered
by her last shallow breath.
He is the voice
that echoes our pride;
She is the eyes, that
for our freedom, cried.
He is the rain
that waters our souls;
She is the river
holding secrets untold.
He's in the wave
crashing Normandy's shore;
She's on the wind
over Dieppe once more.
He's in the song
that Passchendaele sang;
She's in the bell
from which freedom rang.
His death was a pledge
prayers cannot suffice;
Her life, a gift,
at the ultimate price.
* * *
CHERNOBYL
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the 15th anniversary of the worst nuclear
accident in the world's history.
This is a day to remember the horror unleashed on the people of
Chernobyl and the valiant efforts of the radiation containment
crews, many paying with their lives in the fight to save others.
The tragic human cost from the explosion at Chernobyl in 1986 is
still being felt. Fifteen years later people are still suffering
from diseases caused by radiation.
The impact of the disaster was felt not only in Ukraine alone.
As radioactive clouds do not recognize international boundaries,
there were obviously impacts.
I commend the efforts of one Canadian organization that provides
assistance to children in neighbouring Belarus, children who are
growing up in an area that received 70% of the fallout from the
explosion.
Since 1991, the Canadian Relief Fund for Chernobyl Victims in
Belarus has been bringing children to Canada for health respite
visits. In the last four years, this organization has enabled
over 1,600 children to spend some time away from places that
still contain contamination and the vivid reminders of the
immense price to be paid for nuclear miscalculation.
* * *
ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to make this statement during Organ Donor Awareness Week.
I have the longest living kidney transplant recipient living in
my hometown and have seen the lifelong benefits of organ
donation.
More than 3,700 Canadians are awaiting organ transplants. Last
year alone 147 Canadians died while waiting for organs. Canada
has one of the lowest organ donation rates among industrialized
nations, with fewer than 14 donors per million people in this
country compared to more than 31 in Spain.
A national organ donor awareness program would hopefully
increase donations in Canada, but a national organ donor registry
would be a further lifesaving measure for those awaiting
transplant.
Preventing disease and injury is important. Quality treatment
of illness and injury is important. Organ donors and a registry
are the key to life for those less fortunate. I urge Canadians
to become donors. I urge the government to bring forth a
national tissue and organ donor registry program.
* * *
[Translation]
CERCLE DES FERMIÈRES
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the following recommendation of the Cercle des
fermières de Rivière-Bleue is one with which I agree:
Whereas 1997 statistics show that 59% of single women aged 65
and older are living in poverty;
Whereas the sole source of income for single women living in
poverty is the old age pension and the guaranteed income
supplement;
Whereas women have a life expectancy of 81 compared to 75 for
men and whereas there are therefore more senior women than
senior men living in poverty;
And whereas the income of these senior women living in poverty
barely covers their basic living needs;
The Cercles de fermières du Québec recommend to the Department
of Human Resources Development that it amend the eligibility
criteria for the guaranteed income supplement so that it better
meets the needs of senior women living in poverty.
This is a matter of social justice. It is in the government's
court.
* * *
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today's Le
Droit contained an article written by Isabelle Ducas headlined
as follows: “Bilingualism in Ottawa: federal government does not intend to
step in”.
First, let me say that I am not criticizing Ms. Ducas; in fact,
her reporting was quite accurate.
Unfortunately, the headline has nothing to do with the text.
This is not the first time that I have been treated this way by
Le Droit.
1415
I therefore urge its board of directors to ensure that the
person responsible for making up headlines takes the trouble to
read the articles, in order to avoid unwarranted sensationalism.
As for my position, let me be clear. In the past, when I was
asked if the federal government should step in, I said “yes”,
clearly. I would prefer that the City of Ottawa and the
Province of Ontario recognized the merit of guaranteeing
services in both official languages of the country.
Where warranted, I believe that the Government of Canada should
become involved in order to ensure that its capital city
respects and reflects Canada's linguistic duality.
* * *
[English]
ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, 120
million litres of raw sewage flow into the St. John's harbour
every day. The physical attributes that make it such a good
harbour also make it a very poor sewer outfall. As a result,
environmentalists have labelled St. John's harbour the most
polluted harbour in Canada.
The cleanup of the St. John's harbour is a priority for city
council and the provincial government. To date, $12 million has
been spent on that project but only a paltry $1.5 million of that
amount has come from the federal government.
On May 8 I will be sponsoring a private member's debate on the
harbour cleanup. I challenge Newfoundland's federal minister to
take part in that debate and make a federal commitment to funding
one-third of the cost of fixing that national environmental
problem.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, especially following last weekend's
summit, it is very evident that we will increasingly be living in
an integrated world with the Americas. That is a positive thing.
The challenge for us however is that the properties, assets and
savings of Canadians will increasingly be valued and assessed on
an integrated aspect with all the Americas. The present
evaluation shows that the homes, assets and savings of Canadians
are being devalued because the dollar is so low.
Would the Prime Minister agree with a Canadian economist who
said today that we need a much more proactive approach to tax and
debt reduction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian currency is a floating currency and the
value is determined by the market. In terms of tax reductions,
we have been very aggressive.
On January 1 we provided Canadians with tax cuts that were more
than the level of taxes that he proposed for the administration
of the government. Every year we have reduced the debt of the
government more than any people expected us to do. In fact, some
people were complaining that we were undervaluing the surplus so
that we could reduce the debt quicker.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the reality remains very different for
people who have difficulty paying their mortgage and saving for
their future. It is difficult.
The government cannot continue with its head in the sand. It
must act now.
Will the Prime Minister stop congratulating himself and tell the
people when he will take action to lower taxes and pay off the
debt more quickly?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we took office in 1993, interest rates were at 11.5%. Today
interest rates have been cut almost in half.
In fact, this is the first time in a very long time that, for
several years, interest rates have been lower in Canada than in
the United States. We are therefore making progress.
As to paying off the debt, as I have just said, we are
progressing faster than planned. As concerns tax cuts, we have
been very active since January 1 this year, and we have cut taxes
quite substantially for 2001.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the reality is different. The
statistics are different.
Statistics Canada, for the fourth straight month, shows a
lowering of the index. We hear now that Cisco is laying people
off this month. We hear that Bell is looking at the possibility
of more layoffs.
Personally, I have been reflecting on a line, I think from T. S.
Eliot, which says that April is the cruelest month. Well it is
also being cruel to a lot of employees.
I want to know if the Prime Minister is in agreement with a
leading Canadian economist who—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The right hon. Prime
Minister.
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in every part of the House everybody wishes we would
quickly be in the month of May.
The economy is not performing as well as last year but we still
have growth. In the first two months of this year we saw growth
occurring in Canada at a much higher rate than the growth in the
United States. In fact economists are predicting that growth in
Canada this year will be 1% or 1.5% more than the growth in the
United States. It will also be one of the best growth rates in
the OECD.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian dollar has been flirting with its all time
lows. This lowers the value of all Canadians' savings and makes
us all poor.
The former assistant deputy minister of finance has outlined a
plan as to how the government can prevent our dollar from
becoming the northern peso.
Will the Minister of Finance take immediate steps to reduce our
debt faster, decrease personal taxes and restrain government
spending?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has it all
wrong, as usual. First, a report from economic forecasters today
came out with the headline “Growth outlook sours for G-7, except
Canada”.
The members opposite have talked about the asset value of
Canadians. The national net worth rose 5.9% to $3.3 trillion in
the year 2000. The member knows very well that the policy of the
government is not to encourage a weak dollar.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, despite all that, our Canadian dollar is still at its
lowest level ever. Quick debt reduction and faster personal rate
cuts will not only increase our Canadian dollar but will enhance
economic growth.
Why does the Minister of Finance want to condemn Canadians to a
bargain basement dollar and lower economic growth?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's finance
minister has consistently said that the government will do the
right thing at the right time. We have the largest stimulus in
Canadian history working its way through the economy. If we
look at the Canadian tax cuts and the provincial tax cuts, it is
almost 2% of GDP. Let us give that a chance to go through the
system.
The government is unlike the Alberta government, which is
proposing a huge increase in expenditures. Federal expenditures
are at an all time low in relation to the GDP and we will
continue with that fiscal prudence.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
the astronomical profits of oil companies continue to soar,
Quebecers are paying too much for their gasoline. On Friday, the
price of gas even climbed to 89.9 cents in Montreal, because the
federal government refuses to take its responsibilities.
Instead of being satisfied with the pro-oil company study which
the conference board was commissioned to produce, will the
Minister of Industry show leadership and immediately strengthen
the Competition Act to help consumers?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, both the federal government and indeed many of the
provincial governments all across Canada have, at one time or
another, conducted investigations into gas pricing in Canada.
Almost all these investigations have come to the conclusion that
there is no collusion in the setting of prices of gasoline.
If the member has any evidence of that or wants to suggest that
to the House, I would ask that he refer that information to the
competition bureau.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister may be the only one who does not see the collusion. If
the minister thinks it is a coincidence when prices for a litre
suddenly jump from 80 cents to 89 cents, he must still believe
in Cinderella. There is a minor problem: it is not a
coincidence, it is collusion.
Will the minister realize that the time has come to review the
Competition Act to give it more teeth? If they cannot find
evidence of collusion, it is not because there is no collusion,
it is because the act is not adequate to prove that there is.
1425
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is not a member of the House who would not like to
see more competitive and lower gasoline prices in Canada. It is
a very easy target for the member to go after.
The fact is that all the studies that have been done indicate,
first, that there is no evidence of collusion, and second, that
gasoline prices in Canada remain substantially cheaper than those
elsewhere in the world.
Finally, is the member suggesting that prices for crude oil be
set at a prescribed level in Alberta, in Nova Scotia or in
Newfoundland and Labrador? If he is, he should say so.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as weekends
and holidays approach, the cost of gasoline rises as if by magic
at every gas station, and the Conference Board thinks there is
no problem, that market forces are working perfectly and that
there is no collusion.
Could the Minister of Industry, who seems to share the
Conference Board's conclusions, since he is refusing to tighten
the law, explain the economic relationship between the price of
gasoline and holidays?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, given the obvious close relationship between the
government of Quebec and the party opposite now making this
representation in parliament, I would assume that it is about to
stand up and announce that the government of Quebec has
unilaterally cut gasoline taxes. I am awaiting the announcement
right now.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in addition
to all the people being penalized by having to pay too much for
their gasoline, there are those earn their living by consuming a
lot of gasoline. I refer to truckers, taxi drivers and farmers,
who are doubly penalized.
Will the government continue to leave these persons at the mercy
of the oil companies, which are becoming rich on their backs
because it is refusing to review the Competition Act, which has
no effect on the petroleum sector, where the concentration is
far too great?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member opposite is expressing a concern that every
member of the House would share. None of us wants to see
gasoline prices higher than they absolutely need to be based on
proper marketplace forces.
If there is any indication at all of improper collusion, then of
course the appropriate agency of the Government of Canada would
act. However, if this is merely for the member to give a speech
to say that he is concerned, I would ask whether the member has
talked to the government of Quebec and whether the government of
Quebec has indicated that it will lower taxes on gasoline.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment. It has to do
with the Prime Minister's commitment to President Bush with
respect to the development of the tar sands.
The Minister of the Environment will know that the development
of the tar sands itself produces emissions. It is not just
emissions produced from burning the product of the tar sands but
developing the tar sands itself.
Given the fact that all Canadian governments have been committed
ever since the Brundtland report to doing environmental
assessment of major policy announcements, has there been an
environmental assessment done of the emissions that would be
created by the development of the tar sands? If there has not,
will the government commit to doing such an environmental
assessment?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the hon. member that we have,
since the beginning of the development of the tar sands, had
ongoing analysis of environmental issues including, of course,
emission of greenhouse gases.
I would remind the hon. member though that the Prime Minister
has made no commitment with respect to any particular energy
source. It may be that Canada will be providing low emission
Canadian gas which might in the United States substitute for high
emission American coal, which would be very beneficial for
climate change purposes.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of the Environment would be
willing to make a commitment that should development of the tar
sands proceed that there will be just such an environmental
assessment, that is to say, of all the greenhouse gas emissions
that would be created by the development of the tar sands itself.
Some people have estimated it would be the equivalent of putting
millions of extra cars on the streets so to speak.
I wonder if the minister could make the commitment that kind of
environmental assessment would be done not only for its own sake
but in keeping with our commitment to the Kyoto protocol.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the hon. member that
we do studies of that type whenever there is a proposal to
increase production from any area. It will take place if there
are proposals put forward by industry to develop tar sands to a
greater degree than they are currently developed.
I simply point out to the hon. member that we are simply
following the existing law of the land with respect to impacts,
which I believe is adequate. I certainly have heard nothing from
him to suggest it is inadequate. I thank him, however, for his
concern and representation that the law of Canada should be
followed.
* * *
1430
FINANCE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. Today five provincial
finance ministers came to Ottawa to discuss with the federal
Minister of Finance the urgent issue of equalization.
The federal minister refused to meet with them. He knew for
weeks that they were coming. He is in Kingston for a political
party dinner. He stiffed five of his colleagues.
How does the Prime Minister expect this federation to work when
his minister lacks the common courtesy to even meet with five
provincial finance ministers when they come to Ottawa?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance met these finance ministers not
long ago on this very problem and discussed it with them.
Today I do not know if there was something that did not occur
properly. I know very well that the Minister of Finance is a
minister who talks with everyone all the time. However he could
not refuse to be in the riding of the Speaker.
The Speaker: Naturally I am sure the right hon. member
for Calgary Centre shares the Prime Minister's enthusiasm.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I take it the Minister of Finance
is speaking to delegates.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on February 9 this year the Business Development Bank issued new
guidelines about interventions by ministers. The new rules
instruct BDC representatives to abstain from any decision on any
loan application file if they have been contacted by a member of
parliament or a minister on that file. The bank has admitted it
was wrong. It has cleaned up its own act.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When will he bring to
the House of Commons the recommendations of the ethics counsellor
that add crown corporations to the list of agencies where it is
prohibited for a minister to interfere as the Prime Minister
interfered?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are applying the criteria developed by the
Conservative Party government some years ago.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
we have obtained a letter through access to information written
by Jean Carle of the Business Development Bank. It is a request
for a leave of absence from the bank for the period of the
federal election.
Mr. Carle worked full time on the Prime Minister's election
campaign. He then went back to his office at the BDC and got his
legal team to conduct an unwarranted search and seizure of
documents relating to the Prime Minister. Why is Jean Carle
protecting the Prime Minister?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the appropriate procedures were followed with
respect to individuals, be they at the Business Development Bank
or anywhere else, who participated in the election campaign.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Carle was completely unjustified in his actions. The
search warrant was quashed because the BDC “failed to present
sufficient evidence or grounds” to warrant those raids.
The connection could not be more clear. Here we have an
employee of the Prime Minister working on his campaign and then
going back to the BDC. Why does Jean Carle have to look after
the interests of the Prime Minister even when he is at the BDC?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the rate members of the Alliance are going, we will
have to ask the Minister of Finance to put aside a contingency
reserve in the event they seek to have public financing of the
whole host of suits that will be launched against the party in
litigation because of these kinds of smears on individuals who
are honourable, individuals like Jean Carle.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
documents of the Department of National Defence obtained by the
Bloc Quebecois under the Access to Information Act reveal that,
at five locations on the Bagotville military base, the soil and
underground waters are contaminated with arsenic, nitrates and
heavy metals.
Can the minister confirm that five locations at the Bagotville
military base are highly contaminated by substances that are
potentially hazardous to people's health.
1435
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there is some pollution at 3 Wing at
Bagotville. The pollution is in the form of substances from the
de-icing fluid on the runway and from petroleum products. The
pollution on the site has been isolated to the base itself. I am
informed it is not in danger of migrating off the DND property.
In conjunction with Environment Canada, 3 Wing is conducting a
cleanup and bioremediation. At this point in time the base is in
full compliance with current environmental regulations and no
additional pollution is occurring. What is there now is being
cleaned up.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
again from the documents we obtained under the Access to
Information Act, the analysis of one of these locations polluted
by nitrate indicates that there is a risk of migration toward
the municipal drinking water wells.
Given that the pollution at the Bagotville base poses a hazard
for the people of the town of La Baie and surrounding area, can
the minister tell us what specific measures he intends to take
to avoid contaminating the region's drinking water?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is not the information I have. We are working
with Environment Canada on this matter, containing the pollution
that is there, cleaning it up and making sure it does not migrate
off the property.
The Department of National Defence will do the responsible thing
to protect the property and anybody around it with respect to
pollution.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it was only yesterday that the courts overturned BDC's
raid for documents, judging it to be an illegal fishing
expedition.
What a surprise it was that the Prime Minister's former aide,
Jean Carle, headed up the legal team that directed BDC lawyers to
search for, seize and destroy documents which might implicate the
Prime Minister. What are Canadians to think when BDC is allowed
to abuse its powers and recover documents to protect the Prime
Minister?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, much of what has just been said is incorrect. I know
the member must have inadvertently misled the House because he
would never do so deliberately.
First, Mr. Carle did not lead a legal team. He is in charge of
corporate services. Second, no documents have been destroyed.
All the material involved is still available. The records are
still there intact.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that Jean Carle wears a lot of hats.
Breaking into people's homes is no small matter, especially to
search for, seize and destroy documents, and especially when
those documents relate to the Prime Minister. That is a big
matter.
Less than six months ago Jean Carle was working on the Prime
Minister's election campaign. Could the Prime Minister tell the
House which hat Jean Carle was wearing when he directed the raid
for BDC on the Auberge Grand-Mère documents? Which hat was he
wearing that day?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the party opposite would do almost anything
to change the coverage on the front page of the papers of Canada.
Having a political leader who enters the phone booth as Clark
Kent and re-emerges as Maxwell Smart is not good for business.
Jean Carle did not break into anybody's home, no matter how much
that silly accusation is repeated on the floor of the House of
Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister sent a letter to the leader of the
Conservative Party in which he stated, and has also stated in
the House, that there was no business connection between the
Auberge Grand-Mère and the golf club, and that on the contrary
they were competitors.
Yet there is a ten-year lease between the two, which indicates
the opposite and clearly shows that there was such a connection,
contrary to the statements made by the Prime Minister.
How could the Prime Minister have written and stated that there
was no connection between the Auberge and the golf club, when
there is a ten-year lease in the property registry which clearly
demonstrates that what the Prime Minister is saying is totally
false?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the evidence has shown repeatedly when it has been
subject to independent audit and review, be that by the ethics
counsellor or be that by the RCMP in its investigation, that
effective November 1993 the Prime Minister of Canada had no
involvement, none, in this asset.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when we raised the question earlier this week, the Prime
Minister answered from his seat that the lease had been
cancelled. Yet there is nothing in the registry to indicate
that it had.
I am therefore asking the Prime Minister the following.
1440
How does he know the lease was cancelled, when was this done,
and why is there no indication of it in the Shawinigan property
registry? Can the Prime Minister answer these three questions?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, members opposite can do their very best to try to revive
something which in the context of Canadian public opinion has
nothing to do with the best interest or public policy of the
country.
The fact remains that since November 1993 the Prime Minister has
had no involvement with this business whatsoever. The Prime
Minister sold his shares in the golf course. No matter how hard
members opposite try, the government remains committed and
focused on the public policy of Canada.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice says that Bill C-7, the youth
criminal justice act, is a result of extensive consultations with
the provinces. Yesterday provincial officials appearing before
the justice committee seemed to contradict that claim. While
they said there may have been a lot of talk, the federal
government just plain did not listen.
Does the minister stand by her claim about consultations and, if
so, is she just saying that these provincial officials, who must
implement her legislation, have it all wrong?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should
know, we consulted widely with the provinces. The hon. member
should also know that does not mean we always agree with the
provinces.
I listened with some interest to the testimony yesterday and the
day before from the provinces. Not surprisingly I understand
where they are coming from. They seem to want more resources.
What we are doing is providing them with additional resources.
However I think everyone has to come to the table and understand
that we have to work together. I stand by my claim that yes, we
consulted. Do we agree on everything? No. Will the provinces
always ask for more money? Yes, they will.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is more than resources. Those same officials
describe Bill C-7 as elegant but not effective or functional due
to its complexity. They also say there was no indepth cost
analysis done. Without such an analysis they predict there will
be severe problems for many years to come.
These are the people who have to implement and apply this
legislative nightmare. Why does the minister refuse to
acknowledge their concerns?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have listened to their
concerns. Unfortunately in the country too often the remedy of
choice against a young person who gets into trouble is custody.
We all know that custody is the single most expensive remedy in
the criminal justice system.
What we are trying to do in Bill C-7 is to ensure that only
those for whom custody and detention are necessary are placed in
those facilities. Hopefully the provinces will be able to save
on the back end.
We are investing more resources. In 1999 we got an additional
$206 million. In fact—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Niagara Centre.
* * *
WINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
wineries, viticulture and more recently ice wine is an example of
the new economy of Niagara.
There have been media reports about the European Commission
approving the marketing of ice wine from Canada. Would the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain to the House when
Canadian ice wines will be granted access to the very important
European market?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after hard work by the wine industry,
this government and the provincial governments yesterday the
European Union adapted the regulations which will allow our very
fine wine, the best ice wine in the world, to now go into the
European market. This is another step forward in the wine and
spirit industry around the world, and we will now open that
market for ice wine in the European Union.
Following a question, I had yesterday on another issue of a very
high quality product, I announced at 1.30 p.m. today that the
United States border is now open for Prince Edward Island
potatoes.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it took Health Canada almost five months to stop sales
of the drug Prepulsid after Vanessa Young died from an adverse
reaction. By that time 12 deaths in Canada and 80 deaths in the
United States had been linked to this drug.
Today at committee the health minister expressed concern about
Vanessa's death but was short on specifics. Would he now commit
to implementing the recommendations of the coroner's jury for
which he has responsibility, starting with the mandatory
reporting of adverse drug reactions?
1445
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we must never forget that this case involves the tragic loss of a
15 year old girl whose family will mourn her forever. Our hearts
go out to them.
There are tragic lessons to be learned from this episode. We
have received the recommendations of the jury. I have asked the
deputy minister to examine them to find any way in which we can
do our business better, to better serve Canadians and ensure
their health.
* * *
STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade. As a
result of the government's failure to take action to protect
Canada's steel industry from the impact of illegal dumping,
thousands of jobs at Algoma Steel in Ontario and other Canadian
steel producers are at risk. Last year's steel imports increased
by 60% and formed 45% of the Canadian market. These imports are
threatening the future viability of the whole industry.
In February the government promised to take some action. Will
the government today take immediate action in the interest of the
Canadian steel industry and the working families that depend on
it and implement retroactive penalties to stop the dumping?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the situation on the
dumping legislation in the United States does not always meet our
criteria. We have been challenging a number of them time and
again. We will continue to do so.
I was very pleased that Ambassador Zoellick in Buenos Aries for
the first time has accepted to negotiate these in the context of
the free trade area of the Americas. There is progress on that
front.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has stated the sale of
eight DND challenger jets by Lancaster Aviation was “not a sole
source contract” and “was reasonably handled”.
The minister is wrong on both counts. These aircraft were sold
for $25 million below market value. Is the minister now in a
position to confirm that Lancaster Aviation is under RCMP
investigation for its mishandling of DND assets, and does the
minister stand by his previous statements?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Yes, I stand by the previous statements, Mr. Speaker. Certainly
the information I have is that there were several companies, and
I have a list of them in fact, that were part of the bidding
process in addition to Lancaster.
I also understand the matter was determined, was looked at by
tax officials and not found to be something requiring further
investigation. Certainly the RCMP is quite free to look at it if
it so wishes.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
cannot trust the government. The government broke its word about
revisiting the equalization formula. The Minister of Industry
broke his word to the shipbuilding industry and workers
particularly in Saint John. The Minister of National Defence
broke his word on the replacement of the Sea King helicopters.
Now it looks like the government might well break its word to
the merchant navy vets. Will the government and will the
minister tell these veterans that they will receive the other 40%
of their compensation package today?
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
her question. Originally $50 million was allocated to this
special fund. That figure was raised to $70 million.
There were 14,000 applications made. Approximately 2,400
original decisions have been reviewed. The minister has
committed to making a decision by the end of April. I am pleased
to inform the member of that.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday in the House the environment minister
claimed that he had told Mayor Andy Wells of St. John's how to
get money to clean up Canada's dirtiest harbour.
What he actually told the mayor was that the environment
ministry had no money, but he should try the Canada
infrastructure program. Mayor Wells did. There was no money
there either.
Meanwhile the environment minister just announced funding to
clean up a harbour. Guess where? It is in his own riding. When
will these ministers start working for all Canadians, not just
themselves?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made the charge two days ago that I
had given no information to the mayor of St. John's with respect
to infrastructure programs for sewage treatment.
He has now retracted that statement in the House without the
apology I deserve for the statement that he made.
1450
I ask him, in his clear effort to succeed the hon. member from
Calgary, in his clear effort on the campaign, that while he
regrets not having been moved forward perhaps he might simply
stop playing games—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the industry minister
said that if St. John's votes Liberal they might just get their
harbour cleaned up. They did not and it is not.
He also:
That totally contradicts what the environment minister claims.
That totally contradicts what he said to the House, and that is
pretty embarrassing.
When will these two ministers stop playing blind man's bluff
with the people of the country and get on with cleaning up
Canada's dirtiest harbour?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the very first infrastructure program announced some
years ago was for cleaning up the problems with respect to the
Fraser River. The Prime Minister attended to it. It was $206
million in British Columbia, joint federal-provincial-municipal.
The infrastructure program was available from the very first for
such cleanup proposals. I would simply say to the hon. member
that he has once again said things about a colleague of mine
which are false.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during the summit of the Americas, the President of Mexico,
Vicente Fox, proposed the creation of a fund to alleviate
socioeconomic inequalities between the citizens of FTAA
countries, somewhat like the fund set up by the European Union
to help less fortunate countries.
Does the federal government intend to support this initiative by
President Fox and will it help implement it?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by President Fox was the topic
of some discussions, but was not clearly specified.
There are several approached to supporting certain economies at
a time when we are becoming part of a free trade area of the
Americas.
For example, we made a strong commitment to smaller economies
that we would help them strengthen their capacity to integrate
into and to fully benefit from the free trade area of the
Americas.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given Canada's privileged position, does the government intend
to assume some leadership in the setting up of that fund by
trying, for instance, to convince its American partner to take
part in it?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean is right when he
refers to Canada's privileged position in the Americas.
As was evident both in Buenos Aires and in the discussions on the
democracy clause, Canada has an extraordinary voice in
diplomacy, because it is a voice that is balanced and respected.
Its credibility with Central and South American countries has
allowed us to make huge progress in our hemisphere.
These countries now truly appreciate our commitment. So, the
hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean is right about Canada enjoying a
privileged position.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, today a known member of a terrorist organization who is
not even supposed to be in Canada is walking free on the streets
of southern Ontario.
For $20,000 and a curfew, Mr. Rat Naval is living at home with
his wife without any plan to deport him. Why has the government
failed to protect Canadians by immediately deporting this man?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would say to the member opposite
that we do not conduct trials by newspaper, that there is a
process of law, and that when my department argues for detention
of individuals who may pose a risk on the basis of either
criminality or terrorist activity we argue for detention. However
those decisions are made by independent adjudicators.
While I cannot comment on individual cases, which might
prejudice outcome, I can say to all members of the House that I
do not always agree with the decisions of independent
adjudicators.
1455
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP in sworn testimony, and I have it here if the
minister wishes to see it, states:
Rat Naval is a murderer, a terrorist, and a gang member. He has
lied to enter Canada, caused a disturbance to prevent his
deportation from Canada and now has been released to walk the
streets of Canada.
I ask again: Why is the minister refusing to deport this man?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject absolutely the premise of the
member's question. I am bound by the rule of law and do
everything within the context of the rule of law to carry out my
responsibilities.
The decision on detention is reviewed by an independent
adjudicator. On a case by case basis the arguments are made. I
will not and cannot do anything that would prejudice the outcome
of the decision, but I will say to her, as I have said, I do not
always agree with the decisions made by independent adjudicators.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONIE GAMES
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, will
the minister responsible for the IVth Games of La Francophonie
in Ottawa-Hull give his reaction to the comments by Minister
Facal to the effect that Quebec was not consulted in connection
with previous games, and that Quebec is completely absent with
respect to the vision for the upcoming games?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me set the facts straight.
In connection with the three previous Games of La Francophonie,
Quebec supported and signed the agreement between Canada,
Canada-Quebec and Canada-New Brunswick. These are the terms in La
Francophonie as used by Lucien Bouchard, the “sherpa” who coined
them in 1987.
This agreement reflects Canada's status as a member nation of La
Francophonie, and the status of Quebec and of New Brunswick as
participating governments.
What we are going to do, with the co-operation—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lanark—Carleton.
* * *
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the ongoing status of
highway 7. This is the most direct route between Ottawa and
Toronto. It is also the natural gateway for the explosive growth
of Kanata into Lanark county.
Highway 7 should be a divided four lane highway. The province
is seeking to expand this and other highways into four lanes. The
mayor of Carleton Place has worked tirelessly for this expansion,
but it is nearly impossible for a cash strapped province when the
federal government will not contribute any revenues from the
excise tax on petroleum. This tax is being paid by motorists who
use highway 7. Why is the government—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that the province of Ontario
certainly has the resources to make the kind of repairs and
expansion the hon. member desires. There is a $600 million
program. We are hopeful that more money will be put in at the
next budget to assist the provinces with their highway needs.
For nearly 80 years the federal government has used its spending
power to be involved in highway upgrades across the country. I
think the program we have in place is a good one.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, they got zero in British Columbia last year. In the
past few years 11 fatal accidents have occurred on parts of the
highway passing through Lanark county. Three have occurred in
Frontenac county and still more have occurred on the stretch that
passes through rural Ottawa. Companies have refused to locate in
Carleton Place because of the dangers and the delays caused by
this killer stretch of road.
The federal governments promise during the last election to
spend hundreds of millions of dollars on highways and bridges
east of the Ottawa River has those of us living to the west
wondering how many more deaths, how much more economic damage
before the government—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member refers to zero in British Columbia. I
am not sure exactly of the context of those remarks.
If he is talking about highway funding there has been an
allocation announced for all 10 provinces of $600 million. That
will go a long way to meeting highway needs in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Sunday
evening, the flight to the Magdalen Islands by Air Nova, a
subsidiary of Air Canada, was re-routed to Halifax because of
poor weather conditions.
In addition to the inconvenience, the passengers, most of them
from the Magdalen Islands, were served in English only by the
Air Canada crew. This is unacceptable.
1500
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs ensure personally
that the act is respected, so that Air Canada and its
subsidiaries provide quality French services to their clients at
all times? This is no laughing matter.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously Air Canada is obligated to comply with the
Official Languages Act.
If the hon. member has a specific case to present, I am prepared
to speak with the president of Air Canada to improve the
situation. There is no excuse for Air Canada not providing
services in both official languages.
* * *
INCOME TAX RETURNS
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most
Canadians have until midnight, on Monday April 30, 2001 to file
their income tax returns.
What options does the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency offer to
Canadians to simplify this process?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
honourable colleague for this very important question.
As hon. members are aware, Revenue has changed from a department
to an agency. With all the changes to the workings of
government, we want to continue to serve the public well.
I would like to inform hon. members that there are, of course,
various ways of filing income tax returns: by mail, by
telephone, and by Internet as well.
I would also like to inform the House that 13.5 million returns
have already been received, 5.7 million electronically.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I just sent over a newspaper article to the Minister of Health
that reads “Hepatitis `C' victim dying in red tape”. There is
a quote that says:
That quote is by Charles McLean who contracted hep C through a
blood transfusion while undergoing prostate surgery in 1987. He
is a class 5 victim. He was approved for $125,000. A year later
he still has not received a cent and has lost his health, his
career and his money.
I would like the minister to tell us today that he will take
whatever action is necessary—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his courtesy in raising this with my
office and with me in advance of the question.
The member knows that this program is not administered by Health
Canada. The court has appointed an arm's length administrator
who is responsible. However, I share the frustration of the hon.
member. I share the frustration of those who are entitled to
money and who are not getting it. I have already written to the
joint committee to express that frustration. I am working with
that office and with the member's office to see what information
we can get about this and other cases. We will continue to work
to make sure these people get the money they are due.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
all hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency
Ali Said Abdallah, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of
Eritrea.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also wish to draw to the attention of
hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Greg
Selinger, Minister of Finance of the province of Manitoba.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also wish to draw to the attention of
hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Joan Marie
Aylward, Minister of Finance of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I would like to
ask the government House leader what the business of the House
will be for the rest of today, tomorrow and even next week if he
has it done that far.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating
the opposition House leader on his appointment and to extend as
well similar words of congratulation both to his seatmate, the
new chief whip, and the other officials of his caucus.
1505
This afternoon we will continue debate on the second reading of
Bill C-6, the water export bill. I intend to seek adjournment of
the debate after the speech from our colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois on this matter.
If there is any time, we will commence the second reading of
Bill C-25, the farm credit amendments bill. It would be my
intention as well to adjourn the debate after the lead off speech
from either the government minister or parliamentary secretary,
as the case may be. We would then propose to move immediately to
private members' business this afternoon.
Friday we will debate second reading of Bill C-26, the tobacco
tax legislation.
On Monday we will return to Bill C-6, which will not be
completed this afternoon. We will then continue with Bill C-25
for the same reason, and then, if necessary, to Bill C-26, the
tobacco tax legislation, if we do not complete it tomorrow. If
we have any time left, it will be spent on Bill C-10, the marine
parks bill, as I previously indicated to my colleagues at the
House leaders meeting earlier this week. In the afternoon we
will debate Bill C-16, the charities bill. I wish to give notice
pursuant to Standing Order 73(1) that the government will propose
that this bill will be referred to committee before second
reading. This should, in essence, take roughly the time between
3.00 p.m. and the adjournment later in the afternoon.
Tuesday shall be an allotted day. In the evening it is my
intention to seek the usual co-operation to hold the second of
the take note debates on the modernization of House rules. It
would be pursuant to consultation with others. My intention is
to see if we want to have this debate using the forum we used
very successfully earlier this week, but, as I said, I intend to
consult with other House leaders on that.
On Wednesday I would propose that we continue with any
unfinished business from the previous days, adding thereto Bill
S-16 which was introduced in the House earlier this day. Should
we be ready to do so, and should time permit, I would then
commence the report stage and third reading of Bill C-22, the
income tax amendments bill.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken
place among all parties and I believe you would find consent for
that if a recorded division is requested Monday, April 30 on a
motion to refer Bill C-16 to committee before second reading,
pursuant to Standing Order 73(1) it shall be deemed deferred
until the end of government orders on Tuesday, May 1.
Discussions have also taken place among all parties and there is
agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to further defer the
recorded divisions requested earlier today on third reading of
Bill C-9 and third reading of Bill C-3 from Monday, April 30
until the end of government orders on Tuesday, May 1.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, an
act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on behalf of the
constituents of Calgary East to speak to Bill C-6, an act to
amend the 80 year old International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
1510
When the Minister of the Environment spoke on the bill this
afternoon he came out very strongly and proudly, with his thumbs
pounding, stating that his government has acted decisively to
address the concerns of Canadians in reference to the export of
water. He proudly said that the bill would stop the export of
water and fulfill the commitment made to Canadians about the
export of water. He went on to say that his government was
putting a tremendous amount of priority on the bill.
I was a little surprised. I would like explain to those who are
listening to my speech today what the bill amounts to and what
the Liberal government has not done for our water. It is still
hanging out in limbo because of the inability of the government
to address the issue seriously.
The government said that it put a priority on the bill. I spoke
to the bill in the 36th parliament. It was the last bill that
was presented to parliament. I made a speech and thereafter the
bill was off the table because the government had another agenda.
It did not care about that agenda. It wanted to get re-elected.
Today, because the government has no vision for the next three
or four years and needs to do some housekeeping, it brings back
this bill because there is nothing else on its agenda. Now it is
saying that it is committed to stopping the export of water and
that it is committed to this bill. What a contradictory
statement and action that has taken place.
Bill C-15, as the water bill was called in the 36th parliament,
came up for debate during one of the final days leading up to the
election, as I mentioned. The bill was debated only for one day
and then disappeared. I think that shows the importance the
government places on protecting Canada's waters.
As we know, water is an issue that touches the lives of all
Canadians as it is part of our Canadian heritage. Canadians are
very concerned by the thought of losing control of our freshwater
resources. It is a legitimate concern because a thirsty world
will sooner or later turn its attention to our lost freshwater
resources.
In fact, water export was never supposed to be an issue in
Canada. A number of federal politicians in the early 1990s
claimed that Canada had a sovereign right to manage its own water
and that water would never be challenged under any international
agreement. Unfortunately, this has proven to be false and the
water issue is back on the table.
The Liberal government is on the record as saying that NAFTA
should be amended to prohibit bulk water exports. Had the
Liberals kept their promise, Canadians would not have to worry
about the issue of bulk water export and we would certainly not
be discussing this matter today.
Regardless of its promise, this government signed the NAFTA deal
without a side agreement on water. Raw logs and unprocessed fish
were exempted from NAFTA but the best arrangement Canada could
get on water was the following side deal signed on December 2,
1993, by Canada, the U.S.A. and Mexico. It states:
Ultimately, this side deal is of little legal value because
unless water in any form has entered into commerce and become a
good or product it is not covered by the provisions of any trade
agreement, including NAFTA.
1515
Nothing in NAFTA obliges any NAFTA party to either exploit its
water for commercial use or to begin exporting water in any form.
Water in its natural state in lakes, reservoirs, water basins and
the like is not a good or a product. It is not traded and
therefore is not and never has been subject to the terms of any
trade agreement.
This side agreement worked as long as Canada never allowed water
to enter into commerce and become a good or a product. Let me
repeat that: this side agreement worked as long as Canada never
allowed water to enter into commerce and become a good or a
product.
However, with the exception of international boundary waters,
the vast majority of water in its natural state is owned and
managed by the province. It is a provincial responsibility to
manage the resource carefully, just as a province manages its
forests and its oil and gas. If one of the provinces enters the
business of tendering contracts to export bulk water, it must,
according to chapter 11 of NAFTA, treat Canadian, American and
Mexican companies in a similar fashion.
National treatment provisions give the right to all corporations
of our NAFTA partners to help themselves to our water the moment
any Canadian company is given an export permit. If any Canadian
company is given an export permit by a province, because it is a
provincial resource, then it falls under NAFTA where we have to
treat the Americans and the Mexicans in the same manner. Now
that we are going into FTAA agreements which will be coming up in
the next five years, I hope that the government will have water
exempted. Otherwise we will be facing the same difficulties.
In fact water is not exempt from NAFTA, as I said. Once water
starts being shipped, either the government is powerless to stop
it or, if it does, the government would have to compensate for
the lost income under the investor state provisions.
The government did not have the foresight to think that some
provinces might one day look into the possibility of licensing
the export of water, but recent examples show us the opposite.
First, the province of Newfoundland granted an export permit to
McCurdy Enterprises Ltd. to export water from Gisborne Lake.
Second, in Ontario the Nova Group received a licence to extract
water from Lake Superior. Finally, in British Columbia, Sun
Belt, a Californian company that wanted to export water from
B.C., is now demanding up to $10.5 billion in damages from the
federal and B.C. governments alleging that its rights under NAFTA
have been violated. Sun Belt is demanding restoration of a water
export licence that the B.C. government cancelled in 1991 as well
as compensation for lost business opportunities.
Although the provinces eventually pulled out of these proposals,
they renewed the fears about water export and the impact of our
trade agreements.
The government, having failed to protect Canadian sovereignty
over water during the NAFTA negotiations, is now proposing a
backup solution. Bill C-6 proposes to prohibit bulk water
removal out of the boundary waters between Canada and the U.S.A.,
which covers only 15% of Canada's water resources. The provinces
manage the remaining 85%.
That is what I meant when I said I do not understand the
Minister of the Environment when he talks about stopping bulk
water export. His bill would cover only 15% of Canada's water
resources. That is fine. I hope he will tell Canadians that it
would cover only 15%.
The government should not say that the bill would address the
issue about water resources.
1520
Clearly, 85% of the water resource is held by the provinces.
They control it. It is their natural resource. It is not
controlled by the federal government. If any province so desires
to sell water from its basins, from its lakes, then suddenly we
have a federal government that is powerless. It can run to the
provinces but the provinces can tell the federal government no.
They can say they want to sell it.
Canadians have a right. It is theirs. Canadians demand that
right. However, the government failed to remove water from NAFTA
as it had promised in the election platform, because it failed to
renegotiate NAFTA and get water out of NAFTA and have it
exempted. It was the right only of Canadians to say yes if they
wanted to export water. Now we have this jurisdictional problem
with the federal government practically unable to have any teeth
to stop bulk water export for 85% of our water supply.
The government is trying to have a Canada wide accord to
prohibit bulk water removal. It has recognized this problem so
it is trying to get a Canada wide accord to prohibit the removal
of bulk water. The problem is, as I have just mentioned, that
five provinces have refused to endorse the accord, leaving the
country's water vulnerable to exportation.
The federal strategy was designed in the belief that all
provinces would agree on a national ban. It is quite obvious,
after the two day debate in Kananaskis in Alberta in November
1999, that the government has failed to achieve this goal. The
parties could not come to an agreement.
It is very important to note that the bill deliberately avoids
the term export. With good reason, the Liberals fear that the
term export will imply that water is a commercial good. What the
absence of the term export really means is that water was in fact
part of the negotiations during the NAFTA talks and nothing was
done. That is one thing the government should admit.
As it stands now we can say yes or no, but we have lost the
right for only Canadians to say yes. What I mean by that is what
I just emphasized, that is, under NAFTA if water is exported
because it is not exempted that gives the opportunity to allow
opening up the doors to American and Mexican companies to come
and export our water. This is the real fear.
Canadians have lost the right to say yes to this precious
resource. Whether they want to export or do not want to export,
this should be a right that should remain with Canadians. They
can decide whether they wish to export water. They can decide
whether they want or do not want to export water as a natural
resource, or whether under certain conditions they want to or do
not want to.
There are many options we can use. Some small communities may
want to do it as part of an economic reason and we can do so if
it does not damage the environment. However, this right should
be the right of Canadians. We have lost that right because the
government failed in its election promise to remove water from
NAFTA.
1525
In 1993 while the government was busy signing away our
sovereignty over water, the Canadian Alliance made a specific
statement on the protection of our freshwater. The Canadian
Alliance stated that exclusive and unrestricted control of water
in all its forms should be maintained by and for Canadians.
Canada possess about 9% of the world's renewable resources and
20% of the world's total freshwater resources. This includes
water captured in glaciers and polar ice caps. Protection of our
sovereignty over this valuable resource is critical to Canadians
and to our national identity.
The Canadian Alliance believes that Canadians should retain
control over our water resources and supports exempting water
from our international agreements, including NAFTA. An outright
ban on water exports could run contrary to our NAFTA commitment
because water was not exempt from that agreement. Therefore, a
side agreement would have to be negotiated which would exempt
water from NAFTA before a ban on water exports could even be
considered.
Until an exemption is achieved, we encourage the provinces to
place a moratorium on commercial water licensing so that water in
bulk form never becomes a good governed by NAFTA rules. Once an
exemption from NAFTA is in place, the decision to export water in
bulk should rest with the provinces who own the resources. That
means once the decision is given to the provinces, which are
elected governments, it is up to Canadians to decide what to do
with water. They can decide.
I would like to emphasize again that we are heading into an FTAA
agreement. The Quebec summit chose that path and the Alliance
supports it. We think that if it is handled correctly, free
trade will bring prosperity. However, there are always dangers
when we sign blindly, as we have found out now with this water
issue. No long term thought was given to this. When it was
signed, no thought was given to what would happen if the
provinces said no. No thought was given to the fact that the
government was signing an international agreement on one of the
most important resources we have, a resource controlled by the
provinces. Its strategy, which was to have a total ban by
convincing the provinces to do so, has failed.
As I mentioned, the 1999 Kananaskis meeting clearly showed that
the provinces were not on board with the federal government on
this issue. They wanted the right to do whatever they wanted to
with a natural resource that they feel is their responsibility.
In the absence of exempting water from NAFTA, the Canadian
Alliance will support the bill. We will support it because it
represents the only viable approach the federal government can
take and the only constitutionally valid NAFTA compatible ban on
bulk water export that can be achieved.
The Canadian Alliance has indicated quite clearly that it
favours a ban on water export. All export of water should be
done by Canadians only. Since the ban is not there, the Canadian
Alliance feels that the bill would in some degree ensure that
water is not taken away from the international boundaries basins,
and it is a NAFTA compatible ban on bulk water exports.
However, I would like to see the government propose real answers
to this issue and show some leadership in exempting water from
our trade agreements.
1530
I was hoping today that the Minister of the Environment or the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, when they presented the bill and
talked about the commitment of the government not to export
water, would listen to Canadians. In reality they failed to say
that the bill was only dealing with 15% of the issues.
I hope the government takes the initiative and try to get water
exempted from other trade agreements. It would have been
preferable to exempt water from NAFTA but, failing that, Bill C-6
will have to do as second best.
Canadians should realize that we no longer have sovereignty over
our water. We have that threat over our heads because of our
international trade agreement called NAFTA and the failure of the
government to take water out of it.
Future generations would also lose sovereignty over water if
something is not done to change this. That is why the government
should do something. Bill C-6 or not, the bottom line is that
Canada's water resources are vulnerable to exportation.
While I am a strong supporter of free trade, I believe it should
not come at the expense of our sovereignty over water. Perhaps
one day Canada will decide to export water if it is proven
environmentally sound. If that ever happens, and I strongly
stress if, the tap should belong to Canadians only.
The Canadian Alliance will be supporting Bill C-6. However I
re-emphasize that the federal government should work with the
provinces now to ensure that water does not become an export
commodity. It should try to get water exempted from our
international trade agreement.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, first I
will say that the Bloc Quebecois will not support Bill C-6 as
introduced, not because we are opposed to the basic principle of
the bill, which is to prohibit bulk water exports to other
countries as well as bulk water transfers within the country,
but for a very simple reason.
Natural resource management is the provinces' responsibility.
Each province is responsible for managing its own water
resources, which belong to its residents.
We can talk about a lot of things with regard to Bill C-6. For
example, we can talk about groundwater. We already know that the
drawing of water by certain companies in some regions of Canada
creates problems for agriculture with soils and wells, as well
as problems for residents of the area where underground water is
being drawn.
In fact, we had problems in some regions in Quebec. People
complained and some companies had to stop drawing water in
certain areas.
1535
The other major element for us in Quebec is that when we are
talking about boundary waters we are obviously talking about
the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The St. Lawrence
River flows across Quebec and its importance is well known. For
the past several years, especially in certain areas such as Lake
Champlain and the lakes around the St. Lawrence, water levels
have dropped so dramatically that shipping may be at risk.
Therefore it is extremely important for us to be able to
conserve and manage as we see fit this resource which belongs to
us.
There is another issue.
When we talk about bulk water exports we should remember that
it might involve not small quantities, but huge quantities of
water. Currently there is no treaty to really protect us
against bulk water exports.
A few years ago, in view of the problems that were occurring
especially in the southern United States, there was already talk
here in Canada about the possibility of exporting water in bulk
through a pipeline carrying water from the north, namely Canada,
to the United States.
This is a major point and I am not sure that as a country we
would be better protected by Bill C-6. I am not sure that in the
future Bill C-6 will make it impossible to export bulk water.
The vision this government should have for the future in
agreement with the provinces and while staying out of their
areas of jurisdiction should be to legislate a true ban
supported by international treaties, which would provide us with
a real protection.
The pressure to export water will increase in the future. The
pressure will increase in view of the water shortage in some
countries, especially the United States, our southern
neighbours.
Currently the danger if water is misused or if we try to export
it is that it will result in the desertification of certain
areas and harm crops and agriculture in a big way. As we know,
some western provinces are already experiencing problems with
soil erosion and desertification.
Barely 15 or 20 years ago a Senate committee published a report
on this.
It dealt with desertification of soils in the western provinces,
particularly due to a lack of water, a lack of rain and climate
change.
Another very important element that has an impact on the
quantity and quality of our water resources is the gradual
disappearance of our forests. They play a role in terms of water
retention, cleaning the rain so to speak, and they are essential
to the health of our lakes and rivers.
There are also the dangers of shipping. In Canada we do
not have any real protection with regard to shipping, including
on the St. Lawrence River, and we should not pretend that we do.
We could be the victims of a major disaster considering the
number of ships that go up the St. Lawrence River every day and
the type of products some of them carry.
Once they have reached the Great Lakes these products are then
delivered to major industrial centres in the United States such
as Detroit and Chicago.
I would remind the House that Quebec has always been a leader in
the area of water treatment. I remember that in 1978,
Marcel Léger, then minister of the environment, proposed to
the government of Quebec a water cleanup program in which the
government invested some $12 billion over the years. We were very
much ahead of our time; we were visionaries so to speak.
1540
In the early 1980s, when I was mayor of my home town and we were
looking at cleaning up our waters, we figured that it would cost
us about $2.8 million. People thought we were crazy because we
wanted to clean up our waters, protect our drinking water and
clean the water before we would send it back into nature.
At the time we were concerned about the pollution of our
municipal sources of drinking water and even private sources of
drinking water in some areas. It was a serious problem and still
is, as we have seen recently.
Our drinking water supply is still in danger. We still have a
lot of work to do to ensure that municipalities can provide
quality drinking water to all Quebecers and Canadians. Consumer
confidence is not what it used to be. That is quite obvious.
Also the bottled water industry is expanding and people no
longer trust their own drinking water supply systems. They would
rather drink bottled water.
This is an expanding market that some businesses would like to
take over. We are talking about bottled water and not
bulk water removal, but still bottled water export could set a
precedent that would eventually open the door to bulk water
exports.
When bulk water exports are involved consideration must also be
given to the effects on our ecosystems, the economy and people's
lives. Water, we will all agree, is vital to life and essential
for humans, for all ecosystems, for animals, for nature and for
our environment. It is an essential element. It is a resource
that belongs to the community, and the community therefore needs
assurance that we are protecting it.
It is absolutely vital that bulk water exports be banned, as the
bill states. However agreement would first have to be reached
on the principle of the bill, and we in the Bloc Quebecois are
not in agreement with it. Although the protection of water
resources is vitally important, as it stands Bill C-6 strikes
us as risky and contrary to the way jurisdictions are divided
between the federal and provincial governments.
In fact it has considerable potential of encroachment onto
provincial areas of jurisdiction while not providing any
additional protection against major water exports.
We have just experienced the Quebec city summit where
negotiations were hidden, closed to the public, and civil
society was denied access. This same type of negotiation could
very easily take place in future on water exports, given the
future needs that are going to develop, particularly with our
neighbours to the south who as we know are far bigger and far
stronger economically.
I have already mentioned the risks to navigation. This is very
important to me. The federal government ought to address
this matter since it is its responsibility, particularly in the
St. Lawrence.
As I said, we are not disaster-proof.
It is entirely possible that one day or other in the St.
Lawrence catastrophes will occur such as we have seen in Europe,
especially in northern Spain and northern Europe.
It would really be a major catastrophe and could affect an
entire population, nearly 7 million people in Quebec, living in
large part on the shores of the St. Lawrence.
Water represents an inestimable resource for humans. It is
commonplace, as I said earlier, to want to protect its export. We
have to remember that water has great potential in export terms
and the demand will increase. It is vital to prevent its export.
1545
The federal government announced in early 2000 that it intended
to intervene more directly in the matter of water export and
introduced a three pronged strategy.
This strategy follows from a motion passed in the House of
Commons on water protection, which was introduced on February 9,
1999.
There are three parts to the strategy: changes to the
International Boundary Waters Treaty Act in order to give the
federal government regulatory powers over bulk removal of
boundary waters; a joint reference with the United States to
the International Joint Commission to investigate the effects of
consumption, diversions and removals including those for export
purposes in boundary waters; and a proposal to develop, in
co-operation with the provinces and territories, a Canada-wide
accord on bulk water removal so as to protect Canadian water
basins.
On February 10, 1999, Canada and the United States appointed the
International Joint Commission.
After noting a growing number of proposals to export water from
the Great Lakes and other areas of the U.S. and Canada, the two
countries agreed to ask the commission to study the question and
make recommendations within the next year. An interim report was
presented on August 18, 1999, and the commission presented its
final report on February 22, 2000.
In it's interim report the International Joint Commission
recommended that during the six months it would need to
complete its study the federal and provincial governments and
the American states not authorize any removal or large scale
sale of water.
It pointed out a number of things that warrant mentioning.
It indicated that there was no surplus in the Great Lakes
system, that large scale removal of water could limit the
resilience of the system and that information on the removal of
underground water was inadequate.
This point causes problems because, as I said earlier,
underground waters can have a considerable effect on the
integrity and quality of ecosystems.
The report pointed out as well that we do not know what the
demand will be for water in the future. Also, because of the
possible climate change and other natural considerations, it is
impossible to assess with any degree of certainty what the level
and the flow of the Great Lakes will be in the years to come.
In its final report, released in February 2000 and entitled
“Protection of the Waters of the Great Lakes”, the commission
concluded that we must protect the Great Lakes, particularly in
light of the cumulative uncertainties, pressures and
repercussions from water removal and use, demographic and
economic growth, and climate change.
The report includes the following conclusions:
The water of the Great Lakes is a critical resource.
On an average annual basis
less than 1% of the water in the Great Lakes system is
renewable, which says a lot.
If all interests in the basin are considered, there is never a
surplus of water in the Great Lakes system; every drop of
water has several potential uses.
International trade law obligations, including the provisions of
the Canada—United States Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, WTO
agreements and the GATT do not prevent Canada and the United
States from taking measures to protect their water resources and
preserve the integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
To the extent that decision makers do not discriminate against
individuals from other countries in implementing these measures,
Canada and the United States cannot be forced by trade laws to
jeopardize the waters of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Let us note, however, as I mentioned earlier, that no such
agreement may override international treaties. It will
therefore be possible to challenge such a measure, i.e. the one
we have before us, under the treaties which have been signed,
and these obviously include the FTAA, NAFTA and so forth. These
are overriding treaties with respect to this sort of measure to
protect drinking water.
In its final report the BAPE sums up its conclusions as
follows. The overall diagnosis is relatively clear. The
current approach to water and aquatic ecosystem management is
sector based, poorly integrated and not concerned enough with
protecting the resource.
The shift must be made to integrated management practices that
are more harmonized at the government level, balanced protection
and enhancement objectives, and be purposely implemented at the
river basin level.
Furthermore, action can and must be taken now
along the lines of the coming policy.
1550
The BAPE's recommendations indicate that the Quebec government
should approve the proposed policies for protecting and
conserving groundwater and pass the related regulations,
provided that projects involving the removal of more than 75
cubic metres of groundwater a day are subject to the
environmental impact assessment and review procedure.
Recommendation No. 4 explains in particular that the Quebec
government should make the Water Resources Preservation Act,
which bans bulk exports of groundwater and surface water,
permanent legislation. The commission is of the opinion that
bulk exports need to be forbidden by law and no chances taken,
with the uncertainties of international trade agreements such
as NAFTA, WTO and the like.
In chapter 1.1 of the BAPE report reference is made to the
federal government's position that NAFTA does not apply to water
and bulk exports, which is being strongly disputed by a number
of environmental groups, as the commission points out in its
report.
BAPE also explains its position because, before bowing to such a
request which at first blush is certainly appealing, it feels
it would be best to examine NAFTA as a whole to determine what
Canada has to gain and what it has to lose by renegotiating it.
This goes beyond the mandate of the present commission.
In short, what BAPE wants us to understand is that it is very
risky at this time to undertake a procedure such as the one the
federal government is embarking on, given the fact that
international agreements may take precedence over a bill such as
this one.
In conclusion, as I have already said, the Bloc Quebecois will
not be in favour of Bill C-6 for a number of reasons, including
one major one: the bill encroaches on provincial areas of
jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in
accordance with discussions among parties in the House, I move:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit
Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to begin debate today on
Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act. I am
proud to introduce the bill as it is important legislation that
would position the Farm Credit Corporation to meet the needs of
the agricultural industry today and well into the future.
I do not need to remind anyone in the House that agriculture is
the backbone of most rural economies in Canada. Bill C-25 builds
on the existing Farm Credit Corporation Act of 1993. It expands
the depth and scope of services that the corporation is able to
offer farm families and farm related businesses across rural
Canada.
Through the legislation, the Farm Credit Corporation would help
more farm families achieve their long term goals. The
corporation would assist a greater number of agricultural
enterprises in creating jobs and economic growth in rural Canada.
It would have a new name, Farm Credit Canada-Financement agricole
Canada, to better reflect its federal identity. FCC would be
better positioned to contribute to the long term sustainability
and prosperity of rural communities where farmers live and work.
The corporation has a long tradition of anticipating the needs
of agriculture. Since 1959 FCC has worked with the industry to
introduce services to meet its needs.
In the past few years FCC has introduced many new financial
options that lead the way in meeting emerging requirements.
It is estimated that up to 120,000 farmers would be retiring over
the next decade, and that $50 billion in farm assets would change
hands. There is a definite need for services that help farm
families make the transition from one generation to the next,
just as beginning farmers need help in getting a solid start.
1555
That is why FCC introduced the agri-start loans in 1998. These
loans recognize the marketplace realities young farm families
face today. They provide flexible payment options to help young
farms and young farmers grow their operations through the initial
development phase. These options also assist existing farmers to
pass the farm to the next generation.
Last year the corporation developed flexi-hog loans. These
loans offer flexible payment options to help hog producers
through the cyclical downturns in their industry. Earlier this
year FCC introduced the enviro-loan. It enables producers to
upgrade or expand their operations according to the latest
environmental standards. FCC has its ear to the ground,
listening to the needs of producers in the agricultural industry.
It has its eye on the horizon, anticipating the industry's needs
in the years to come.
Since 1993 the Farm Credit Corporation Act has served the
agricultural industry in good stead for nearly a decade. However
the marketplace has changed considerably in the past eight years.
Producers are venturing into new crops and livestock production.
They are entering into more long term contracts with suppliers
and buyers. They are forming alliances with other farmers to
increase their purchasing and selling power. Some producers are
exploring new generation co-operatives. Others are expanding
into value added manufacturing to diversify their revenue source.
The average agricultural operation requires a more complex range
of financial and business services than could not have been
foreseen when the act was last amended in 1993. FCC has played a
leadership role in meeting these needs. The corporation is the
only national financial institution totally dedicated to
agriculture. Its slogan “Agriculture, it's all we do” is more
than a marketing strategy. It is a statement of fact. The
corporation's 900 employees are well recognized for their
agricultural expertise and most of them come from farming
backgrounds.
Through its network of 100 offices the FCC is able to reach
producers throughout rural Canada. All these qualities enable
the corporation to play an even greater leadership role in
building the agricultural industry of the future.
I first met with the FCC senior executives two years ago to
explore updating the 1993 act. I asked the corporation to
consult with the agricultural and financial associations across
the country on whether the act should be adjusted to meet
emerging industry needs.
In the winter 2000, FCC staff met with more than 100 national
and regional organizations to discuss proposed changes to the
existing legislation. The majority of agricultural organizations
were supportive of the proposals. They recognized the necessity
of updating the act to meet the needs of their members and
producers in general.
The major concern expressed by some farm groups was that the FCC
keep its focus on family farms and primary production. Let me
state without qualification that farming would continue to be the
main focus and driving force of the corporation. This commitment
is built right into the new legislation. Currently 94% of FCC's
lending is directed to primary producers. To demonstrate FCC's
ongoing commitment to producers, we have included an amendment to
the act that requires farming operations to be the main focus of
the corporation's activities.
In their meetings with financial industry groups, FCC
representatives went to considerable lengths to demonstrate that
the corporation is seeking expanding opportunities to partner,
not compete, with the private sector and other government
agencies. There is a definite need for increased financial
options in rural Canada that could be effectively addressed
through partnerships.
The corporation is actively seeking partnerships with other
financial institutions and government agencies that combine its
agricultural expertise and rural reach with their specialized
services.
1600
To date, the FCC has 27 partnerships across the country and
plans to grow this number in the coming years.
Using the valuable feedback and suggestions gained from these
consultations, the federal government has created amendments to
ensure the continued relevancy of this act. The amendments were
based on three guiding principles: the need to offer agricultural
operators a greater range of options and financial and business
services; the need to offer farm related businesses increased
access to capital in support of primary producers; and the FCC's
need for greater structural flexibility to offer more services
through partnerships and to remain viable to serve producers for
the long run and the long term.
I will briefly review the major amendments. The first amendment
demonstrates the federal government's continued commitment to
Canadian agriculture. We seek to change the name of Farm Credit
Corporation to Farm Credit Canada. In French it will change from
Société du crédit agricole to Financement agricole Canada. This
change reflects the corporation's public mandate to serve rural
Canada as a federal crown. Adding the word Canada to the
corporation's name sends a clear and visible message that the
federal government plays an active role in rural communities. The
name change also supports the new federal identity guidelines.
Another key amendment allows the Farm Credit Corporation to
offer business services to producers either directly or through
partnerships. As I mentioned, the average producer needs access
to a broad range of business management services to succeed. It
could be business planning, succession planning or land
management. Yes, these services currently exist in some parts of
rural Canada, but the FCC can provide the network to make these
services accessible throughout all rural Canada. Agricultural
operators are running businesses just as complex as any urban
based small business. They deserve the same access to services
as their urban counterparts.
Let me use the Kaeding family from Churchbridge, Saskatchewan,
to illustrate this. If the Kaedings are an example of an average
farm family, it is easy to see why the need for more complex
business and financing services has grown.
The Kaedings are FCC customers who, in the past decade, have
diversified their grain operation to include a pedigree seed
business. That seed business includes 50 varieties of grain
crops plus specialized crops of grass and forage seed. They say
they have stayed with the Farm Credit Corporation because of the
corporation's flexibility in meeting their emerging financial
needs. Through these new amendments, the FCC will have greater
flexibility to keep pace with the changing demands of farm
families like the Kaedings.
The new legislation clarifies the FCC's ability to offer lease
financing to agricultural operators. While the act as it
currently reads does not prevent the corporation from offering
lease financing, the scope of these services needs to be more
clearly defined. Leasing is a growing financing option for
producers who want more flexibility to manage their cash flow.
This especially applies to new producers starting out.
The new legislation will enable Farm Credit Corporation to offer
equity financing to producers and farm related businesses. Many
farming and farm related operations need access to equity as well
as term financing. In fact, rural communities cannot develop
local value added agricultural industries without venture and
equity capital. The Farm Credit Corporation will not only be
able to make direct equity investments in local agricultural
enterprises, it will also be able to leverage this investment to
attract other equity providers.
An important amendment to the act will allow the Farm Credit
Corporation to provide financial services to farm related
businesses that benefit agriculture. Currently the corporation
can lend only to businesses that are farmer owned. If we step
back for a moment to look at agriculture as a whole, we will see
it is no longer divided into neat categories of suppliers,
farmers and processors.
As the industry becomes more integrated, interdependencies grow.
The farmer who has diversified from wheat, for example, into
chickpeas might depend on a local processor to purchase his or
her crop.
Increasing investment and farm related businesses from fertilizer
plants to food processors will greatly benefit producers directly
not to mention contribute to the rural communities as well.
1605
The future of primary production is linked to the growth of farm
related businesses, both those owned by farmers and those owned
by business people in rural communities. The FCC has provided
lending services to farm related operations since the act was
last amended in 1993. The corporation will continue to focus on
small and medium sized operations that are directly linked to
producers and contribute to local communities.
Amendments to the financial structure of the corporation will
give it added flexibility to seek new partnerships and offer
expanded services. The FCC will be able to create subsidiaries
to enter partnerships offering new services arm's length from the
existing portfolio.
The corporation will have access to a broader range of financial
management instruments to fund services it provides to producers.
These amendments help the corporation provide new services that
meet emerging needs while protecting its long term ability to
serve agriculture.
In the past four decades, the FCC has served producers and
agriculture through all commodity cycles and through good times
and bad. The corporation has shown great flexibility in working
with producers to see them through market downturns and climactic
disasters. When times get tough this commitment is especially
evident. The FCC employees sit down with customers and work out
solutions to address their particular situations.
In 1998 the FCC was there to help Quebec and Ontario producers
affected by the ice storm. The corporation has worked with
prairie producers through the downturn in cereal crops and
oilseeds. In the past year the FCC has helped farmers in
southern Alberta weather a severe drought. It has worked with
potato growers in Prince Edward Island through the market
upheaval caused by the potato wart, which we settled today. The
FCC employees work with producers in any commodity group to
develop flexible options to see them through.
For instance, the president of a British Columbia cranberry
company recently sent me a letter and through me thanked the Farm
Credit Corporation for its continuing support through the recent
downturn in the cranberry sector. Through the proposed
amendments the Farm Credit Corporation will help producers
achieve long term success in decades to come.
I have just explained the reasons driving our pursuit for
amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act. As well, I have
outlined the key amendments and their benefit to Canadian
producers in the agricultural industry. I would ask members of
the House to support this important piece of legislation as it
goes forward in the House.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in
accordance with discussions among parties in the House, I move:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, I think there would also
be a willingness in the House to see the clock as 5.30 p.m. This
will allow us to proceed to private members' business.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent to see the clock as 5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of private
members' business as listed in today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1610
[Translation]
GOLD MINES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should table
emergency legislation regarding operating assistance for gold
mines in Canada, in order to help gold mine operators cope with
the rapid increase in production costs, and at the same time
guaranteeing a fixed price for the gold they produce.
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Liberal member
for Shefford, a resource region, for supporting my motion which
aims to help gold mines in resource regions.
This motion I am presenting arises primarily from the people at
home, in the mining sector and the heads of a number of gold
mines in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, mainly in regions such as Chapais
and Chibougamau.
Members will remember that in 1948 a debate was held in the
House of Commons on the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. A
number of members will be intervening, but they should address
this emergency measure in their remarks. At home people are
asking for help operating gold mines.
If we go back to the 1948 bill people will say it dates from
way back, but I have here the text of the law explaining how it
worked, including the part on payments as assistance.
It is important that people know what it is. I will therefore
quote section 3, which reads as follows:
3.(1) The Minister may pay to a person engaged in operating a
gold mine a sum not exceeding an amount calculated in the manner
prescribed in this section with respect to gold that is produced
from the mine during a designated year and that, during the
designated year, is sold to Her Majesty at the Royal Canadian
Mint or at a branch thereof, or is exported from Canada and
sold.
(2) The sum that may be paid under this section in respect of
gold produced from a mine and sold in a designated year that
does not include any part of the first year of production, is an
amount equal to the product of
If we keep going in that vein, a gold vein particularly for
Canada's mines, the marginal note for subsection 3(3) specifies
that includes a part or all of the first year of production.
On December 1, 1947, a motion was brought before the House
which stated:
That it is appropriate to propose a measure to provide emergency
payments, by the Minister of Mines and Resources, to help face
the increase in production costs of gold produced from gold
mines over the past three years, beginning on December 1, 1947.
It says thanks to improvements in terms of the
supply of workers and the help with costs provided under the
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. We can also go back to
another year, 1953, but it is important for people to understand
why we are asking for emergency legislation.
We are asking for emergency legislation to help gold mine
operators.
Over the last several years Canada has passed
emergency legislation to help farmers in the west and in the
rest of Canada. Emergency legislation was passed to help the
fisheries. There has been no emergency legislation to help gold
mining since 1976.
A 1953 amendment to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
raised the price paid to eligible miners by one dollar an ounce
produced as compared to 1952. These are all elements we saw and
we will see again.
In 1960 about half of the gold produced in Canada was sold on
the free market and the rest was sold to the Royal Canadian Mint
under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. Gold production
in Canada reached the highest levels since the second world war,
or 4,628,911 ounces of gold.
It should be pointed out that in 1948 when the Emergency Gold
Mining Assistance Act came into force the production of gold
rose by 14% as compared to 1947, thanks to these improvements.
Let us now look at 1964. People will think that the mining
industry got money every year. In 1964 under the Emergency Gold
Mining Assistance Act 44 out of 48 gold mines got help to cover
their costs. Those that did not get help had not asked for it.
In 1968 Canadian miners were still selling on the free market
or were receiving assistance under the Emergency Gold Mining
Assistance Act if they were eligible for this assistance. They
were then selling their gold to the Royal Canadian Mint for the
Canadian equivalent of $35 U.S. an ounce. The gold bought by the
Royal Canadian Mint was in turn sold on the free market.
It is important for people to understand why gold miners must be
given assistance through emergency legislation.
1615
In 1968, 35 gold mines were eligible for assistance under the
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. Amendments were proposed.
In 1972 no mine applied for the assistance available under the
emergency legislation because the price of gold on the market
was higher than the total of the official price set by the Royal
Canadian Mint plus the maximum amount of $48 an ounce provided
under the act.
Then in June 1976—we are getting closer to the present—the
IMF auctioned off 121.3 tonnes of gold from its reserves. This
was the first portion of the 777.6 tonnes or 25 million ounces
of gold it intended to sell over a four year period.
The net proceeds were deposited in a trust fund used by the IMF
to help developing countries.
The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was no longer
invoked as of June 30, 1976. The conditions set out in the
legislation no longer applied to the industry.
What happened between 1948 and 1976? Under the emergency act
passed in 1948 the amounts paid up to gold mine operators
while the legislation was in effect totalled $303,104,402 for
1,922.6 tonnes of gold. This means that 61,813,545 ounces of gold
were produced and sold in accordance with the act.
What is happening now? In the last two years we have seen a
sharp decline in the mining industry, particularly in the gold
mines in the Abitibi.
We know that things have not been easy for the mining industry,
especially in the last two years. Last year low gold prices had
a negative impact on the Beaufor gold mine, the McWatters mine,
which is called the McWatters Company, and several northern
communities. McWatters is developing what is known as the
Sigma-Lamaque mine in Val-d'Or.
As I said earlier, hon. members would like to have a debate on
this emergency bill like the one that was held some time in the
last few months on disaster relief for western farmers because
it is important to find a way to help out the mining industry.
As members know, there are many policies supporting the mining
industry. We also know that since 1980 Canada's policy has
been to sell some of its official gold holdings.
The government has opted for progressive and controlled sales in
order to reduce as much as possible the impact on the markets.
Since gold is not as liquid as other assets and has a low yield
our policy has been to increase the yield of Canadian holdings
and their liquidity.
People tell us “You are selling gold but that does not help
us”. I did a little research which shows that Canada's overall
annual sales of gold, which represented 800,000 ounces of gold
in 1999 and 600,000 ounces in 2000, are far from significant and
important compared to all the transactions conducted on the
international markets, where 6 million to 7 million ounces of gold are
sold daily. The sale of Canada's gold has been to the federal
government's advantage.
However I am deeply concerned by the slump in the gold market
and its negative impact on Canadian gold mining communities.
We know that the Canadian government strategy was to invest in
research, innovation, the infrastructure and the improvement of
human resources development programs.
I understand that until March of this year there has been no
sale of gold and that as of March 31 Canadian gold holdings
were at 1.2 million ounces. This evaluation is based on the
March 31, 2001, London afternoon fixing at $257.70 U.S. an ounce.
Today it is about $263.
If the trend continues and if we do not enact emergency
legislation to help the gold mining industry in the next 2 to 5
years, mines will close and 13 of the 15 that will be affected
in Quebec are in the Abitibi. That is unfortunate.
Right now the mining industry in Val-d'Or, Rouyn-Noranda and La
Sarre where the Casa Berardi mine is located need help. Mines
are now closed, mainly because of gold prices.
1620
The price of gold went up to $300 and then to $400. Now it is holding
at $260 or $265. This is why, with the present serious downturn
in this sector, I tell the Government of Canada that it is
important that it become involved. If it does not
become involved, we are leaving people to sit at home. People
are unemployed. If we want to lower costs for the family,
leaving workers to sit at home is not going to help matters
financially. Neither is it going to help matters socially.
People want to work.
What we need is a good emergency legislation program like what
was done in 1948.
The government needs to look at production costs, the price per
ounce of gold, and find a way to come to their assistance.
People are not asking for millions of dollars. People are
asking for help. Action is required. The federal government
says that it will not become involved. The infrastructures come
under provincial jurisdiction, but Quebec, Ontario and the
other provinces in Canada are helping the mining sector.
I understand that there are transfers but I will not play the
transfer game. I will not play along with the provinces. They
are getting involved. We should get involved directly with our
provincial friends, regardless of party lines, regardless of
which government is in power.
What is important is miners, their families and the children now
caught up in this nightmare. The economy has been in decline
for the past two years.
A way must be found to help. I believe that the Government of
Canada should do something. It already stepped in between 1948
and 1976. The legislation was passed. I do not understand why
it has not taken action before now.
The ministers, both the Minister responsible for Economic
Development and the Minister of Natural Resources, are working
very hard. They are finding all sorts of ways of helping with
research and development, but there has to be a direct approach
with the province. Solutions must be found. Our senior
officials in Ottawa, in their ivory towers, do not
understand what is now going on in the northern resource
regions.
There are senior officials in Ottawa or in Canada who are
like hermits in a monastery. They do not know what is going on
in the outside world. That is what is important.
These officials must come and see for themselves.
Officials of Economic Development Canada from Montreal do come
to our region. When a message is sent from Montreal to
Ottawa, to our excellent Liberal ministers who try hard to find
solutions, it often happens that senior officials do not pass it
on. I have a message for them tonight.
The important thing is to help the mining industry. Let us
forget about flag wars. That kind of war can be waged during the
election.
For the time being, we are in a deep crisis. It is possible to
reach an agreement with the Quebec government and the other
governments. We did it for agricultural programs. We did it for
the fisheries. Right now, in this great capital, Ottawa,
many people should wake up.
They do not know we have gold mines in the Abitibi. They do not
know we have gold mines in Val-d'Or and that the mines in
Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Chapais and Chibougamau create 7,000 jobs
in the Montreal area.
At present we do not perform secondary or tertiary processing
because everything is moved out to the big cities. We have
nothing against this. About 3,000 or 4,000 jobs are created in
the Quebec City area.
It is important to take action right now. We have to find short
term solutions. We have to help these workers who have
outstanding experience in the gold mines of Val-d'Or, of the
Abitibi, of northern Ontario or elsewhere in Canada. We urgently
need assistance and direct action just like the farmers and the
fishers.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of
Natural Resources and the government I am pleased to speak to
the motion of the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
1625
The hon. member proposes that the government table emergency
legislation in order to help gold mine operators and guarantee a
fixed price for gold produced in Canada. I am aware that the
member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik works very hard to help the
mining industry, especially gold mining.
The hon. member's motion illustrates his commitment to the
region he represents so well and which depends in part on the
development of natural resources.
[English]
For the benefit of members, I will briefly review the history of
metal prices. From the end of the second world war until the
late seventies, the mining industry enjoyed strong and steadily
rising demand. Producers, few in number, went along as a group
with the price charged by the industry leaders. The economic
prices of the eighties, triggered in part by two factors, that
is, the emergence of independent third world countries wanting
ownership of their own resources and the first oil price shock,
put an abrupt end to rising metal consumption in industrialized
countries. On the metals market, the tariff price system
implemented by major producers gave way to world prices quoted on
commodity exchanges.
In reaction to the new price regulation system, the end of the
eighties ushered in an era of mining industries whose strength
lay in the quality of their deposits, their energy supply and
their ability to develop those resources.
[Translation]
I have just described characteristics unique to our country.
Besides being one of the world's major producers of minerals and
metals, Canada has an unequalled expertise in the mining sector.
Mining exports, worth $44 billion a year, represent 13% of our
total exports. This sector employs directly 400,000 Canadians
from coast to coast. Our mineral resources are without a doubt
essential to our quality of life.
However, I must admit like my colleague from
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik that the low prices for metals and gold
we have been seeing these past few years are a concern.
Indeed, as members know, the depressed gold market is due to the
fact that the supply remains the same despite low prices.
The supply of gold depends on mining production but also on the
sale of gold by central banks, recycled gold, protection
programs for mining producers, and on the net sales of
investors who believe it is not worth keeping gold as assets.
[English]
There are several factors that affect commodity prices, factors
which are completely outside the control of government. To
counter fluctuations in those factors, mining companies need to
exploit rich deposits at low cost and need to know how to manage
the risks that could put them at the mercy of the next stock
market crisis. I am pleased to report that our country is in a
good position relative to the other major gold producing
countries, ranking second in terms of production costs. It is as
a result not only of the ingenuity of our producers but also the
enlightened policies of our provincial and federal governments.
The Prime Minister, in his response to the Speech from the
Throne, focused on our mandate: to bring the best of Canada into
the 21st century by building an innovative economy, fostering
innovation and know-how and ensuring social inclusion. Natural
Resources Canada is in a good position to solidly support the key
objectives stated by our Prime Minister and that reflect the
minister's priority.
I will demonstrate how the government works unceasingly to
strengthen our foundations in terms of the mining industry.
[Translation]
Let us talk about sound economic foundations. A healthy
financial climate is not an end in itself but rather the
prerequisite without which the government would not be able to
make all the socio-economic investments it must make in
co-operation with its partners.
In the natural resource sector this prerequisite was reflected
in the last mini budget through a 15% tax credit for flow through
share investment in mineral exploration projects in Canada. This
measure was put it place as a result of a grassroots campaign
led by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, the
Canadian Drilling Association and several members, including the
member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik and myself. All have
understood the benefits of exploration in their communities.
We all know that generally flow through shares meet federal
policy objectives in an appropriate, effective and economical
way by stimulating exploration activities in Canada, promoting
the purchase of stocks in mining companies and helping small
exploration companies. In that regard PDAC announced that
flow through financing coupled with tax credits and totalling
about $30 million was confirmed just before the end of the year
2000.
The minerals and metals sector, like the Canadian economy as a
whole, can conduct its activities in a sounder context, and it
is among the leaders in the race for capital money on
international markets.
1630
The Quebec Geoscience Centre, QGC, is working with scientists
from the national scientific research institute of the
Université du Québec on various earth science projects.
The targeted geoscience initiative is one of the programs
administered by the QGC. The purpose of the TGI is to develop
the social and economic potential of our natural resources by
increasing the scope and efficiency of the mineral exploration
work done in the private sector. Five million dollars will be
spent on this initiative over three years.
Three projects are currently under way in Quebec: one on ice
dynamics; one on exploration for diamonds in northern Quebec; and
one on metallogeny at the
Doyon-Bousquet-Laronde mining camp in Abitibi.
The mine laboratory in Val-d'Or is known throughout the world for
its innovative research on mechanization and automation
technologies for the mining industry. Established in 1991 right
where a gold mine used to be, the Val-d'Or experimental mine is a
unique facility for on site testing and research in a realistic
context.
An amount of $1.8 million is spent every year on the
mechanization program alone, while the vein deposit program was
granted a $2.5 million budget for a period of three years.
Almost $5.7 million of the money invested by the CanMet partners
will benefit various companies in Abitibi.
This goes to show that the Government of Canada recognizes the
significance of our resource areas and believes in them. I have
mentioned some figures, but what about the projects themselves?
Since the current natural resources minister has been appointed,
close to 50 projects have been carried out or are under way in
the Val-d'Or mine laboratory alone. These projects are
wide-ranging, covering anything from health and security in the
mines, research and development on new development techniques
for vein deposits, training programs for miners to productivity
and innovation.
[English]
Here are a few examples. CanMet formed a consortium to improve
the performance of gold cyanidation plants. Eight plants,
including five in Abitibi, participated in the consortium. The
goal was to achieve a better understanding of the interaction of
cyanide, lead nitrate and oxygen, and optimize the use of those
reagents, as well as gold recovery.
Two participants in the study were asked to assess the impacts
of the project. They estimate that their operating costs have
been reduced by $3.2 million per year and that gold recovery has
increased by $1.3 million, for a total annual impact of $4.5
million.
The mine automation program is a consortium of privately owned
businesses and includes CanMet. The project, which is setting
the tone for the future of the mining industry, uses mining
robots to detonate explosives from the surface and machines to
bring the ore to the surface without direct human intervention.
[Translation]
I would be amiss if I did not mention, before I conclude, how
important community involvement is. Strong and confident
communities are a vital part of our social fabric.
[English]
I would like to conclude by saying that for all the good
intentions of the motion brought by my colleague from Abitibi,
the government cannot support it. In the context of
globalization and global markets it is inconceivable to set the
price.
Also, this morning I received a call from the Mining
Association of Canada, the most important mining association in
Canada, expressing some very serious doubts about the motion and
asking the government not to support it. The association does
not support it. The association wants a free market economy and
so do we.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as
follows: the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment
Insurance.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on
private member's motion No. 295. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should table
emergency legislation regarding operating assistance for gold
mines in Canada, in order to help gold mine operators cope with
the rapid increase in production costs, and at the same time
guaranteeing a fixed price for the gold they produce.
I commend the hon. member for bringing his concerns about
Canada's gold mine industry and his region to the floor of the
House.
1635
However, after carefully listening to the hon. member I am still
having great difficulty understanding where the emergency is in
the gold mining industry. It is no surprise that the
parliamentary secretary refused consent or that the government is
unwilling to adopt this motion.
With the motion the hon. member is exonerating himself in the
eyes of his gold mining constituency. I guess we can regret that
he could not satisfy the concerns of his gold mine constituency
in his talks with cabinet colleagues. It seems that they have
told him to take his concern to private members' business because
as a government his own party will not implement the motion. The
parliamentary secretary was quite articulate and very blunt in
refusing to adopt the motion. I am not sure that this is the
case, but I do not know what else could have happened.
The motion asks for subsidies for gold mining in Canada and a
fixed price for the gold these mines produce. In British
Columbia we do not like unfair subsidies from this weak Liberal
government that lacks vision. The government subsidizes
industries destined to fail or which have already failed.
We know the Liberals have destroyed our health care system and
are not addressing Canada's $640 billion debt, but they will
spend taxpayer dollars anywhere they think they can buy votes.
Canadians do not want the Liberals' subsidies, extra regulations,
trade restrictions, price fixing or anything else of that nature.
Businesses want the government off their backs.
Let us look at British Columbia's mining industry and gold
mining. That will give me an opportunity to discuss mining in
British Columbia and gold mining as whole. Mining is a major
contributor to the British Columbian and Canadian economies in
the form of employment, taxes and exports. Across Canada it
generates 60% of rail revenue and accounts for 70% of total port
volume.
In British Columbia mining generates over $4 billion in revenue
and $1 billion in government taxes per year. Mining is a leading
employer in British Columbia, with substantial potential to do
more. It has 10,000 direct jobs and 20,000 indirect jobs.
Mining is a world leading source of expertise and venture
capital. British Columbian companies fund mining projects
worldwide.
Mining pays the highest wages and benefits of any industry.
It is an environmentally and socially responsible industry.
Mining lands are reclaimed and at the end of a mine's life the
land can be put to other uses.
British Columbia's mineral potential is considered to be among
the leaders in the world. British Columbia has over 14,000 known
mineral occurrences and untold mineral potential.
Actual land usage for a mine is extremely small relative to the
area explored, with less than 28,000 hectares currently being
used by mining, which is less than 0.03% of British Columbia's
land base. Mining's value in terms of use of land is $150,000
per hectare compared to forestry at $5,700 per hectare,
agriculture at $1,400 per hectare, and parks at $42 per hectare.
There are many other benefits. There were 103 kilometres of
roads or trails built for mineral exploration in 1993. At the
same time there were 11,400 kilometres of road built for
forestry.
In 1999 exploration expenditures totalled $25 million or less
than 10% of 1990 levels. In the past 10 years, two mines closed
for every one that opened.
In British Columbia we are against this motion. How can we
support subsidizing gold mines and leave out other mines and
other industries? At least those industries provide a national
purpose.
Conversely, the health of the gold mining industry, other than
preserving jobs, serves little public interest. Consequently,
public dollars should not be spent subsidizing the industry.
1640
There is one gold mine in British Columbia, the Eskay Creek
mine, which produces gold at a production cost of less than $100
an ounce. In Canada it is second in cost production for gold.
This is excellent work. There is no subsidy needed. Why should
that mine's good work be confounded by a fixed price when it
comes time for it to sell its products?
Canada is the second largest country in the world in area and we
are very rich in our natural resources. These natural resources,
including minerals, oil and gas, are important sources for a
brighter future for our country. Unfortunately the federal
Liberal government lacks vision and strategic planning in
developing, exploring and utilizing these resources. It lacks a
balanced approach between resource development and environmental
concerns.
We should have more resource based industries in Canada. For
example, at the Vancouver port we can see lot of sulphur being
exported from Canada. It can be seen from quite a distance. I
wonder if we are exporting these raw resources and then importing
finished products made from these resources in other countries.
Why are we not able to encourage investors and manufacturers who
will boost our economy and create jobs in Canada? It is a
tragedy under this weak, arrogant Liberal government that rules
rather than governs the land.
The story of the mining industry in Canada is a tragedy. The
amount of regulation and red tape is unbelievable. The federal
and provincial jurisdictions are either overlapping or absolutely
unclear. Federal and provincial taxes are way too high. This
weak government has a confrontational approach to the provinces
rather than a co-operative approach. Mining operations require
investing a lot of time and energy as well as the investment of
other kinds of resources. It is a long term process to explore
for minerals. Adverse government policies have driven miners
from all kinds of mines, including gold mines, south of the
border. In Chile, for example, we have a $12 billion U.S.
investment, mostly in the mining industry.
In the city of Surrey in my constituency there are a number of
companies that deal with the mining industry. I am very proud to
mention RAS Industries. It manufactures the largest pulleys in
the world for mining operations and exports them around the
world. There are many other organizations of international
repute in Surrey.
Rather than fixing the price for gold, what the weak Liberal
government should fix is the infrastructure, the regulations and
the taxation policies. It should at least make a feeble attempt
to fix these things rather than fixing the price of gold, which
is in the hands of the global market anyway. The price of gold
is fixed through the commodity market exchanges or through the
intervention of the central banks, the national banks or the
reserve banks of various countries. It is a global phenomenon.
Canada does not have the jurisdiction, the authority, the power
or the resources to fix the price of gold.
The government should listen to our resource based communities
and should accommodate the input from them in the policy
formulation for natural resources. Simply mentioning in the
throne speech of 1996 the need to sustain our natural resources
is just not enough. Where is the action?
Natural resources contribute about 15% to our GDP. The
government must develop a vision and make policies and
regulations conducive to sustainable development, benefiting the
economy, creating jobs, benefiting communities and, on the whole,
protecting our environment.
Since this is a private member's motion, I have been very kind
in my remarks. If it had been a government bill or motion, I
would have been quite brutal.
1645
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I believe today you have created an
interesting precedent. Through a series of circumstances, we
received right away the parliamentary secretary's answer to the
motion moved by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. Finally
this will allow us to look at both sides of the issue.
I am rising today to speak to this bill because since private
members business was moved up the member for Témiscamingue, who
was supposed to be here, was unfortunately not able to free
himself. I believe my speech will be a faithful rendition of his
own. I was particularly inspired by his vision which reflects
regional needs.
In this regard I was saying earlier that the fact the
parliamentary secretary answered the motion moved by the member
was very instructive. Even if he comes from a mining area he
seems to have put his interest as a parliamentary secretary, as
a representative of the government, ahead of his interest as a
member of parliament.
What is important in the motion is not necessarily every comma.
I am going to read it, but it should be understood that it is
really a cry for help, because in one area of Quebec and in
northern Ontario there is one industry which is facing major
difficulties.
As we know, the mining industry as a whole is going through a
major crisis, especially gold mining, a mineral ore which has
gone through ups and downs.
Transactions regarding the sale of this product have been very
active over the past decades due to the way its price was set,
the importance it was given and the fact that some countries had
pegged their currency on gold. There has been a lot of changes
which eventually lead to the situation which is denounced by the
motion.
I am now going to read the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should table
emergency legislation regarding operating assistance for gold
mines in Canada, in order to help gold mine operators cope with
the rapid increase in production costs, and at the same time
guaranteeing a fixed price for the gold they produce.
One may not agree with the wording of the motion. I find it
difficult to understand the government's position because, after
all, that industry is in a state of crisis. There is a need for
some kind of emergency response plan in that sector, and the
government must respond. It must do more than talk; it must take
positive action. The government is not only responding with
words but also extremely negatively.
We have here a member of parliament who presented a motion to
get things moving to help an industry that is experiencing
difficulties, but the government shuts the door tight, saying
“let us simply let the market do its thing”. As previous
speakers have said, in two, five or ten years we will count the
number of gold mines that will have shut down in a given year.
That will be due in part to the federal government's failure to
act.
The government cannot invoke the fact that there are
international agreements not to do anything. It must show some
imagination and innovation. Why could the federal government not
promote research in that sector?
We know that this industry is already highly productive. It is
in our best interest to make sure that it can continue to be
productive and competitive, but that industry needs help to
continue to be productive. There is always room for
improvement in the research sector. This may include the use
that is made of the product. In any case, the government must be
proactive and not have a defensive attitude, or even be closed
to any suggestion, as is the case right now.
We could also promote exploration, identify reserves and try to
find ways to diversify the market.
If new discoveries are made, these people who are working in
mines could possibly work in other sectors. There may be ways to
diversify measures, but one should certainly not remain passive
like the government is proposing.
The government can invoke the position of the Canadian Mining
Association, which says “We do not agree with the motion that
was put forward”, but this does not solve the problem at all.
1650
Some communities are faced with major problems. When the mining
market was flourishing, the government never
contacted them to say “Your taxes are too high. We will wait a
bit and ask less of you”.
When the industry is on a roll and these people are giving the
government money, it gladly takes it. Now that the situation
is difficult for them, they probably need help. These regions,
especially the northern parts of Quebec and Ontario, deserve
some attention. They deserve innovative solutions.
The government's position is disappointing. I was also listening
to the debate and to what the Alliance member said.
Taken literally, we can certainly find fault with certain
aspects of the proposition, but what I would like people to
remember today is that there is a region faced with a serious
problem, that there is an industry faced with a serious problem
and that the government, through its parliamentary secretary,
is telling us there is nothing it can do.
I find that totally unacceptable because there is an example to
follow. The Quebec government just gave regions $800 million in
assistance funds, $250 million of which will go to the mining
industry.
I agree
with the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik on this, and
not out of any kind of rivalry or one-upmanship. Could the federal
government not, in one way or another, take a look at
this initiative and see if there is not something that it could
do in this matter.
If there were $500 million in assistance to the mining industry
instead of $250 million, I think the fund would be worth while
and could give positive results.
In conclusion, I say again that the hon. member for
Témiscamingue finds that something does indeed need to be done
in this industry. It is important for there to be some action.
The situation is urgent.
The federal government has to get moving. We have made proposals
on this. Studies need to be carried out. The minister
concerned must be ordered to take steps to stimulate research,
to stimulate exploration, to be proactive.
Free competition does not exclude proactivity. Free competition
does not mean that when an industry is affected by difficult
international conditions it absolutely must be allowed to go
under. Once mines have been closed, it will not necessarily be
easy to get them open again.
As for the communities that will be affected when the social
cost of these mine closures has to be assumed, perhaps the
government will realize that the cost will be greater than what
it would have cost initially to help out the industries
concerned.
It is my hope that after the government members have done some thinking
we will hear something different from them than what we have
heard today. I also hope that as far as the conclusion reached
by the hon. member making the proposal is concerned we will be
able to look into the possibility of other approaches.
It is my fondest wish that the federal government will address
this urgent matter. The lives of communities depends on it, the
lives of families, and we have no right to abandon people who
have long contributed to the productivity of the country and can
be considered important factors in the vitality of their area.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise to speak today to Motion No. 295 put forward
by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. It reads as
follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should table
emergency legislation regarding operating assistance for gold
mines in Canada, in order to help gold mine operators cope with
the rapid increase in production costs, and at the same time
guaranteeing a fixed price for the gold they produce.
I should tell the hon. member who put forward the motion that
this is not a motion the Progressive Conservative Party would
tend to support. However it certainly needs to be noted that the
member put the motion forth in good conscience. He put it forth
with the intention of trying to help a beleaguered industry which
needs some type of assistance and perhaps some innovative
policies from the government that do not seem to be forthcoming.
I have worked with the member on a number of committees. I have
always found him to be a progressive and forward thinking member
of parliament. Therefore I will speak to his motion, although I
am disappointed to say I cannot agree with him.
1655
Mining is an extremely important industry in Canada,
specifically gold mining. Canada is the fourth largest gold
producer in the world.
Gold is mined in six provinces and three territories. In the
previous parliament I had the opportunity to travel to many of
those areas, specifically Timmins, Ontario, the largest gold
mining municipality in Canada. As part of my visit I spoke with
gold mining representatives. Gold prices were low at that time
due to the general decline in prices since 1997.
The average price of gold has gone from $294 in 1998 to $274 in
1999, with a slight rebound to $279 in 2000. It hovered between
$257 and $262 an ounce for the early part of this year. This was
after an average of $385 an ounce from 1993 to 1996. Those were
certainly good days for the gold mining industry in Canada.
There is reason to believe the price will recover. The gold
industry has always faced cyclical variations in price. Although
the recent downturn has been significant, the CEO and president
of Placer Dome, the fifth or sixth largest gold mining company in
the world, was quoted in today's newspapers as saying current
market conditions are making gold an attractive long term
alternative to investors who are tired of weakening foreign
currencies and plummeting high tech stocks.
While Mr. Taylor has said he does not expect the price of gold
to advance beyond $300 in the next five years, that is the
benchmark at which most gold mining companies can operate
productively and profitably. One Canadian gold mining company,
Goldcorp Inc., has indicated that by mining very rich grades of
gold it can produce gold at $90 an ounce and provide a 66% profit
margin even at today's low prices.
What this means is that some companies have adapted to current
market prices and conditions and that it is therefore unnecessary
to table emergency legislation to provide operating assistance to
Canada's gold mines.
I realize this places a strain on a number of gold mining
companies. However as Ed Huebert of the Mining Association of
Manitoba has pointed out, most mining operations are facing tough
times. Only in specific resources such as platinum, which is
currently trading at $660 U.S. per ounce, are prices soaring and
attracting new investment.
One of the reasons mining companies are experiencing high
production costs is the rising price of energy, an issue which
has been discussed in recent weeks. U.S. President Bush has made
it clear that one of his priorities is to establish an
international energy plan involving Canada, the United States and
Mexico.
President Bush has been vocal about his desire to see more
energy flow from Canada to the United States. He has encouraged
Canada to develop the resources of its high north, east coast and
Alberta tar sands. That could be good news not only for the
exploration, development and processing of oil and gas reserves
but for the provision of cheap energy to more remote areas of the
country for exploration, mining and mineral processing.
At the same time it raises fundamental questions about renewable
energy development and the environment. Renewable energy sources
such as hydro electric power are being considered because of the
decline of fossil fuels. While the cost of many renewable energy
sources makes them less attractive than traditional fossil fuels,
all sources should be examined closely with an eye to both their
short term and long term consequences.
Environmental issues have a role to play in decisions about
energy use. Sometimes the total cost of production, when taking
environmental factors into consideration, is much more attractive
and comparable at first appearance. The point is that high
energy costs are a fact of doing business and they affect
everyone in some way.
1700
They do not justify financial assistance for one sector of the
mining industry any more than another sector, whether it be in
coal, zinc, copper, platinum or any of the diverse range of
minerals found and mined in Canada. That is why it is difficult
to single out one sector of the mining industry and offer
financial aid.
The industry has faced tough economic times as the downturn in
gold prices continues, and it has done so for the past few years.
It is particularly evident when we compare gold prices to what
they were in the late 1970s and 1980s when gold averaged
somewhere in the $400 range and even went as high as $800.
Instead of direct financial assistance for gold mines, we need
to look at other means of increasing value and investment in the
mining industry. Value added initiatives would be one way of
helping mining companies improve profit. That is evident in the
gold industry where intermediate gold stocks have performed well
while gold bullion has declined.
Barrick Gold Corporation, the world's leading gold producer and
Canada's number one gold mining company, had high quality gold
reserves that in combination with low production costs resulted
in record production and cash flow in 2000. This was despite low
gold prices. Barrick's first quarter report issued today states:
Once again, we have shown we can generate strong earnings and
cash flow...in a low gold price environment.
At the same time Placer Dome, Canada's second largest gold
mining company, reported reduced profits as a result of
diminished sales and poor gold prices.
It shows that some gold mining companies are posting smaller
financial profits as a result of low gold prices. However, to
offer across the board financial assistance to all gold mine
operators is clearly out of the question.
There are other means of helping mining companies, and that is
through flow through shares. Gold mining companies, like any
type of mining operation, need to search for new resources. Flow
through shares represent one of the most cost effective aspects
of the industry. With flow through shares people investing in
companies for exploration purposes can realize a tax deduction
while the company reaps the benefits from its investment.
The federal government recently introduced flow through shares,
providing a 15% tax deduction for individuals on top of the
current 100% tax write-off, making investment in junior mining
companies attractive for investors. This is something that
should assist gold mining companies in Canada, and it is a type
of assistance that the PC Party of Canada supports.
Initiatives such as flow through shares and different ways of
doing business, along with issues of recognizing the additional
cost put upon exploration companies, mining companies and
processing companies as a result of energy costs, are the types
of issues we need to deal with. Those are the types of issues
the government should be dealing with on a one at a time basis.
If the government took a look at the macro picture and solved
some of the micro problems in it, it would soon find that the
macro picture was a lot smaller and perhaps much more manageable
for not only the mining sector but for all other sectors in the
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I will avail myself of my right to respond. Tonight I see that
things are not looking good for miners in the Abitibi.
I appreciated the comments made by the Bloc Quebecois member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques who is, I must
add, replacing the member for Témiscamingue who is attending a
committee meeting.
Quite simply I have to say that I am not at all amused by the
government's reaction to my motion.
Before and after my speech when the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Natural Resources, who is from northern Ontario,
was speaking, I made a short visit to the government lobby. A
note from the minister regarding Motion No. 295, my motion aimed at
helping miners and their families in my region, said that:
The federal government recognizes that resource regions are
going through tough times because of a drop in the price of
metals and that they are facing many challenges.
The note also mentioned what the government had done so far,
namely a 15% tax credit for mines. However, that measure came
from the Department of Finance, not from the Department of
Natural Resources.
The note talked about research and development, but this is not
the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources. It is
the responsibility of the Economic Development Canada, headed by
the member for Outremont, who often visits our region.
I know that the Department of Natural Resources is involved in
CanMet, but this was implemented by the Conservatives in the
1980s.
1705
The position of the Minister of Natural Resources is this:
I can understand the minister for not coming in the House and
opposing the motion himself. However, mine workers have made a
contribution to Canada. Moreover, they pay federal and
provincial taxes.
Between 1948 and 1976 the Canadian government had emergency
legislation to support the gold mining industry. I can
understand why the Alliance member is against this motion.
British Columbia has only 10% of the mines.
In our region people are out of work. If we can count on the
federal government, they can work. We are asking for help. We
are in a serious crisis. I could use certain words and I could
get angry, but I am trying to find a solution for workers and
their families. They have to go back to work. We are asking for
urgent action.
We know where the Canadian government stands. However the
Alliance did not say a word. Conservative members said nothing
when assistance was provided to farmers and fishers. We have to
find a way to help workers in the mining industry in our area. I
was a miner in the Sigma mine. Assistance is needed right now.
Let the ministers come and see us. Let them try to find a
solution so these workers can have jobs.
I know that the Liberal member for Outremont does a good job of
trying to come up with solutions. However the Minister of
Natural Resources has to wake up. Let him come to the Abitibi
and meet the workers. Things are truly going badly. It is too
bad that Réal Caouette is not in this House now. He would get
the message across. He would go and wake them up in the
departments.
Solutions have to be found. If I am to believe the minister
responsible for economic development in Quebec he understands
the problem, but his colleagues have to do something. It really
is going badly. They did something for agriculture in the west.
They did something for fishing. However, for the northern
regions, resource regions, an understanding would have to be
reached with the provincial governments.
In Ontario things are going very badly. When the mine closed
in Cape Breton we all agreed in the House to pour millions into
it. The mine workers are now at home. They are not working.
They have been there for months. There is a real difficult
slump.
The Minister of Finance did help with the 15% on flow through
shares. That was a good move, but what has happened since
these shares? There is a real slump. They talk about helping
other countries, as was the case during the gulf war. They sent
in an F-18. In 18 seconds they push a button and they are
there. However it costs $3 billion.
It cost only $303 million for the emergency measures between
1948 and 1976 to help the community of Canadian miners. The
mining association called the parliamentary secretary to say it
was opposed. I understand. These associations are headed by
the big companies working outside Canada, the multimillionaires
as we call them at home.
Mine workers in small companies such as McWatters and the Beaufor mine
are currently unemployed. They say
“We must not intervene because of the world price”. They do
not care a whit for the world issues in the Abitibi at the
moment. People want to work. They want to be able to put food
on the table now. That is what counts.
We will meet members, but I want to say that we will keep on
rattling the cage. Things have to start happening.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the
order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1710
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on the
adjournment motion.
On March 23, 2001, I asked a question regarding Bill C-2. This
bill was aimed at amending the Employment Insurance Act and had
not been passed at the time. I asked if the government was
willing to withdraw clause 9, which now allows the government to
set the premium rate without having to take into account the
advice of the Employment Insurance Commission.
The minister answered that even if the auditor general had said
that, he had also said something else. However she did not
mention the very comments of the auditor general who said that
he preferred the status quo in the Employment Insurance Act to
Bill C-2 because it created additional uncertainty regarding the
use of the money.
Now that Bill C-2 has become law we are faced with a situation
where the government has simply created a payroll tax, a
regressive tax.
People who contribute to the employment insurance plan pay
premiums on their income of up to $39,000 a year. However someone
earning $48,000 pays no premium on $9,000 of it, whereas people
earning $25,000 pay premiums on 100% of their salary. It is a
regressive payroll tax, especially since some people do not pay
any premium at all. Foremost among those are we members of the
House of Commons.
That means that now that the government has decided that the
money it contributes to the employment insurance plan will
legally be used to cover government expenses as a whole, we will
not be doing our share. We will not be doing our share in this
regard. I agree that for people who do not earn a lot of money
the situation is rather offensive.
Therefore I am asking the government if it would not be possible
to hold a debate as soon as possible on the issue of this
payroll tax, because this is becoming a new form of taxation.
This is a third way of financing the government's general
operations on top of income taxes and the GST. As it is, I find
this unacceptable.
If they wanted to use it as a payroll tax it should be a fair
tax. Will everyone contribute? Will the cap be raised so that
everyone contributes on the basis of his or her income?
As for
EI contributions used for debt financing those who earn $30,000
a year contribute on 100% of their earnings.
Yet those earning $50,000 a year pay premiums on only 75% of
their income. As for us, we are contributing absolutely nothing.
Granted we pay income tax. EI contributions should be used for
employment insurance purposes. For several years the government
has been raking in $18 billion a year in contributions and gives
back only $12 billion in benefits. Now it has legalized the
fact such surpluses should not exist.
I would also like to see the government keep its election
promise.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister, the member for
Bourassa who is responsible for amateur sport, and the minister
responsible for Quebec all said there would be a parliamentary
committee to bring about a true reform of the employment
insurance plan, not just what we found in Bill C-2—like the
elimination of the intensity rule for which we had been calling
for a long time, but a true reform.
Will the government make the commitment to follow up on the
results of the negotiations and the work of the committee,
especially if there are unanimous
recommendations?
We do not want to wait two months, three months, six months or a
year for the government to deal with this issue, because there
are women, young people and seasonal workers who still find
themselves in an unacceptable situation today.
Until measures are taken to correct the fact that a young person
who just entered the workforce is required to work 910 hours to
be eligible, the situation will remain unacceptable.
I am waiting for an answer from the government. Now that it has
realized that EI contributions are a payroll tax and has
promised changes, will the government keep its word and
starting in June give people an employment insurance plan that
enables them to have sufficient income while they are unemployed?
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the government is following the
implementation of EI reforms very closely and, where necessary,
is making the required changes to maintain the effectiveness of
the program.
Fundamental changes introduced in 1996 continue to produce
results and to help Canadians. Recently we proposed amendments
to Bill C-2 in light of the recommendations made by the auditor
general who feels that the process for setting premiums is not
sufficiently transparent.
1715
On February 22 the auditor general told the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts that over the next two years work would be
done on how the rates should be set in the future.
I therefore think that the bill buys time so that we can find a
better way of calculating the rates paid by employees and
employers. The Standing Committee on Finance has also indicated
that the process should be reviewed.
Under these circumstances the government felt it was
inappropriate to ask the commission to continue to set the
rates.
In order to ensure stability and predictability the government
will be suspending the commission's authority to set rates for a
period of two years so that a thorough review of the process
used can be conducted.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.16 p.m.)