37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 072
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 5, 2001
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
1005
| CITIZENSHIP ACT
|
| Bill C-373. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS DAY ACT
|
| Bill C-374. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1010
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1015
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1035
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1040
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1045
| Motion
|
1130
(Division 122)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PATENT ACT
|
| Bill S-17. Third reading
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1135
1140
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1145
1150
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1155
1200
1205
1210
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1215
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1220
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1225
1230
1235
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1240
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1245
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1250
1255
1300
1305
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1310
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1315
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1320
1325
1330
1335
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1340
1345
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
1350
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1355
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| VERBAL ABUSE
|
| Mr. Shawn Murphy |
1400
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| RAOUL WALLENBERG
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| CONGRESSIONAL FELLOWS
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1405
| WILLIAM KNOWLES
|
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| KINGSTON
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| SASKATOON POLICE FORCE
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
1410
| DECEASED PARLIAMENTARIANS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| ACT CONCERNING THE EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1415
| LEON FURLONG
|
| Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| JUSTICE
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1435
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
1440
| CANADA DAY
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| RAOUL WALLENBERG
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1445
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1450
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1455
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| TAX ADMINISTRATIONS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
1500
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-28. Second reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
1515
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1520
| Amendment
|
1525
1530
| Mr. James Moore |
1535
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| The Speaker |
1540
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1545
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1550
1555
| Mr. John McKay |
1600
1605
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1610
1615
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1620
1625
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1630
1635
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1655
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1700
1705
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1710
| Amendment to the amendment
|
1715
| The Deputy Speaker |
1720
1745
(Division 123)
| Amendment to the amendment negatived
|
1750
1755
(Division 124)
| Amendment negatived
|
1805
(Division 125)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1810
| NATIONAL AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY RELIEF COORDINATION ACT
|
| Bill C-263. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1815
1820
1825
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1830
1835
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1840
1845
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1850
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1855
1900
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1905
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Health
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1910
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 072
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 5, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the fifth
report of the Canada-China Legislative Association regarding the
third bilateral meeting in China held in March. I think members
will find it a most invaluable read. The exercise contributed to
improving relations between our two nations and our two peoples.
As I said, it will make great reading for all interested members.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, the third
report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which
represented Canada at the meeting of the standing committee and
the secretaries of national delegations of the assembly held in
Rome, Italy from March 30 to April 1.
* * *
1005
CITIZENSHIP ACT
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.), seconded
by the member for Dauphin—Swan River, moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-373, an act to amend the Citizenship Act
(revocation of citizenship).
He said: Madam Speaker, the bill would remove from cabinet,
made up of politicians, a task for which they are unqualified of
acting as a court of appeal on questions of fact and law, and
transfers that task to the actual courts of appeal where they
belong.
If the bill is passed it would enhance citizenship rights for
nearly six million Canadians who are citizens by choice, not by
birth. As the Prime Minister stated on May 18, 2000, there is
one thing in the life of a nation and it is to make sure that the
rights of citizens are protected by the courts in our land and
not subject to the capricious elected.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if you might seek the unanimous consent of the
House to allow me to table a private member's bill this morning
identifying September 3rd as Merchant Navy Veterans Day. The
rationale for this is because I am not sure I can get it on the
order paper prior to the House rising for the summer and
obviously we will not be back in time for September 3rd. The
hope is that many of the veterans who are alive today will have
an opportunity to celebrate that national day on September 3rd.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the hon. member
have the consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS DAY ACT
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-374, an act to establish Merchant Navy Veterans
Day.
He said: Madam Speaker, I offer my sincere appreciation on
behalf of all merchant navy veterans from coast to coast to coast
to all my colleagues in the House.
This is indeed a very proud day for Canada and a very proud day
for veterans from all across this great land of ours. The bill
has been in the works for many months and was spearheaded through
a local constituent of mine, Mr. Jack Stapleton.
On behalf of all 301 members of parliament, I ask Canadians to
come together on September 3rd to celebrate the sacrifice that
many men and women paid and the widows who were left behind by
those who passed away during their tours in various conflicts in
which Canada. I ask Canadians to come together and celebrate the
fact that we have a free and democratic country due in large part
to the efforts brought forward by merchant navy veterans.
As the member of parliament for Simcoe—Grey, I say bravo to all
the veterans in Canada and especially the merchant navy veterans.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I move that the 14th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House
on Wednesday, May 9, be concurred in.
This particular report, as many will recall, came about as a
result of the actions, not personally on the part of the Minister
of Justice but more so within her department and the decision that
was taken to release information about Bill C-15 that is
currently before the House. The information was provided to
members of the media in the form of a briefing to which members
of parliament were not invited, nor were members of their staff.
It resulted in a complaint and a point of privilege that was
raised on March 14 by the hon. member for Provencher. The
question was deemed to be a breach of privilege by the Speaker at
the time and it led to a referral to the procedure and House
affairs committee where there was some deliberation which
resulted in the minister herself and members of the staff
appearing before the committee.
It was truly an affront I believe to all members of parliament
that the minister in her wisdom and her department decided to
exclude members of parliament from information on a bill which
can be deemed fairly important and substantive. It takes the
form of an omnibus bill, which means there are number of pieces
of legislation that are put together in somewhat of an artificial
form, I would suggest, in this instance because the amendments to
the criminal code are completely unrelated. This is what has
caused a lot of concern for members of the opposition and, I
suspect, there are members on the government side who are equally
uncomfortable with how the bill appears before this Chamber.
I would deem the legislation itself to be very important. It
touches upon such issues as stalking and increasing the penalties
that would be attached to that. It deals specifically with and
creates a new offence for criminal harassment on the Internet and
approaches, in a new and innovative way, the manner in which our
current criminal procedure can attach to those who choose this
nefarious means to harass and to stalk, in particular, children,
and the availability of pornography on the Internet and the way
that is dispersed.
What really offends members of the Progressive Conservative
Party is that we are faced with an opportunity to bring this type
of legislation into the House of Commons to pass before the
recess. The Minister of Justice, for reasons perhaps known only
to her, is dragging her feet on this in denying the House and
thereby denying the country the ability to bring the legislation
forward.
The opposition stance has been consistent in the past number of
weeks which is that within the omnibus bill there are very
controversial provisions that deal specifically with cruelty to
animals. That is not to suggest for a moment that this type of
legislation is not needed as well. It is a matter for which all
members of parliament are concerned but there are elements of the
bill dealing with cruelty to animals and with firearms that have
caused some consternation throughout the country.
Members specifically are concerned on behalf of their
constituents about how this will affect legitimate professions
and practices as it relates to animals, trappers, hunters and
cattlemen. Those who are dealing daily, as part of their
profession, with animals are very concerned about how these new
criminal code provisions and amendments will affect them and
their livelihood.
1015
For that reason, there has to be an opportunity to examine in
detail and hear from some of these witnesses at that committee.
That opportunity would come through committee.
The reality, in terms of how the procedure could unfold, is the
minister has been given a very legitimate offer from the
opposition to sever out parts of this omnibus bill and bring it
back in the fall when the entire bill under the current schedule
will be revisited. Certain sections of that bill could be taken
out. Then the Internet pornography sections, specifically the
stalking provisions that would increase the current criminal
sanctions for stalking, could be dealt with. This initiative was
taken by Senator Oliver in the other place and is one that he
pursued vigorously over the past number of years. Suffice it to
say that the Progressive Conservative Party is very supportive of
that provision and others.
It would also increase the sentences, specifically creating a
new offence for disarming a police officer.
I know, Madam Speaker, you have more than just a passing
knowledge and understanding of these types of bills and omnibus
pieces of legislation. However, what has happened and what is
offensive is the minister has decided to force feed the entire
bill to the House of Commons. In a very strident and stubborn
way she has said that she refuses to take out those sections
which attach controversy and raise the ire of many in the
country. Therefore, she is willing to stand pat and let the
entire legislation be deferred and stalled on the order paper
until next fall.
In plain speak, that is not good enough. Members of the
opposition do not accept this. When we look at the priorities of
the government, we are left only to wonder as to why we would be
rushing headlong toward bringing in a piece of legislation which
would increase our remuneration. When we have an opportunity to
bring in a very positive piece of legislation that is supported
by all members of the opposition, and obviously members of the
government, by simply making a very small concession, I would
suggest that would lead a piece of legislation—
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I question the relevance of debating another bill
before the House today in the context of a motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The member can debate
a motion. It is within the standing orders, and it is within the
context of his motion that the debate is taking place.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I commend your wisdom of
that point. If the hon. government whip who has just joined us
would unplug her ears and plug in her earpiece, she would know
very clearly that this is extremely relevant and important, and I
invite her to listen to my remarks.
What the opposition, and I suggest many in her own government,
would like to see happen is for the minister to simply divide up
the omnibus bill and remove two rather controversial elements of
the legislation. They would be returned in stand alone form and
would advance, if she would agree to this, and improve in their
standing and speed in which they would pass in the fall. By
doing this, it would allow Canadians to have the benefit of this
new legislation which would attach specifically to Internet
stalking and pornography being sent around the country in this
new way. This very nefarious practice could be addressed by
bringing in this type of legislation now.
Why would we hesitate? That is the question that we are left to
ponder. Why would the Minister of Justice refuse the opportunity
to bring forward this very positive legislation supported by the
opposition and by her own government? It seems she simply is
doing this out of some defiance or stubbornness because it was an
idea that originated on the other side of the House.
This is a practice that unfortunately we see far too often.
Ideas somehow on this side of the House are lesser ideas or are
ideas that somehow should not be given the same credence; the
same way the Prime Minister would have Canadians accept that if
members of this side of the House in the opposition do not get
down on their knees, kiss his ring, ask for contrition and ask
that we be given a pay raise, we do not get it.
1020
This perpetrates again this idea that we have two separate
classes of members of parliament. We have those who bow down and
support the Prime Minister in his every effort and those who do
not for some reason. They try to fulfil their role in opposition
legitimately by questioning his ideas and vision, if there is
one. This is the type of attitude.
We can talk endlessly about ways to modernize parliament. We
can talk about procedural change and the way to empower members
of the opposition and backbench Liberals. Yet it is this palace
guard, pinnacle top-down approach, which we have seen from the
Prime Minister in particular, that squashes that. It absolutely
goes against any type of individual thought. It is meant
entirely to put down anyone that might have an original idea.
If parliament is supposed to improve its lot, if we are to
somehow improve the way in which Canadians view the legitimacy
and the relevance of the Chamber, that has to change.
Unfortunately, we can do everything in our power to try to change
procedurally the way that the House works, but as long as this
attitude exists, as long as there is this Prime Minister in
place, as long as the PMO is going to view any sort of legitimate
dissent or questioning of this unfettered power that has now
accrued in the PMO, we are not going to see an improvement of
this place. We are not going to see members of parliament
encouraged to step forward into the breach on occasion against
the power and the winds of change.
This is yet another example. We have a very clear, common sense
opportunity to bring forward a piece of legislation that would
protect children. It would increase the ability of our justice
system to deal with individuals who act violently toward police.
It would increase the ability of our justice system to respond
appropriately and proportionately to those who engage in the very
disturbing practice of harassment, of targeting a person and
terrorizing his or her life.
The practice of criminal harassment, colloquially known as
stalking, is something that has, for reasons that defy logic,
taken on a whole new meaning. Quite frequently we see
individuals, usually women, subjected to this very disturbing
approach that destabilizes a people's lives. It injects itself
into their stability or the way in which they can carry on their
normal practices.
Again, this is important legislation. This is the type of bill
that should be brought forward with great haste. What is the
deterrent? What is blocking our ability to do that? It is the
Minister of Justice who has the power and is embodied with the
responsibility to protect Canadians in the first instance and to
take every opportunity to bring forward this type of legislation.
I commend her for bringing it this far, but we are at the goal
line. We are just about to bring the legislation forward through
the House, on through the other place, into practice and into
being law. Yet the minister, defying all logic, defying all
reasonable approach by the opposition, and I suggest by lobbying
within her own ranks, is refusing to do so, and is refusing to
even answer why.
When questions were posed to her in the House of Commons, she
pointed the finger in her academic, professorial way and
accusatorially told the opposition that it was playing politics.
We are playing politics because we want to support a government
bill? That is playing politics? We are trying to bring it in so
that it will be the practice to protect Canadians. That is
playing politics? She is denying the opposition an opportunity
to work with government simply because she feels perhaps this
idea is coming from a place outside of her political world, a
place outside the government's world, because only good ideas
come from the government benches. That is inevitably what we are
left to ponder.
Why can the opposition not originate a good idea? It can, and I
think most Canadians recognize that.
1025
The minister of justice has a lot to answer. She seems, for
reasons known only to her, to have dug in and said the government
will not bring the bill forward. It will not allow Canadians to
have this protective, positive legislation in place before the
recess, because it has bigger priorities. It has to get pay
raises through. It has to somehow improve its own lot and not
that of those who would be affected by this type of criminal
activity.
This report speaks volumes. This report came about as a result
of the same type of action and pattern of arrogance that
Canadians sadly have come to expect and have borne witness to
during this government's administration. We saw the minister
brought before a committee because of this type of action before,
yet it does not seem to have had the desired effect. It does not
seem to have made any kind of an imprint on the minister's mind
as to why she should perhaps listen on occasion to the opposition
and why she might somehow open her eyes to the fact that the
opposition is not always out for blood. It is not always out to
try in a partisan way to embarrass the government. There are
occasions where we simply want to try to support the government.
This is just one of those occasions.
This is a bill that very clearly would improve the criminal
justice system in the country. All it takes is a little
compromise. All it takes is the minister's recognition that to
give a little she would get a lot. She would get the support of
this party, and I am sure other parties in the House, to bring
forward Bill C-15 in a new, revamped way that would attach to
these provisions and remove some of the controversial provisions.
As I said before, those issues that deal with firearms and
cruelty to animals would return in the fall in a stand alone
form, advancing from where they currently sit on the order paper.
They would move in a more rapid pace when we return in the fall.
It seems so logical, so common sense, yet the minister has
chosen to simply ignore this request, which was first brought
forward through the government House leader. She was approached
in a number of ways and in a number of forms. I know the member
for Provencher wrote to her with a very similar straightforward
request and was flatly turned down with no reasons given. That
is not accountability and that is not good enough.
The Minister of Justice has something to answer to here.
Because of this report, there should be a bit of a sword of
Damocles hanging over her head. She has exhibited this type of
strident attitude before, ignoring the pleas of the opposition
and ignoring the wishes of Canadians who predominantly would
support any efforts to bring in legislation that would protect
them, their children, their homes and their law enforcement
community.
This is the reason behind bringing this matter forward. We in
the opposition have on occasion limited opportunity to ask the
questions and bring forward legitimate issues. The government
sets the agenda to a large extent, particularly the legislative
agenda and the priorities.
Again we are left to wonder why is it that we would rush
headlong into a bill that enhances our pay and our pensions? Why
is that the priority before we go home? Why, in the remaining
days of parliament, will members of the House and members of the
Senate be dealing with that? Surely it is not consistent with
what Canadians expect? Surely this is not where we should be
focusing our efforts in the remaining time that we have in the
Parliament of Canada. If we have an opportunity of choice
between taking a pay raise or helping children, surely the answer
is obvious. Why the minister of justice cannot see that and
embrace that is beyond comprehension.
I commend the Minister of Justice for coming before the
committee and making proper apologies. She admitted there was
something wrong. She was prepared to make changes to ensure that
this type of practice would not occur again. Yet at the very
first instance, when an occasion arose where the minister could
show a little understanding and willingness to compromise and
work with the opposition not against it on behalf of Canadians on
a very legitimate issue, her bill, she did not.
1030
This is not something that originates from the opposition side.
We simply are saying to the minister “Let us pass the bill. Let
us get this legislation through quickly”. We want to work with
her and support the legislation because it is such a positive
initiative.
However, no, it does not seem like that will happen, and why? We
have not heard from the minister yet. I guess the response is
just because, much like the Prime Minister, because the
government can. Why do animals do certain things to themselves?
Because they can. As vulgar as that may sound that appears to be
the response we get. There is no response because the power is
there to do so and therefore the government is prepared to
exercise it.
That is what enrages opposition members. That is what offends
Canadians. They see that members of the Parliament of Canada
cannot work together on such positive issues as protecting
children and improving the way in which our justice system works.
What is more fundamental than that? What is more important than
that? Surely it is not pay raises. Surely it is not the way in
which we can improve our own lot in life. We are elected to come
here to bring forward important pieces of legislation that would
do very good things.
With that, my time has expired. We would hope that we might
hear at some point from the government at least, if not the
minister herself, as to why this seemingly indefensible position
has been taken by the minister and her department.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I concur as much as I can possibly concur with what the
hon. member has just said.
There is a contempt for members of the opposition and even for
backbenchers on the Liberal side that has been shown over and
over by the government. Instead of using the ploy of enhancing
the salaries of members of parliament in order to try to give
them more dignity in the public eye, it is about time that the
occasion be used to recognize that members of parliament are
elected by their respective constituencies, are here to do a job
and should be heard.
I am deeply offended by Bill C-15 and the move the government is
making here by mixing into the motion many very good items with a
few totally deplorable items. I have used this analogy before:
we get a bowl of really nice pudding—I like custard pudding—but
in it is a bunch of gravel and we are supposed to eat the whole
thing. I am using the example of gravel in order to try to be
polite because there are other things that come to mind which the
Liberals mix into good parts of a bill.
Bill C-15, the bill under discussion here, in fact has some very
good parts, as the member has pointed out, but what has the
government done? It has thrown into it things that are totally
offensive to most Canadians. The members of parliament on this
side and the other side would love to express that, but they
cannot because it is all tied together in one big package. It is
an all or nothing thing.
The government is doing the same thing with MPs' salaries. There
are some good things and a bunch of stuff that is bad. We cannot
amend it. The government will not accept it. In its arrogance
and its majority here it just does whatever it wants. The Prime
Minister acts like a dictator. He says it and it is done. That
is very offensive.
I would like to congratulate the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for what he is doing today and I
give him 100% support for this motion. I also believe that this
report should be accepted. I would like to see the House seized
with this issue before any other because of the importance of the
protection of our children and our society. I would like the
member's comments on that.
1035
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate those
comments from the member for Elk Island. I know that what he has
said and has put on the record is very true. It is very
consistent with other behaviour on the part of the government.
The Liberal government has always portrayed itself in a
Janus-like way, saying one thing and doing another. We have seen
that consistently since the Liberals came to office. We have
seen it on a number of issues: the GST, free trade, Pearson
airport. Consistently the government has said one thing and done
another.
That is what is happening here in a more nefarious way. The
government is bringing in a piece of legislation, saying that it
feels this is important, that it is in response to what Canadians
want. However, when given the opportunity and basically given a
free ride, when the opposition says to pass this legislation
quickly, the government says no, that is not really its priority
at all. Its priority is bringing in a pay hike, putting members
on the spot and somehow trying to set them up in such a way that
if they do not vote for it, if they do not lay down and give the
government its way they will not get it.
This occasion is one on which the opposition is saying “Let us
do a good thing before we go home. Let us bring in a piece of
legislation that Canadians can respect and be proud of”.
Why would we shy away from that? Why we would not somehow try
to do the right thing, put the proper emphasis on it and
proportionately move in a direction Canadians would expect? It
is very disappointing and very frustrating for this side of the
House when we are giving the government the opportunity to do
that. The government members can hang their heads in shame, but
I suggest that if we leave here with that bad taste in everyone's
mouth then we have a lot to account for and I suspect we will
have a long, hot summer.
Again I would hope that the government would reverse itself as
it has done on so many occasions, but reverse itself in the right
direction. The way the government did it on helicopters, for
example, it reversed itself by in some way trying not to take the
right contract. Now the Liberals are struggling to do everything
they can to avoid buying the same helicopters they cancelled.
Let us try to put some of this partisanship aside and bring in a
piece of legislation that Canadians want and Canadians are
looking for.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I listened with some sympathy
with respect to his discussion of the report, which was actually
the topic of the motion.
However, in terms of Bill C-15, and I hope the hon. member will
reply to this, it does seem to me that there must be parts of
that bill that he has serious concerns about. There are the
firearms part, the animal cruelty part and the law enforcement
officer part. Generally speaking, I support all three of those
components. I have my concerns about some parts of them, but
that is normal as legislation moves through the House of Commons.
If the member is so concerned about it, would he now give us an
indication of which parts of those individual areas of the
legislation he disagrees with?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the very
straightforward and relevant question from the member for
Peterborough. My simple response is this: where has he been?
What I have said is that the difficulty I have with this
legislation is the cruelty to animals provisions.
I have heard from a number of stakeholders who are concerned,
including farmers, those who operate slaughterhouses, those in
the trapping and fur industry and those who deal with animals
regularly as part of their livelihood. They want to come before
committee. That is what would hold up the bill. These people
want a legitimate opportunity to come before the committee and
put their concerns on the record, which might lead to possible
amendments.
I will give the government its due. It has made some amendments
to those animal cruelty provisions, which have answered a great
deal of what the industry was concerned about, but it is not
there yet. The stakeholders want to see some possible
amendments. In particular, they want an opportunity to find out
if criminal charges might result from practices they are
currently carrying out. That is their concern, which is very
legitimate.
Similarly, there is the firearms provision. The Progressive
Conservative Party has said since the introduction of Bill C-68
that it does not agree with this billion dollars or more that
will be accumulated in public costs before this legislation will
be in effect. We oppose it.
To be consistent, we are not particularly quick to embrace the
firearms provisions of this omnibus bill, but that is the point.
It is an omnibus bill. It is all or nothing. It is take all of
these provisions or take none.
1040
What I am suggesting is that this legislation, but for those two
provisions, would pass quickly through the House with the
unanimous support of the opposition. The government would get
its way. The bill itself, in every other way but for those two
provisions, would be passed. Those two provisions would be
returned in the fall as stand alone bills. They would have
advanced from the point they are at now and would pass quickly in
the fall.
That is what could be done instead of carrying over the whole
bill and having it spend the summer sitting on the order paper
when it could be in effect. The Internet stalking and
pornography provisions in the criminal code would take effect by
the end of the month and would start to protect young people
immediately. We would beef up the sanctions that attach to
police officers who are attacked by people in an effort to remove
their firearms. It would beef up the stalking provisions in the
criminal code and it would toughen the sanctions that attach for
those who harass women and children.
That is all I am suggesting: to divide the bill up in a very
logical way, remove the controversy, bring those provisions back,
and pass the rest of it part and parcel in this legislation
before we go home. Let us do something good before we leave
instead of just jacking up our own pay.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I would like to inform the member that I totally agree
with his comments.
In my riding we have probably some of the largest livestock
producers in the country, who are very efficient and effective in
what they do. A number of cases have gone to court because of
certain acts, like the SPCA charging farmers because a cow had a
cancerous eye. Of course the courts did not charge the
individual or find him guilty. It was thrown out of court.
Nevertheless the lawyers made a pile of money over that kind of
thing. With respect to the animal part, the bill really needs a
lot deal of work. The child issue needs little or none. Could
the member please explain why this minister thinks that
protecting children is playing politics?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Unfortunately there
is no more time left. If there is unanimous consent I can permit
the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough to answer the
question.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
just want to let the hon. members opposite know that my speaking
here is just as democratic as their speaking over there. I have
been listening to the debate and so far have not intervened. I
am pleased to do so now.
This debate is on a motion for concurrence in a report of the
procedure and house affairs committee which was tabled in the
House just a few weeks ago. That report dealt with the matter of
privilege that was referred to the committee from the House
through the Speaker. The report, known as the 14th report, was
adopted unanimously at the procedure and house affairs committee
so there should be no doubt here in the House that there is cross
party support for the report as tabled.
Members will also be aware that it is if not routine at least
customary for the government to respond to reports of committees.
I can advise the House that it is the government's intention to
respond. In fact, response to that unanimous report has been
prepared and will be introduced into the House on Thursday. In
some respects it is regrettable that the debate now put forward—
Right Hon. Joe Clark: And debate is regrettable?
Mr. Derek Lee: Yes, it is. It is perhaps unfortunate
that it needed to happen today in the views of some members when
the government response is only a couple of days away. It would
be preferable, I think, for all in the House to have the
government response before we engage in a debate of this nature.
1045
However I could not help but note that a lot of the debate that
has occurred here had to do with a statute that is not even the
subject matter of the motion. It had to do with a bill we call
Bill C-15, a bill to revise the Criminal Code of Canada.
I suggest that the debate we are engaging in on the 14th report
of the standing committee is not really what the mover wanted to
talk about at all. In fact there are other agendas in place. I
have to note as well, as we all will, that we are moving toward
the end of a sitting of the House. We are moving toward the end
of our work. We are not all finished yet but we certainly have
an obvious short list of items that we want to complete within
the next week or two. As a result, there are any number of other
political agendas being put forward by individual members or
political parties.
I heard earlier the oft repeated mantra from across the way that
the government is somehow arrogant. Of course, sitting with the
government I reject that totally. The government is simply
pursuing its legislative agenda, 90% of which has been on the
order paper for a very long time. Members opposite know that. I
do not mind hearing the mantra of arrogance repeated but I also
have to point out that most of the members opposite, in the sense
that they continue with the mantra, are simply continuing their
membership in the ranks of the perpetually indignant. We all
accept that in opposition they do have a role and that they are
doing their best to fulfil it today.
I encourage members, if they are interested in the progress of
Bill C-15 amending the criminal code, that they direct their
attention to that outside the debate here. I do not think it is
particularly relevant to the privilege matter that was discussed
in the 14th report. I direct members' attention again to the
fact that a government response will be tabled in the House
within a couple of days and that the reported had been adopted
unanimously at committee.
Having said that, I think it is appropriate to move:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the members.
1130
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 150
|
NAYS
Members
Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Cardin
| Chatters
| Clark
| Comartin
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harris
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Mayfield
| Ménard
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Skelton
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 81
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare the motion
carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PATENT ACT
Hon. Herb Gray (for the minister of Industry) moved that
Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to
begin third reading of Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act.
Bill S-17 is the end result of two separate World Trade
Organization challenges, one by the European Union and one by the
United States, against different aspects of Canada's drug patent
regime.
As a result of these challenges the WTO ruled that certain
aspects of our drug patent regime, namely stockpiling and our old
act patent term, were inconsistent with our international
obligations under the WTO agreement on trade related aspects of
intellectual property rights, also known as TRIPS.
On a more positive note, Canada won an important aspect of the
challenges when the WTO validated our early working exception
that accelerates the market entry of generic drugs by a period of
three to six and a half years.
Overall these rulings neither undermine nor threaten the
underlying balance of Canada's patent regime. They do, however,
mean the Patent Act needs to be amended to comply with our
obligations under TRIPS.
The bill before us deals exclusively with issues of patent term
and stockpiling. Its primary objective is to bring Canada's
Patent Act into compliance with the WTO ruling. It is very
important therefore that we proceed expeditiously with the
amendments before us because the WTO has imposed an August 12
deadline for compliance with the patent term ruling.
The amendments in the bill have deliberately been kept as simple
and straightforward as possible to help meet the deadline. If we
do not respect the deadline we could face retaliatory trade
sanctions. To avoid such a result requires that the bill be
passed by parliament and given royal assent before the summer
recess.
1135
Some would say that Bill S-17 would alter the balance of
Canada's drug patent regime. That is not the case. We have
demonstrated that the amendments would not increase the price of
drugs. They would affect only a small percentage of drugs on the
market, less than 1%, and would not affect the speed at which
generic drugs enter the market.
This demonstrates that the amendments would not undermine the
balance of Canada's drug patent regime, a balance that rewards
innovation and guarantees access to affordable drugs for all
Canadians.
Because some have expressed concerns about how a change in the
terms of patent protection would affect drug costs, I will go
into the issue in more detail. We heard in committee that the
number of commercially significant drugs that would benefit from
patent term extension is approximately 30. That number is
relatively insignificant when compared to the 5,200 patent and
non-patent prescription drugs available to Canadians. The
average term extension for patents on the 30 drugs I mentioned is
less than six months.
The proposed amendments would not increase the overall price of
drugs. Rather, they could delay by a few months the potential
savings offered by generic alternatives. Even under the most
generous of assumptions, the forgone savings would amount to less
than one-tenth of 1% of drug sales over the next eight years.
Our current patent regime serves Canadians well. According to
the latest report from the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board,
prices in Canada are 11% below the median foreign price and
Canadians pay 40% less for patent drugs than do Americans. The
amendments contained in Bill S-17 would not hinder the PMPRB's
role of ensuring that Canadians do not pay excessive prices for
drug prescriptions.
Bill S-17 has undergone scrutiny by committees in both houses of
parliament. The Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and
Commerce held hearings in March and April. As a result of the
hearings I understand that committee members developed a common
understanding that Bill S-17 was necessary to comply with WTO
rulings.
On the more divisive issue of NOC linkage regulations, there was
a general recognition from the Senate committee that they fell
outside the scope of Bill S-17 and that now was not the time to
address broader intellectual property rights.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and
Technology held hearings in May. I would venture to say that
there was a general recognition by most members of the committee
that meeting our international obligations was important and that
the passage of Bill S-17 was necessary to do so.
On the issue of the NOC linkage regulations, we heard that the
early working exception and the NOC regulations, taken together,
were an important part of our balanced approach. For the most
part, members of the committee agree that it was a matter for
another time. The immediate priority is the passage of Bill S-17
before the summer recess.
Bill S-17 contains the amendments necessary to bring the Patent
Act into compliance with the WTO rulings. Neither the WTO
rulings nor the proposed amendments would undermine the structure
of the Canadian patent regime as it currently exists.
It is very important that innovation continue and be rewarded
and that Canadians continue to have access to affordable drugs.
The government's objective is to build a world class leading
economy driven by innovation, ideas and talent. We need a strong
and modern intellectual property framework to do so. The
amendments contained in Bill S-17 would help maintain Canada's
leadership in the global knowledge based economy.
I urge all members on both sides of the House to work together
and move expeditiously to support the bill.
1140
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill S-17, an
act to amend the Patent Act. I will be brief in my remarks.
The Canadian Alliance supports the bill and its intent to bring
Canada's patent regime up to international standards. The
purpose of Bill S-17 is to bring Canada's Patent Act into
compliance with the trade related aspects of intellectual
property rights agreement, or TRIPS, which Canada and all other
members of the World Trade Organization have signed and must
adhere to.
We in the Canadian Alliance recognize that sometimes at these
international bodies we will win cases and sometimes we will
lose. However it is a large group. Roughly 150 member countries
make the decisions. Overall, Canada gains by the process of the
rule of law. We are a small member country in terms of
population but we have been very influential in bringing forward
proposals to do away with subsidies and tariffs internationally
since the end of the second world war.
That is what it is all about. Last fall the World Trade
Organization found Canada's patent legislation to be deficient
because patents introduced before 1989 were given only a 17 year
protection, not 20 as required by the agreement we signed, the
agreement called TRIPS.
We must therefore make the necessary amendments to the Patent
Act. Bill S-17 would change section 45 of the act to provide a
20 year term of patent protection from the date of application.
About 30 patents in the pre-1989 act represent commercially
significant patent drugs. The Canadian Drug Manufacturers
Association, which represents the generic drug industry, has
fully acknowledged that the Government of Canada must make
legislative changes to the Patent Act to comply with its
international trade obligations. However, the association has
objected to what it claims is an imbalance in drug patent
regulations, particularly the notice of compliance linkage
regulations. It also talks about the two year stay process that
is in place.
I agree that this is an important issue but it should not slow
down the passage of Bill S-17 which is intended to bring us into
compliance with the World Trade Organization. That body gave us
until August to change our patent laws, so we must make the
amendments as soon as possible.
The Canadian Alliance recognizes that the dispute over drug
regulations should not be ignored but should be examined as a
separate issue. The Minister of Industry has suggested that he
will ask the committee to study the issue in the fall, and we
concur completely. We should call witnesses and hear testimony
on the important issue of regulations when it comes to drug
patents after the 20 year process. We would encourage the
committee next fall to take on the issue, listen to witnesses
carefully and to make a judgment based on the information that
comes before it.
I will talk a bit about how important it is for Canada to
recognize and comply with rulings that are made when we sign
important agreements such as the GATT under the World Trade
Organization. We are a mid-sized trading nation. A large part
of Canada's prosperity depends on our ability to sell our
products abroad. We need the WTO and other trading agreements
such as NAFTA to protect our international trade from unfair
subsidies, countervailing duties and trade wars. Some may not
like all the decisions coming out of the WTO but there is no
question that overall we benefit from the stability and clarity
the organization provides to world trade.
I will give an example of how we have gone off track from time
to time and why it is necessary for us to work within the
framework of these organizations. We need only look at the
accelerated trade war between Canada and Brazil over regional
jets. Despite winning several rounds at the WTO over the issue,
the industry minister announced in January that the government
would give an estimated $1.5 billion below market interest rate
loan to Air Wisconsin to help Bombardier secure a regional jet
contract.
While it sounds okay on the surface, the loan was described as a
one time deal to save Canadian jobs threatened by Brazil's
subsidies to its regional jet manufacturer, Embraer. Rather than
make Brazil see the reason in this, Canada chose not to use the
process in place at the World Trade Organization which is to
exercise sanctions against a rogue nation that will not comply.
1145
Rather than seeing the reason in this process, as the minister
suggested, Brazil has dug in its heels over the issue and feels
that it has to continue subsidizing as long as Canada is
subsidizing as well. All those years of working within the WTO
system on this issue are now in question, and I would suggest in
jeopardy, because Canada has stooped to Brazil's level. There is
no end in sight to this dispute.
Bombardier is now seeking another subsidized government backed
loan for another one of its customers. That customer is
Northwest Airlines, the fourth biggest airline in the United
States. The industry minister is seeking that loan on behalf of
the government so that Northwest can be enticed to purchase
Bombardier jets rather than Embraer's.
This is less than five months from the time that the Minister of
Industry told the House that this would be a one time deal to
bring Brazil to its senses. It has not worked because Bombardier
is back asking for another $1.5 billion to keep it going. The
trade war goes on and on.
We have been working for 50 years with institutions like the
general agreement on tariffs and trade. We went through a seven
year process at the Uruguay round of the GATT to bring some
sanity to the process of subsidies and tariffs. Canada was a
leading nation. We were well respected for our ability to move
the process forward. However Canada is now working outside the
rules of the WTO.
If Canada is to have any credibility in future negotiations,
particularly on the issue of compliance in the drug manufacturing
debate, it needs to start to comply with these rulings and work
within the framework.
The framework in the Bombardier dispute with Embraer was that on
December 6 the World Trade Organization authorized Canada to
impose $244 million in sanctions against Brazil to stop that
unfair practice but Canada did not take that step. We were wrong
in not doing that. That was the only method we had at the World
Trade Organization and we chose to work outside the organization
on that issue.
This points out that we need a rules based system. We have
worked hard to develop it in the past. We know it is effective
in cases like the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association and its
dispute in terms of the 20 year patent. Now Canada has moved to
come into compliance with it. We need to continue that process
and continue to work within the organization to build Canada's
credibility in the future.
Other industries are watching, such as shipbuilding,
agriculture, steel and softwood lumber. We need some resolve or
some process to settle these disputes. Canada has been a leader
for 50 years. If Canada will not work within the rules then who
will?
Matching subsidies is sometimes called levelling the playing
field, but the Canadian Alliance and I believe it is misguided
policy. Instead taxpayers of the two countries involved end up
subsidizing foreign airlines in this case.
A company in Arizona bought regional jets from Bombardier and is
now saying that it did not get that kind of deal. It wants it
too and is asking why it was given to everybody else. Instead of
subsidizing Northwest Airlines in the United States, we should
work within the framework of the WTO.
Coming back to the business of the drug patent law or patent law
in general, we heard a lot of testimony in committee indicating
that we need a strong intellectual property system in Canada so
that those who come up with new ideas are able to realize some
profit and protection for their property. I suggest it is no
different in the area of drug patents. A reasonable length of
time is required to recover the money. Once the patent is up, it
is fine. The generic companies can then get involved and
manufacture products which might be cheaper than research based
pharmaceuticals.
I hope the important debate over notice of compliance and the
regulations will take place next fall. I am looking forward to
it, to see who is right on this issue. In the meantime it is
very important for Canada to comply with the WTO rulings, bring
Bill S-17 forward, and pass it as quickly as possible to bring us
into compliance so that Canada is not a rogue nation but is
working to try to resolve international issues in a reasonable
manner.
1150
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to intervene briefly this morning on Bill S-17.
This bill does not require a long intervention, because the
principles involved are relatively clear and part of the daily
life of people living in a democracy. Membership in an
international organization implies acceptance of the
organization's decisions.
The aim of Bill S-17 is essentially to comply with two decisions
taken last year. The bill brings the Patent Act into line with
the requirements of the WTO.
Quebec is especially proud to have operating within its economy
a number of international pharmacology and biotechnology firms.
Laval, for instance, is known for its science and high
technology park, a model in the area.
What would happen if Canada decided not to comply with the
Patent Act any more? Of course, there would be drawn out court
proceedings, with all that involves. It would mean losses
somewhere for Quebec's and Canada's economies.
The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill S-17. This support makes
very clear the position a sovereign Quebec will take once it has
the privilege and the right to sit at the table of nations and
sign its own international agreements, which it will support.
This therefore is a dress rehearsal. Quebec will sign WTO
agreements and recognize decisions made, because, in all good
faith, this is how it would have signed international
agreements.
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
will comment on a number of different issues relating to the
bill. A good number of them have been mentioned by other
speakers but probably from a somewhat different context.
As someone who has been sitting on the committee dealing with
the issue for a very short period of time among many other issues
that were being rushed about, I will not make a point of rushing
through the debate. Everyone else is talking about the need to
be brief but I think this is one time when we should not be
brief.
We are talking about an issue that relates to the health of
Canadians and the health of people of the world, for that matter.
It is related to the issue of patent protection and its
relationship to drugs throughout the world.
I will comment on the brief period of time the Government of
Canada has to deal with the issue and make sure it is passed to
meet the WTO trade agreement. In its submission to the tribunal
body which was ruling on the matter, the U.S. presented the
reasons Canada had to comply by August 12. Normally a 14 month
to 17 month period of time is given to countries to comply. In
this case Canada got a whole lot less time. We got 10 months.
The U.S. submitted that Canada had a parliamentary system which
would allow its government with its parliamentary majority to
effectively ensure that whatever legislation it wants will be
passed in a short period of time. The United States asserted
that as past practice illustrated many bills had been swiftly
passed by the government. For instance, in the 36th parliament
40 of the 78 government bills that received royal assent were
passed in four months or less. Indeed bills have been enacted in
as short a period of time as a week.
I suggest that the past practice of the government of not having
full debate, full disclosure and full input from the people of
Canada are the reasons Canada was given this brief period of
time. It was because of the actions of the Liberal government.
According to the United States, with Canada's ability to
promptly pass legislation, the underlying question was whether
Canada would make the passage of the bill a priority in its
legislative agenda.
1155
The government did not make it a priority and did not start
discussions on the bill some time ago. It brought in the bill a
short time ago so there would be less discussion. Instead of
bringing it through the elected House it brought it through the
Senate, once again to delay the process where Canadians elected
by Canadians would have the opportunity to speak their minds on
the issue. What we have is very limited discussion on the whole
issue of patent legislation.
We should not have to wait until the fall of this year to have a
discussion which really needs to be had. I listened to my
colleague in the Alliance and I was thoroughly disgusted with his
comments. He was saying that we would discuss it in the fall and
hear the positions then. We should not have to wait until the
fall. We should have pursued the issue a whole lot sooner.
When something as important as the health of Canadians and of
people of the world is at stake, why would we wait until the fall
to discuss this important issue? It is probably one of the
single most important issues we have been discussing for a period
of time, and it is to be rushed through.
That ends my comments with regard to why we are passing the
legislation through the House so quickly. I will now discuss why
we have the issue before us at all. At one time Canada would not
have been subjected to rulings of the World Trade Organization
which said that we had to move as a country on a decision.
We decided to have 17 year patent legislation, which is no short
period of time. I challenge any drug company to say that it has
not received its return a hundredfold in 17 years. It is not a
matter of getting a return on research investment. It is a
matter of pure and simple greed by drug companies. Prior to the
legislation not a drug company was suffering. If there was a
need for more research dollars the government had a
responsibility to respond to that need.
The issue between the 17 years and 20 years is a matter of pure
and simple greed. It is the same pure and simple greed that led
a number of wonderful drug companies to work in collusion to
increase the price of an additive to vitamins and other
medications a few years back. They all ended up charged. It was
pure and simple greed. They were not making enough billions of
dollars. They wanted many billion more. We are not dealing with
companies that have corporate ethics and the well-being of the
world as their primary concerns.
I am not suggesting for a second that we do not need trade
regulations. I am not suggesting that we do not need recognition
of patent protection. I am saying that we have gone beyond
reasonable patent protection to pure and simple greed.
At one time we did not have the World Trade Organization.
Therefore we did not have to meet those regulations. At one time
we would have had countries fighting for what would benefit the
people, not for corporations making a profit. We now have a
number of countries agreeing to get together, not to do what is
best for the people of the world but purely for the profit of
corporations.
Who do we want negotiating on our behalf when we have
governments negotiating patent agreements up because they believe
it is right for people to have to pay millions of dollars more
for their drugs? I suggest that those negotiating are not doing
their job. Those government representatives should be saying
that it is out of hand and that they are not doing what is best
for the people of the world. They should be negotiating those
patent agreements down, not up. If our representative is not
doing that he is not doing his job for the people of Canada.
That is where the changes have to be made. It is not okay to
accept the fact that we have a World Trade Organization that is
protecting profits for corporations and not ensuring the
well-being of people of the world.
1200
The whole issue was related to drugs. I will fall back on a
comment my colleague in the Alliance mentioned, that we cannot
have rogue states. Was it a rogue state that went out and said
that it wanted AIDS medications cheaper, otherwise people would
die off by the thousands? Was that a rogue state or was that a
government acting responsibly for its people that said it would
continue producing generic drugs and to heck with World Trade
Organization rulings because that was good for people, not
corporations?
I will comment on the specific regulations that seem to have
created the greatest problem at this point, recognizing that the
Liberal government's approach to getting legislation through
quickly, recognizing that we are part of the World Trade
Organization and recognizing that by August 12 we need the bill
through. We know it will be passed.
There are some issues that the government could have addressed
in the legislation that it has failed to address. First is the
notice of compliance regulations. In the period of time
available to us it is difficult to explain the whole process of
the notice of compliance regulations, which have to come through
the Department of Health, and their effect. Ultimately it
lengthens the amount of time it takes generic drugs to get on the
market.
It has been suggested that the period of time will not mean a
great increase, but I suggest it could be $50 million for the few
drugs that may be affected. We in the New Democratic Party are
often criticized because we say it is not that much money. I can
tell the House that $50 million is a lot of money. Nobody in the
New Democratic Party thinks any differently. We just do not like
the government's priorities on a number of issues, but $50
million is a lot of money.
As a result of the change from 17 years to 20 years in the
patent regulations it could mean $300 million over a period of
time. That is a lot of money. It is a huge amount of money. The
notice of compliance regulations could have been addressed.
Rulings were made in the Senate committee. It made
recommendations with regard to notice of compliance. Patent or
brand name drug manufacturers came up with automatic injunctions
against the generic companies to delay the process. A comment
was made by the supreme court. As a result the Senate committee
recognized that the observations were outside the purview of Bill
S-17. It also indicated that the minister said that things would
be looked at. I am just giving a general view of it.
The Supreme Court of Canada criticized the notice of compliance
regulations, describing them as draconian. The high court ruling
indicated that to subject generic drug producers to such a
draconian regime would be manifestly unjust. Generic drugs are
kept out of the market immediately, without any consideration of
the merits of either position. According to Judge Iacobucci,
manufacturers of generic drugs were entitled to market their
products years earlier.
We are not talking about an issue that could not be dealt with
in the legislation or that would affect the trade ruling. It
would not.
Another area of the bill that would not affect the trade ruling
is the right of the government to make regulations related to
stockpiling. We have already met the criteria of no longer
allowing stockpiling right now. That is not happening. Why is
it necessary to remove the right of the government to put that
stockpiling back in should there be a change in the World Trade
Organization ruling? Why not leave the right of the government
to make that regulation?
Governments are supposed to be doing what is best for the people
of their countries, not meeting World Trade Organization rulings.
Therefore that regulation could have been left in. We would have
adhered to the World Trade Organization ruling but still left in
the right of the government to make the regulations.
1205
Another issue the bill dealt with was ensuring that we went from
17 years to 20 years to make sure that the World Trade
Organization ruling was met. However a number of patents go
beyond 20 years. Instead of the bill making everybody fall
within the 20 years, some patents out there will be allowed to go
beyond 20 years. Why they were not all brought into the same 20
years is beyond me.
At one of the final meetings of the committee it was suggested
that once we give someone the right to be over 20 years we cannot
really take it back. There seemed to be a question of that not
being the case, that as a government we pass legislation and that
is the way it has to be. It leads us to question why all patents
would not have been brought down to 20 years. If we could move
them from 17 years to 20 years, certainly those that had 23 years
protection could have been brought down to 20 years as well.
The bill is not coming before the House to benefit the people of
Canada. It will not benefit the shortage of dollars in our
health care system. Quite frankly it will tax our health care
system that much more. Again, what kind of negotiator agrees to
something like that?
I would like to refer to another area that has not yet been
discussed. I represent a number of first nations communities. At
a time when we are looking toward allowing first nations people
the right to self-government and the right to look after their
own affairs, I am extremely concerned with the shortage of
adequate funds to provide the overall services first nations
communities need.
From what I have seen in the area of health transfers I have
real concern that dollars were cut in the last year or so before
health transfers were to take place. I am happy to say that a
number of first nations communities are treading very slowly into
health transfer now because of that. They have recognized that
they were being shorted on funds to look after their health
services. They knew that taking over those health services would
be tough.
At a time when first nations communities should be given
adequate funds to take over their health services and want to do
it, I am extremely concerned that we are accepting legislation
that will increase the cost of health services to a large degree
to first nations people.
Because of the conditions they have been living in, a higher
majority of first nations people end up in our health care system
for a variety of reasons. Each and every one of those first
nations communities will have increased costs related to health
care. From what I have seen they do not get the needed support
dollar-wise or the increased support they need on a year to year
basis. I am truly concerned that they will bear a greater
portion of the bad effects of the legislation.
We have heard the U.S. position on how things get done by the
Government of Canada, so I know the bill will pass. When first
nation communities tell us that the dollars they are being given
for health care just do not cut it, we will need increased
resources because of the increased cost of medications. When the
provinces tell us that they do not have enough money to provide
our health care because of the increased cost, we will need to
make sure that they are getting increased dollars to provide
those services.
That is what this debate is about. It is about being forced
into the position of having to ration what we have because we do
not have the dollars to provide the services. That is largely
due to a lack of priorities within the federal government.
1210
There is no question that preventive health care is the best
route, preventive measures for sure, but in the interim we must
make sure we have the dollars to provide much needed medications
and other services.
I urge all members to recognize that in the upcoming years after
we pass the legislation. Even though it may only affect 30-odd
medications, some of them are high cost medications that people
just cannot do without right now.
I am getting to the end of my comments on the legislation. I
know that my colleague from Winnipeg, our health critic, has her
thoughts to add to it. She has seen firsthand and dealt with the
issue for a number of years. She has been greatly involved for a
number of years and has listened to people throughout Canada who
have felt the impact of the previous increase in the patent
legislation.
Certainly seniors groups around the country have indicated their
objection. There is no question that seniors were a vibrant
force the last time the legislation came before the House.
Because of that the government of the day was made to feel some
shame over what it was doing. When the present industry minister
was in opposition he felt the same way as those seniors did, that
it was unacceptable the government would allow it to happen.
That is part of the reason the government took a roundabout
route to getting the legislation before the House this time. I
commend seniors for their fight in the past. I know we will join
them in the future as we continue to make sure the government
acknowledges that it should be doing what is best for Canadians
and not just for corporate profit.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I begin by commending and commenting on the work of the
NDP industry critic, the member for Churchill. She has done an
incredible job of following the bill, pursuing amendments and
making suggestions all the way through the process.
The member indicated my background in health care. I was the
culture minister in 1986 and I was health critic for the NDP in
the Manitoba legislature from 1990 onward. I had to deal with
the ramifications of the Conservative government in Ottawa making
drastic changes to the Patent Act which put us on the course we
are on today.
At that time we tried very hard to get the Conservative
government of Manitoba to speak out against Bill C-91 that had
been brought in by the Mulroney Conservatives. We failed in
terms of trying to ensure that provincial voices registered clear
opposition to those very regressive moves. The battle continues
today.
My questions for the member for Churchill are threefold. Since
she has followed the process and been on the committee, I should
like to know from her whether or not the government gave any
indication of caving in further to the World Trade Organization
and extending patent protection even further since we know from
some of the documentary around this issue that the United States
government has said it would see 20 years as a minimum.
I would also like to know whether she heard any explanations for
the flip-flop by the Liberals on this issue between pre-1993 and
the actions taken since they became government.
Finally I would like to know if she heard anything from the
government throughout the committee process about alternatives to
dramatically increasing prices in the field of drugs and
solutions for a very serious problem in Canada today.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can
answer all the member's questions in the period of time I have
available. I was extremely annoyed toward the end of our
committee hearings to hear some comments that maybe 20 years was
not enough.
1215
I have already been quite sickened by the process of bringing
the bill through the Senate and by the speed with which we are
pushing it through the House without adequate consultation. My
colleague from the Alliance hopes that we get a chance in the
fall to really discuss the bill and hear different points of
view. However, the bottom line is that we should not be
approving the bill without having heard all the facts and
recognizing that it is not legislation that will benefit people.
I was also sickened to hear comments saying that it was not
enough. I would refer to my point that this is pure and simple
greed. It is not a matter of not getting money back on our
investment. I would not suggest that for a second, but we have
gone beyond that. It is pure and simple greed.
Why is there this flip-flop by the government? We in opposition
often hear comments that the government does it all wrong the
moment it gets in. I would suggest that the present industry
minister was very vocal and critical of the Tory government when
it was going about this process but who had an absolute flip-flop
once he showed up in the House in the last couple of years.
I would suggest that the flip-flop is due to the major lobbying
effort by the brand name drug manufacturers of the government
side. Major investment dollars from the brand name drug
manufacturing companies go to the Liberals. I would suggest that
has carried far more weight than it should have. It is
disappointing. I want Canadians to be on guard and to know that
there was a suggestion of increasing the patent protection even
further.
I want us all to hold each and every member of the government
accountable for every increased health dollar that has to be
spent as a result of the legislation or any increases that they
might be thinking about. I want the government to continually be
taken to task this summer. I want the people in Canada to be a
force out there and let the government know that it is not
acceptable.
I heard my colleague from the Bloc indicate that the Bloc is in
agreement because there are a lot of drug manufacturers in its
province. I want the people of Quebec to also hold the Bloc and
its members accountable.
Anybody who supports the legislation is, in my view, wasting
valuable health care dollars as a result of pure and simple
greed.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member. She has
some interesting ideas and of course some of them I have heard
many times before having been raised in Saskatchewan which is
true CCF and now NDP country.
I would like to pose a problem to her. If I build a house,
whether I build it with my own hands or hire some workers to help
me, it is mine. I and my family can live in it for as long as we
wish. There is no time limitation on the ownership of that
house. Similarly, if I build an apartment, I can rent out the
suites in it and I can collect the rent. There is not a 17 or a
20 year time period after which she can come in with her
socialist friends and start collecting the rent on half of the
suites.
I happened to be a computer programmer in a previous life. I am
now incompetent in that area so no one should call me. Over the
last eight years I have fallen way behind. However I used to
write computer programs which are now intellectual property. I
would like to know from the hon. member how many years I should
have the ownership of a program and be able to sell it before she
can sell it and keep the money from the program that I have
produced.
The simple point I am making is that R and D for these drugs
companies costs millions of dollars. The legislation says that
after a certain time, even though a company spent the money and
did it, it is no longer theirs and somebody else can take that
result and use it to produce money for themselves. How does she
reconcile that?
1220
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it
is fair. I have said that there needs to be a reasonable period
of time where there is patent protection.
On the issue of rental properties, we saw the need to implement
landlord and tenant agreements because there were landlords out
there who were gouging tenants and tenants out there who were not
treating the rental properties properly. They were implemented
under provincial legislation so it is not unheard of.
Even though there might be millions of other people out in the
world who have the same knowledge, they may not get a patent in
the nick of time. How often have we heard about a particular
company rushing to patent something before another company does?
It is not as if it is only this one individual who has the
intelligence.
We have recognized that while we are going to give companies the
right of first to the post and to allow a patent, we also have to
recognize they are not the only ones with any degree of
intelligence and that there has to be time limits on that patent.
I am suggesting that the limits we are going by now are as a
result of greed and not the right to get one's investment back. I
am not saying that a person cannot make a profit, but the bottom
line is that it has gone way beyond.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is the best news I have
heard for a long time. One of the things I did in my previous
life was write computer programs. I wrote a word processing
program before Bill Gates had even thought of it. However, even
though I had the intelligence, he managed to patent it first,
which means that now after the 20 years is up I get one half of
his money. I am very appreciative.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, if the member were more
open to a different political view he would have a right to some
of Mr. Gates' money, but not half because he did not make it
first to the post.
No one is suggesting for a second that there should not be rules
but we really need to balance the rights of the patent and the
rights of the rest of the world. That is the most important
thing. Above all, people need to come first no matter what we
are dealing with.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to much of the debate
by previous members who have made a very compelling case and
bring a great deal of passion to this particular debate. This is
understandable when we are talking about drugs, whether they be
generic or manufactured, in the first instance, from a
pharmaceutical company. We know those drugs are often the
lifesaving instrument for many individuals.
However, when we talk about consistency and the business
elements of this issue, one has to agree that the WTO, although
it has not set an arbitrary length of time, it has set 20 years
for the life of a patent. Canada is presently not fitting within
that guideline.
A ruling has given rise to Bill S-17, the legislation that is
before us, and there is an effort on the part of the Canadian
government and this parliament, through the legislation, to be
consistent and in line with what the WTO has said.
When applied to drug development and production, the whole
notion of intellectual property and property protection becomes a
very divisive issue. It is an issue that in many ways pits
certain sectors of this industry against one another. Patent
protection and commercial opportunities for Canadians and
Canadian pharmaceutical companies are on one side of the coin,
while on the other side we hear and are certainly cognizant of
the need for cost effective access to these new drugs and these
technologies. Therefore there is no question that there is an
element of competing interest here.
It is important to recognize that without a high degree of
investment in research and development there would never be this
particular dilemma that we have before us. Pharmaceutical
companies do require an incentive just like any other business.
It therefore stands to reason that they would want to be the
beneficiaries of their efforts. They want the ability to profit
from their toil and their labour in the same manner afforded
other industries.
This type of protection is such that it allows companies to
receive that reward. In a global economy, it also encourages
companies to come to Canada to avail themselves of that
particular protection.
1225
I speak with some personal knowledge. I have a colleague in the
House from New Brunswick who has been the recipient of drugs
aimed at the treatment of cancer. There are other very serious
illnesses, such as AIDS, which these types of drugs are aimed
specifically at. Some of these drugs can alleviate the symptoms
or even put the disease in remission. The member from New
Brunswick tells me that the environment created through this type
of legislation allows companies to come to Canada. The rationale
behind the original legislation in the 1990s was to allow
pharmaceutical companies that come to Canada to be open to the
same type of protection found in other countries.
Like many other pieces of legislation, this legislation has been
put forward to ensure that Canadian companies can be competitive
in the world market, not just in North America and not just with
companies here but to see that there is a level of consistency
and an invitation to companies to come here and allow them to
have the patent protection that they would find in the United
States, the United Kingdom or other countries.
The ruling handed down has significant implications. If Canada
does not choose to follow the ruling or if it somehow lags
behind, there are grave implications. This is the rationale
behind encouraging companies to come here and do their research
and development. To be the beneficiary of this, we need to have
a parity with other countries.
Pharmaceutical companies that are doing research and
development, the scientific background and the leg work that
leads to the invention of drugs, which later become the subject
of generic drugs, must to be encouraged to come to Canada. That
is not to suggest that there are not occasions when generic drugs
cannot play a significant role. However there is a level of
patent benefit that should flow, whether it be for 10, 15 or 20
years.
The continuing argument of the Progressive Conservative Party
has been that we need to be consistent. Canada has to be in line
with what the WTO has said about the issue. We have to ensure
that availability and access is achieved. Our efforts must be
placed on lobbying in terms of making a case for access and
availability of these very important drugs.
With respect to this issue and with respecting the credibility
of where the government is coming from on this particular issue,
there is some inconsistency that bears some mentioning.
The government took a very different stand during the initial
debate in the 1990s and in particular in 1999 when the matter
first came before parliament. It is fair to say that the
Minister of Industry himself perhaps set a whole new standard for
hypocrisy and probably raised the bar to a whole new level, such
that it would make the most blatant hypocrite blush when looking
at the record.
The inclusion of the current provisions in the bill were very
similar and very consistent with the original position taken by
the Progressive Conservatives in the 1980s. We have already
heard other members mention this, but let me state what the
Minister of Industry had to say initially about this particular
issue. In Hansard on April 7, 1987, the current Minister
of Industry said:
It is inconceivable to me that Parliament finds it necessary yet
again to deal with yet another measure proposed by the Government
because it is bound and chained by some ideological dictate which
says this kind of Patent Act is necessary.
1230
He went on to expound upon the evils of the direction that the
government of day was headed in. He said:
The citizens will need more than generic drugs to recover from
the festering wounds which are about to be inflicted on the
exposed ankles of Canada's poorest citizens when the Minister
sinks his teeth in, past the bone, into the marrow and sucks the
life's blood out of Canada's poorest citizens with Bill C-22.
Bill C-22 was of course the forerunner to this.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Yes, that's what he was reading from.
He wasn't reading from his speech.
Mr. Peter MacKay: I hear some chirping across the way.
Heaven forbid that we put into the record the actual words spoken
by the Minister of Industry, the minister of reversals, the
minister of rat packers, who has now in his new reincarnation
completely reversed himself. He has somersaulted 180° from where
he was. He has swallowed himself whole. He has done so time and
again. He did so along with other members of the government on
the GST, free trade, Pearson airport, helicopters and
privatization. The list goes on.
Perhaps most recent and most pronounced was his reversal in
terms of his commitment to the people of Newfoundland to stay in
provincial politics. When the bell rang and there was an
opportunity to better himself, lo and behold, he answered that
bell and came to Ottawa.
While all that huffing, puffing and blowing and all the harping
against the government was going on when he was among the
unwashed in the opposition, he certainly made a wonderful case.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have been here since the beginning of the debate and I
have listened very intently to the merits of the debate, the
points at issue in the discussion. The member opposite, who is
usually fairly eloquent in expressing his views and the people's
views on what should be discussed, has now ranted on for the
better part of three minutes in what can best be characterized as
character assassination.
Far be it for me to come to the defence of other members in the
House who are capable of defending themselves but let us get—
An hon. member: He's quoting his words.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I understand the member.
I do not know if he is right or not but let us be careful and
judicious in our choice of words.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, all I can say about that
intervention is that the truth hurts. I am quoting into the
record the words of the Minister of Industry.
The moral flexibility that has been so common in this place,
particularly on the part of that minister, is one that does
offend people. It should offend the member opposite as well,
because all the frothing and terrible finger pointing that went
on in opposition among the current Liberals is really something
to behold now. It is a foghorn type of voice that we hear from
the Minister of Industry and the real shame is that coastal
communities back in Newfoundland are without foghorns while we
have a perfectly good one here.
It is important to focus not only on the hypocrisy but on the
merits of the bill, given what the member opposite said. There
is a certain degree of merit in allowing these pharmaceutical
companies to be consistent and to be in a position where they can
afford themselves patent protection. That is what this
legislation comes down to at the end of the day.
Irrespective of those earlier positions, the government has, as
it has done before, recognized the wisdom in following the
policies put in place by the previous administration. Even
though it was against them at the time and made great hay by
pointing out how terrible it would be, it has now embraced them.
It is encouraging to see that the truth has come through and that
the merits of a lot of those policies which were so vilified are
now becoming recognized as the right ones for the country.
With that in mind, the genesis of those types of drugs and that
type of research and development, which allows these types of
treatments to come to fruition, is what is really important here.
We have to ensure that Canada will play a leading and pivotal
role in the production of these types of drugs which certainly
are meant to address in a very specific way the human ailments
that exist. As we speak, there also are yet undiscovered
pharmaceutical drugs with which scientists continue to experiment
and continue to strive to discover.
This is what is important. If we are to foster a very important
and very critical industry within this country we have to be
consistent. We have to be prepared to open that door to the same
protections that exist elsewhere.
1235
That is why in 1991 the Progressive Conservative Party moved in
that direction. That is why we will support this bill, as we did
in its introduction phase in the Senate of Canada, the other
place. It is in fact to allow the benefits to flow, to recognize
the importance that can be reached in this country in terms of
making those drugs available and affordable and making them
welcome on our market that we would be supporting Bill S-17. This
research and development practice that currently exists in our
country is one that we have to be extremely proud of. This is an
industry in which Canadians can and do play a very leading role.
To that end we would embrace this move for consistency, this
move toward ensuring Canada will be a leader and an effective
player in this market. Bill S-17 does just that. It is a bill
that recognizes the need for market competitiveness and the need
for encouragement for our own pharmaceutical industry. It is one
that is inviting and open to those who choose to come and
participate in that market in this country.
We will be supporting this legislation. We look forward to this
bill passing this House and becoming law in Canada.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the Conservative
member. He was quick to point out the hypocrisy or the flip-flop
of the Liberals in the House. It is something we all enjoy doing
because it is such a transparent and obvious development.
However the key issue in this debate is really this: how do we
deal with escalating drug prices in this country? How do we deal
with the fact that for many Canadians access to necessary
medication is just not a reality? It is all well and good for
the Conservatives to chastise the Liberals and not accept
responsibility for the current situation we are in without giving
some solution and some explanation.
My question for the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
is this one. What are the solutions that his party is prepared
to offer in terms of bringing down the prices of drugs and
ensuring that every citizen in our country today has access to
necessary medications for their own health and well-being?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for that question. I know she has been very much a participant
in this issue, in this debate, and her question is relevant.
How do we address this issue of escalating drug costs? One way
to do that is to ensure that those drugs are being produced here
in Canada, at home, ensuring that there will be thousands of jobs
provided through this industry. I believe that the current
market will show that drugs are 40% less expensive now in Canada
compared to the United States.
The other element is with respect to the World Trade
Organization itself. There is indication in the ruling that the
impact of the ruling over an eight year period is very much aimed
at ensuring that pharmaceutical prices do remain low and that
Canada will continue to have access to these affordable drugs.
The background vaunts the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board
as having “the mandate to ensure that prices of patent medicines
for sale in Canada are not excessive”. There are specific
provisions in place to address just the issue the hon. member
raises. I would suggest that participating in the market,
ensuring that Canadians are producing these drugs at home and
that we do not have to always go abroad to access and to reach
the available levels, in and of itself is certainly aimed at
keeping the prices down.
1240
I would suggest that the efforts being made to try to prevent
this legislation from coming into being and to try to expand the
market to include the generic manufacturers could be better spent
lobbying and ensuring that the pharmaceutical producers in the
first instance are aware certainly of their moral obligation. If
need be, the government would have to intervene to ensure that
those levels are at an affordable rate and available to those
most in need.
I agree that this has to be the crux of the debate. I do not
have all the answers as to how we can ensure availability and low
prices but I would suggest that the WTO has taken some steps in
that direction. The government itself has to be continually
reminded, and hounded on occasion, to make sure there are
affordable drugs, particularly drugs aimed at preventive measures
and the treatment of life threatening illnesses.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough did
mention, much to the dissatisfaction of some members across the
way, the present Minister of Industry's outrage back in the late
eighties when the Conservative government of the day brought in
patent legislation. He quoted some of the comments the present
Minister of Industry made at the time.
I would like to know why there has been a big flip-flop. Has it
something to do with the reality of governing and the fact that
the patent legislation did act in the fashion we thought it
would? In fact it did bring thousands of pharmaceutical jobs to
Canada and preserved what we had.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, being a member of parliament very
close to Montreal, we did establish a pharmaceutical research
industry in that city that is one of the big engines of the
Montreal economy, not to mention those in Mississauga and
Toronto.
I believe the legislation did what we said it would do. It
preserved jobs, created more jobs and is obviously an industry we
can count on in terms of its successes, not to mention the
medical successes. Would this stark reality be one of the
reasons the present minister might have changed his position on
the bill?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his intervention. I know that both personally and in his
duties here as a member of parliament and a former health critic,
he has followed the issue consistently and has spoken out on the
issue on numerous occasions.
His question focuses on why people change their minds but more
so on the partisan atmosphere we see here, which sometimes leads
members in opposition to act irresponsibly, to go outside the
bounds of constructive criticism or even sometimes warranted
criticism.
The minister himself has established a record of moral outrage
and righteous indignation on issues he now embraces and has
publicly said he embraces. In fact he was heard recently outside
of Canada directly congratulating the former prime minister,
Brian Mulroney, on the introduction of the free trade agreement
and suggesting he was wrong in opposing it.
It is refreshing to see an hon. member actually admit he was
wrong. It happens so rarely that it is almost refreshing to
people's ears to hear someone say “I was wrong. Based on the
information I had at the time, I made those comments and I regret
making those comments. Perhaps if I had had the benefit of
hindsight and judgment I might have made a different comment”.
It happens very rarely, but the Minister of Industry has a long
track record of clamouring, making a great deal of partisan noise
and then completely reversing himself when poised for and given
the mantle of power.
It is a reminder for us in opposition that we have to be
careful, thoughtful, learned and sometimes measured in our
criticisms of government. It is a reminder for us to make sure
that we do a little research and not just sound off every time
the government introduces something. There is a responsibility
in opposition just as there is in government to make thoughtful
interventions, to press the government on issues and to ensure
that positions are backed with sound judgment and research. If
that were to happen I think the atmosphere and attitudes we need
here would certainly be more digestible and acceptable to
Canadians.
1245
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back
to the issue around the Conservative policy and also address the
issue that the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough refuses
to comment on. That is the very negative impact on health care
in Canada today and the prices of drugs as a result of the
Mulroney government's decision to dismantle what was then
considered to be one of the best drug laws and best patent
protection systems around, which ensured that not only were
Canadian companies competitive internationally, but were able to
provide reasonable access to Canadians.
The facts are very clear with regard to Bill C-22 and Bill C-91,
that Mulroney government really jettisoned legislation that
ensured competition between foreign and domestic drug companies,
served most Canadians well. The only thing that has gone up
since the Mulroney legislation is the prices and the profit
margins for the big corporations.
Would the member account for that kind of failed policy and
indicate whether he is now prepared to get with it and support us
in opposing this bill?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I guess the short answer
is no. I put my comments on the record. I would be mirroring
the political tact of the Minister of Industry if I was to stand
up 30 seconds later and completely reverse myself. I am not
prepared to do that.
I commend the hon. member for the passion and the position she
has staked out for her party and her constituents. I guess it is
a matter of debate. I would suggest the record will show that in
the long run this is the position Canada should pursue and is one
that the Progressive Conservative Party supports.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was heartened to hear the last member address the debate by
mentioning that perhaps we in opposition would want to do some
research. I am not in opposition, thank God. I am tempted to be
flippant and ask when that will start, but I am a little more
disciplined now, so I will not ask. I will exercise that
discipline. I am simply thinking out loud.
Bill S-17 is a bill designed to bring Canada into compliance
with World Trade Organization dictates. We have heard that from
members on this side and in a rare moment from members on the
opposition side. I am not one of those people who agrees with
that, by the way, but I am on the government side and I have
fought the good fight. I did not win that good fight, but
neither has Canada nor many other countries, because they have
weighed into balance that the advantages of participation in the
WTO far exceed the disadvantages.
That having been said, our government is attempting to bring
legislation in line with the dictates of the WTO. What that does
is open up our legislation for scrutiny and remediation. In my
view, this is one of the cases where the opening up of the issues
relative to patent protection affords us an opportunity to take a
look at the issues which need to be examined and take appropriate
action.
Contrary to my previous colleague who has taken great
opportunities to slag the character of one of our ministers, I am
will not engage in any personality reflections. What I will do
is suggest that the minister, who just underwent a huge attack by
the opposition members on a personal character basis, has already
given his commitment, as recognized by the member for Peace
River, that there will be an opening up of the regulations in
order to address those issues, which may appear to be lacking at
this moment.
Let me address the issue of patent protection. I was on both
sides of the House and on both sides of the debate when we
debated Bill C-91 and when we reviewed the regulations.
1250
I do not suggest for a moment that I share the same sort of
self-confidence as the member who have spoken on this with such
expert demeanour. However, I have learned a bit about the
regulations and how the industry works.
The debate should address the workings of the industry, the
consequences to the consumer, policies relative to health care,
and policies related to research and development. That means a
whole array of educational policies, even though that sounds like
a provincial area, as they relate to institutions that provide
the research and development necessary for industries, like the
pharmaceutical and biotechnological industries, of which to avail
themselves and provide growth.
If we are to have a reasoned and reasonable debate on the issues
relative to Bill S-17, then we need to examine the successes both
of the legislation and the regulation, as well as what the
consequences, intended or otherwise, might be as a result of
legislation that has been brought before the House.
Much has been made of the importance of providing patent
protection for companies that engage in the development of
intellectual properties. I do not think there is anyone who
questions that a creator of something deserves the right to
profit from the commercialization of that invention. We are
really talking about the commercialization of inventions that may
not necessarily be in the possession of the institution that
files the patent. The governments of any country share in some
of that contribution to the development of those intellectual
properties. They do it willingly because it is an important
element of growth.
I sat on both the industry and health committees when the patent
prices review board came before them and outlined what the
outcome was of this investment in an industry for the creation of
new product. I am not making a distinction between generic and
patent. It was shocking. As of 1999, Canada ranked dead last in
providing brand new, innovative pharmaceutical products. We were
well behind countries like Belgium, the Benelux countries, Italy,
Ireland and England.
The reason I can enunciate those countries is because under
these very generous patent protection conditions, which are
available in other countries as well, Canada has been able to
claim one product that can be classified as new and innovative.
This is thanks to all the research and development done by those
industries.
When I hear the discussions on needing to have this money to
develop a research and development industry, does that mean wet
lab? Does that mean pure innovation? Does that mean that we
have to go through the second and third phase clinical trials
process, plus the advertising associated, plus the other
expenses, administrative mostly, associated with getting a
product on the market?
We have a fairly rigorous system for getting a product on the
market because the Government of Canada, irrespective of its
political stripe, is governed by one issue and one issue only.
For a pharmaceutical product to go on the market, it must first,
be safe and second, be effective. Until those two are proven,
nothing goes on the market.
The process for getting a notice of compliance is rather
rigorous. That is where some of the expense is.
1255
As for research and development on the wet lab side, these
companies are looking for places where the ideas are percolating,
where concepts can be bought and the initial steps of research
and development can be had for a song, otherwise they would not
be good business people. It does not matter who the people are
or where they are from.
The government over the last eight years has provided an
enormous amount of money for research and development to
universities and the medical science institutes and hospitals
associated with them, to develop that kind of an environment. As
Canadian citizens we expect an industry that is responsible
enough to ensure that product comes on the market in a timely
fashion and in a price range that is affordable both by the
marketplace and by the patients who will hopefully profit by its
consumption.
I am not sure that has happened. I looked at what had happened
over the course of the last seven years in terms of prices. More
important, I looked at the market share by the patent holders, as
opposed to the non-patent product producers and the generic
producers. Sometimes they are all one and the same.
We went through a huge debate in the House in the early
nineties, as the members opposite well know. The government of
the day decided it would institute Bill C-91. As a result, the
patent protection was supposed to go up to 20 years. Without
going into all the details around the issue of the government,
the one that preceded it said it wanted to create a competitive
patent industry to ensure that prices would come down. It said
it would develop a research centre industry in Canada and that it
would make these pharmaceuticals available to a broader spectrum
of the public.
Those governments adopted a series of legislation, in particular
one that allowed Canadian companies to develop and produce
product, notwithstanding the patent and the patent protection
after a particular period of time, and only after the generic
provided a royalty to the patent holder.
Bill C-91 did away with that. What it did not do away with were
the regulations that allowed a patent holder, by merely alleging
that there had been a patent infringement, to go to the courts
and get an injunction against the competitor for producing a
product, even though we were at the end of a patent period.
What does that mean? Essentially patent holders who rightfully
enjoy the protection of the patent period can merely make an
allegation of infringement. They do not have to prove it nor do
they have to go through the exercise of the rule of law, as my
colleague from Prince George—Peace River suggested. They do not
have go through courts for an injunction, where they might have
to prove there was a patent infringement or they suffered as a
result of that. They simply have to make an allegation—
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am listening very closely to the speaker. The point I
want to make is whose side of this debate is he on? He should be
on this side of the House after listening to the logic.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The member knows, as
well as I do, that is not a point of order.
1300
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, is it not wonderful to be
in demand? Even opposition members recognize the value of
reasoned debate. I compliment them on their perspectives. I
thank them very much and I accept the compliment.
Instead of going through the rule of law it takes advantage of a
very special privilege. We are not talking about duty. We are
not talking about obligations. We are not talking about
protections. We are not talking about due right under law,
whether national or international. We are talking about taking
advantage of a very special privilege that is hidden away in the
regulations initially designed to ensure they would get their
full 20 years.
Now that we have legislation which says they cannot have less
than 20 years, there is this little regulation which says that if
an allegation of infringement on a patent is made, it can be
extended for another two years. So what? It is a big boy's
game, no sexism intended. If they do not like it, tough luck.
This is the marketplace, which is a good place because it says
competition will allow the percolation not only of ideas but of a
good quality product at an attractive price.
Everyone profits. That is what it does and what it says. I say
no, not in this instance. We do not want that competition, not
even after our legitimate 20 years are up. We can also engage in
something called evergreening or modifying it a little to get a
greater extension.
There are no saints in this discussion. Nor are there any
sinners. There are only those who are advancing their interests.
We are trying to advance the interests of all our companies and
industries. We do not want to beggar any of them.
I want to bring a bit of balance to a discussion that has turned
rather personal. The minister has recognized that there is this
problem. As I indicated earlier, my colleague from the Canadian
Alliance complimented the minister on his commitment to address
the issue in the fall. He is an honourable man. Why would
anyone disagree?
It appears members opposite are all anxious to get the
legislation through.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: I am sorry, not all members. I did not
mean to include everyone. If we are to meet the deadline of
August 12 they would want the bill passed. Members would want to
take a look at some of the issues associated with what must be
done.
We must redress that very special privilege. There should be
none in a democratic environment, in a marketplace environment.
There should be no special privilege industries. Let us remove
those privileges.
I spoke a few moments ago about the injunctions that ended up in
court. Of 55 cases involving patent infringement that recently
appeared before the courts, I think 45 have been dismissed as
being frivolous. Under normal circumstances this would suggest
that some companies have been taking undue advantage of an
intention that was noble at its genesis and continues to be so.
However, when the legislation is changed, surely regulations must
follow the same due and proper course.
My colleagues have probably looked at some of the issues I have
raised in terms of what these companies have provided. It is a
valuable industry because it provides thousands of jobs. Let us
call the generic industry its competitor. It too provides a
valuable function. It provides research jobs here in Canada.
1305
There is no theft of product. There is a borrowing of ideas. It
is done only after a particular period of time has elapsed. I
want to reassure all members here without sounding as if I am on
one side or another. I want to refer to what I said a moment ago
and that is that most of the money the pharmaceutical industry
has spent in this country on the research and development side,
aside from the administrative and advertising side, goes toward
clinical trials. There is no wet lab innovation there. It is
just proving that a product either has efficacy or it does not
and that it is safe or it is not.
At the very least we are at a stage where, in a competitive
environment, companies, whether they are generic or patent, are
now being forced to look at making use of the research and
development institutions that we have funded. They are making
use of that human and personal capital that emanates from those
places. They are able to do it and they should be doing it right
here in Canada.
When members in the House deliberate on this matter, I would
like them to think in terms of final outcomes because that should
be what guides a reasoned and reasonable debate. Those outcomes
have to keep in mind our health care system and what its costs
not only on the public purse but on the private purse, on private
energies and on private resources. If government has a role then
it must have a role in ensuring that the health of its people can
be maintained at an affordable level.
We must ensure that those research and development institutions
continue to thrive and that the manufacturing and marketing arms
associated with their innovations continue to thrive.
Finally, we have to take a look at the consistency and coherence
of a comprehensive plan that allows for industries to emerge,
thrive and benefit the marketplace which demands its product. The
marketplace includes our constituents, colleagues, friends,
families and everybody who may require a pharmaceutical product
down the road.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the speech made by the member for
Eglinton—Lawrence. He spoke with a great deal of passion.
However, we have to get to the bottom of this. On the one hand
the member stands up and acts as if he is addressing a new area
for which he is prepared to push his government on and, on the
other hand, he fails to acknowledge just how much his own
government has been negligent in this regard.
We are talking about notice of compliance regulations. We are
talking about the fact that the Brian Mulroney government failed
to eliminate the injunction that gave brand name drug companies
another two year protection beyond the 20 years. We are talking
about a Liberal government that in 1998, rather than address the
situation, actually made it worse.
I want the member to account for the decision by his own
Minister of Industry in March 1998 to push through changes to the
notice of compliance regulations, which actually evoked the ire
of Canadians, health organizations and the generic drug industry.
Those individuals and organizations were very concerned and went
so far as to suggest that the Minister of Industry was doing
nothing more than being a servant of foreign owned multinational
drug companies. They called for his resignation because, as they
noted, the government did exactly what Brian Mulroney did in
1993. It moved with haste to respond in the best interests of
the brand name drug companies.
How in heaven's name can the member stand up today and show such
indignation over something that his government should have and
should have acted but refused to act on? We are now left with a
situation where we are not dealing with a 20 year patent
protection but at least a 22 year patent protection. Could he
account for that kind of two faced position and that kind of
flip-flopping?
1310
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I thought we had emerged
from the position of character assassination, but I guess that is
a standard that is a little too high for most people to meet.
However, in my own humble fashion, I shall make the effort.
I took some pains to describe that there have been battles
fought, some won, some lost, some mitigated and some not. I have
made efforts as a member of parliament, as I know you have, Mr.
Speaker, and as have other colleagues on this side of the House.
I do not know what happens in other caucuses but in our own
caucus we really encourage diversity of debate. The reason we do
that is because we cannot prevent it. We all come from different
parts of the country. We were all elected by different
constituencies representing different interests and we are here
to ensure that those points of view formulate what will emerge as
a Canadian view of life. We cannot do it if we are all silenced,
so we speak up. Unfortunately that does not jibe with the
perception of opposition members of what happens, but that is
what life is.
We fight our fights and we move on. We would like to win them
all. We would like to have our own philosophy and be the
singular imprint on the decisions of any government. I would
like to do that. People did not elect me to be the absolute
ruler of the country, much as I would like to be. I would
probably end up getting hung but I would still like to have the
opportunity to glory in my own errors.
However the marketplace has decided that my point of view is not
the only one. I acknowledge that and I accept it. What I am
doing today, even if it bothers some members of the opposition,
is reminding them that we already have a commitment to get a
change that nobody on that side has pointed out yet, save the
member opposite who just asked me the question and her colleague
who indicated that there is a special privilege that must be
removed.
Where do I stand? I have already said that, yes, we must
comply. We need to comply with world trade organizations because
we believe in a world that is rules based and we want the same
rules based here in this country to operate internally. If that
is a principle worth fighting for, will the members of the
opposition begrudge me the opportunity to stand in the House, to
which I was elected, and say that this is what we need to do and
to compliment my Minister of Industry for having had the courage
to say that is what we are going to do?
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the more I listen to the member the more confused I get
regarding his position. Clearly, he does not, in his own mind,
in an intellectual way support the legislation.
What kind of intellectual aerobatics is the member performing?
If he does not believe in it, which he obviously does not, how
can he come into the House and support it? It makes absolutely
no sense on an intellectual basis.
I know he is entitled to his point of view and he has
articulated that point of view, but what kind of aerobatics, what
kind of trickery is he practising here? He says one thing and
will vote in another fashion when Bill S-17 comes before the
House for its final vote. How can he do it?
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member is
confused. I indicated earlier on, to my great my surprise, that
this was one of those few bills that seems to have the support of
opposition members. Members of the Canadian Alliance and the
Bloc Quebecois have said that they have absolutely no qualms at
all about the bill.
Members of that party come into the House with no analysis and
no deductions but all kinds of presumptions. I do not know what
analysis they have because I have not heard them. I have only
heard character assassinations and that they will support the
bill.
1315
A member of the House, no matter what side of the House he or
she is on, may have a view that, without false modesty, is based
on a modicum of research. Members may assail such a view and say
that it is not based on thorough research, but it is based on
research nonetheless. The view may not be consistent with what
the members think the government wants, but it might be well
reasoned and draw support for the government.
I have been sitting here all morning and members from the
opposition have been slagging the government for virtually
everything it has done. I am surprised we are still breathing.
If one has a view and reasons it out in debate, which may be a
novel word for members of the opposition, then one exercises the
opportunity. Debate allows people to vent and voice their views
and it lets members know their views are not ignored.
The opposition is incapable of performing its minimum duty.
There are absolutely no negative consequences to expressing a
reasoned and reasonable view in the House of Commons. We in the
government do so without false modesty and with the backing of
all who have supported us. That is an alien concept to the
members opposite. In my own defence I can only refer to the
introduction of the member. He is confused.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague on the opposite side talked about the minister being an
honourable man. That honourable man spoke in a totally different
way when he was in opposition. I want to make that point clear.
I will not bring out the reams of comments he made in the House
criticizing this type of legislation when he was in opposition.
My colleague talked about a rules based economy and our need for
rules. I will give an example from Haiti where rice is the main
staple food. Until free trade was instituted, Haitian farmers
grew the bulk of the rice they needed to feed their country. Very
little was imported.
In the mid-eighties, Haiti was forced to comply with IMF rules
to lift tariffs on imported rice. As a result, Haiti was flooded
with highly subsidized rice grown in the United States. Haitian
farmers were unable to compete with U.S. subsidized prices and
were put out of business. That is a wonderful example of a rules
based economy from the IMF.
I will give another example in pharmaceutical—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence has time
for a very brief response.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, there is not much to say.
I can only applaud the member for having a philosophical position
and basis for her discussions. Philosophy is a good point of
departure for any debate. However, as I said earlier, I thought
we were going on the facts and issues relative to the bill. That
is what I focused my comments on. I am willing to acknowledge
that other people have different philosophies.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address an issue
of fundamental importance to many Canadians. It is interesting
for anyone following the debate to notice what is happening in
this place.
If it were not for the NDP there would be no voices of
opposition to one of the most regressive social policies in the
history of the country. Any observer watching what is happening
in this place will know that the tables have been turned. New
Democrats in the House are calling for competition in the
marketplace while Liberal members, supported by the Alliance and
Conservative Parties, are suggesting that we need more welfare
for corporations, more subsidization of the brand name drug
industry and more socialism when it comes to big corporations and
drug manufacturers.
Let us bring some reason to the debate. We are talking about
ensuring that our legislation provides for reasonable prices in
terms of drugs and necessary medications in the marketplace
today.
We are talking about formulating public policy that addresses
fundamental values, priorities and philosophies around our health
care system.
1320
I listened to the comments made by members of the Alliance
earlier today and their suggestion that one should never tamper
with the marketplace. They say we are talking about investment by
individuals and private interests which have the right to accrue
benefits in perpetuity because of a one time investment or
personal commitment over a period of time.
What we are talking about today is something I thought was a
rock bottom value: a non-profit, universally accessible health
care system. That is the framework we are operating from in
trying to address drug policy. We are trying to address rapidly
rising pharmaceutical prices and at the same time have a
universally accessible public health care system. We are trying
to balance the two.
We are trying to preserve, support and stabilize medicare but we
cannot do that in the context of unfettered access to the
marketplace. We cannot do that in the context of a complete cave
in and a weak position by the Liberal government. We cannot do
that by simply backing off and, as the Alliance members would
say, letting the survival of the fittest philosophy take
precedence in society today.
The context is a universal, non-profit, publicly administered,
accessible health care system. In that context let us be clear.
We must find a way to bring down drug prices. There is no
question about it. We simply cannot go on with the way things
are now. We cannot sustain medicare and ensure access by all
Canadians to necessary medications at this rate. We must take
action.
What the government is proposing with Bill S-17 totally flies in
the face of its rhetoric and its statements suggesting that
medicare is a program it believes in and wants to sustain.
I am somewhat agitated as I begin my speech, having listened to
the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence. We have dealt with this
time and time again. The government takes a strong position that
is regressive and problematic for Canadian society, and then
there is always a backbencher from the Liberals who stands and
tries to pretend the Liberals are coming from a different
position.
The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence will have to decide if he
is supporting government policy or not. His government had a
chance to deal with a very difficult situation around the two
year injunction provisions and did not. The government made them
worse.
I am glad the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Industry is here. He will know that two or three years ago the
then minister of industry made the situation with respect to
patent protection for brand name drug companies even worse. The
hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence has the gall to stand in the
House today and suggest the issue is not so bad. He suggests the
extension of patent protection to bring us into compliance with
the WTO is not so bad.
The real issue is that this place has never really addressed the
1993 decision of the Mulroney Conservative government not to
eliminate the provision allowing drug companies to have another
two years because of legal cases pertaining to the generic
industry.
It is very difficult for us in the House to accept that kind of
two faced positioning on the part of the Liberals. The Liberals
must decide where they stand. Liberal members who disagree with
the government must stand and say so and vote accordingly.
Let us be clear that in 1998 the Minister of Industry had an
opportunity to deal with the situation the hon. member for
Eglinton—Lawrence has commented on. He did not. He made the
situation worse.
Everything the government has done smacks of the Brian Mulroney
approach to policy making when it comes to drug pricing and
patent protection.
1325
The debate is very important to us. We are doing whatever we
can to oppose Bill S-17 and for good reason. Notwithstanding the
substance of the issue, we have grave concerns about the fact
that the bill was sponsored through the Senate. In our view that
is a symbol of how embarrassed the government must be to bring in
changes that fly in the face of everything it has said and done
in the past.
It is hard for us to accept a bill coming from the Senate
because the government has used the Senate when convenient and
refused to allow bills from the Senate when not convenient. There
is a two faced, double edged approach to the whole process around
legislation that must be addressed.
Perhaps there is some rationale, some way to understand a bill
of this nature coming from the Senate. A bill has been sponsored
by an unelected, unaccountable body, the Senate, in direct
response to the government caving in to a decision by another
unelected, unaccountable body, the World Trade Organization.
Perhaps there is a message in that in terms of what the
government is all about.
Needless to say, it is repugnant to us that the government is
bringing in the bill in the first place. It is made even more
repugnant by the fact that it chose the Senate to do its dirty
business.
We know very clearly what the bill intends to do. I will say it
once more. It would amend the Patent Act to implement two recent
decisions of the World Trade Organization. One relates to
patents filed before October 1, 1989, and the other pertains to
the stockpiling provisions under the Patent Act. The essence of
these two aspects of Bill S-17 is more protection for brand name
pharmaceutical corporations that want to hang on to their patents
and prevent competition.
As we have said over and over again, and why I was so interested
in the comments of the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, is that the bill would round out
and add to the policies put in place by the Mulroney
Conservatives. We are dealing with a chain reaction, a
continuation and enhancement by the Liberal government of the
policies begun under Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives.
Perhaps the symbolism of the bill is more important in terms of
understanding what kind of government we are dealing with. The
bill symbolizes how much the Liberal Party has moved away from
its tradition of providing balanced government and trying to
ensure the needs of Canadians are protected in the face of
globalization and corporate needs. That whole agenda has been
transformed. Today we are at a point where the government
decides it is appropriate to cave in the minute the WTO makes its
rulings.
There was time. The government did not have to cave in
immediately. There was ample opportunity to carve out a
different position and stand up to the World Trade Organization.
It chose not to. Why?
One could say it is a result of the government's general agenda
to pursue globalization at all costs. It could be due to its
desire to succumb not to a rules based trade agenda, as the
member for Eglinton—Lawrence suggested, but to an unfair free
trade approach that puts the needs of corporations like brand
name drug companies ahead of individual rights and the needs of
our health care system as a whole.
1330
It is probably worth noting that in fact Bill S-17 was directly
in response to the United States demanding interest patent
protection. As my colleague from Churchill has said, it was in
response to the government of a powerful country in the world
today that believes a 20 year patent protection is but a minimum.
That does not bode well for the future in terms of where the
government might take this country given its tendency to cave in
at every chance.
The bottom line is that these decisions and this law will have a
very negative impact on when generic versions of brand name drugs
become available on the Canadian market. The bottom line is that
the bill means a delay in getting generic drugs on the market
after a patent has expired. The bottom line is that patent
termination of some 30 or more commercially significant drugs,
previously protected under the old provisions prior to October 1,
1989 will be extended. The bottom line is that we will be faced
with tremendous delays in terms of the potential entry into the
marketplace of generic substitutes, as the terms of decree of
October 1, 1989 patents expire between now and 2009.
The bottom line is that we will be dealing with much greater
costs for our health care system as a whole, with the significant
burden of that being placed on individuals across Canada. In
fact some would estimate that this simple move on the part of the
government to cave in to U.S. pressures and the WTO ruling will
cost us over $100 million, just on its own, never mind the
ongoing and ever rising costs in terms of patent protection or
the other ways in which brand name drug companies can use the
system to further their bottom lines, improve their profits and
cost Canadians consumers even more. Just in terms of this bill
alone there is a tremendous cost for a system that is under
enormous pressure and cannot really handle or withstand any more
increases than it is already facing today.
Earlier I asked a question. Is this an indication of a
government completely abdicating responsibility in the face of a
world trade agenda or is it a government that truly believes it
has found a way to bring down drug prices and preserve our health
care system?
I think the answer is obvious. We have a government that is
committed to jumping to it whenever the World Trade Organization
makes a ruling. We have a government that feels it must always
cater to the big corporate interests of society today. It is
interesting to note that the minute the WTO made its ruling on
the U.S. complaint back in December 1999, the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce told the government to get on with it. The government
chose to get on with it.
There was time to develop a position to deal with the impact of
such a decision, time to delay and certainly time to put in place
provisions to counter the impact of the World Trade Organization
ruling. Instead this government chose to jump to it. It did
exactly what the chamber said and got on with it, bringing in
Bill S-17 through the back door and forcing it through the House
as quickly as possible so that it would be implemented well in
advance of the deadline actually provided by the WTO, which is
December.
It is interesting to note that before this past election the
federal government and the Minister of Industry actually said
that non-compliance was not out of the question, that they were
looking at all options and that different possibilities were on
the table. Yet the minute the election was over the government
slipped in Bill S-17 through the back door and into this place.
Unless we can stop it today it will become law and it will set us
back enormously in terms of our health care agenda in the country
today.
1335
My colleague, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, who is also
our trade critic, says it all when he points out that Canada has
hoisted itself on its own petard. It has brought on these
problems itself by playing a game on the free trade front and
going after certain countries when it is in disagreement with the
actions they take to protect the interests of their citizens and
then having to face the consequences of other nations going after
Canada when we are trying to protect our own interests. The fact
of the matter is that we are facing the results of a game being
played out on the world front that is contrary to any notion of
democracy and certainly contrary to the idea of a nation state
controlling its own agenda and setting policies that benefit its
own citizens.
We are facing the consequences of the Liberal approach to trade,
which really is at the root of the problem. I know it is not the
time and place to get at the whole trade question, but it would
be far more productive for the government to address the root of
the problem than to simply say that these are WTO rules and we
have to cave in, there is nothing we can do about it, and then
try to cover its tracks by suggesting that the Liberals were
really wrong all along prior to 1993 by suggesting that there was
anything wrong to begin with in regard to the Mulroney
government's decision to change our Patent Act and to add many
years of patent protection for brand name drug companies.
It would be far better if the government said it is in a
difficult position, some of it brought on by itself, and it now
has to address it so let us be honest about what is happening and
try to correct the situation. Instead we had a cave in and then
a confession of previous statements made around patent
protection.
However this has unfolded, and I come back to this again and
again, the bottom line is that it has an enormous impact on the
ability of our health care system to be sustained in the future.
Let us look at what we are talking about. We are talking about
an increase in drug prices. The recent study from CIHI, the
Canadian Institute for Health Information, shows an almost 100%
increase in drug prices in the last few years of this decade.
We are talking about 10% of Canadian people who have no drug
insurance and another 10% who are under insured. We are talking
about a patchwork of entitlements, about people making difficult
decisions between buying the drugs and medications they need to
deal with their particular health conditions and putting food on
the table and about seniors with chronic illnesses who have
horrible decisions to make. We are talking about enormous
pressures on provincial health care systems that are making our
system more and more unsustainable. Really we are talking about
a self-fulfilling prophecy when we put it all together.
Our objective today is to put in place reasonable public
policies to sustain our health care system. We believe that the
patent protection measures taken by the government previously and
under Bill S-17 only aid and abet the agenda of brand name drug
companies and do nothing to keep our prices in line, and they
certainly contribute to the steady erosion of medicare. That has
to be stopped. That is why we stand today and urge the
government to reconsider.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the intervention of the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre. I know it is an issue that she
has spoken passionately about in the past.
I too have taken a great interest in the issue of drug patents,
going back all the way to my candidacy in 1992 when I was first
elected as a Liberal candidate. It was a big issue in my riding.
The hon. member will know that I have no generics in my riding.
However, I do have two brand name manufacturers.
The issue, however, has not garnered a lot of attention outside
of the few members of parliament who have talked about it,
including the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, who has also stood
shoulder to shoulder with me on this issue over the past several
years. It came as a bit of a surprise to see in the Hill
Times a headline that suggests something very different from
what I suggested in terms of the interview. I want to apologize
to members for that. It is simply important for me to illustrate
that the headline, which I had no control over, had nothing to do
with the comments I made.
1340
More important, though, is the question I have for the hon.
member. The motion I brought into committee dealt with the
question of the automatic injunction, which gives the effect of
extending drug patents well beyond the 20 year patent regime. The
hon. member also knows that when new drug prices are brought
forward Canada is related to the other seven nations, the top
nations that have the privilege of having a warehouse or head
office in their own countries. We also know that when we talk
about R and D, the $900 million, much of it is for advertising.
I would like to ask the hon. member if she would comment on some
of the methodologies of the PMPRB, which tend to give a very
distorted view of what Canadians are actually paying when it
comes to high drug costs, and on the overall implications for
Canada's number one concern, the health care system.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
question. I am glad for the member's support of our position to
the extent that he has stated. It was also curious to hear that
he, like the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, has suggested that
there is an avenue of action not yet taken. That is the
elimination of the injunction in the notice of compliance
regulations, which actually tack on more years to the present 20
year protection.
I come back to the fact that the government had an opportunity
to address that situation, chose not to and in fact in 1998 made
it worse. How does any Liberal member stand in the House and
raise this issue knowing full well that his own government and
the Minister of Industry have taken action that flies directly in
the face of that very reasonable suggestion?
Of course I support the elimination of the provision that gives
brand name drug companies another two years to fight for their
rights, adding another couple of years onto an already lengthy
and overly generous patent protection provision. I also believe
that there are many other courses of action we can pursue.
The member talked about some of the provisions and a review of
the policies of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. We
absolutely support the kinds of suggestions he is making. I wish
we could have received support for the suggestions we have made
over the last number of years.
I think the member is fully aware of an Industry Canada draft
report that came out prior to 1997 and made very strong
recommendations, one being that the government should ask the
World Trade Organization to re-evaluate 20 year patents on drugs
and should take all steps to foster international co-operation on
the problems of drug costs and utilization.
I think that makes the point very well that the government could
have done something other than cave in to the WTO. There is
another viewpoint and there were other avenues available to the
minister. It obviously chose not to take them.
The fact of the matter is that the draft report by Industry
Canada suddenly was revised, amended and changed. Different
recommendations came forward in the post-1997 election period
because some considerable political work was done behind the
scenes to make sure that the amendments were compatible with the
dictates of the minister at the time and the overall agenda of
the government, which was not to operate in the best interests of
fair prices and policies that protect consumers but to cater to
brand name drug companies, to deny opportunities for generic
companies to compete in the marketplace and to condone ever
increasing prices that harm our health care system and deny
necessary drugs to consumers.
My question for the Liberal member who just spoke, and to
others, is this: when will they convince their own government to
actually take action on the recommendations that were made in the
past in the consultations leading up to 1997? When will the
member and others join with us in trying to force policy changes
that will bring into play a more competitive marketplace and
fairer prices for all?
1345
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I commend both the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the
member for Churchill for their comments today. They spoke with
passion, sincerity and some degree of eloquence on this point. I
will make a comment and then ask a question.
It is my understanding that the major argument from the major
pharmaceutical companies is that they need more money in order to
do their research and development. Is the member for Winnipeg
North Centre aware that as much as 50 cents of every dollar that
the pharmaceutical companies spend is spent, not on research and
development, not on basic administration of their companies but
on promotion, marketing and advertising?
As a supplementary question, what effect would this have on any
potential for a pharmacare program in the country?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the question about
the profitability of brand name drug companies is a very
important one because members of the four parties who support
Bill S-17 feel that the excessive profits of these drug companies
should be allowed to become even more exorbitant. Profits for
brand name drug companies are already triple the industrial
average and this industry is probably the second, if not the
first, fastest growing industry in Canada.
We are not talking about companies that are making modest
profits and getting a return on their investment. We are not
talking about a corporate sector that is necessarily investing in
new innovative changes and approaches to our health care system.
We have heard time and again from many witnesses and from people
in the House over the course of the debate that drug companies
often invest in me too drugs. They often invest in developing
and finding new terminologies for disorders so they can take a
drug on which the patent is about and give it a new name in
response to a new disorder that they have defined themselves and
get another patent extension.
Brand name companies use all kinds of games and manipulative
practices to extend patent protection. Whatever the rules or
laws of the land are, they will find a way around them. I do not
believe we are getting a fair return on our investment. It ends
up that taxpayer money and public revenues are subsidizing the
extremely wealthy, profitable corporate entities that are
monopolizing the field.
As I said earlier, we are subsidizing and giving welfare to
these monolithic entities that are denying competition from the
generic industry. That does not bode well for pharmacare and
medicare. It does not bode well for Canadians who want access to
drugs when they need them or to have hope of new research and the
development of new products that will deal with changing
circumstances and different issues.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with my colleague from
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
When I first came to the House of Commons in 1988, some four
campaigns ago, I used to believe that the biggest challenge we
had in the House of Commons was pushing the main financial
institutions of the country to do more for small business. I
stand here today to say a bigger issue is the challenge that we
have as parliamentarians to deal with the most profitable
companies in the world, the pharmaceutical drug manufacturers.
1350
We on this side of the House have made several commitments over
several campaigns to deal with the issue in the interests of
consumers, of research and of having a generic drug system. I
stand here today saddened that we have not been able to meet all
our objectives.
We on this side of the House are blessed with having a member of
parliament who has essentially devoted a great portion of his
parliamentary career to dealing with the technicalities, the
specifics and the development of a proper policy in the
particular area of pharmaceuticals.
I support everything that my colleague from
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has said and I defer the balance of our
10 minutes to him.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, there seems to be monumental confusion among government
members on whether or not they support the bill, given their past
record of opposing it going back to the days when they were in
opposition and fought tooth and nail against anything to do with
patent legislation.
We just heard from the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, the former
chairman of the health committee, who spent a career opposing
this issue. He made a huge intellectual leap or performed a high
wire act. Members who are totally concerned about the merits of
the legislation, and rightfully so given their past history, are
now telling us that they will stand in the House of Commons and
support something they do not believe in. We need an
explanation.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Speaker, this is something that the
members of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party have
yet to understand. In the Liberal Party there are many of us—
Mr. Rick Borotsik: The Liberals are hypocrites.
Mr. Dennis Mills: No, we are not hypocrites. We realize
that we never get everything we want within our own government,
within our own executive, but at least we support our team. At
the same time as we provide constructive and rigorous debate we
can still hold our team together, which is something, I say
humbly, my friends in the Conservative Party have yet to figure
out.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, there must be total and
utter confusion in the minds of the Canadian people. Two members
have just spoken that do not support the government's position
but will stand in the House like trained seals to support
something they do not believe in.
What does that tell us about this institution called parliament?
The Prime Minister can crack the whip, fold in, stand and vote
for something that they do not believe in. How can they
rationalize that?
Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am trying hard to
communicate to the member that many of us on this side of the
House are not comfortable with the direction in which we are
heading in this area.
However we have world trade agreements that we have to work
with. Unlike members of the Conservative Party, if they do not
get their way immediately they change, they alter and they bolt.
We believe that through a steady process and persistence
eventually the executive of our government will come to see our
position.
1355
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to offer the member for New Brunswick
Southwest a bit of variety in terms of how he might want to
rephrase his questions because it is obvious that he keeps asking
the same questions. Let me provide him with a very simple
answer.
His party had an opportunity in committee to examine a motion
that would have dealt with an issue de facto that is increasing
and extending patent protection beyond 20 years. No member of
parliament in the House voted for it, but it was written in the
regulations and is a mockery of our legal system.
The hon. member talks about the Patent Act as it relates to the
ability of the drug manufacturing industry exclusively to claim
an automatic infringement without even a shred of evidence. It
has been built into the legislation. The hon. member's party had
an opportunity to look at that point, open it up, and perhaps
question in committee about it, but instead it defeated it.
I want to deal with what is at issue. Bill S-17 is about
respecting our WTO commitments. There is no doubt the government
and the minister have bravely moved ahead to ensure that the
timetable is met. I compliment them for that and I believe we
all agree that it should be met.
We have an obligation to look at the 1997 committee report of
parliament which said in Recommendations Nos. 4 and 5 that we had
to deal with regulations which were created after parliament had
an opportunity to look at them. As members of parliament we are
accountable to all people of Canada. Yet we have regulations
which clearly and demonstrably have been shown to be more
excessive than what parliament intended.
Health Canada's witnesses before the committee made very clear
that the minimum extension of infringement as a result of this
ridiculous automatic injunction, which exists nowhere in law and
puts the reverse onus on the person applying for a new patent,
creates a situation where at least 14 months is the guaranteed
extension.
What is the effect on the Canadian public and the health care
system? Obviously these are issues the Conservative Party and
that member choose to ignore. We on this side of the House
recognize the international obligations but at the same time want
to make sure we have laws and regulations consistent with public
expectation.
In an earlier speech the same hon. member commented on the west
island of Montreal and other places across Canada that are doing
very well. If the hon. member really cared about understanding
where we are relative to fantasyland, he would have asked a
question that was raised in committee: Why is it that Canada is
now recording a $4 billion trade deficit when it comes to
pharmaceuticals when it was only at $1 billion in 1993? Is this
his vaunted research and development?
Let us talk about research and development. We now find that a
good deal of the $900 million is nothing more than advertising.
Does the hon. member not find a problem with trying to tell
Canadians on the one hand that they are getting lots of research
and development when it is advertising to continue the
opportunity of these companies to make a bit more money at the
same time?
We have the highest prices for drugs in the world. The hon.
member did not want to talk the question of relativity to other
countries. It strikes me that we have a drug regime in which
Canadians are paying among the highest prices in the world.
Seventy per cent of the people in my province do not have
adequate drug protection. They are people from my age all the
way up to age 64. If these issues could be raised perhaps there
would be some impetus to create an opportunity for us to deal
with our health care system.
I hope hon. members on the other side are listening. The
government and this party are. I wish they would.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
VERBAL ABUSE
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to bring awareness to the devastating and negative
effects verbal abuse can have on our community, particularly
among our youth.
It is a precursor to other forms of abuse and violence. It can
severely damage a person's sense of self-worth and perception. It
destroys self-esteem and in some cases can be life threatening.
It can also affect a child's social development and may result in
an impaired ability to perceive, feel, understand and express
emotion.
In September of last year the province of Prince Edward Island,
as a result of the work of many organizations, declared that
Verbal Abuse Prevention Week would become an annual event
recognized during the first full week of October. This event has
led to a growing awareness about the seriousness of verbal abuse.
1400
I commend the government of P.E.I. and encourage other provinces
to hold similar events. As well, I urge the Minister of Health
to seriously consider expanding this initiative to become a
national program. It would be an important step toward reducing
abuse and violence.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Cloverdale, Fleetwood, Guildford and Newton in
Surrey Central are suffering from a transportation infrastructure
problem. Even the public transit strike in B.C. is entering its
67th day.
Mayor Doug McCallum is complaining that the Liberal government
has ignored the infrastructure projects for which the city has
applied.
The Liberals cancelled the grant program for municipalities and
cut transfer payments to the provinces and then they lowered
federal revenues for transportation with their inadequate and
shallow infrastructure program.
Just 4% of the revenue from gasoline taxes goes to
infrastructure programs in Canada compared to 95% in the U.S.A.
Canada is the only G-8 nation that does not have a national
transportation policy.
All the people of Surrey want is their fair share. The
government should either deliver the goods or get out of the way
and allow the tax dollars to be spent on transportation in the
municipalities where they are collected.
* * *
[Translation]
RAOUL WALLENBERG
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
should be particularly pleased today that a commemorative day,
January 17, will be dedicated to Raoul Wallenberg, the first and
still the only honorary citizen of Canada.
[English]
Raoul Wallenberg's legacy to the world is a towering one. An
example of moral and physical courage which defies description.
In saving tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews and other citizens
from the Nazi death camps and tyranny, this remarkable Swedish
diplomat risked his own life in the cause of humanity and human
rights.
I thank the Minister of Canadian Heritage; Dr. Vera Parnes,
president of the International Raoul Wallenberg Movement for
Humanity; my colleague from Mount Royal, Senator Sheila
Finestone; and all who have contributed to make the Raoul
Wallenberg day a reality.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a
very serious violation of human rights that took place in
Colombia this weekend.
On Saturday, June 2, a highly respected indigenous leader, Kimy
Pernia, was kidnapped by unknown abductors.
In November 1999, Mr. Pernia appeared before the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs to give important testimony
concerning EDC funding of a dam that threatened his community's
way of life. Members of the committee were most impressed with
his passion for his people and for his community.
His disappearance is one of many examples of kidnappings,
killings and increasing human rights infractions taking place in
Colombia today.
I ask the House to join me in condemning his kidnapping, in
calling on those responsible to release him and on the government
of Colombia to take all steps possible to secure his release.
As integration in our hemisphere brings Canadians ever closer to
such events, we must try to ensure that all civilian populations
throughout the Americas are protected in accordance with the
principles of international humanitarian law.
* * *
CONGRESSIONAL FELLOWS
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to welcome the 20 American Political Science Association
Congressional Fellows visiting Ottawa this week from Washington,
D.C.
This impressive group of individuals comes from a wide variety
of backgrounds and includes political scientists, judges, foreign
service officers, doctors and journalists.
Initially designed to bring academics and political reporters to
Capitol Hill, the congressional fellowship program now includes a
full range of individuals taking a one year sabbatical so they
may gain valuable experience and understanding of their political
process.
Last month these fellows warmly welcomed our own parliamentary
interns for a stimulating week of meetings with politicians,
professors, party representatives and government officials.
I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming these congressional
fellows to Canada and in wishing them a week of invigorating
discussion surrounding the common challenges and achievements
that continue to strengthen the very important relationship
between our two great nations.
* * *
WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
today is World Environment Day and as environment critic I want
to acknowledge all the people who work closest to nature to
protect and enhance Canada's natural heritage, whether they are
farmers, foresters, fishermen, scientists, conservationists or so
many others working on the ground.
We depend on their work for Canada's prosperity. Nature for
these people is an everyday reality in which their hard work
benefits us all.
We have long advocated that market based solutions and respect
for property are the best ways to protect the environment.
1405
Governments must stop legislating unenforceable laws based on
command and control and instead make the market work for people
and the environment.
Our responsibility as politicians is to ensure environmental
programs focus on communication, co-operation and consultation.
This is especially important for those who are often left out of
consultations in Ottawa.
Wise sustainable use of the bounty that nature has given us is
our goal. The health of Canadians and their environment depends
on it and depends on those who are working with nature to make
Canada the best place in the world to live.
* * *
WILLIAM KNOWLES
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on this day when we pay tribute to former
parliamentarians who have passed on, I would like to take this
opportunity to pay respects to the hon. Bill Knowles, or Tobacco
Bill as he was known, a former member of parliament in my riding
of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.
Bill was a teacher, a farmer and a former captain in World War
II. He was a lifelong resident of Lynedoch, Ontario and was
elected to parliament in 1968, re-elected in 1972, in 1974 and
sat until 1979 when he retired. He attended every recognized
function throughout the riding of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant and
was very well known for speaking out on behalf of his
constituents, particularly on behalf of farmers in our riding.
Bill was a caring husband and friend to his wife Vera and a
father to two sons, William and James. He will be greatly missed
by the constituents in Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.
One thing we can say about Bill Knowles was that he served and
loved his constituents and he will be greatly missed.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, World
Environment Day can be marked in many ways. We have chosen to
remind people of the Canadian government's inaction regarding
climatic change, of its refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol and
of the fact that it is considering selling fossil fuel to the
Americans.
Since this government took office in 1993, sulphur emissions
have constantly increased. Over half of the acid deposits in
Quebec are caused by Ontario and American companies using fuel
oil, a major contributor to acid rain. Let us not forget the
devastating impact of acid rain on Quebec's maple trees.
World Environment Day also provides a unique opportunity to
remind people that, according to the auditor general, there are
over 5,000 federal contaminated sites in Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois is inviting Quebecers and Canadians to take
advantage of this day to look at the state of our environment.
* * *
[English]
KINGSTON
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 1841, the first
Parliament of the United Provinces of Canada was opened by
Governor General Lord Sydenham in Kingston, Ontario. One hundred
and sixty years later, Kingston has been recognized by both the
federal and provincial governments as Canada's first capital, and
June 15 is officially recognized in Kingston as First Capital
Day.
Shortly after the union of Canada in February 1841, a large
building on the shore of Lake Ontario and Kingston that was
originally commissioned as a hospital, was rented out to the new
Government of Canada to house the legislative council and the
legislative assembly. Eventually, however, Kingston's
insufficient number of office buildings forced parliament to move
to Montreal where it opened on November 28, 1844.
Thanks to the hard work of Mr. Ian Milne and Dr. Margaret Angus,
the founders of First Capital Day, the occasion of Kingston's
choice as Canada's first capital has been marked with much
celebration for the past three years.
On behalf of myself and the very popular member for Kingston and
the Islands, I would like to congratulate those behind the
organizing of First Capital Day in Kingston and wish them a very
successful celebration this June 15.
* * *
SASKATOON POLICE FORCE
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the city of Saskatoon has recently
embarked on a community policing initiative that is seeking input
from all interested parties.
Policing involves everybody in the community. Individually we
may be affected through the services that are provided, whether
it is crime prevention, investigation, enforcement or through the
payment of property taxes that are needed to deliver those
services.
To ensure safe and secure communities, the Saskatoon Board of
Police Commissioners is asking for help in determining priorities
for policing in its neighbourhoods. The Board of Police
Commissioners is encouraging input in a number of ways, including
visiting its scheduled open houses, letter writing, online
submissions and small group meetings.
On behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, I
wish to commend the Saskatoon police force for embarking on this
initiative. I know that the outcome of this process will produce
a better police force and a safer community.
* * *
1410
DECEASED PARLIAMENTARIANS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning our flag on the Peace Tower flew at
half-mast and present and former parliamentarians gathered
together for a memorial service to honour parliamentarians who
have passed away in the last year.
We who are now in parliament wish to publicly acknowledge their
passing in a public and appropriate fashion. In the year 2000 we
invited the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians to
organize this annual memorial service to recognize all deceased
parliamentarians, and they now do so.
This year we celebrated the memory and contributions of 19
Canadian parliamentarians, one of whom was a former prime
minister. Their legacy is their immense commitment and
contribution to this place and to their much loved country,
Canada.
Also recognized today by our former parliamentarians with a
distinguished service award is the outstanding contribution of
Mr. Douglas Fisher for his promotion of the understanding of
Canada's parliamentary system of government.
I am honoured to stand here today, and also with former
parliamentarians, to pay tribute on behalf of all Canadians to
the service of these respected and warmly remembered Canadians
who have served us all.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
transportation safety in our country is in question with
crumbling and congested highways because the Liberal government
will not invest in much needed improvements. Longer bus and
truck driver hours, heavier trucks, and a weak national safety
code add to highway risk.
Two young people died in a boating accident and the inquest told
us that the transport inspectors certified the boat only weeks
before the incident. The boat had a number of safety violations
that were ignored. The inspector was friends with the boat owner
and the inspector's brother did renovations on the boat.
How does the Liberal government respond? Boats this size will
no longer be inspected. It rammed the Marine Liability Act
through parliament without ensuring mandatory liability insurance
for boat owners.
Now the government wants to rush Bill S-3, the motor vehicle
transportation act, without addressing the concerns of highway
users, including the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Canadian
Bus Association.
The Liberal government might mouth the word safety but it sure
does not make sure it is enforced.
* * *
[Translation]
ACT CONCERNING THE EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
June 5 is an important date for democracy in Quebec: in 1832,
with Louis-Joseph Papineau as speaker, the Parliament of Lower
Canada passed a law stipulating that persons professing Judaism
were entitled to the same rights and privileges as other subjects
of Her Majesty in the province.
This law, passed 27 years before a similar law in Westminster,
is proof that the fight of Lower Canada's patriotes for the
political and democratic rights of their people included
minorities. Now as then, openness to others, fairness and
respect are the guiding values of the Quebec people.
In 1932, Louis Benjamin produced this eloquent testimony:
The centenary of the political emancipation of the Jews in
Canada, and it was a French province—which thought it
necessary to grant our race its freedom, is an historic event—In
all of the British Empire, including the Canada of the day, it
was Quebec which set a fine example of wisdom and tolerance. We
will always remember Quebec's wonderful gesture.
* * *
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
number of mayors, municipal representatives and individuals
responsible for Quebec's economic development are in Ottawa today
to take part in a day with an international flavour.
In this era of globalization, it is becoming urgent to inform
people and give them the necessary tools and support to meet the
new challenges of this millennium.
Our local communities will be increasingly called upon to take
their place on the international stage. That is why we have
prepared various workshops for them on free trade, Contracts
Canada, the infrastructures program, cultural and academic
programs and, finally, agricultural export strategies.
I thank them for their interest and I point out that their
presence is an obvious sign of the dynamism of our rural
communities and the clear desire of elected representatives to
find new ideas and avenues to help our regions grow.
In closing, I want to applaud the municipal representatives from
my riding of Brome—Missisquoi and thank them for their support
and their excellent co-operation.
* * *
[English]
EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will not let the Minister of Finance forget a promise he made in
St. John's during the federal byelection campaign. The minister,
supported by the current Minister of Industry, promised that he
would take a serious look at a different equalization arrangement
for the Atlantic provinces.
As the minister knows full well, the Atlantic area will always
be playing catch-up under the current equalization formula.
Provinces like Newfoundland will never truly benefit from the
development of our resources while the federal government insists
on clawing back the lion's share of revenues from those
resources.
1415
Will the Minister of Finance keep his promise to the people of
Newfoundland? Will he give Atlantic Canadians a chance to become
equal to the rest of the country by adjusting the equalization
formula that is currently designed to keep us have nots forever?
* * *
LEON FURLONG
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable Atlantic
Canadian businessman. Leon Furlong, a fellow of the Institute of
Chartered Accountants, has been chief executive officer of
Atlantic Blue Cross Care for the past 25 years. During this time
he has grown this important company from one which had revenues
of $12 million to one that now has annual revenues of $1.4
billion. This is thanks to Mr. Furlong's leadership.
Mr. Furlong will retire later this month as president of
Atlantic Blue Cross Care. The over 1,800 employees will miss the
friendly demeanour and informal style of their boss who has been
a steady leader in a industry which has undergone massive change.
Leon Furlong has earned the right to be proud of what he has
built in Atlantic Canada. The lives of thousands of Atlantic
Canadians are better, thanks to the impressive work of Mr.
Furlong.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence says
that Canada does not need helicopters which can protect us from
submarine warfare. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister told the House
yesterday that indeed we do need anti-submarine warfare
capability.
The cost will amount to about a billion dollars. There is
confusion between ministers and our nation's sovereignty is at
risk on this question. Could the Prime Minister perhaps explain
to Canadians whether or not it is the view of the government that
we need anti-submarine capability and who exactly speaks for the
government over there?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is speaking with one voice on this issue.
The requirements have been designed by those who know about what
is needed.
We have received the advice of the Department of National
Defence. Now, with the system we have selected, we will have
more bidders than ever. In that way we will make sure that we
have the helicopter we need at the lowest cost possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have a problem.
The Department of National Defence informed the minister and the
cabinet that Canada needs helicopters with anti-submarine
capability. In spite of that recommendation, the government is
about to decide not to order helicopters with such capability.
Why is the government ignoring the recommendation, even though
the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with the department?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the call for tenders is based on the recommendation of the
Department of National Defence. There are always discussions
among those who draft these calls for tenders.
We clearly said that we wanted to buy new helicopters, but we
wanted a true competition and this is why we opted for that
process. The reality is that, now, there are many more people
who can provide what the government needs. We know that the more
bids we get, the better the price will be for Canada's
taxpayers.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the more
people we have tendering. We have too many people offering too
many tenders within the government. We have some sovereignty
questions that are at risk here. All we want to know is who is
making the decisions.
Here we have an internal defence department memo on the issue of
the split contract which says that in a two way competition the
risk to the crown increases dramatically and that this risk could
take the form of contract omissions or errors. This is very
serious.
Why was the contract split when the DND officials were warning
of the consequences, and who made the decision?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, very clearly, we want a helicopter that can do the job
at the lowest price possible. I am surprised that the opposition
is not interested in the cost of it. Of course it wants to have
the most expensive one. That is not what I want. I want the one
that can do the job at the lowest cost possible.
1420
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we just want the one who can give a
straight answer. Let us shift to legislation making ability.
Regardless of how individual MPs will vote on the pay raise
legislation, the Prime Minister has shown his skill in developing
legislation in a short period of time, and I commend him for
that. If he does not use the skill to protect children from
predators on the Internet, what other areas can we expect of him?
We have put forward the proposal to carve out standalone
legislation to protect children from predators on the Internet.
He has shown he can move legislation quickly. Why will he not do
so on this standalone legislation?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the
House, the opposition knows full well that we are ready to move
on Bill C-15.
In fact it is the opposition that is stonewalling. It is the
opposition that is playing petty politics with Bill C-15.
Everyone on this side of the House is ready to move.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the opposition is very clear: we
want that standalone legislation and he will not bring it
through.
As I have just said, regardless of how MPs may vote on the pay
raise legislation, the Prime Minister has shown his skill in
developing legislation very quickly.
Will he use that same skill and agree with the Canadian Alliance
that we need to lower the GST on gasoline to protect consumers at
the pumps this summer? Will he use that same skill? Let us
protect the consumers. Let us do it.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of Opposition is all over the place today. He
is going from helicopters to gas, to legislation and so on.
We have a system in Canada that is well known. Neither the
provincial governments nor the federal government has decided at
this time that it is appropriate for either level of government
to reduce the tax on fuel at this moment.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
years now the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for improvements
to the employment insurance program in order to help workers in
seasonal industries.
For years, the government has been leaving the unemployed out in
the cold, so much so that the Prime Minister was forced to
apologize to them during the last election campaign.
After making them wait so long, after the apologies and the
campaign promises, is the government going to immediately follow
up on the unanimous recommendations of the standing committee on
human resources and at last come to the rescue of those who find
themselves without work because their jobs are seasonal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
they are the ones who blocked the bill, while we were trying to
have it passed in the House. It was only after they lost the
election that they decided to vote with the government.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government had all the time in the world to get its bill through
last fall. It preferred to call an election, to make promises
to the workers, promises it does not want to keep today.
It preferred to continue to dip into the employment insurance
fund in order to put money elsewhere, at the expense of those
least well off in society.
I am asking him, and there is still time before the end of the
session, whether he will stand up and keep his promises, ensuring
that these new measures are passed before the end of the
session. Is he going to keep his promises? Yes or no. Or is he
going to forget them once again?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is exactly what we have done. After the election, we
introduced the measure we had promised in the House of Commons
and it was passed. This was the same measure that the Bloc
Quebecois had blocked before the election.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, Liberal
ministers held numerous meetings with groups of unemployed
workers in order to promise substantial improvements to the EI
system.
Now, the standing committee on human resources development has
identified the improvements needed. The government has the money
needed, the opposition is prepared to work toward speedy
passage and we have the time before the end of the session to
make the bill law.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for to deliver on his own
promises?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think Bloc members need to go home and
explain to their constituents why they were against repealing the
intensity rule.
I think they need to go home and explain to their constituents
why, on the very day that their amendments to Bill C-2 were being
presented, they voted to suspend the House. I think they need to
explain to their constituents back home why so many witnesses
supported us with Bill C-2.
1425
Today they are playing politics. Last fall they were playing
politics. On this side of the House we have made changes, and
very good ones.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, no one is satisfied with the
minister's answer.
Does she not understand that failing to take action now, when
all the conditions are in place, is disrespectful of unemployed
workers, to whom even the Prime Minister apologized during the
election campaign?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have received the report. If the hon.
member would reread the report, he would see that it asks the
government to consider a number of recommendations. That is
exactly what we will do.
Again, they talk about the importance of employment insurance to
workers. On this side we know how important it is. That is why,
quickly after being elected, we introduced the amendments we
would have passed last fall if that party had supported us.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today is World Environment Day and a lot of the things that we
talk about in the Chamber will not matter in 50 years if we
cannot drink the water, breathe the air or go out in the sun.
The Minister of the Environment will be aware of the studies
that were released showing that the basis of the Canadian
position with respect to carbon sinks is not as sound as the
minister has often made out.
Is the minister considering changing the position of the
Government of Canada with respect to carbon sinks so that our
position on greenhouse gas emissions can be one that makes some
material contribution to reducing those emissions rather than a
theoretical one based on a false theory to begin with?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for allowing us to recognize
environment day. He correctly points out that it is today. It
was an initiative, I might add, of a Liberal backbench MP back in
1971.
I point out that we are making absolutely no changes to our
Kyoto target. We fully expect to meet our Kyoto target. We have
a number of programs that will achieve that end. I would point
out to him specifically with respect to the two articles in
Nature that neither refers to the Canadian position nor in
any way supports the contention that our position is not the
sound approach on sinks.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I obviously do not agree with the Minister of the
Environment on that, but I will go to the Minister of Transport.
One of the other ways we are endangering our commitment to the
Kyoto accord is by having the kind of trucking regulations we
have: long hours for drivers, increased weight capacities, et
cetera, all of which permit the trucking industry to compete with
rail in a way it should not be allowed to, rail being the
superior environmental alternative.
Is Minister of Transport considering changes to regulations to
give the benefit of the doubt to rail so as to encourage more
rail transportation and less trucks on the highways?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have announced a blueprint exercise to develop a new
transportation policy for the next 10 years. One of the key
components of that policy will be to address the question the
hon. member has raised: Which is the appropriate mode and in
which case should it be supported by government?
The point that he raised with respect to the polluting
tendencies of one mode versus another is quite germane and is
something that we have to look at and address in our policy.
* * *
JUSTICE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Justice knows that parliament is ready right now
to protect children from stalking and pornography on the
Internet. She also knows—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary
Centre is trying to ask a question.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, may the applause
continue.
The Speaker: I appreciate the enthusiasm the Prime
Minister shows for getting to the answer, but I do not think the
right hon. member had finished the question.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister also
knows that parliament is not ready to deal with the unrelated
matters that she added to the omnibus criminal code bill.
Why does the Minister of Justice refuse to put children first?
Why does she not split the bill and let parliament act this week
to fight sexual stalking and to fight child pornography on the
Internet?
1430
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous
occasions, we on this side of the House are ready to move.
In the omnibus legislation we find a series of amendments to one
statute: the Criminal Code of Canada. Many of those proposed
amendments are not new. The opposition has had months of
opportunity to study them. We on this side of the House are
ready to move.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
if the minister is ready, let her act. What she is doing is
stalling right now. She is putting obstacles in the path of this
bill. That is why my question—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The right hon. member for
Calgary Centre's case is not furthered by moving closer to the
Chair.
Having said that, I do have to be able to hear the question. The
right hon. member might say something that is out of order. The
Chair has to be able to hear it. The right hon. member for
Calgary Centre has the floor.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is an
irresistible temptation. The Prime Minister and the government
are stalling on the bill to protect children. Instead they give
priority to a bill to increase their own pay.
I have a specific question for the Prime Minister. Will he
explain why he went beyond the Lumley recommendations and
proposes to give MPs even more money by making this pay raise
retroactive to January 1?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not want to create any problem with the conscience
of any member of parliament, including the leader of the fifth
party, who is being paid $200,000 by his party to be in the House
of Commons.
For those who will have a big problem with their conscience, it
will be very easy for them. They will have the privilege to not
accept the pay raise. It was to protect them that I have done
this, so that they can sleep well after the vote.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians need the best military
helicopter possible for patrolling the north Atlantic. Whether
hunting submarines or searching for survivors, range is critical.
DND documents state that a ship's search area is increased 25
times with a shipborne Sea King. The new reduced helicopter
specifications will drop that capability to only 15 times. Why
would the Liberals politically accept a critical patrol area only
60% of that covered by 40 year old Sea Kings?
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no requirement
for the maritime helicopter for a specific distance capability.
There is no distance that is affected by climate. It is
endurance that the armed forces have asked for.
They must be capable of remaining airborne for 2 hours and 50
minutes under normal conditions with a 30 minute fuel remain
reserve, and 2 hours and 20 minutes and a 30 minute reserve under
intense heat. That is what the specifications call for and that
is exactly what they will be delivered on.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the whirlybird procurement fiasco
seemingly never ends. The minister says that we have new EH-101
helicopters to do the job of search and rescue. They were
supposed to be delivered in January but they are not here yet.
When will we take delivery of the EH-101 search and rescue
helicopters, with full delivery?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they are on their
way to Canada.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the matter of parental leave, the federal government
is refusing to co-operate with the Government of Quebec to
implement a program really suited to the needs of young families.
Is the federal government's inexplicable obstinacy not the most
convincing proof of its belligerent, warring, strategy, which the
Bloc Quebecois revealed yesterday and which makes federal
visibility a priority over the needs of the public?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Bloc misled the House by presenting, as a
government report, a report in fact produced by an academic and
submitted to the government, committing only the author and on
which the government has taken no position.
I read it for the first time this noon. I did not find the
warring imagery especially useful. I did, however, find at least
one sentence which I agreed with and which corresponds to the
government's action. I will read it. It is not long. “Avenues
must be found that will permit intervention while minimizing
interference in provincial jurisdictions”.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the document given us had been censured in several
places, and it took us six months to get it. There must be
someone in the government who censured it. It is certainly not
the academic who censured his own work.
Given the federal government's strategy, should we expect, in
the next four years when the surpluses will vary between $70
billion and $90 billion, to have a multitude of federal programs
put in place that have no relation to Quebec's priorities and
that serve only to heighten federal government visibility?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said yesterday, the government's priority, once it
re-established a balance in its public finances, was to
consolidate transfers to the provinces.
As to the professor's report, if every report the government
received required its commitment I imagine the same is true for
political parties. In December 1999 Professor Alain Pellet
wrote the Bloc saying that in the event of secession being
negotiated the question of Quebec's borders would be on the
table. This is now the position of the Bloc.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today's newspapers say that violent
lobster wars are likely to begin next week in St. Mary's Bay. The
minister of fisheries is to blame for this pending confrontation.
He has created an expectation for a food fishery that has no
basis in law and opened the door to this dispute by refusing to
accept Department of Justice legal advice.
Why has the minister of fisheries rejected legal advice from the
justice department and moved to proceed with a fishery that can
only end in confrontation and conservation concerns?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear to members on this side
what the Marshall decision meant. It is quite clear to the
Progressive Conservative Party and quite clear to the NDP. The
only person who is not clear on what the Marshall decision is is
the hon. member. He continues to stand up and is counselling
division and confrontation.
This, we believe, is peaceful. We believe in co-operation. We
believe in sitting at the table. That is why we had 30 first
nations sign agreements last year and we have 5 agreements
already signed this year for three years. We will continue with
co-operation and resolving this peacefully. That is our goal.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will make it clear to the Liberals,
the NDP and the Conservatives. Let me quote from the justice
department's submission to the federal court. It states:
(The Department of Justice) specifically denies that the
(Shubenacadie Band), their predecessors or the Mi'kmaq Indians in
Nova Scotia fished lobster for food, social or ceremonial
purposes before or at the time of European contact in St. Mary's
Bay or at all.
In other words, the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia do not enjoy an
aboriginal right to harvest lobster for food. Why does the
minister allow this lobster food fishery when it has been so
clearly rejected by the Department of Justice?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is simply not
the case. I think that party should know by now that we should
refrain from commenting on matters that are before the courts and
let the courts determine them. I am sure the leader of the
Alliance Party should be able to counsel his members that we
should refrain from talking about things that are before the
courts.
Let me ask this of the hon. member. He has taken the time to be
in Atlantic Canada and meet with the commercial fishermen. Why
has he not sat down with the aboriginal first nations? Why is he
refusing to meet with them and hear their side? He has a
responsibility to meet with them and hear their—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Quebec.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
CANADA DAY
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again the
Bloc Quebecois has had to go through the access to information
process in order to find out the budget the federal government
will be allocating to Canada Day, and how it will be divided.
I would simply like to ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage
what the Canada Day budget will be and what amount will be
allocated to Quebec.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled that there are people all
over Quebec who want to celebrate Canada Day. More and more
requests are coming in from all over, from the lower St. Lawrence
area, from the Saguenay and so on. We are as prepared to listen
to their requests as we are to listen to all the people of
Canada.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wonder how
the minister can refuse to answer a question as simple as: What
will the regional budget be for Quebec? I cannot imagine she is
concerned about security.
Is not the concern behind the minister's refusal to respond
rather one of concealing the federal government's propaganda
operation, which has the bulk of the funding allocated to
Quebec, and the fact that the funding is increasing every year
to enhance the government's visibility?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have already been invited to the Saguenay for June 24.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Sheila Copps: I have every intention of being there—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Sheila Copps: —for the Saint-Jean-Baptiste celebrations—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We must be able to hear the
minister.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, June 21 is National Aboriginal
Day, then Saint-Jean-Baptiste is June 24, and Canada Day is July 1.
These are the feast days for the whole of Canada.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, a British citizen who had come to Canada to visit a
friend was not expecting the welcome she got. According to news
reports, Ms. Akintade was questioned for 10 hours, handcuffed and
detained by immigration officials overnight. She was also
refused access to the British consulate, all because an
immigration officer said she did not sound British. He did not
believe her British passport was genuine.
How does the minister of immigration explain the pitiful
performance of this departmental official?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make it absolutely clear that
officials in my department have been informed of the conduct that
is expected when anyone appears at our port of entry. They
should be treated with respect, with dignity, regardless of their
skin colour, the language they speak or the accent they have.
I have requested a preliminary investigation in this matter. I
can tell the member opposite that this individual was rightfully
referred to the immigration line, but we are further
investigating to determine what would be appropriate in this
situation.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, how would the minister feel if she was treated in
the same manner overseas? What
What action does the minister intend to take to ensure that this kind
of unjustified treatment is never repeated? Does the minister
intend to apologize to this British woman?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I intend to do is find out what all
the facts are and ensure that if action should be taken it will
be taken, but I can tell the member and everyone that I believe
that anyone who shows up at our ports of entry should be treated
with respect regardless of what language they speak, regardless
of what accent they have or what colour of skin they have.
If anything inappropriate was done, appropriate action will be
taken, but preliminary results do tell me that she was properly
referred to the immigration line. It is the job of our
immigration officers to ensure and satisfy themselves that people
rightly should have—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mount Royal.
* * *
[Translation]
RAOUL WALLENBERG
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In 1985, the Parliament of Canada made Raoul Wallenberg an
honourary citizen of Canada. In doing so, we wanted to
recognize the contribution of this great hero of mankind, who
risked his own life to protect and save 100,000 Hungarian Jews
from the Holocaust.
1445
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us how she intends
to make sure the legacy of Raoul Wallenberg, the inspiration
behind the struggle for human rights in our time, will be
celebrated in Canada in the future?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question because
that hon. member and hon. members on all sides of the House of
Commons and in the Senate have worked very hard to see the
recognition of Raoul Wallenberg.
I am happy to let the House know that for the first time, on
January 17 next year, we will have a national recognition of
Raoul Wallenberg day.
[Translation]
We hope to have all Canadians understand that he was an
international hero, who saved the lives of and thousands of people.
Next year, January 17 will be the first Raoul Wallenberg day in
Canada.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food heard in a
non-partisan way that prairie agriculture ministers, their lead
critics and indeed ordinary farmers say that failure to act
quickly on the crisis faced by grain and oilseed producers will
mean the loss of a key industry and one with important export
implications.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial and
territorial counterparts will be in Whitehorse at the end of this
month. My question is in the same vein. Will he and his
officials commit to be as open minded and visionary as possible
so that together a program can be developed that will save this
industry before it is too late?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that discussion has already started to
take place with all players in the agriculture and agrifood
industry and with my provincial colleagues at a meeting in March.
We will continue that in the meeting at the end of this month in
Whitehorse. It is a federal-provincial meeting and is an
integrated risk management approach in order to move the industry
beyond crisis management.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade who has
rationalized the supplemental permits to import U.S. cheese
sticks in excess of the WTO quota because of an increased demand
in Canada.
At the same time the minister says that he wants an access
agreement with the United States so Canadian cheese sticks can be
exported there. If Canadian processors have product to export,
obviously they have the supply to meet our domestic market.
Would the minister cease these silly mind games, stop issuing
these supplemental permits immediately and protect Canadian
supply management by enforcing the tariff rate quotas that were
negotiated at the WTO?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear that this issue has been
raised a number of times in the House of Commons. There has been
no change in Canadian government policy. These products have
been coming into Canada freely for over 20 years. They were not
part of the supply management side, as they are trying to say.
Indeed this product contains more bread and such than cheese.
We are negotiating with the United States to regain access. The
reclassification by the United States has created problems. I
have given the U.S. administration a few more months and by
September I will stop issuing import quotas if it has not
reopened the market.
* * *
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the residential schools, the Deputy
Prime Minister continues to place an unconscionable financial
burden on churches be engaging in a costly, lengthy process of
legal wrangling.
I remind the House that it is the government that put the
churches in this position by joining them to these legal actions.
The churches are currently spending their limited resources on
healing and reconciliation.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is his government
content to force churches into bankruptcy by prolonging this
process?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government does not want to force churches into
bankruptcy. We are not prolonging the process. We are doing
just the opposite.
We are working with the churches and eventually the victims to
try to settle the matter outside the litigation process. If the
churches are defendants in these cases, it is because the
victims, the former students, sued the churches directly in some
70% of the cases.
That is why we have to continue to work together to settle these
matters, and I invite my hon. friend to assist me in this regard.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. Many months ago the
government appointed a commission to look at shipbuilding and
bring in a national shipbuilding policy. The Saint John shipyard
has been sitting idle for over a year and 3,000 men have been out
of work.
When will the government and the minister bring in a
shipbuilding policy that makes us competitive around the world
and put our people back to work?
1450
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we received the report of the task force on shipbuilding
last month. Cabinet is now seized with the issue and we hope to
have a response very soon.
I expect we will have a new, competitive, efficient, effective
policy on shipbuilding a lot sooner than the member will get to
the Senate.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice advised the House and
all Canadians that Bill C-15 dealt only with amendments to the
criminal code. She knows that is not correct. The title of the
bill itself makes that clear.
Why will the minister not stop playing American style politics
and instead work with the opposition to protect children from
sexual predators? Why will she not split the bill?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated,
we on this side of the House are ready to move on Bill C-15 right
now.
I would ask all of you this afternoon to inform our government
House leader that you are willing to move on Bill C-15.
The Speaker: All hon. members will kindly address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are disturbed by the Liberal partisan politics
behind Bill C-15. Debates about the sexual exploitation of
children and the treatment of animals should not be lumped
together.
Why will the minister not rise above partisan politics and work
with the opposition to protect our children?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess there is one thing we
could say, and that is the official opposition is expert when it
comes to splitting or dividing.
As I have said on any number of occasions in the House, we are
ready to move on Bill C-15. Bill C-15 deals with major
amendments to the criminal code. Many of these amendments have
been before the House for months. It is unconscionable that
those people are playing petty politics with this legislation.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, ever since we started asking him questions on cheese
stick imports, the Minister for International Trade has been
telling us that the reason we have to import such volumes is to
meet domestic demand.
How can the minister make such a statement when we know that
there is an overproduction of cheese sticks in Canada and that
producers are perfectly capable of meeting domestic demand?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, allow me to clarify this issue once again. There
has been no restriction on imports and exports of breaded cheese
sticks for 20 years.
We have always refrained from imposing such controls, because
this dairy product has more bread crumbs than cheese. If we
subject this product to our supply management system, it could
create quite a problem for us, since such a measure could be
challenged by the United States. This is an irresponsible
option, in my opinion. Our approach is to reopen the U.S. market
and to go back to the situation that has existed for 20 years.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this truly takes the cake. It sounds like the minister
is not even aware that an agreement was signed by his government
in 1995. It is as if he ignores that.
The Americans, for their part, have been prohibiting access to
their market since 1999 to foreign cheese sticks and they
respect the quotas that they have agreed on, something Canada is
not doing.
How does the minister explain that he delivers discretionary
import permits to let American cheese imports in Canada, while
the Americans refuse to let Canadian cheese cross their border?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois and of the hon.
member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis are improving.
1455
The hon. member is absolutely right when she says that the
problem is due to the fact that the United States blocked
Canadian cheese imports. It is the first time the Bloc Quebecois
recognizes that the fact that the Americans stopped importing
Canadian cheese poses a problem for us.
I see the comment made by the Bloc Quebecois member as a show of
support to the Canadian policy, which seeks to reopen the
American market. I have cautioned the U.S. administration to
reopen its market, otherwise there will no longer be import
quotas for cheese as of September 1.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Alberta farmers are facing severe drought conditions
which have not been experienced since the 1930s. Livestock
cannot be pastured because of a lack of grass, and now they
cannot be pastured because the water wells and the dugouts lack
water.
The only thing drier than the water wells and the dugouts is the
funding that is available through the PFRA. The PFRA ran out of
money four days after the renewal of this year's budget.
Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food immediately
request additional funding through the PFRA for western Canadian
farmers to help them deal with these extreme drought conditions?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we recognize the very severe drought
situation in southern Alberta and other parts of western Canada.
We are certainly pleased that some rain did fall on much of that
area yesterday, and we hope that it continues.
The PFRA allocates a sum of money each year to assist in dugouts
and wells, et cetera. Yes, the applications were high for that
this year and that money has been allocated for this year.
I remind the hon. member that in the reallocation of safety nets
last year the province of Alberta received an additional $34
million and then $126 million this week as its part of the $500
million to assist in that.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, an overnight rain will not fill most of the dugouts that
are parched and dry. In regard to water supply for livestock,
PFRA supports community or group projects, but individual farmer
and rancher projects will only be considered depending on the
availability of funds.
This is cold comfort to people like Dale Fagin of Hardisty and
Dale Bousquet of Consort who have repeatedly been denied
assistance to drill water wells for their livestock. I ask the
minister of livestock if he will immediately request additional
assistance for the PFRA and ensure the funding goes to farmers—
The Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that I am
minister of more than livestock. I will inform him again that
the PFRA does have its budget. It will allocate it to the best
of its ability for the number of areas that have requested a
desire for support.
I also remind the hon. member that since March 2000 the province
of Alberta has received $160 million more in two additional
contributions above and beyond its regular contributions to
safety net or companion programs that can be directed as it
wishes.
* * *
[Translation]
TAX ADMINISTRATIONS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Revenue opened
the first world conference on tax administrations in an
electronic world.
Would the minister elaborate on the goals of this very important
conference?
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 thank the hon. member for her
excellent question.
I am proud to report to the House that Canada has shown
leadership in this area. It is now hosting the first conference
of tax administrations from 103 countries, a conference which
will deal with the impact of the electronic world on the tax
sector.
Over 250 delegates have gathered in Montreal. The goal is to
improve co-operation, to ensure protection of the tax base, and
to better serve all taxpayers.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have just received a
document under access to information that shows the government
knew about financial irregularities at Manitoba's Sagkeeng
Solvent Abuse Treatment Centre six years ago.
A 1995 Health Canada audit found over $47,000 in unsupported
expenditures by the centre, which even included a $25,000 claim
to lease a vehicle.
1500
In spite of these obvious irregularities in the audit, the
health minister's department continued to support and even
increased funding for the centre for six more years. Why?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
steps were taken after that information came to light.
I would like the member to know that when it became clear last
fall that money was being used to fund cruises, for example, we
shut the funding down. We stopped transferring money. We sent
in the auditors. When the centre did not co-operate, we went to
court and insisted that every document was to be protected. We
will make sure that every nickel of public funding is accounted
for to the public.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it still took six years.
When someone pushes on a door and there is no resistance, they
keep pushing.
Health Canada's resistance was so insignificant that the
treatment centre's directors pushed their way right into trips to
Las Vegas, New Zealand, Hawaii and the now famous Caribbean
cruise that so embarrassed this Liberal government.
Why was there no resistance to these obvious Health Canada
policy violations for six years?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is absolutely wrong. The record shows that Health
Canada responded to each one of those audits. In the final
analysis, when we were not satisfied that public funds were being
properly used, we shut the centre down. That is exactly the kind
of response Canadians want to see from a responsible government.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
recently, members of the Canadian association of shipyard owners
and the union coalition met with either the Minister of Industry
or Liberal members to discuss the report by the committee set up
by the minister on October 20 of last year. The Minister of
Industry has just told us that this report has been submitted to
cabinet.
Will the minister agree today to release his policy to the
public before the end of the session?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of all members on this side of the House, I
want to thank the member for acknowledging the hard work that
each and every one of the regional caucuses on this side of the
House are doing in meeting shipyard workers, meeting private
sector players and working hard to build a competitive
shipbuilding policy for Canada.
One of the great frustrations being on this side of the House is
that the hard work being done by members on these benches is not
always acknowledged. I thank the member for that acknowledgement
today.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of members of the Parliamentary
Service Commission for the National Assembly of Kenya, led by the
Hon. Peter Oloo Aringo.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to
withdraw the order passed on Monday, June 4 pursuant to Standing
Order 56(1) by the hon. government House leader forcing a fast
track and all stage guillotine on Bill C-28.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[Translation]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved that Bill C-28, an act to amend the
Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, be read the second time and
referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to
Bill C-28, which I had the honour to introduce yesterday.
As members of parliament, we have a responsibility for fairness
and accountability in all of our work in this House as
representatives of Canadian taxpayers. This is particularly true
for the matter of parliamentary compensation.
The Parliament of Canada Act requires that an independent
commission be set up after each election to review the allowances
of parliamentarians. A commission, chaired this time by the hon.
Ed Lumley, was appointed on January 12 of this year. The Lumley
commission's report was tabled last Tuesday, May 29, in the
House.
The Lumley commission concluded that the current compensation
for parliamentarians needed to be made more transparent and
brought into line with compensation for other similar
professions.
The commission remarked:
Parliamentarians' salaries are important, not just to the
members of parliament themselves, but to all citizens; certainly,
how we compensate members of parliament can influence the ability
to attract good candidates.
The bill before us today is straightforward. It implements the
Lumley commission's recommendations.
[English]
Let me outline the key provisions of the bill. First, the
current tax free allowance is eliminated. Many people had asked
for that. It is to be converted into a taxable amount and added
to the base salary of parliamentarians. This will increase the
transparency in parliamentary compensation.
Second, the base salary of members is to be increased by 20%.
Third, a new allowance is provided for committee chairs and
vice-chairs. This recognizes the valuable contribution and the
responsibilities of such workloads. It also builds on the
commitment the government made in the throne speech to increase
Library of Parliament research and support parliamentary
committees. Together these measures will strengthen our
committee system as part of our ongoing work on parliamentary
reform.
Fourth, parliamentary compensation would be based from here on
in on the compensation of the supreme court chief justice. This
is not a new idea. Officers of parliament, such as the
information commissioner and the chief electoral officer, already
receive the same compensation as a federal court judge, so the
precedent is there for officers of the House. What we are
proposing here is to do the same for parliamentarians.
Under Bill C-28, the prime minister would receive the same
compensation as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, not one
dollar more but the same compensation. Most Canadians probably
believe that was already the case. Ministers would receive 74%
of the salary of the chief justice; parliamentary secretaries,
55%; and members of the House, 50%. Senators would receive 50%
of the salary of the chief justice, minus $25,000, which is the
difference between the current tax free allowance between the
House and the senate.
This would restore parliamentary compensation closer to the
levels we used to have. For example, members may be interested
to note that in 1963, when the Deputy Prime Minister was first
elected to parliament, or thereabouts, a member of the House of
Commons earned at the time 12% more than a federal court judge.
Today a member earns 54% less than the same judge.
1510
Even if the bill were to pass, which I hope it will, a member
would still earn 36% less than a judge when the same person would
have earned more a few decades ago.
In 1980 the prime minister earned 28% more than the chief
justice of the supreme court. Today, as we speak, the Prime
Minister earns 42% less than the chief justice. Under the bill
the Prime Minister would earn the same salary, not more but the
same.
In the future, changes to the compensation of the chief justice
would be applied to parliamentarians. This means that the
current political process for parliamentary compensation will
end. Under Bill C-28 parliamentary compensation would apply to
results of the completely independent and non-partisan process
established for judicial compensation. If it is any consolation,
if we adopt the bill hopefully we will not have to go through
this exercise again.
Members will not have to be placed in the sometimes difficult
position, and I acknowledge that it is for some, of having to
decide their own compensation level. It makes parliamentary
compensation more accountable to Canadian taxpayers because from
here on in it will be strictly based on this independent
commission that also acts for the judiciary.
The Lumley commission recommended that parliamentary pensions be
adjusted to limit the cost impact of higher compensation levels I
have just outlined. To this end, Bill C-28 reduces the accrual
rate from 4% to 3% for members of the House. It would remain the
same for members of the Senate. They are already at 3%. This is
a 25% reduction in the accrual rate which would reduce the
pension costs that would have resulted from the higher
parliamentary compensation. At the same time, it is to be noted
that the premiums of members of parliament to the compensation,
and this was not raised yesterday by the so-called taxpayers
foundation, would be increased by $2,900 a year. This makes the
plan more sound. I think everyone who is an objective observer
will recognize that.
The lower accrual would mean that the number of years to
accumulate a pension equal to 75% compensation, in other words
the maximum pension, would now be 25 years. Surely no one can
claim that it is the wrong approach. That is the correct
approach. Only 5 out of 301 members sitting in the House today
have 25 years of service. The average tenure in the House, for
the information of Canadians, is about eight years. When I was
re-elected as a government member in 1993, it had dropped down at
that point to some six years.
Most people are not here for a very long time and certainly
would not collect that full pension that it was alleged yesterday
we would. In addition, the number of years for a member's
pension would be made the same as it is in the public service.
The bill would also extend the current disability allowance,
which is available to members up to age 65 right now, to age 75
or the date of the next election. Again, this is keeping in
conformity with what is done in the Judge's Act. Although this
provision is not specifically mentioned in the Lumley commission
report, it is based on representations made by parliamentarians.
Bill C-28 would also adjust the designation of Parliament Hill
by moving the boundary from Bank Street to Kent Street to take
account of recent changes and for the new justice building which
will now form part of the parliamentary precinct.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I would like to thank all the members of the
commission for their work: the commission chair, the hon. Ed
Lumley, and the other members of the commission, the hon. Jake
Epp and Dr. Huguette Labelle.
The commission's work reflects their consultations with all
parties, with outside experts in the area of compensation, and
with other interested Canadians.
I also wish to thank all members of the House for their approach
to this very important issue.
1515
The support of members on both sides of this House for the
recommendations of the Lumley commission is evidence that the
commission's recommendations are reasonable.
The praise of many commentators from the private sector and many
members on both sides of the House also indicates the fairness of
the bill before us today.
The broad support of Canadians for the Lumley report shows
that the provisions of this bill are fair. I would therefore
invite all members to support this bill.
I hope that all members will sign the form in order to be part
of this bill and adhere to it.
[English]
Finally, should some members not wish to vote for the bill, I
still hope they will adhere to the bill and sign up for the
benefits. I sincerely believe that all members of parliament are
equally worthy of the high task asked of us all, and I hope they
will not only support the bill but adhere to the clause of being
part of it.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance has repeatedly
called for an independent commission to make recommendations
regarding MPs' salaries. It is entrenched Canadian Alliance
Party policy that the issue and process of MP salaries be
transparent. The commission's work has been transparent. I
commend the commissioners for their contributions to the issue.
I also commend them for making sure that in the future the Prime
Minister will not appoint any more commissions to look at pay, it
will be done by the people who look at the judges' salaries,
which is independent. They are appointed by the judges plus
judicial counsel, both sides agreeing on an independent
chairperson. That is a good recommendation and I commend the
commission for that.
The Canadian Alliance is pleased that the commission recommended
a reduction in the accrual and contributions rate in the Members
of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
The Canadian Alliance has also promoted the concept that MPs'
pensions should be more in line with the private sector. The
commission has concurred and we thank them for that
acknowledgement.
I know the day we got the report from the commission as house
leaders, it was recommending a 2.5% accrual rate. The government
had seen to make it 3%. I wish it would have stayed with the
2.5% because that was more acceptable and much closer to the
public sector.
An hon. member: And the private sector.
Mr. John Reynolds: And the private sector also.
The issue of MPs' salaries has always been a contentious one.
Accordingly, the Canadian Alliance will treat each vote on the
bill as a free vote for our members.
The member over there can smile and laugh but that is what the
House is all about; it is about integrity and making one's
position and one's point with a free vote.
If members of that party over there want to talk about
integrity, I would ask them to talk about the minister for
multiculturalism and her integrity about flags burning in Prince
George. If they want to about integrity, we will talk about
that. If they want to talk about integrity, let us talk about
Bill C-15 and how they will not split a bill that is very
important for all Canadians. We are prepared to do that.
The government also did one thing that was not put in the report
by the commission. The commission recommended that it be
retroactive to April 1. The government wants it to be January 1.
That is greedy and not acceptable. It should be April 1, which
is our fiscal year. That would have been fine with members on
this side.
It has also been the policy of the Canadian Alliance that our
constituents have their say on the issue of MPs' salary
increases. Accordingly, we will move at the report stage that
the increase, if passed, come into force after the next general
election. This fulfils our policy that voters be involved in the
issue.
There is a strange twist in Bill C-28, and it is something that
I think should be talked about. I have checked for precedent,
including with the crucible of our parliamentary system
Westminster. I can find no precedent. Bill C-28 calls for an
opting in, in order to receive a salary increase. I have heard
of opting out, which of course we saw in the issue of MP
pensions. However Bill C-28 has an implied threat that if anyone
does not sign on in 90 days, then one does not receive the salary
increase.
The Prime Minister's threat of a week ago has come home to
roost. It is intimidation, which I find unparliamentary. The
government, obviously as instructed by the Prime Minister, is
entertaining the notion of two classes of MPs. Rather than take
the recorded vote as final determination on the bill, and
consequently salary increases, the government is holding MPs
hostage to another step in the process: sign a document within 90
days of passage of this bill indicating they are opting in or
they will receive less than other colleagues.
Even the House leader said that is unacceptable. Nobody in the
House should be earning any different from anybody else, yet it
is in the bill.
1520
Is this not a form of double jeopardy? It certainly is stealthy
politics in an already sensitive and contentious issue. Why
would the government want to add further dimension to the issue
other than to embarrass certain MPs from certain parties?
Passage of a bill on third reading in our parliamentary system is
final determination. Does the government have the constitutional
right to alter this entrenched process? That is a very good
question.
The new way of determining the outcome of articles in
legislation may even contravene pay equity. Does the government
have the right to establish two classes of MPs? I may not be
stretching the point by saying that this opting in initiative may
be an affront to parliament itself.
Section 31 of the charter of rights and freedoms states that
nothing in the charter extends the legislative powers of any body
or authority. Is the government overextending its legislative
powers by the addition of this fourth step, the new opting in
requirements in Bill C-28?
The nuances of opting out of something as opposed to being
forced to opt into something that the majority of parliament may
pass is not subtle. It is a dynamic and dramatic departure from
legislative precedent and nothing but intimidation and mendacity
on the part of the government.
There is an implied threat in Bill C-28 that has no place in our
parliament. Politics may ensue during debate on a bill, but I do
not believe that a political manipulation should be encapsulated
in a bill and then foisted on MPs after passage of a bill. It is
a mockery of our process and diminishes the significance of the
three stages of the passing of legislation. Why have debate? We
could anonymously sign on to any initiative and that would
determine the outcome. Has the government become that arrogant?
In view of that clause of the bill, I move:
“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-28, an act
to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, since the principle
of the bill contravenes the spirit of pay equity by establishing
a two tier pay scheme for Members of Parliament.”
The Speaker: The Chair finds the amendment to be in
order.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is always a bit awkward to speak to a bill like Bill
C-28, since it is a matter of parliamentarians addressing the
remuneration of members of the House.
Given that there are nevertheless certain unavoidable things
that have to be dealt with, certain obligations connected to the
position of member of parliament, I believe that we must, as
democratically elected representatives of the people, get
directly to the subject of concern to us, that is the
remuneration of the 301 members of this House.
Given the sensitive nature of the situation, the government
decided to seek advice on this matter from an independent
committee headed by Mr. Lumley.
1525
We in the Bloc Quebecois are of the opinion that Mr. Lumley and
the other two members of his committee have carried out a
serious, detailed and well researched study of the situation.
I need to offer what I believe is an appropriate reminder that
the members of parliament on both sides of this Chamber,
including the government members, did not participate in the
Lumley Commission. It is what is termed an independent
commission. I have no intention of resorting to innuendo
attacking the credibility of Mr. Lumley or the other two members
of the commission.
Speaking for the Bloc Quebecois, I believe we have been involved
in a clear and transparent process.
In the few minutes I have, I would like to look at the
commission's recommendations. The first outstanding one builds
up the salary structure, no more, no less. We have to ask
ourselves whether it is proper, acceptable and realistic for the
Prime Minister of Canada to be earning a salary equivalent to
that of the highest official he appoints.
I worked in human resources for 16 years before becoming a
member of parliament. I worked in pay policy for a paper
company called Abitibi Price. I worked with these concepts. We
wondered whether a company president should earn as much or less
than persons reporting to him. I think the question is
perfectly legitimate.
Mr. Lumley's first recommendation is that the Prime Minister of
Canada should earn a salary equivalent to that of the highest
official he himself appoints. That highest official is the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On that premise, with the first level of the pyramid
established, we move to the second level. Is it proper and
realistic for a minister to earn at least as much or slightly
more than his deputy minister? The existing structure allows a
deputy minister to earn more than his minister. This is a
monumental aberration. It is therefore proper and realistic for
ministers to earn as much as their deputies.
Moving on to the third level of the salary structure, members'
salary must be proportionate to what a minister and the Prime
Minister earn.
At this point, I must say that members' salaries provide a good
opportunity to engage in demagoguery. They provide a good
opportunity to behave like hypocrites.
Quebecers are paying $32 billion in taxes to Ottawa. They are
fully justified in electing members who will look after Quebec's
interests. Therefore, as long as Quebecers will be paying taxes
to Ottawa, we Bloc Quebecois members will not engage in
demagoguery or behave like hypocrites on the issue of members'
salaries.
We agree with the provision of the bill which provides that
members who agree with the salary increase sign a form to that
effect.
1530
If, for some reason, an hon. member feels, based on his deep
beliefs, that this salary increase is unjustified, he or she
will be free not to sign the form authorizing his salary
increase. Contrary to what we heard before, the Bloc Quebecois
supports the principle of signing a form to get the salary
increase.
Earlier, I said it was too easy to engage in demagoguery. Some
could say, as we have heard on other occasions, that this does
not make sense, it is much too much.
However we could receive the salary increase in secret or through
internal correspondence and publicly condemn it and say that MPs
are paid too much and that it does not make sense, but still
pocket that increase. This is to act like hypocrites.
Another attitude consists in watching the train go by, in doing
nothing and say “No, this issue is too sensitive. We do not have
to shoulder the political weight of this decision”. We can then
watch the train go by and pocket the salary increase. This is
another example of demagoguery and hypocrisy.
As parliamentarians, we must have the courage of making
decisions, defending them and facing public opinion. If some
lobbies or groups are not pleased with our decision, they will
let us know. Every day, parliamentarians receive an enormous
amount of e-mails and letters. In a democracy, people have the
right to tell us whether they agree or not with our decisions.
However, we must have the courage to defend our decisions and to
face public opinion, even if it may sometimes be harsh in its
judgments.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I say that this bill does not
have to be reviewed behind closed doors, in a hurry, at three in
the morning.
As for the approach adopted by the government House leader, I do
not normally make a practice of congratulating him, but I think
that, in a democracy, when the members opposite do something that
we feel is right and acceptable, we should say so. We should not
criticize the government just for the pleasure of it. The approach
developed by the government House leader for
the introduction of this bill has been transparent.
Notice was given last Friday, June 1. The bill was introduced
yesterday and, today, Tuesday, June 5, we are debating the bill
at second reading. Tomorrow will be third reading debate,
followed by a vote on Thursday.
In closing, given that this bill includes provisions to
eliminate the tax free allowance, which is what the public
wanted, and a reduction in pension benefits, and that overall
remuneration will now be more equitable and consistent with
market trends, we in the Bloc Quebecois support the bill at
second reading.
[English]
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
As we are debating Bill C-28 at second reading, I have the
Standing Orders of the House of Commons here. Chapter II,
Standing Order 21 reads:
No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or
she has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member
so interested will be disallowed.
It seems to me, based on the standing orders and Bill C-28 which
we are debating, that there is a clear conflict. Could the
Speaker please rule on this?
1535
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order to point out that
in the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons,
Standing Order 21 reads:
When a Member has a direct pecuniary interest in a question being
decided in the House, the Member may not vote. For a Member to
be disqualified from voting, the monetary interest must be direct
and personal.
Let me anticipate an objection which the Chair may raise to this
point. It goes on to say:
As such, measures with a wide application, such as matters of
public policy, are not generally considered in this light. Even
voting a pay increase to Members themselves does not amount to a
case of direct monetary interest, because it applies to all
Members, rather than to just one, or to certain Members but not
to others.
I will anticipate an objection the Speaker may raise to my
colleague's point of order by pointing out that in the bill
before us the pay increase does not apply to all members and it
does not apply to all rather than to just one.
For instance, I point to the section of the bill that would
require members to “opt in to the pay increase proposed
therein” which would, by its nature, not apply to all members
equally. It would have an unequal application.
I further point to the section that proposes an increase in
indemnity for the right hon. Prime Minister of 42%, which is
substantially greater than the increase proposed for members of
parliament. There is therefore at least one or perhaps several
members who would, if the bill were passed, exercise the opt in
clause and obtain a direct pecuniary benefit exclusive to
themselves, not as a matter of public policy generally applicable
to all members of the House but to themselves solely.
I therefore submit to the Chair that the bill before us is in
violation of the standing orders.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. members for their
comments. The hon. member for Calgary Southeast certainly did
find the relevant paragraph in the annotated standing orders, to
which I am sure he knew the Chair would refer in dealing with the
point of order raised by his colleague. I congratulate him for
finding it so quickly and pointing it out to me. I find it very
helpful and quite instructive in dealing with the situation we
are faced with in the House this afternoon.
Perhaps the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam, hearing the whole paragraph, will realize the position
he got himself into by raising the point of order.
It states:
When a Member has a direct pecuniary interest in a question being
decided in the House, the Member may not vote. For a Member to
be disqualified from voting, the monetary interest must be direct
and personal. As such, measures with a wide application, such as
matters of public policy, are not generally considered in this
light. Even voting a pay increase to Members themselves does not
amount to a case of direct monetary interest, because it applies
to all Members, rather than to just one, or to certain Members
but not to others.
In this case, as I understand it, the bill provides for an
increase of a specified amount that applies to all hon. members.
There are differences between certain members who hold different
offices in the House, such as the Speaker, ministers of the
crown, parliamentary secretaries, whips, House leaders and so on.
They all have different salary adjustments. However the increase
is a general one applied across the board with some minor
adjustments within those divisions.
I know the hon. member for Calgary Southeast has suggested that
only members who opt in get it but the fact is that the opting in
provision is available to all hon. members. It is a matter of
general application.
Certainly after the expiry of the time for opting in has passed
there may be differences in the rates of pay of various members.
However the fact is that the rates are established for all
members, should they choose to opt in, and every MP has the right
to opt in under the bill as I understand it. I have not been
able to see anything in the bill before us that would restrict
that right.
I must therefore conclude that while the argument may be
academically interesting, it is without merit. I do not believe
that Standing Order 21, based on the interpretation and the
application of the rule since its inception almost 100 years ago,
has any formal validity in dealing with this bill. I am unable
to find that the hon. members between them have raised a valid
point.
1540
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I begin by saying as one who has been in this place for 22 years
and has gone through a number of processes by which we increased
our compensation, that the process we have embarked on today is
much superior to ones I have experienced in the past.
I say that with regard to the controversy that exists to some
extent about what has been called fast tracking of the
legislation. It is only fast tracking in the sense that there is
a House order, but the fact of the matter is that this process or
debate is taking about four or five days longer than any similar
process.
The House and parliamentarians have been criticized in the past
because it has been done in an hour. It has been done on the
last day before a break. Everything has been done by unanimous
consent and there has not necessarily been debate. Things are
done on division. There has been a number of different ways in
which this has been done in the past.
What we have here, with notice being given on a Friday, the bill
introduced on a Monday, second reading debate on Tuesday,
committee of the whole on Wednesday and third reading and final
vote on Thursday, is certainly a much more prolonged process than
has usually been the case. It does give Canadians time to get in
touch with their MPs and give them their opinions before dealing
with a fait accompli.
The circumstances of this package deserve to be reflected upon.
Although it is ostensibly a response to the report of a
commission created by statute after every election, there is no
question that the impetus and momentum for this pay package come
out of discussions within the Liberal caucus and a feeling within
that party that it is time for a raise and time for so-called
bold action on this file.
The commission made its report, but many commissions have made
reports in the past which have not been acted upon. The
government decided to act on this report. There is much in the
report that the NDP finds commendable. There are things in it
that we have asked for over the years. I am thinking first of
all of the demand for transparency and that the tax free
allowance be converted to taxable income so that there is no
illusion as to what members are making. That is a good
recommendation of the commission. It is something we support and
which is part of the bill.
If the bill is passed we will never need to go through this
again. The determination of members' salaries will happen
pursuant to a process that will not happen in the House of
Commons. That in itself is good. I think every member of
parliament going through this experience will, just at the
existential level, be glad to know it is not something any member
will have to go through again.
We support these things, but we do have a problem with the
extent of the raise proposed, the 20% raise. We feel, and we
have said so publicly, that a 10% raise would have been more in
order and that various indicators could have been used to justify
a 10% raise. We find the 20% raise a bit too rich for our
understanding of what was needed, so we will be moving an
amendment to reduce the 20% raise to a 10% raise.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I see I have members' attention in any
event. Members should feel free to vote for that amendment and
we hope they will because we think it would make the package more
acceptable to the Canadian public.
As has been mentioned already, we do not like what I would call
the excessive retroactivity of the bill, the fact that it goes
all the way back to January 1. Maybe I am a bit naive. I
assumed we would start getting paid the new rate after we passed
the bill. I could see how April 1 could be justified in terms of
the fiscal year, but going back to January 1 we find somewhat
unacceptable.
Another thing a lot of us do not like, and I hope it is not just
within the New Democratic caucus, is that we find ourselves
uncomfortable, as do a lot of Canadians, with some of the
arguments offered in favour of the bill, for example, that we
have to pay a certain amount of money to get good people into
parliament.
1545
There are a lot of good people out there who have run for
parliament over the years, who are in this parliament now and who
will be in future parliaments and who will be attracted to
political life and attracted to parliament because of things that
they believe, because of changes that they want to see made. They
will not be reckoning on the salary.
If we ever arrive at the day when people are reckoning on the
salary as to whether or not they should go into politics, then I
think we will have arrived at a particularly sad day. This is an
argument that comes more out of the corporate world than anything
else, where there may be a lot of people who do have to take a
so-called cut in salary in order to become a member of
parliament, but for a great many Canadians this is not so and
there are a great many Canadians out there that we would do well
to attract to political life.
We can attract them by making sure that what happens in this
place is more meaningful than it is today. The greatest reason
people would have for not going into politics today is to ask
themselves the question, what kind of influence can I have as a
member of parliament? That is the question that we should be
asking and answering instead of the compensation one.
Finally, with respect to something that has been raised by the
Alliance, and as I say we will support their motion, I find that
the opting in clause in the bill is particularly offensive
because it really is a form of intimidation. I think the
Alliance House leader used that word. It is a form of
intimidation on the part of the Prime Minister. It is basically
trying to put us in a position where politically we will be
vulnerable if we both express our opinion on what we think is
proper and vote accordingly. We are to be put in the position
where we will be called hypocrites, we will be called
inconsistent et cetera.
We in the NDP say we will not be intimidated on the principle of
free speech in the House of Commons. We will say what we think
about this particular bill, we will vote as we please and we will
vote against this package, and we will abide by a principle that
we have always upheld in the past and uphold this day, and that
is that all members of parliament should be paid the same, that
there should not be any differential rate, that there should not
be a two tier system for MPs any more than there should be in any
other sector.
We say to the Prime Minister that if he was really interested,
as I thought he was for a while, in uplifting and enriching or
enhancing the image of parliamentarians in Canadian society, he
should have had the courage of his own convictions instead of
introducing an element into this legislation that can only create
a situation in which people will come to think less of
parliamentarians rather than more.
I say to the member from the Bloc who was concerned about
demagoguery and so on that I think this so far has been handled
with a minimum of demagoguery. We do not intend to be demagogic
about it and I have not heard anyone else being that way yet. I
hope we can all keep our tone down on this. I hope we can deal
with this civilly.
Finally I just want to say that we will vote against the bill,
unless of course our amendment is accepted, but we also as a
caucus have taken a decision, because we believe in equal pay for
work of equal value, that we will be opting in. We will not
suffer a situation in which some members of parliament are paid
less than other members of parliament.
I encourage members to vote for the Alliance amendment because
in effect it would teach the government a lesson for having put
this particular element into the bill. I do not expect it to
pass.
I would also encourage members to consider our amendment because
we think it might make this package, which has some very good
elements within it, more acceptable in the eyes of many
Canadians.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
deeply troubled by the idea that this parliament would be allowed
to vote itself a raise.
Because of some health problems this past week, I was back home
in my riding. Even so, I was in my constituency office each day
for a number of hours. There was an editorial in the local paper
in which the editor stated that all citizens should get in touch
with their MP if they did not agree with this raise. We have
been swamped, absolutely swamped, with calls. The phones are
jammed with calls and there are letters coming in.
The calls and letters are not just for Elsie. They are for every
member in the House of Commons, for every person. They are
saying the same thing.
1550
When we ran to become members of parliament we knew exactly what
we would be paid. We knew that we had to have two residences,
one at home for the family and one here. There is an image being
portrayed out there. Everyone thinks that when we get to the
Hill we become very wealthy. I think the take home pay after
taxes is probably around $48,000 unless a member is on the
government side and is a minister or a parliamentary secretary.
It is not very much, but nevertheless we knew that. All of us
knew that when we came to parliament.
We talk about a democratic parliament. When the government says
“If you do not vote our way, you are out. You have to do it our
way”, how can we call it a democratic parliament?
I made some calls today to find out if this had ever taken place
in the House of Commons, if any government had said this to
anyone on its side as well as on the opposition side. I was told
by members who had been here before that no, this has never, ever
been done. Nothing like this has ever been put forth.
I believe in my heart and soul that the salaries have to be
reviewed and that there should be an independent commission. When
I say an independent commission I mean that the House leaders
should all sit down and choose who should form the commission,
not the government but the House leaders. Whatever is brought
forward should be binding. We just do not put our elected people
in that position. We just do not do it.
I look at the issues, particularly back home in the maritime
provinces, that we should be dealing with. I dealt with one
today, asking for a national shipbuilding policy. I look up to
the gallery and I see the faces of men, many men whose families
are on welfare now. A lot of them have no alternative whatsoever
and they are hurting.
I look at the child pornography situation. I do not believe
there is a member in the House who wants child pornography in
Canada but we are not dealing with it in the right manner. We
cannot compare children with animals. We cannot do that. I do
not know what has happened to us. I really and truly do not
know.
There are so many issues we need to deal with. I see the poor.
I see young people on the street begging. For some reason the
family unit is becoming weaker, not stronger. We have to do
something about it. We have to bring in some policies to help
the family unit become stronger.
I really was shocked when I heard that if we vote against the
bill then we will have a two tier system in the House of Commons.
I do not think we would find that anywhere around the world. I
do not think we would find that in any parliament around the
world.
It tugs at my heart. I have respect for my colleagues on the
government side. I have respect for the leader of the
government. I do, but am telling the House this: it is pretty
hard to stand here and say “Yes, Elsie is worth more than you
are paying her”. That is not how people see it, particularly
those who are poor and hungry and do not have any money in the
bank. I have to say that. There is no way that those people
feel we are worth more.
The image out there is that the only thing we do is question
period. Nobody knows that when we work on committees we are here
night and day, from the morning until usually 10 or 11 at night.
If we are in our ridings it is for seven days a week.
We know that and we understood that when we came up here.
1555
I will tell members about pay. When I got elected as a
councillor in Saint John, New Brunswick I got a cheque at the end
of the month. I went to the clerk and asked what it was. I said
that nobody could buy me. I was told that I got paid for doing
that work. I think it was $9,000 a year. I never knew that
before then.
We do not come here because we are looking for a cheque. What
we come here for is to see what we can bring forth to help build
this country and to provide a better quality of life for all of
our citizens. That is what we are here for. That is what we
want to do. Will we do more if are able to put more in the bank
each week? Will we bring forth better policies that way? Will
the government bring forth better policies that way?
If there is to be a review, that review should be done and we
should be voting on it for all those who will be running as
parliamentarians for the next parliament. It should be their
salary, because when we ran every one of us knew exactly what our
salary would be. All members on the government side and all
members over here knew what our salaries would be.
I am really worried. Our responsibility to Canadian people is
to do what is best for them. That is what we are here for. I
know that a lot of my colleagues ran for that reason and got
elected because they wanted to do what was best for the people.
When Canadians elected us, as they did last November, they did
so with the belief and understanding that we would not abuse
their trust. I believe that right now this is abusing their
trust.
On behalf of all 301 of us in the House, whether on the
government side or on the opposition side, I have to say I do not
believe that this should be brought before the House and that we
should be forced to vote on a raise to increase our salaries.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
this opportunity to speak on the bill I would like to split my
remarks into two parts, the first part with respect to actual
compensation and the second part with respect to the role and
responsibilities of a member of parliament.
I will not spend a lot of time trying to compare apples to
oranges to grapefruit. Am I worth more or less than a nurse or a
teacher or a doctor? It is something of a hopeless case trying
to compare the role and responsibilities of an MP with those of
other professions. One can spend endless amounts of time saying
that others are worth more than an MP or worth less or are more
or less deserving. We live in a bit of a bizarre society when
the entire budget of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team would
more than pay for all 301 MPs.
I was elected four years ago. It was a little like getting
married. I really did not realize what I was getting into. I
practised law for 22 years and enjoyed it. I was successful
enough to keep my family certainly at a scale of compensation
quite a bit in excess of what I earn as a member of parliament. I
did realize that as a member of parliament I would earn less than
I did as a lawyer, but what I did not realize was that I would
actually end up working harder.
I am continuously amazed at how critical the public is of our
role while knowing little or nothing about what we actually do.
It is almost an industry. To be fair, when I was elected I too
did not know what was expected of me so I have sympathy for some
who criticize our role because they only see our public role.
If I may take this opportunity, I would like to try to explain
to Canadians what I do as an MP. I am sure others can in a
similar fashion explain what they do as members of parliament. As
I see it this is really three jobs in one. We have our work in
our constituency, we have our work in Ottawa and we have our
international work.
Last Thursday evening, for instance, I flew home. I dodged in
on the Blue Jays game as a guest of Mr. Rogers and Mr. Godfrey
and then left a bit early. No doubt they wanted to tell me about
the declining fortunes of the Toronto Blue Jays baseball club. I
slipped out early, went home and reintroduced myself to my kids.
I said “Hi kids, I'm your dad. Remember me?”
1600
Friday morning I was out at the constituency office and saw six
rather unhappy constituents. Pretty well all had been turned
down by the government for something. Each had a legitimate
point to make, and in each instance I could say what I could or
could not do for them.
I am quite proud of my constituency office. I would stack it up
against any constituency office in the country. We speak eight
languages and within our budgetary limitations provide a first
class service.
The issues I dealt with that morning were in the range of a
denial of a visitor's visa, why their relatives did not get so
many points on the immigration scale and a deportation much like
the one that has been in the papers recently.
It is not a lot of fun as a politician to have to say no.
However we do have an opportunity from time to time to deal with
situations which clearly are unfair and offend one's sense of
fairness.
The following day, Saturday morning, I then went to four events
in the riding. The first was in Highland Creek, which is one of
the most degraded watersheds in all of the Great Lakes area. This
was the fourth annual cleanup sponsored by me. Once we got that
started, I ran off to do a parade in the Guildwood area of my
riding. I frankly do not like doing parades but it is expected
of us. One of the benefits however of a parade is that at the
end we get to talk to people and they share with us whatever
concerns they have.
I then left the parade, came back and did the Highland Creek
cleanup with my volunteers, did a television interview, thanked
the volunteers and then ran off to another event. The other
event was at the Beare Road landfill site. With my colleague
from Scarborough—Rouge River and my colleague from Scarborough
Centre, we presented a cheque to the Friends of the Rouge River
and the Rouge Alliance. They are involved in cleaning up the
Beare Road landfill site, which is a colossal eyesore in the
eastern part of Toronto. These folks are doing absolutely
fabulous work.
From there I went home, said hello to my kids again, got dressed
and went to downtown Toronto. The University of Toronto at
Scarborough was having a reunion for the class of '71 and '76 and
had asked me to be the guest speaker. The principal, Paul
Thompson, was quite complimentary toward the federal government
and its initiatives in the area of millennium scholarships and
CFI, the Canada Foundation for Innovation. The university,
particularly the university at Scarborough, has been a
significant beneficiary of both of those initiatives.
I took the opportunity to lobby him with respect to the
university's involvement in the community, particularly with
respect to the degraded watershed of the Highland Creek which flows
right through the university campus and the Morningside landfill
site which sits right opposite the campus.
The second part of the job is what we do in Ottawa. Last week
I spent a very productive evening with my colleagues on the
justice committee arguing about Bill C-24, the anti-gang bill.
This is a bill that enjoys large support among all colleagues in
the House. We had a pretty animated discussion for four hours on
Tuesday night with some rather bizarre happenings, at least
bizarre according to this place, where government members were
not supporting government amendments and opposition members were
supporting government amendments.
Similarly, we had other initiatives where opposition amendments
were being supported by government members and being voted
against by other opposition members. I think at the end of the
day after a vigorous debate, we had a better bill coming out of
the committee than we had going in.
I like other members want to make sure that the police have the
tools to do the job. The Canadian public also needs to know that
we spend a great deal of time with lobbyists. These are people
with a particular point of view, some are paid, some are not
paid. I frankly like interacting with lobbyists because they
fill up my informational void. I wonder sometimes however why if
we are so marginal, such voting machines, so irrelevant, so
useless or one can name the pejorative adjective applied to us by
the press, these lobbyists spend so much time, effort and money
on us trying to persuade us to their point of view.
The third part of the job is the international part. It is
frankly not one that I appreciated when I was in the private
sector.
I thought parliamentary junkets were what the newspapers
described them as, wonderful pool side parties with beautiful
women and drinks. However, the reality is somewhat different.
1605
I have been to China, Mongolia and Israel this year. I expect I
will be leading a delegation to Taiwan in the summer. Strangely
enough, when other countries' taxpayers are paying the bill, they
have the strange idea we should actually work when there. The
usual experience I had was that around 6.30 a.m. in the morning
they expected us to start our working day and end it around 9
o'clock or 10 o'clock that night. They expected us to do that
each and every day we were there.
On the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, of which I
am the president, those will be fairly extensive discussions. We
have no government to government direct relationships between
Canada and Taiwan. As a consequence, our parliamentary
friendship group gets to be used as a vehicle for a number of
exchanges between those two countries.
I was in China on the day the American spy plane was shot down.
Needless to say, that led to some rather animated conversations
between ourselves and our Chinese hosts. It was also a useful
occasion on which to subtly remind our hosts that we took a
somewhat different view than our American friends.
On the break week I was in Israel, and while there several
instances of terrorism occurred, including the M16 attack. Now I
certainly read newspapers with a clearer insight into what is
going on there. We arrived a week after the Minister of Foreign
Affairs was there, who had upgraded himself from being burned in
effigy to being a respected third party interlocutor.
In the very brief time I have left this is a summary of my life
as a member of parliament. I find the job stimulating and
intriguing. Unlike some I think it is one that Canadians can
hope that their children think to be worthy. To be sure, it has
its level of foolishness and frustrations, but may I end with a
quote form an 18th century political leader, who said:
Politics is the most hazardous of all professions. There is not
another in which a man can hope to do so much good for his fellow
creatures; neither is there any in which by mere loss of nerve he
may do such widespread harm; nor is there another in which he may
so easily lose his own soul—With all the temptation and
degradation that besets it, politics is still the noblest career
man can choose.
I would urge all hon. members to support this initiative.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Young Offenders Act has created and worsened
problems with serious repeat offenders for years and a registry
of pedophiles would help curtail the sexual predation of
children.
I could go on with a lot of things that the House could be
dealing with, but instead for three parliaments these and other
issues have not been substantially or satisfactorily dealt with.
However, the MP compensation package which we are debating today
will spend less than a week here in the House of Commons.
By comparison, some legislation in this place is dealt with in a
glacially slow manner, while some, like this legislation, passes
in what is the equivalent of the blink of an eye. I have
constituents who over the last little while have been rightly
complaining about that process.
M. Spevack wrote me today over the Internet. One question posed
was “What is the urgency that it has to be passed in three days,
since it is retroactive to January anyway?” That is a perfectly
good question. If this is retroactively applying legislation
there is no need to have this done in three days, in less than a
week.
The other question this constituent posed was “Why can't other,
more important legislation pass as quickly?” That is something
that we should all spend some serious time contemplating about.
I hope our constituents at home over the summer will remind
members of parliament of that.
For the last six days I have been trying to do what I could,
wrapping up yesterday, by doing my best to deprive unanimous
consent from the government House leader to fast track this
legislation.
It involved some sacrifice on my part, but I thought it was
important because the process we engaged in last time was an
atrocious one. I thought we at least could learn from that
example and better what we would do this time. I cannot say we
have made much of an improvement over the last time because the
process has been almost as fast.
1610
The government House leader then rose in his place just across
the way and used Standing Order 56.1, a fairly obscure procedure
used an average of maybe twice a year. It basically fast tracked
the legislation and imposed closure on the debate. Since 25
opposition members did not stand it was done. It was as simple
as that because he is a minister of the crown.
The standing order is not something which has existed from the
beginning of time with regard to parliamentary procedure. It was
created on April 11, 1991. It has only been used five times
since 1998: Monday, April 12, 1999; March 22, 1999; March 19,
1999; June 9, 1998; and the last time which I traced back for the
purposes of this debate was February 9, 1998. It just goes to
show how obscure some of these things are and that when the
government is intent it will find a way to get its will.
I also rose on a point of order today right after question
period. I was seeking the unanimous consent of the House to
withdraw the order passed by the government House leader on
Monday, June 4, pursuant to the standing order. It was forcing a
fast track and all stage guillotine of Bill C-28, the bill that
deals with MP and senator compensation. I was deprived of that
unanimous consent.
I will speak to the commission because a lot of people have
spoken with regard to the independent commission. The commission
recommended that there be no increase in the MP pension plan as a
result of these changes. I would like to read into the record
what the commission said on page 20 of its report. It said:
The commission recommends that these changes not result in any
material impact, either positive or negative, to the benefits
that parliamentarians receive from the pension plan.
That was the committee's recommendation. Instead we have in
Bill C-28 an increase in total compensation from $109,500 to
$131,400 for the House, and from $88,200 to $105,840 for the
Senate, and that it will have a commensurate impact on the
pension.
I want to read into the record the other recommendation of the
commission found on page 26. It said the legislation should be
“retroactive to April 1, 2001, once the legislation is
proclaimed”. That is not what the legislation has done. It has
not followed the recommendation of the commission. It went ahead
and made it retroactive from January 1.
My party is going to move an amendment to the legislation to the
effect that the pay raise should come into force after the next
general election. The reason we are proposing this amendment is
so that the decision of parliament would be implemented after a
subsequent election. This would avoid the conflict of interest
members of parliament would have in voting on their own salary
increases, rather than that of those who follow them, which I
think would be the wiser course of action.
Those encapsulate some of my real problems with this process and
as well how the policy did not follow even what the commission
recommended to the tee.
1615
I would like to lay out what I think would be an improvement to
the situation. It is not party policy. It is something that I
happen to believe.
I believe we should have a super retirement savings plan,
similar to an RRSP, but it would be mandatory. Five per cent of
individuals' salaries, whether they were janitors, presidents of
a corporation, members of parliament or prime ministers for that
matter, would be set aside in this account. People would know
what they were contributing to their own fund. They would know
the total amount of moneys they had contributed and what type of
return on investment they would actually be getting.
I challenge any member in this place or anybody for that matter
to know exactly how much they have put into the Canada pension
plan and what benefits would be accruing to them. I would allow
people to invest in bonds, treasury bills, guaranteed investment
certificates and even mutual funds because in that way it would
be owned by the individuals and not by the government. There
would be a personal stake in making sure they knew what was
happening with those funds.
I think people are fairly intelligent and they respond to
incentives. The more people who work under a bureaucrat, just as
an example, the more the bureaucrat earns, and so bureaucrats
tend to build empires. That is the nature of government. It is
a problem.
Madsen Pirie, with the Adam Smith Institute, in his book
Blueprint for a Revolution, laid out how we could combat
that natural built in incentive in any bureaucracy or
corporation, and that is to reward people for saving taxpayer
dollars.
Some of my constituents have raised concerns about the whole MP
pay package because it did not have merit based pay nor
performance indicators. I think our salary could be tied to our
attendance, to whether or not we cast votes as we are hired to do
and to whether or not we have a presence on a committee of our
choice. I would even go so far as to link our salary to
producing a balanced budget, lowering taxes and, for my friends
in the New Democratic Party and others, maybe even having a
social component to it so that if there were increased literacy,
decreased surgery waiting lists, lower homicide rates or longer
life expectancies, it would affect the performance rating for a
member of parliament.
I will vote against the bill affecting MP's and Senator's
compensation. I voted against many bills before because of their
flaws, whether it was with the policy or the process, and I will
have to oppose the bill as well.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are more people
across the country watching the debate and listening to the
speakers than we have had in a long time.
At the outset I want to make it abundantly clear to everyone in
the House that I do not want, in my actions, to hurt any one
individual within my party or within the government party. It is
not in my nature to be spiteful or hateful. Whatever an hon.
member chooses to do with his or her vote on the bill is all
right with me. However I do not want anyone coming back and
saying that what he or she selected to do hurt them. Let us make
it clear that this is a free vote on the bill.
I was really disturbed after reading the press reports on the
bill. The press has made fun of this institution and of members
of parliament and, in doing so, have made fun of me to the point
of being incompetent, not being able to accomplish anything and
not doing anything. That does not serve the House at all and it
does not serve the country one little bit.
1620
Let me relate what amounts to a day's work for me. My office
door in Ottawa opens at 7.30 every morning and the average time
that office door closes is 9.30 at night. The press does not
report on that. The press does not report that in the last two
weeks I attended four different committee meetings. The press
does not report that I leave here on a Friday night and finally
get home in the wee hours of Saturday morning to wake up at 6
a.m. so I can get to a special event that has been organized. The
press does not report on that.
The comments I have read about people in the House who were
elected just like I was are irresponsible. Yes, there are people
here not doing their jobs. There are always people in the House
not doing their jobs but they are few. We should not all be
branded by the press as being totally incompetent.
When I was elected to this institution in 1997 I was asked to
serve my constituents. I was born only 40 miles from the town in
which I now live. I know most of the people in my constituency
by their first names. Four years later, last November, those
same people, I like to think because of the service I provided to
them, increased my vote by 23%. They did that because of the
work we have to do to be professional members of parliament.
It bothers me to be intimidated by those saying if we do not
vote for this we are not as good as those who would vote for it.
I come from an area where I have spent all but 12 to 13 years of
my professional career. I watched communities across my rural
area go from booming institutions downhill to a point where I can
take a given area in a 50 mile radius where there is not one new
housing start. I have watched paved highways being turned into
gravel roads. I have watched farming people trucking their grain
80 miles in one direction.
We have before us a bill. I am very proud to say that the most
important people in my career, aside from my wife, are my
constituents. I listen to them everyday through phone calls,
letters, e-mails and so on.
There are three main reasons I will be voting the way I will on
the bill. Three young couples live within the same block: Deb
and Rob, Marlo and Audrey, Carl and Penny. They each have two
children with both mom and dad working. They are finding it
tough to make ends meet. Can one imagine my voting for a raise
up to $130,000, going back to talk to them and their kids, and
their having the same respect for me as they did previously? I
do not believe so.
1625
Can one imagine my going to hundreds of poor people who have
come to my office to show after they have completed their income
tax and paid their rent how much money they have left to buy
their food, fuel and medicine? I do not believe so.
I know some of colleagues will be able take this pay raise to
their constituencies and very little will be said. I know people
who have said that I would crazy not to take it because people
will forget about it in six months. I am reminded of the
statement from Shakespeare:
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
When I go out to the agricultural community I know very well
that the average net income of farmers in my constituency last
year was $7,500. That means a lot of them went into the hole. I
know that some of them have had negative income for three years
in a row and do not see any future. Currently there is a drought
over half of my constituency. No, I could not go home to face
the people who elected me. For that reason I cannot support the
bill.
I probably have more reason to support the bill than most people
because this September I will have a balanced portfolio. I will
have four grandchildren in university. I did not come here to
make a lot of money. I am not used to being rich. I am a very
common, ordinary individual. I will not support a bill that
would absolutely be a slap in the face to 65% of the people who
put their X beside my name.
I will not quarrel and make animosity with any member on this
side or that side of the House. We will still be friends, but I
hope those people watching this debate understand my position.
Maybe we should all think twice before we walk away with that
amount of money.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Winnipeg Centre, Government Loans; the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre, Health.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
sat in the House most of the day and listened to the debate on
Bill C-28. I particularly enjoyed the speech made by the hon.
member for Souris—Moose Mountain.
I have empathy with him because I can suggest to the hon. member
for Souris—Moose Mountain that when I put my name forward and
was elected on November 27 for the second time never was this an
election issue. I remember debating quite frequently with
candidates from the Liberal side of the House. Never did they
ever put forward the suggestion that one of the first orders of
business on coming to the House would be to look at members' pay
packets and to put forward some compensation changes.
We talked about health care and agriculture. In my case we
talked about defence and the possibility of the PPCLI coming to
Shilo. We talked about all major issues that were necessary
during an election campaign but not once did the topic of
members' compensation packages come up.
I mention that because I appreciate what the hon. member for
Souris—Moose Mountain is saying and what the government is
doing, particularly the Prime Minister. He should take full
responsibility because he is putting the hon. member and other
hon. members not only on this side of the House but on that side
of the House in a very difficult position.
1630
Our party has said, and I will get into my own personal
circumstance later, that it was unfair to put members of
parliament in the position of voting on their own compensation
packages for the same reasons the member just articulated. We
said that if we were going to put together a reasonable pay
package or compensation package for members of parliament, it
should be done for the next parliament.
Let us have the studies, let us have the suggestions as to what
a reasonable amount of money is for members of parliament and put
that forward in the next parliament, so that when we sit on the
podium and debate the issues we know that everyone is equal, we
know that the next decision has already been made and that is
what one is trying to attain.
When I ran for parliament I knew what the compensation was and I
was happy with it. By the way, surprisingly enough, I am still
happy with that compensation.
I said the party position was that we should do it for the next
parliament. I had a previous life and was a politician in that
life. I lived by that rule. Unfortunately or fortunately,
whichever way one may look at it, it did not quite work out that
way.
On principle I also said not to give me a raise in my capacity
as mayor, but if people wanted to attract someone to replace me
in the next election, then put that forward in the next campaign
and in the next election. My council of the day decided that
that was not going to happen and it was passed by my council on
my behalf. Yes, I took it because I felt that it was something
the council wished to put into legislation. It was accepted.
Honestly, in principle, I still believe it should be for the
next parliament. Then the hon. member from Souris—Moose
Mountain would not be put in this position, would not have to
vote no against it, would not have to say he was not going to
take it and become in my mind a lesser member of parliament than
members on the backbench of the Liberals. There will be a two
tier system and we will talk about it later. However, first we
should do is make the decision now for the next parliament, not
for this parliament.
We also have in this piece of legislation a suggestion that
committee chairs should be compensated for their jobs. I have
thought about this quite often actually, because there are
different levels of compensation for different levels of
responsibility. I might even accept that but for the fact that
those chairs are appointed by the Prime Minister. There is no
open and honest election. In fact we tried that. I know the
Alliance Party suggested that there should be at the very least a
secret ballot, and there should be.
I have a lot of good faith with committee work. I think
committees could work extremely well and probably better than
they are now if there were a less partisan member sitting as the
chair of a committee. Let us have secret ballots. Let us have,
goodness gracious, the possibility of a member of the opposition
sitting as the chair, as opposed to the chair having to be a
member of the government. That is shocking.
Would it not be wonderful if we could have a member of the
opposition as the chair of a committee? Then the committee could
operate as a true committee, not as one that is being tailored
either by the minister's hand or by the Prime Minister's hand.
Again, I and my party do not accept the fact that there should be
additional compensation for the chair unless it is an open,
honest and true election for the chair of a particular committee.
I think it was mentioned earlier in debate, but we also believe
there should not be any retroactivity. We were elected on
November 27.
An hon. member: We knew what the pay was.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: We knew what the pay was. We have
gone there already. The fact is we are in the month of June,
soon to take a summer recess and all of a sudden in the
legislation package it says to pay the people retroactive to
January 1. That was not expected when we got elected on November
27. That was not even in the card nor was it suggested. Now all
of a sudden there is retroactivity to January 1.
Here is the deal. Why do we not put a cap on it right now and
let the legislation sit in limbo until we come back in the fall?
Let people talk over the summer as to what we should or should
not do and how we should handle it. Let us not have the
retroactivity. Let us go through the summer and into the fall
and talk about what it is the people of the country would like to
see.
1635
The opt in clause is possibly one of the most blatant,
undemocratic positions the Prime Minister has ever taken. It
shows the total gross arrogance of a government that has nothing
but contempt for the opposition, as well as its own backbench
MPs. What the Prime Minister is attempting to do is absolutely
disreputable. Let me give members an example of what I mean.
The Prime Minister is telling members that if they do not
support his position, this is not a even government position, he
is prepared, as being the lord of the land, to take the increase
away. Some members will be paid less than other members who sit
on that side of the House. There will be a two tier level of
MPs.
The member from Moose Mountain said he works hard. However, 90%
of members of the House work equally as hard as he does. I will
not mention the names of the remaining 10%, but they are usually
on the government side. I will not go any further than that.
Ninety per cent of the members in the House work diligently and
hard on behalf of their constituents. Now the Prime Minister, in
his arrogant way, is telling members that if they do not vote the
way he tells them to vote, they will not get the same as what
others on that side of the House will get. That is absolutely
terrible. That is absolutely dishonest to the Canadian public.
It should not happen. The next time that party goes to the polls
I hope that it happens—
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
With respect, to characterize any actions of a member of
parliament to be dishonest is not within the decorum of this
place. I would ask the member to withdraw that allegation.
The Deputy Speaker: While I would encourage the member
for Brandon—Souris to be more judicious in the selection of his
words, I do not find cause for the Chair to ask for the
withdrawal of his comments. They certainly were not directed
toward an individual member. In the spirit of the debate of the
day, I would ask the member for Brandon—Souris to be a bit more
judicious.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your
latitude. I do appreciate that.
As well as the Alliance Party, the Progressive Conservative
Party will have a free, open, transparent and honest vote. How
anyone votes on this issue remains to be seen because there is
the wonderful little opt in clause, which in itself is terribly
hypocritical.
The Bloc member who spoke said Bloc members would support this
legislation. Good for them. However, I find it rather
interesting that they always try to put a separatist spin on
everything, and I never heard that spin this time. They will
take good Canadian cold hard cash and put it into their pockets.
There is no separatist spin at all on this issue.
I know we will have an opportunity to vote and to speak to this
matter many times again.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brandon—Souris for his
comments. I share many of the views expressed he expressed.
The bill begins and ends with some errors in it. One of the key
errors is it seems to misunderstand in its writing the fact that
this is not the private sector we are talking about. Many of the
members in the Chamber could be in the private sector earning
more. Many of them came from the private sector where they were
earning more. Many came from jobs in the private sector or the
public service where they were earning less.
1640
The fact of the matter is many members in this Chamber, if they
were in the private sector, would have been fired long ago. The
fact is that many of the members in this Chamber, if they were in
the private sector, would have taken demonstrable cuts in their
pay because of their inability to serve their constituents well
or because of their unwillingness to serve all their constituents
rather than just the few who perhaps supported them.
The reality is that this is not the private sector. To be fair,
the reality also is that there are many members in the House who
would in the private sector have earned bonuses and additional
pay because the job they have done is above and beyond the call
and the responsibility.
However the fact of the matter is this is not the private
sector. Therefore, the fundamental principle that is at work
here is that all members are equal and that all members are paid
equally. The fundamental flaw that lies in this bill is the opt
out provision which the Prime Minister has clearly designed to
try to muzzle opponents to the bill.
The reality is there is a fundamental principle in our society
and embodied in some of the acts of parliament that requires
equal pay for equal service. The reality is that in most cases
it is impossible in the public sector to measure the value of
that service. Nonetheless the fundamental principle exists.
The truth of the matter is that for most of the members of the
House this is not at all about the money. This was not about the
money when they ran. It is not about the money now that they are
here, and it probably will not be about the money when they
leave. It is about something entirely different. It is about
making a difference. It is about coming here to try to better
society. It is about coming here to try to create a better
society than the one that existed before we came here. Those
things are far more in the minds of most of the members of the
House, I expect in all parties, than the money. It is about
making a difference.
Because so many members in the House are absent from the
processes and the actual power making, there is a great sense of
frustration. I would say frustration would be the dominant
emotion on all sides of the House. With the possible exception
of the front bench of the government, most members feel absent
from the opportunity to really make a contribution and a
difference. That being said, just because they cannot make a real
contribution does not entitle them to get what they can out of
the job in terms of financial compensation.
The argument has been made that by increasing the compensation
Canadians will benefit because we will be able to draw a better
class of people to this place. That does not say much about the
people who are here now. I do not buy that argument any more
than I buy many of the arguments made by the government in
defending this bill.
There is a fine quality of people here generally and the reality
is that most of them, as I said before, were not drawn here
because of the money.
Why then would this bill be fair? It is fair in some respects.
It is fair in part because the process which led up to it being
drafted, for example the arm's length nature of the way in which
the recommendations were developed, was good and we supported it.
As the Canadian Alliance has said for a long time, we believe
that the arm's length process should be followed in terms of the
compensation determination for members of the House. As well we
have supported the greater transparency that will be embodied in
part by some aspects of this bill. The changing of tax free
compensation to taxable is a move in that direction.
I supported as a provincial legislator a number of measures to
increase the greater transparency and understanding taxpayers
would have concerning legislation, regulations and compensation
of members and people in the public service. I believe very
strongly that this greater transparency is something to be
applauded and it is something that we should support.
As well, I believe there are some positive aspects the bill in
terms of the future removal of direct involvement by members of
this House in the determination of what their compensation would
be. These things are good, fair and comprise part of the bill.
However on balance I cannot support the bill. We will support
our amendments to hoist this particular piece of legislation. I
see it as largely unfair. I see it as departing from the
so-called arm's length panel's recommendations in some key ways,
particularly the MP pension calculations. It departs
significantly from the recommendations made by the panel. That
is not right. In terms of the retroactivity of the benefits back
to January, it departs from the panel's recommendations, yet
again creates greater generosity toward the members of the House
than was the intention of that independent panel.
That is unfair. That should not be the case. I cannot support
the bill on those bases.
1645
As well, this was not an election issue, as was mentioned by the
member for Brandon—Souris, certainly not in my riding or in his.
Nor, do I expect, was it an issue in the ridings of most members
of the House. It was not an election issue. It was not raised.
Why the hurry now? What is the rush? What is the reason that we
have to push this thing through as quickly as this? I do not
understand that and I do not think most members on this side of
the House understand or accept the arguments made by the
government on that issue.
There were election issues and there are issues that are
important to Canadians that have not been addressed, very urgent
and important issues in terms of agriculture, in terms of a
decaying infrastructure and in terms of a growing sense of
regional alienation across the country. Meaningful ways of
addressing those serious and urgent problems should be sought and
must be found. Instead the government moves to push this to the
top of the order paper.
There are clearly three options that each of the members in the
House must choose from in regard to this legislation, apart from
abstaining which I will not include. I will include in these
options whether or not they choose to opt out or in of these
benefits.
First, they can say yes to the bill and obviously would
therefore say yes to the benefits. If they believe on balance
that this is a good bill, an urgent and necessary one, then that
would be their position.
The second position would be to say no to the bill and no to
opting in, thus creating by their decision, their moral decision,
which is their rightful decision to make, a two tiered structure
for members of parliament in terms of their compensation, based
on a system that would punish those who stand on the basis of
principle and reward those who choose to support the bill.
Clearly this is what the Prime Minister had in mind when he put
the opting out clause in the bill itself.
There is a third option. The third option is this: to say no
to the bill because on balance it is seen to be wrong, because it
is weak in many ways, because it needs to be debated more
stringently and more fully by the Canadian people and for many
other good reasons. The option is to say no to the bill, but
then to be forced to make a decision subsequent to its passage,
which the government may choose to force, to say yes to the
benefits.
What would happen if someone were to do that? That person would
be labelled a hypocrite, certainly by the Prime Minister I am
afraid, certainly by certain members of the public. That person
would be labelled a hypocrite but the reality is that this might
not be the case at all.
In regard to including an opt out provision, I will reference
Shakespeare. This is something from Othello which I was
reading the other day:
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to a thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
The attempt by this government through this Prime Minister's
design of this piece of legislation is to rob honourable people
of their good names. It is to rob proud people who stand on
moral ground and say no. It is to rob them of their income and
then to rob them by accusation, if they choose not to support a
two tiered compensation system for members of parliament, to rob
them of their good name by calling them hypocrites.
I would say it would be hypocritical of a government to create
that circumstance. I know of no good reason why the government
would include such an obligation as to opt in or opt out of
compensation and create a two tiered system within the House when
such has not been the case in the past. Nor should it be the
case in the future. Equal pay for equal work should be the rule
that governs this society and it should govern in the House as
well.
In closing, I want to say that there should be a free vote. Our
party would support a free vote in the House. We should be
mindful and respectful of the views of all who express their
opinions on this issue.
I will not give in to muzzling attempts. I will not give in to
threats. Threats do not work with me and they should not work
with any thinking and respectful member of this parliament.
I encourage the members on the opposite side to join with us and
hoist this bill six months into the future so that Canadians can
be part of this important discussion just as much as the members
of the House have been.
1650
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-28 today. I
want to compliment my friend from Portage—Lisgar for his
excellent speech and the excellent points he made respecting the
bill.
I have to say that I am just as frustrated as he is with Bill
C-28. The reason I am frustrated is that while there are some
good things in it, very obviously the government has attempted to
politicize this issue. I am in politics and I understand the
temptation to do that, but why do we have to do that on
everything?
This was an opportunity for the government to use the
independent panel to establish remuneration for members of
parliament and in doing that really set a precedent whereby MPs
could vote for the recommendations or vote against them based
upon what the independent third party had done. Instead the
government felt it had to meddle in this, to politicize the whole
process and poison it in doing so. I will get back to that in a
moment.
Let me talk about some of the things that are in the bill. First
of all the Canadian Alliance has taken a number of positions on
and has policy with respect to MP remuneration. We have said in
article 70 of our principles that we believe MP remuneration
should be set by an independent third party. Substantially that
is what we have with this commission. We have no problem with
that.
Second, we have said that the remuneration should come into
effect after the next election, for obvious reasons. If the
public is dissatisfied with this issue, with the package that has
been proposed, it can be an election issue. MPs will not be in
the position where they directly implement a pay increase that
affects them, because of course their fate as members of
parliament will not be known until after the next election. We
believe in that very strongly. The government had the
opportunity to put that in the legislation and did not do so.
Second, we have said that we believe in converting the tax free
expense allowance into salary that is taxable. The commission
recommended that and it is in the bill. We agree with that.
We believe, and we have said in the past, that the accrual rate
for the MP pension should be reduced and brought in line with the
private sector. To a substantial degree, but not completely, the
commission did that when it recommended an accrual rate of 2.5%.
For reasons that are not clear to me, the government moved it up
to 3%.
The House leader from the government side is here and he says it
did not do that. He is technically correct. What the government
said was that it should produce the same result as the previous
pension plan. We had a 4% accrual rate on a much lower salary.
Now we have a much higher salary and at the same time the
government is recommending goosing the accrual rate so that we
end up with higher pensions. That is about an 18% increase for
the typical MP over what it would normally be. The government
should not have done that. That poisons the whole thing.
The next point is that we believe this should be fully vetted in
the House of Commons according to the regular procedure for any
other bill. We are pushing this through. I know that there will
be arguments made that this was agreed to, but I still want to
argue that this should have been put off until the fall. We
could have had a regular debate and even have had witnesses. That
would have removed the appearance that we are pushing this
through simply because we want to avoid the political heat. I am
grateful for the chance to speak on this, but now that we are
pushing this through we do not have that excuse any more. We
cannot say that we did allow people to come and comment on this
and bring forward their testimony. The result is that people
will rightly say that we pushed it through. I think that is one
of the problems.
The last point I want to make with respect to a stand that our
party has taken in the past is that we believe very strongly that
the government has poisoned the process by putting the opt out
clause in the legislation. What it is attempting to do is
suggest to the public that if we have concerns about the
legislation and want to vote against it, then we should be duty
bound to opt out.
That is wrong. That is reprehensible. My friend said it
correctly a minute ago: equal pay for equal work. This is a
blatant attempt to unduly politicize this thing.
1655
The problem is that the public is already confused by this. It
is complicated. This confuses the issue even more. It is a
blatant attempt to politicize this whole process. We should
reject it. A pox on the government's house for suggesting it. It
is clearly political manipulation, both of the public and of MPs
who have concerns about the legislation.
My concerns do not end there, but those are some of the things
we have raised in the past. I wanted to address them today to
explain how some of the recommendations meet concerns that we
have had and how other recommendations are completely at odds
with our position.
There are other things I want to mention. I want to mention the
retroactivity. I disagree with that. That was not a
recommendation. I do not understand why we have the
retroactivity. I do not understand why we have the extra
salaries for chairs of committees and for vice-chairs, of which I
am one, when we do not have parliamentary reform to go along with
it.
My friend, our former House leader, brought forward a whole
suite of changes that the Canadian Alliance would have liked to
have seen introduced last February. They were sensible changes.
They were changes aimed at democratizing this place, changes that
would introduce democracy really for the first time in this place
in a way that would do justice to this place, which is supposed
to be the home of democracy in Canada.
Instead of that, we got some pretty lukewarm changes which the
government introduced just the other day. We appreciate those
changes, but they really hardly go anywhere near where we need to
go so that people have confidence that this place is concerned
about really allowing MPs to represent their constituents. We
have not gone anywhere near far enough.
Until we have members of parliament from the opposition allowed
to be elected to serve as chairs of different committees, apart
from the couple that are already allowed, I do not think we can
support that. I cannot support vice-chairs getting extra wages.
I think it is wrong. I do not think we should not be doing it.
It is not part of the recommendations. It is not what Canadians
want, I think, until this place is really reformed. I oppose
that and I think my colleagues in the Alliance and other MPs
oppose it. We speak against that.
I want to conclude by saying that this is always a difficult
issue. I do not enjoy being in a position where I have to vote
on my own wages. MPs are fundamentally in a conflict of interest
position. It is impossible for us to disentangle our personal
interests from public policy. I am grateful that because of the
recommendations this will be, I hope, the last time we have to
deal with this for a long, long time, perhaps ever. I hope that
is the case.
I strongly condemn the government for meddling in this process.
We had the chance to bring down a set of recommendations from an
independent third party that really would have given the
appearance that this was an arm's length set of recommendations.
That has been sullied now by the actions of the government.
Just so I am clear, I want my constituents to know and I want
Canadians to know that I will support Canadian Alliance
amendments to substantially alter this legislation. If they do
not pass, I will vote against this legislation. Like many of my
colleagues, I believe that Alliance MPs should be paid as much as
other MPs because we believe that we do the same amount of work
and we should receive the same pay, so we will opt for that as
well.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it might not come as a great shock to people but I have been
actually advised by some people, as we all seek advice, that I
should not talk about this issue.
1700
I strongly disagree. I am prepared to stand here, talk about
the issue and defend why I am prepared to vote for the bill. I
will do it in this place, in my office in the Confederation
Building, in my office in Streetsville and in my community. I am
prepared to be held accountable.
I am not prepared to say what I have heard others say and what
the previous speaker said. I will not say that unless I get what
I want I will vote against the bill but that because I am worth
the same as every MP I will also accept the pay increase.
It is not parliamentary to use words like hypocrisy, so I will
not. However that is the most astounding position a
parliamentarian could take. Members should have the courage to
be accountable for the decisions they make and make the decisions
they think are just and fair.
I was first elected municipally in 1978. I served for almost 10
years as a municipal councillor in the city of Mississauga. One
of the issues we dealt with in the early years was the rate of
pay. It was a job that changed dramatically from 1974 when the
city was created to the early eighties when the rapid growth of
wards and constituencies turned it into a full time job with
tremendous pressure. It was a seven day a week job. It was not
uncommon to work 18 hours a day. We needed more staff, more
resources and better equipment.
Frankly the councillors in those days deserved a pay increase
and we went through one. It was horrific. It was very difficult
to sit there and have people scream at us that we did not deserve
it. People said it should not fall to elected representatives to
make the decision and that someone else should vote on it. They
said there had to be a better way.
I went through the reverse when I was elected an MPP in the
province of Ontario and we took a pay decrease. Let me say how
many phone calls came in congratulating me for reducing my pay by
5%, the taxable portion, from $45,000 down to roughly $42,000. I
am quite sure no one remembers that occurred and yet we had to
vote on it.
If one must vote on a decrease I suppose one must vote on an
increase. I have the greatest difficulty with the misinformation
being perpetrated and bought, by and large, by members of the
public. They are calling it an opting out clause. We could take
that literally as we did with the pension.
We all know what happened to the Canadian Alliance members who
wore pigs on their lapels, made grunting noises in this place and
said they would never come to the trough and take the pension.
They turned around and opted back into the pension just in time.
I never opted out. I have always thought a pension was fair for
a legislator or member of parliament.
I know what happened over there. They can heckle if they wish,
but we have in the bill an opting in provision which is
substantially different. Once the bill is passed all members in
this place on all sides would have a period of 90 days to inform
the payroll department whether they wish to accept the increased
pay. Members who fail to do so would not receive the increase.
Another interesting point about the opting in provision is that
it is private. It is between members of parliament and the
payroll department. It is not between members of parliament and
their constituents. It is between members of parliament and
their consciences. If members vote against the pay raise they in
good conscience should not opt into the plan and accept the
increase. That is accountability. Let us understand that.
I hear crying from across the way that it is unfair, that it is
the Prime Minister being a bully. It is nothing of the sort.
1705
It is nothing of the sort. Members in this place who believe
the bill is wrong because of the timing, the amount or any of the
issues involved have an obligation to their constituents and to
their own consciences to vote against it. I have no difficulty
with any member on any side of the House voting against the bill.
I have grave difficulty when members grandstand in this place or
in their constituencies, condemn the government and say the bill
is awful, vote against it and then opt in. Members will not be
in a position to sit back and allow it to happen automatically.
They must physically do something to obtain the raise.
It is time we looked at what has happened with public wages and
turned it around to all areas. What has happened to teachers and
nurses is unconscionable. It is time to end it. Why has it
happened? It has happened because all of us, on all sides of
this place and in all legislatures of this great country, have
worshipped at the altar of tax cuts to the point where we have
gutted the public service. We are all culpable and we are all
responsible.
PSAC is currently negotiating with the treasury board for an
increase. It is time we were fair. It is time we looked at
increases for people who do the important work of the public. I
have listened for years to the denigration of public servants, of
those who work for the people of Canada. They deserve to be
paid.
In the limited time I have I will touch on another issue. It is
the height of twisted logic for the leader of the fifth party to
stand in this place, shaking à la John Diefenbaker, and tell us
his caucus will vote against this dastardly pay raise while he
continues to receive a supplement from his own party of $200,000
per year in addition to his pay as a member of parliament. For
the member to stand in his place and pontificate while he accepts
$200,000 a year from his own party, when the party is in debt by
over $6 million, must turn people like Mr. Diefenbaker over in
their graves.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am trying to listen to my colleague and I do not even
know what the topic of debate is. I cannot tell what topic he is
addressing. I would like there to be less provocation and more
indication of what the subject is.
The Deputy Speaker: With all due respect to the hon. member,
this is not a matter of a point of order, it is debate.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I know it upsets people,
but let us put the facts on the table. When a member in this
place accepts a stipend of an additional $200,000 because he
wants to make close to what he was making in the private sector,
and then instructs the rest of his caucus not to vote for the
raise, it is unconscionable. It is nothing more than
grandstanding by the leader of the fifth party. The Canadian
people will see through that.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of vitriolic, nonsensical, ethyl
alcohol fuel type of rhetoric we have become accustomed to.
The member can speak about the right hon. member's personal
appearance, but he has ample jowls himself that we have just seen
shaking and swinging in the breeze over there as he tried to
attack the integrity of a former prime minister. Canadians can
judge for themselves who has credibility and who does not.
1710
Turning back to the issue at hand, the timing of the legislation
is such that Canadians are left to wonder why we would do this in
the dying days of parliament. Why are we embarking on aid to MPs
and not aid to farmers or individuals in the health care or
justice systems? Why are we doing this now?
That is what is so distasteful and reprehensible to Canadians.
This is hush money for the backbench and blood money for the
opposition. This is about telling members of the House of
Commons that if they do not jump in line and play ball with the
Prime Minister they will pay a price. They will take a personal
penalty. It will affect their financial well-being.
Putting that clause in the bill clearly drives a wedge. It is
there to single out individuals and put them into the books of
Canadians who are looking for someone to champion a cause and yet
make them pay a penalty for standing and saying that they did not
ask for this and that they do not see it as a priority or as the
direction in which the House should be going.
There are very good recommendations in the report. The Lumley
report clearly outlines that this is not an issue we should need
to deal with in future parliaments. It says that we should tie
it into the Judges Act. It talks about compensation being
reasonable and tied into another sector. It talks about the
necessity of collapsing the tax free allowance that has in
essence tried to hide the salaries of members of parliament.
There are certainly elements of the report that we can embrace
but the bill goes beyond the pith and substance of the Lumley
report. The attempt to somehow deal with it in this parliament is
inappropriate. The Progressive Conservative Party is trying to
be consistent by suggesting that it would be much more appropriate
to vote on a bill that would take effect after the next election.
It should also be a bill that we could say with pride would
enhance parliament and help future parliamentarians rather than
ourselves. Those are the horns of the dilemma on which members
of parliament find themselves.
If we want to change the pay schedule let us do it for a future
parliament and let us do it in a way that is more palatable not
only to members of parliament but, more important, to our
constituents.
The amendment put forward is one we should ponder and take time
to support. We should recognize the provocative and laughingly
arrogant insertion of a clause that says that if one has the
audacity to stand and oppose the government and the Prime
Minister's own bill one will pay a price. That is what is taking
place. It is an attempt to bully not only backbench members of
the government but, more important, opposition members who might
take umbrage with the suggestion that we should take the money,
shut our mouths, go away and be happy about it.
I have great difficulty with that. Members routinely come into
the Chamber and, on behalf of their constituents and for all
sorts of reasons, decide not to support government legislation
and do not pay a personal price for it. This is taking it to a
whole new level. This type of tactic is offensive to the
democratic principles of parliament. It is intended to distract
from the real issue. Canadians know that the real issue is that
we are getting money by increasing our salaries. The Prime
Minister is in a different category. After his pay raise his
salary will be double that of other members of parliament.
We are in an incredibly difficult and tight situation. We are
between the proverbial rock and the hard place. We either be
quiet, bend down, kiss the Prime Minister's ring, take the money
and sign off, or we just go away.
I will take this moment to move a subamendment to the amendment
before the House. I move:
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the words “the
spirit of pay equity by establishing a two tier” the words “and
retroactive”.
Receiving the money is one thing but to actually take money for
work already done increases the audacity and the incredible
affront to people's sensibility. I therefore move the
subamendment subject to it being ruled in order by the Chair.
1715
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has reviewed the
amendment to the amendment tabled by the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and it is in order.
I wish at this moment to make a brief statement on the manner in
which proceedings will be conducted tomorrow during consideration
of Bill C-28 in committee of the whole pursuant to special order
adopted on Monday, June 4.
To ensure that proceedings will be conducted in an orderly
fashion, the Chair wishes to clarify some of the provisions
dealing with debate and the putting of questions in committee.
[Translation]
The first point concerns the procedure by which hon. members may
propose an amendment in keeping with the order in question.
The order has nothing to say about the way this is to be
applied, but I encourage hon. members to submit their amendments
to either Journals Branch staff or to the clerk at the table,
here in the House, at the very latest, by the end of Statements
by Members, at 2.15 p.m., on Wednesday afternoon.
This will allow enough time to check whether the motions in
amendment are in order, to put them in the correct order and,
something that will be of great use during the deliberations, to
get copies made and distributed to members of the committee of
the whole.
[English]
It would therefore be greatly appreciated if notice could be
provided as soon as possible, given the work which must be
completed to ensure an orderly debate.
At the end of the committee's consideration of the bill the
Chair will put the question on all motions proposed, as well as
those duly tabled and circulated to members. Amendments not yet
proposed or tabled, according to the usual practice in committee,
will not be put to the committee.
Proceedings on this portion of debate will come to a conclusion
no later than 15 minutes prior to the ordinary time of
adjournment.
When the Chair puts all questions necessary to dispose of
committee stage at 6.15 p.m., a division may be requested on each
of the questions, that is on the adoption of each clause and each
amendment thereto. The committee will report the bill back to
the House and a non-debatable motion to concur in report stage
will be proposed.
[Translation]
I trust that all hon. members have a clear understanding of how
the deliberations will proceed tomorrow, and I thank them for the
opportunity to make this brief statement.
[English]
It being 5.19 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 4, it
is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of second reading stage of the bill
now before the House.
1720
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1745
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Benoit
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
| Burton
|
Chatters
| Clark
| Comartin
| Cummins
|
Davies
| Day
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
|
Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gallant
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Yelich – 72
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Baker
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
| Ménard
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 187
|
PAIRED
Members
Brien
| Eggleton
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Paquette
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| Serré
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
1750
[English]
The next question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1755
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
|
Burton
| Chatters
| Clark
| Comartin
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Day
| Desjarlais
|
Doyle
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
|
Gallant
| Godin
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Penson
| Peschisolido
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Vellacott
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Yelich – 73
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Baker
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
| Ménard
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 187
|
PAIRED
Members
Brien
| Eggleton
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Paquette
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| Serré
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1805
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division: )
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Burton
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
|
Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Schmidt
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Wood
– 202
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Davies
| Day
| Desjarlais
|
Doyle
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Gallant
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Merrifield
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Penson
| Peschisolido
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Toews
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Yelich – 58
|
PAIRED
Members
Brien
| Eggleton
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Paquette
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| Serré
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the
bill is referred to committee of the whole.
(Bill read the second time and referred to committee of the
whole)
[English]
The Speaker: It being 6.08 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of private members' business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1810
[English]
NATIONAL AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY RELIEF COORDINATION ACT
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved that Bill
C-263, an act to establish a national committee to develop
policies and procedures to ensure coordination in the delivery of
programs by governments in the case of agricultural losses or
disasters created by weather, pests, shortages of goods or
services or market conditions, and the coordination of the
delivery of information, assistance, relief and compensation, and
to study the compliance of such programs with World Trade
Organization requirements, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to my private member's
business with respect to Bill C-263.
First, I would like to acknowledge the fact that the bill is not
a votable bill. It will not receive second reading. It will not
go any further than this one hour of debate this evening, which
is very unfortunate.
I would also like it recognized that there is an opportunity to
change the rules of this parliament and this House by deeming
that all private members' business which comes forward will be
deemed votable and that each member, whether they be on the
government side or on the opposition side, be given the
opportunity to put forward their own opinions as to what should
be done with respect to legislation for this country.
I will begin the debate today with an excerpt from a letter that
was sent to the minister of agriculture on February 15, 1999,
from the national safety nets advisory committee during the
negotiations surrounding the infamous AIDA program. The excerpt
states:
The majority of the National Safety Nets Advisory Committee would
like to express its disagreement with Agriculture Canada and
provincial governments regarding the changes they intend to make
to the Farm Income Disaster Program. The committee does not
support the program as it is currently designed—We are
seriously concerned about the precedents which these decisions
set on for the next round of the Safety Net negotiations. The
program as designed now no longer provides sufficient support to
farmers facing a crisis.
If only the minister of agriculture actually had listened and
acted on the words of the committee perhaps he would not have
faced the severe criticism he had with respect to the AIDA
program.
The minister dropped the ball on the design and delivery of the
AIDA program so badly that the producers and the producer groups
have completely lost trust and faith in the minister and this
government's commitment to agriculture.
Having said that, an advisory committee can work in the future
if it includes representation from all three levels, federal,
provincial and stakeholders, and is given more power in the
decision making process. Bill C-263 would do exactly that.
Whether it is the ice storm of January 1998, the floods in
Manitoba in 1997 and in 1999 in my area the Saguenay, the
droughts in Nova Scotia, or the potential droughts in Alberta,
any of those should have assistance attached to them in some form
of a disaster program.
When natural disasters occur through weather, pests, or
agricultural losses through falling commodity prices, the federal
government must take a more proactive rather than reactive
approach and start developing policies in advance which would
benefit our producers in good times and bad, not the ad hoc
programs that we have seen come from this government.
The purpose of my private member's bill is to help the
government in doing just that. The bill would create a committee
that would assist the minister of agriculture in developing
policies and procedures to ensure the co-ordination between
different government authorities with respect to the delivery of
information assistance, relief and compensation. The committee
would monitor situations on an ongoing basis and discuss what
income protection measures are available to farmers in the event
of disaster or unusual conditions caused by weather or pests,
taking into account such areas as crop insurance, flood and
drought protection programs and NISA.
1815
The committee's mandate is expected to monitor the effects of
low commodity prices on the agricultural industry and the primary
producers' farm income as well. The committee would also
investigate and advise the minister on the compliance of any
income assistance programs with the WTO requirements.
The committee, with some teeth, would consist of 21 members.
Three members would be nominated by the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food. One member would be nominated by the agriculture
minister in each province. Five members would represent farmers
and would be nominated by organizations representing farmers.
Three members would represent the industry related to agriculture
products and would be nominated by organizations representing
those industries.
As members are aware, a national safety net advisory review
committee exists right now. My bill is an extension of that
committee. It would expand the role, power and membership of the
committee and give the committee more teeth and more power. It
would create a more permanent committee rather than simply ad hoc
committees that are created at the whim of the minister.
Bill C-263 also speaks to more transparency and disclosure of
information on safety net agreements. The bill specifically
calls for all reports to be laid before parliament, not simply
hid in the minister's office.
It is also important that we emphasize the word consistency when
we talk about co-ordinating assistance programs. The committee
would work toward alleviating any problems with achieving
consistency in the delivery and co-ordination of assistance
programs.
The biggest issue we have right now with any type of disaster
program is that there is no consistency. When we talk about the
ice storm in Quebec, a whole different set of rules and criteria
are put forward by the ministry when it deals with those kinds of
problems and disasters. When it deals with the Red River flood,
programs that nobody knew about came out of the woodwork because
it was an election year. Programs simply materialized. When I
had the disaster in my area there were no programs but it was not
an election year.
What disturbed my constituents the most was not the fact that
the government forgot about them but that there was no
consistency. If it had been an election year we would have had a
different program as opposed to a program for a not very high
profile disaster.
Southern Alberta has had absolutely no rain and is suffering
from drought but that is not considered to be a high profile
disaster. I suspect the programs that will come forward from the
federal government in this instance will not have the same
consistency as what was delivered to the Red River Valley or, for
that matter, when the ice storms hit Quebec.
There must be consistency in determining the level of
assistance. It should not simply be based on the amount of
publicity a disaster gets. With the environmental and climatic
changes that the country and the world are undergoing, it is
vital now more than ever to monitor these issues on an ongoing
basis and develop consistent policies that would help farmers
deal with these changes both financially and socially.
We should be able to take a program off the shelf and develop it
in committee. When it is developed and it describes and defines
a disaster, we can make sure it also defines the programs that
are associated with that disaster. We would make sure the
definition matches and the program is in place. There would be
no inconsistency, no ad hoc programs and no changes from disaster
to disaster or from region to region.
It is important that there is a tripartite working group, as
Bill C-263 suggests, to have input and share ideas on income
protection for the farming community. What is needed now is
federal leadership on this issue to ensure that this equity and
fairness is achieved when we shape our future safety net
framework.
We had a meeting today in committee that was attended by the
agriculture ministers from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
They reached consensus on 90% of what they had to say. They did
not agree on some issues concerning the Canadian Wheat Board and
on transportation but we will not go into that. However, what
every one of them did agree on was that we need a long term, well
thought out safety net program. I heard the same thing four
years ago. The Manitoba agriculture minister said that we need a
long term, well thought out program.
1820
When I asked the question of those ministers and suggested that
maybe it should be based on a GRIP model, they agreed. That is
the model, by the way, that the government destroyed in 1995. The
government took it away from farmers. Were it in place now, it
would certainly be a different situation in the agriculture
community.
They also said to a person that they would like to show the
model of the ASRA program in Quebec, that they would like to
start it as the model and build from that. When I suggested that
there is quite a substantial amount of provincial expense
associated with that program, they said to start with the model
and then try to get the political will from the government to
contribute to that model so that we could go forward with a
safety net program that would actually work.
The bill would allow that to happen—
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I want to apologize to the hon. member. There is some
ambiguity apparently with the Table as to defining whether the
time of the vote on the motion tomorrow is 5.15 p.m. or 6.15 p.m.
I just want to inform the House that the intention was 5.15 p.m.
so as to preserve private members' hour.
I have had consultations with all other House leaders to ensure
that this is in fact what the intention was and I thought I would
take this opportunity to inform the Chair.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. House
leader for putting that information forward. It is very
important that we can vote on that particular motion an hour
earlier.
Dealing with my bill now instead of the government's bill on pay
raises, I would suggest that the agriculture ministers who were
appearing before the committee all agreed that a safety net
program should be put together. Dealing with that issue with
respect to the committee I am proposing, with the committee being
made up not only of farmers, producers, industry people and
government people but also of people from the provinces, we would
then be able to have a group get together to put in place the
right process, the right model, and then take that forward, and
not just to the minister because unfortunately the minister loses
those recommendations on a fairly regular basis. I do not think
anybody, including the minister of agriculture, could have
possibly put forward a worse program than the AIDA program and
could have possibly put forward a worse implementation than the
AIDA implementation.
In my constituency office about 50% of my time and my staff's
time is devoted to trying to find out the status of AIDA claims.
That was supposed to be finished by now. We had a safety net
program called AIDA that was supposed to put dollars in the
pocket immediately. As a matter of fact I heard the minister say
at one time that the AIDA program was bankable.
I would have great difficulty in suggesting that any producer
could go to any bank in the country and generate a loan based on
the criteria of AIDA. That producer would be laughed out of any
financial institution, because there was no understanding at all
of what kind of financial compensation producers would get when
they applied to AIDA. Producers spent a lot of money at their
accountants for the information, applied to AIDA and had a number
that was generated from the criteria.
Applications to AIDA went through a bunch of processes. In some
cases producers were told what the number would be and when they
ended up with the cheque it was totally different and always for
less than what the original application was for. In some cases
it was up to 50% less. In some cases after they made their
application based on information developed by their accountants,
the government came back and said they would get nothing out of
the AIDA program. Is that bankable?
1825
The point I am trying to make is that if this committee were in
existence it could put forward its model and the implementation
of its model as well. Everybody would live happily ever after
except of course for the government because it might finally have
to do something right with respect to agriculture. That would be
a terrible divergence from where it is now. If it actually did
something right for producers and agriculture, producers would
not know what hit them.
Unfortunately the legislation is non-votable. It is an issue
that is very dear and close to my heart and to the hearts of the
people I represent in my rural area. Unfortunately a good safety
net program will not come forward. The new CFIP has been
extended for two years and it is very underfunded. I do not
believe the government has the political will to put forward the
necessary programs to keep agriculture prosperous in the future.
I would appreciate hearing from the parliamentary secretary who
probably does not understand the issue very well. However I am
sure he has some notes that have been made for him, so I will sit
back and listen.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have not
been insulted. If my colleague was not saying that in jest, I
would be insulted.
We have just heard from one of our valuable members of the all
party Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I heard
one of my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance say in the last two
weeks that we were the committee on the Hill that gets along
better, for all the right reasons, than any other committee. I
believe we have good people sitting around the table. We do not
always agree. I am certain that we will hear the ideas of the
hon. member for Brandon—Souris in the near future and when we
visit his community in the fall.
This debate is very important. The importance of being prepared
for an agricultural disaster cannot be overemphasized. I thank
the hon. member for raising the profile of the issue. However the
government cannot support the bill for very obvious reasons.
My colleague knows that first and foremost Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada is already responsible for developing policies
and procedures in case of agricultural losses or disasters. There
is no denying the importance of our agriculture and agri-food
sector. It is an integrated and complex $130 billion a year
chain. It is the second largest manufacturing sector and the
employer of one out of every seven jobs in Canada.
The current system allows the government to develop positions
regarding agricultural policy that are consistent with the
national interest. It includes accounting for what is the best
for the country as a whole, for both rural and urban Canadians.
The proposed bill would not allow us to do that.
Legislating the committee's mandate and membership structure
would reduce the government's flexibility to consult more broadly
on different and evolving issues. To develop programs and
policies for the sector, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
consults with a wide range of stakeholders. These consultations
are a valuable means of listening to Canadians and sharing ideas.
AAFC has a long history of consulting with national farm
organizations, producers, processors, provinces and territories.
The department is also reaching out to consumers, citizens,
non-government organizations and civil society organizations that
look to AAFC to provide safe food, a clean environment and
products that improve the quality of life. That is what we
provide and Canadians do a great job of it.
The government values opportunities to engage in informed
discussion with people representing a broad range of opinions.
The insights gained from these consultations are crucial to the
department as it continues to serve the priority needs of
Canadians. By taking the views of a wide range of Canadians into
account, the government is better positioned to ensure the
agriculture and agri-food sector is competitive and innovative in
the future.
I will take a few moments to review the safety net programs we
already have in place.
Last July, federal, provincial and territorial agriculture
ministers signed a three year framework agreement on farm income
safety nets worth $5.5 billion. The federal government is
investing up to $3.3 billion over the next three years and the
provinces are contributing up to $2.2 billion.
1830
In addition to bringing more money to the table, the new
agreement marked the first time ever that all the provinces and
the federal government, including Manitoba, signed on to a common
approach to delivering federal-provincial farm safety net
programs, an approach which includes an ongoing income disaster
program the Canadian farmers had requested.
The Canadian farm income program, or CFIP, is a three year
national disaster program designed to provide funding for
agricultural producers here in Canada to address serious income
reductions that are beyond their control. The framework also
provides the basis for federal and provincial core safety net
programs, which include fall cash advances, NISA, crop insurance
and province specific programs.
Another reason why the government cannot support the bill is
that agriculture disasters and farm income are not issues in
isolation from all the others facing farmers. That is why the
government is going even further in domestic policy development,
with the goal of greater security for this sector.
That is why we are working on a strategy that includes income
stabilization, adjustment and transition, food safety and
environmental protection. This strategy will provide producers
with the appropriate tools to manage their individual situations
with a market oriented, globally competitive industry. To
achieve that goal, we are broadening our understanding of risk to
include the entire food chain, from field to fork, and to include
not only price and yield risks but also environmental and food
safety concerns.
We are helping the agriculture and agrifood sectors manage all
of the risks that they face and respond to the growing
expectations of citizens and consumers. We are enhancing our
already great reputation for being known throughout the world as
a supplier of high quality and safe products. We want customers
to choose Canada because it sets the standard for food safety and
for environmental responsibility in the production of our food.
This strategy, not the bill put forward by the member opposite,
will make Canada the world leader in using environmentally
sustainable practices and in producing safe, high quality food.
This approach builds on the advancements in science,
particularly life science, the growing knowledge of living things
and to facilitate sector growth. Canadians are world leaders in
agricultural research and development, with recognized expertise
in areas such as sustainable farming practices, biotechnology and
life science.
Life sciences, for example, are creating a whole new range of
products and services based on renewable resources such as
plants. We are actively pursuing new and expanded uses for
traditional agricultural commodities, including, for example,
biodiesel additives that are made from canola, nutriceuticals
from tomatoes and from flax, and the production of high value
pharmaceutical proteins in plants.
We have many great possibilities staring at us in the immediate
future. We are also developing completely new crops in which to
deliver viable chemicals to all kinds of applications. Our
farmers will have the tools that they need to produce products
that are the number one choice of Canadian citizens and consumers
around the globe.
Consumers will choose Canada because it sets the standard for
food safety, for environmental responsibility and for innovation
and because a Canadian product from the Canadian market is one
that people can trust and believe in. A Canadian product can
always be believed in and we are very proud of it.
In turn, our producers in rural communities will reap the
benefits of the new markets, economic growth and investment that
are rightfully theirs. We will provide them with a legacy and a
future that is a source of national pride, an unbeatable national
advantage that will support generations to come.
We are producing products in a sustainable and environmentally
responsible manner so that our natural resources are productive
for generations to come.
1835
We are continuing our efforts to maintain and enhance our
reputation for safe and high quality food production. We are
looking to science and research to develop new products and new
ways to better serve humankind.
We are moving forward. The proposed bill is taking a step
backward, but I am sure my colleague will be back at another time
to do a better job, with more research, and we will look at this
issue again.
I look forward to debate in committee tomorrow when in fact our
guest speaker will be the Secretary of State for Rural
Development. It is worth noting that this is the first time in
the history of the House of Commons there has been a minister
responsible for rural development in Canada. I am glad to say
that the minister will be in front of our committee tomorrow.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the
debate that is going on today. The last comment made by my
colleague is also very interesting because the budget for that
department is even less than that for the gun registry. That is
an indication that the gun registry is spending much more money
than was first planned.
It is my pleasure to speak to the bill today, which calls for
the creation of a national committee to oversee programs in the
case of agricultural losses, disasters or market conditions. It
is quite evident, however, that the current government is either
not listening to farmers or is indifferent to their plight. With
net farm income in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba hitting record
lows and input costs rising day by day, it is appalling to see
how the government has brushed aside the Canadian farmer.
In committee today we listened to three agriculture ministers
from the prairie provinces. Input costs have risen dramatically.
The farm crisis in those provinces is deepening. Farm income has
gone up in other provinces, but the grain producing provinces are
still in crisis. A 15% rise in interest costs alone last year
indicates that farmers are borrowing more money just to try to
stay afloat. There has been a 35% increase in fuel costs.
Farmers find this devastating.
The bottom line in all of this is that in my home province of
Saskatchewan the average farm income is less than $7,000. We
were talking about salaries in the House today, but let us take a
look at what many thousands of people who produce food for the
country have to exist on. That is something we need to address
and need to address urgently.
It was clearly demonstrated on March 20 when we in the Canadian
Alliance put forward a motion calling upon the government to give
an additional $400 million in emergency assistance to Canadian
farmers. The motion was voted down by the government side, by
the way. If the government had been listening to farmers and
farm groups, it would have known that the $500 million it put on
the table was not enough.
Instead the government has said that programs like AIDA would
help farmers get through their financial crunch, but with red
tape entangling every farmer who applies it has become more of a
hindrance than a help. There are horror stories of farmers who
applied and were assured that they would get money, so they
borrowed money from their banks because they were told it was
bankable. Then months later they were asked to repay the amount.
Farmers do not have money to do that.
The horror stories are terrible. I wish government members
would go to my constituency, answer the phone sometime and listen
to what farmers have to contend with as they apply for some of
this government assistance.
It is extremely important for the government to receive
information on how effective current safety net programs are and
to take advice on how to improve the delivery of necessary
financing for our farm families. We have a committee in place
that is called the national safety net advisory committee. The
problem is not a lack in the committee or lack of advice. The
problem is the minister of agriculture and the governing Liberals
in general who ignore the advice they have received.
In committee this morning we heard again that all kinds of
studies have been done on the farm situation. We heard about the
Estey report and the Kroeger report. The results are virtually
ignored. There is no point in having all these studies and there
is no point in setting up committees if the government does not
follow up and do something about this issue.
1840
Let me give more examples. Farm groups have shown consistently
that the current AIDA program has failed to address the needs of
grain and oilseeds producers. The government has ignored this
fact. I have received letters and phone calls from disgruntled
farmers who are trying to get through the red tape that is called
AIDA. Some farmers are still waiting for their 1999 claim. That
is two years after the fact. Those who have qualified are at
times waiting for their cheques after receiving notification that
they will be receiving the money.
Farm groups thought if they could give advice on how to improve
AIDA, the government might listen, but the government has not.
Agricultural producers said again and again that a minimum of
$900 million was needed just to cover the losses they incurred in
2000, but our Prime Minister allowed only $500 million to be
given out. Farm rallies and producer delegations have come to
Ottawa and have all said time and time again that the $500
million was not close to enough.
The problem is quite evident. The government refuses to listen
even to a committee of its own creation. Our party has done what
the government has refused to do.
I appreciate what my colleague on the government side said about
the agriculture committee. Yes, we try to work together with
government, we try to point out what is necessary for it to do,
but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
Last year the Canadian Alliance went out to farmers and asked
them what they would like to see the government implement.
Farmers told us that assistance should be given out on time and
should be targeted to those who need help the most and that any
type of farm assistance program must be improved to provide long
term stability to farmers instead of constantly created ad hoc
programs.
Those farmers came before the committee. They gave reasonable
solutions to the crisis we are facing in agriculture, but nothing
happened. That is what Canadian producers have told us. That is
what they have been telling the national safety net advisory
committee, but the minister of agriculture and his colleagues on
the government side refused to listen. Would the creation of a
new committee cause the government to listen when already it does
not listen to a committee of the same nature? That is highly
doubtful.
I support the motion. I would do anything to try to help out
our agriculture producers, but I do not know that another
committee is going to really do it.
It seems that the government side must be hard of hearing. It
seems to turn a blind eye to an industry that employs 1.7 million
Canadians, has exports that total $27.6 billion and contributes
$13.6 billion to our gross domestic product. It is just
unfathomable that the government would ignore this kind of
industry. It seems that the voice of the farmer no longer
matters to the government. I would ask the government to start
listening and to spend more time with farmers.
In the coming months we may have a drought like we have not seen
for over 130 years. If the no rain situation continues in
Alberta and western Saskatchewan, we will have a crisis that will
be even more severe and will have more dimensions to it.
What will the government do when the cattle are being shipped in
order to find better pasture land? What will the government do
when the water levels drop to dangerously low levels? Will the
government begin to listen when it is too late? Will it perk up
its ears and start to lend an ear to agriculture producers?
All I ask is that the government listen, not just to me but to
producers. I ask the government to listen to their problems. I
ask the government to listen to their advice and use it to help
them in troubled times.
This morning we had three ministers of different political
stripes before the committee, three ministers who agree that
something has to be done. When we have a problem of this
dimension on the prairies, we must take it seriously. When the
cutbacks were made in 1993 the prairie provinces were expected to
take a much greater hit. That is one thing that all the
ministers before the committee this morning agreed on. They
agreed that they were treated differently, that they had taken a
much greater hit than the rest of the agricultural sector.
Would we then conclude that the government, by cutting back in
these areas and not allowing enough time for the change has
actually, created the crisis in western Canada?
1845
I will give an example. The Crow rate was a transportation
subsidy that western Canadian farmers had for almost a century.
It was suddenly removed. We said at that time that 90% of that
money should be taken and rolled into a program that would
compensate them for the adverse effects that they received from
other parts. That did not happen. If that would have happened
at that point, we would have had enough money accumulated now to
deal with this crisis because, as was explained in committee
today, this crisis has come about because of the farm support
programs in other countries.
I could go on and on, however if we need another committee and
if that committee is going to help, I will support it. However,
the bottom line is we have to make sure that whatever happens,
farmers are listened to and their needs are addressed.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss a concern that
should affect and seriously grab the attention of all Canadians,
and that is our agricultural crisis.
There probably was not a sadder day for our primary producers
than the day the Prime Minister country said, and I believe I am
quoting verbatim, “I don't understand the problem in
agriculture, it is not showing up in the polls”. Imagine a
farmer struggling in the fields of Saskatchewan, or the Annapolis
Valley, or Manitoba or wherever hearing the Prime Minister issue
a statement of that nature? It was because of that type of
response by the Prime Minister that I entered politics.
In November 1996, on national television, a woman from Quebec
asked this same Prime Minister a question. By the way, that was
his last televised town hall meeting. Imagine how nervousness
she was, bearing in mind that he had been a member of parliament
for 33 years and was the Prime Minister of the country. She
asked him what he or his government could do to assist her to
search for gainful employment? He could have and should have
said that she had brought up a specific case and if she cared to
meet his officials after the show, they would be happy to talk to
her. However, he did not.
What he said changed my life and got me into politics. He said
“Well Madam, in life some people are lucky, some are not. You
may have to move”. I was so upset by our Prime Minister when he
said that that I decided to enter the political world, and here I
am today. Years later, he said that agriculture was not showing
up in the polls.
My colleague, the member for Palliser who through his efforts
has not only kept the caucus abreast of the agricultural issues,
but has raised these issues in the standing committee and in the
House of Commons. He deserves a wonderful warm round of applause
for his continued effort to bring the issues of agriculture to
the forefront of political debate.
My colleague from Brandon—Souris is asking that a committee be
struck to look into the issues that severely affect our farmers
and their families of today, be it weather, pests, shortages of
goods or services, market conditions, delivery concerns, et
cetera. He is asking the government and opposition members to
show a little forward thinking in terms of the needs of our
agricultural producers.
Not long ago a group farmers and their families spoke to our
caucus about their concerns and the agricultural crisis they were
facing at home in the prairies.
We should bear in mind that 22,000 families left the farm in
1998-99. If that is not a crisis, what is it?
1850
I asked a young man from Saskatchewan who was about 12 or 13
years old if he would go into the agriculture industry when he
became older. He said that his father and his grandfather did
but he would not. Then I asked him if his classmates in school
would go into the agriculture industry and become farmers, and he
said no.
The question that begs to be asked is: Who will be the
agricultural producers of tomorrow? Will it be the family farm
or will it be the multinational corporate farm? Is the family
farm dead and finished? If it is, the government should have the
courage to say so, but that is not its initiative.
I come from an area of the world where a lot of fishing takes
place. The loss of independent fishermen in the nineties and
what happened to their families is exactly what is happening to
farmers of today. It is inexcusable that the government just
sits back and twiddles its thumbs and allows this crisis to
happen. It is almost like the government does it deliberately.
It is almost like it wants multinational corporations to take
over.
Mark my words, Mr. Speaker. We may eventually lose our
agricultural sovereignty in Canada, which means that we will have
to rely on other nations or other corporations governed by other
nations to feed us. That will be a sad day. We should be world
leaders and we are falling further behind. We are telling our
farmers that we do not care and that parliament is too busy to
deal with their issues. All my colleague from Brandon—Souris
asked was that a committee be struck to look at the issues.
It is incredible that government members will not accept that
argument but it is understandable. A good idea from the
opposition is rarely accepted by the Liberal Party. It is
unfortunate the Liberals cannot get their heads out of the clouds
for one moment and accept good and reasonable debate. There was a
time when the Liberal Party of Canada would have done so, but it
does not do it now. If an idea does not come from that bench, it
certainly does not go anywhere. That is a disgrace.
On behalf of farmers and on behalf of the New Democratic Party
from coast to coast to coast, we thank the member for
Brandon—Souris for his initiative. We would have liked to see
it votable, but unfortunately it is quite obvious that the
Liberal government would not see that happen.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I heard my hon. colleagues on the other side say that we
have no committee and that we are stopping a committee. We have
a committee—
Mr. Rick Borotsik: That is not a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: I am not here to quote the member for
Brandon—Souris. While the Chair is not here to agree or
disagree, the member certainly has a point that this matter is
not a point of order. I will allow the member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore time to conclude
his remarks.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: My remarks will be very clear. I
personally thank all farmers and their families across the
country who toil in the fields and in the factories in order to
provide us with the best food in the world. On behalf of the
federal New Democratic Party from coast to coast to coast, I wish
them Godspeed in their future deliberations.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
once again I rise unexpectedly in the House because the topic
seizes my attention as I hope it seizes the attention of all
Liberals over there who are closing their eyes to a problem in
the country. I look over there and pretty well all of them are
disinterested in what we are doing today. That is very
unfortunate because it is a matter of great importance.
1855
I want to make a few comments about the importance of
agriculture. It goes far beyond the fact that I grew up on a
farm. It goes far beyond the fact that I still have relatives in
Saskatchewan and Alberta. I do not have any farming relatives in
Alberta, but I have farming relatives in Saskatchewan. I have
many farmers in my riding for whom I feel an obligation to speak
up on an occasion like this one when a motion was presented by a
member of the Progressive Conservative Party which talked about
the crisis in the agricultural industry.
The Government of Canada, in conjunction with the provincial
governments, has a large duty in the agricultural community which
has gone unfulfilled. It is more than just a crisis of lack of
rain, pests or the usual things farmers have contended with all
their lives. It is a crisis in marketing their commodities.
I want all Liberal members to hear that there are problems which
have been produced by the government. It is curious to me that
members of the Liberal Party are basically saying there are so
few voters on the prairies it does not matter whether or not they
look after them because they will not lose many votes and will
still keep power. It seems that the Liberal government is all
words, all committee and no action.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon.
member for Elk Island, but it seems to me that a few voices of
members opposite in particular seem to come to my attention. I
know they would love to speak to this motion once more but they
already have done so.
I ask and beg their indulgence to allow other members the same
privilege. I would love to hear the hon. member for Elk Island.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments.
Certainly the House should be a place of dialogue and not just
verbal jousting.
Farmers in my riding are having trouble these days. It includes
drought, and with drought comes another problem. One farmer in
my area this week lost his home. It was so dry around his place
that unfortunately a fire started, the grass burned up to his
house and took his house down. That is a calamity in that
family. Everything was lost due climate over which farmers have
no control.
What is maddening is when farmers have problems over which they
have no control but which the government could change. That is
the source of the agricultural crisis. For example, I know a
farmer who sells seed grain. Seed grain is not covered by the
wheat board. The wheat board will not market it. All it markets
is the usual grain.
The farmer is wanting to market his seed grain. The wheat board
demands that it be sold through him. It will not take it. That
does not make any sense. What a frustration to a farmer who
wants to make enough money to look after himself and his family,
to pay his bills, his increasing energy bills, and all other
bills.
Mr. John Cannis: Blame the Alberta government.
Mr. Ken Epp: I would blame both governments. I blame
members of the federal government because when there was a vote
on rules for the wheat board they all stood even though none of
them, or I should say very few of them, represented ridings in
the prairies. They had the gall to set up a wheat board that
applies only to the prairie provinces and does not apply—
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I beg your indulgence. I stayed here because I had an interest
to hear, but I am not really hearing what this debate is all
about. If we could get back to the subject matter I would like
to hear it.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. parliamentary secretary
would give the hon. member for Elk Island a little more time, I
am sure he would find the pertinence and relevance he is seeking
right before his eyes.
1900
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative
member's bill deals with times of crisis in agriculture and
attempts to take a farmer through those years when family and
farm income is very low or zero. For the member who is listening
so carefully, which I appreciate, I simply am drawing the picture
that some of the reasons for a reduced or zero income for farmers
are due to climate, such as dryness. However some reasons are
government induced for which we should have solutions but we do
not because the government is unresponsive to the needs of
prairie farmers.
I mentioned the seed farmer. I have talked to other farmers who
are very frustrated. They have products in their bins which they
are ready to sell. They even have buyers but they cannot sell to
them. They have to take the product to the wheat board. Then if
they want, they can buy it back at an inflated price. No one
else does that. I do not know of a single other industry where,
in order to sell one's own product, one first has to sell it to a
government or an agency of the government and then buy it back at
a higher price.
There is a farmer in southern Alberta who has been actually
doing that. He markets his product in the United States because
he has a customer there who buys it. This is so absurd that I
must relay it.
He takes his grain from his bin to his truck, which he drives
over to the grain elevator. He gets his truck weighed then dumps
the grain so it can weigh the truck again. The difference is the
weight of the grain. Then they load the grain back up again. He
sells it to the wheat board, then writes a cheque for something
more than what he pays for it, including costs of dockage and a
proportional cost of transportation for which the wheat board is
responsible. He does it himself but he has to pay for it. Then
he takes that product across the border and sells it to the
person who wanted to buy it from him in the first place. He is
still making money.
Where is the effectiveness of the wheat board? Part of the farm
crisis is that there are rules and regulations which affect
farmers and which are induced by inaction or wrong action on the
parts of governments. If the wheat board is so good for Alberta,
Manitoba and Saskatchewan, then why is it not good for Ontario
and Quebec? Why is it not good for the Atlantic provinces? Why
do they not have to sell their products through a marketing board
controlled by the federal government? That is an area that has
been overlooked.
To have an agency which looks at all of these different areas
and helps to provide a way whereby farmers can, in those bleak
years, weather the storm and carry on with their businesses
instead of going bankrupt is so important. I do not think people
who have never gone through a bankruptcy know how devastating it
is, especially when a family loses a farmland which has been in
the family for 50, 80 and 100 years. That is totally devastating
and it is about time that something be done about it. Therefore,
I commend the member for the bill and I am very pleased to
support it.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
close the debate and will be brief. I thank the hon. members for
being in the House this late and speaking to an issue, which
means a lot to me.
My constituency consists of agriculture. My economic base is
agriculture. I believe very strongly that anything we can do in
the House to assist the agricultural industry to get through
these difficult times is important for us all, whether we are on
the opposition side of the bench or on the government's side of
the bench.
1905
I would like to suggest that the parliamentary secretary spoke
very eloquently. However when I listened to his speech, it
seemed he was saying that everything in agriculture was just
hunky-dory and that it had all of those wonderful programs
associated with it, which could help agriculture get over this
terrible speed bump. That in fact is not the case.
I come from a constituency that has had a double whammy. It had
the double whammy of a natural disaster in 1999, when 1.3 million
acres were not sown. The next whammy were the crops that were
generated in the 2000 crop year and put in this year. They are
generating commodity prices so low this year that producers
cannot pay back all the losses they incurred for the 1999 crop
year. So things are not hunky-dory.
The reason for this bill was to suggest that a committee be
struck and be charged with the responsibility of coming forward
to the minister, then to the government and to this parliament
with a safety net program that absolutely would work.
As I said earlier, we have models in this country, particularly
the ASRA program in Quebec and perhaps the MRI program in
Ontario. If we could get a committee that would bring together
all stakeholders and put forward the right safety net program and
model and have it come to fruition with the proper financial
resources coming both from the federal and provincial
governments, then maybe we would not have to stand in the House
over and over again trying to make sure the government recognizes
there is a very serious problem in agriculture.
I would like to thank the House for its indulgence.
Unfortunately the AIDA program is an unmitigated disaster. The
CFIP program will be an unmitigated disaster. If there is a
disaster caused by weather in Alberta this year, the federal
government will not be there to help and assist. If there is
another weather disaster, whether it be in Nova Scotia or in the
southeastern portion of the province of Manitoba, where we are
suffering through a similar fate as I did in 1999, the federal
government will not be there. If it is, it will be an ad hoc
program.
It absolutely amazes me that the government does not have the
ability to put forward what I believe are the right programs.
That can be developed. However the political will is not there.
I thank the House for its indulgence, and hopefully next time we
can get this voted on.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not
been designated a votable item, the order is dropped from the
order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to elaborate on a
question I raised in the House last week pertaining to mercury in
fish. In fact I raised several questions last week as a result
of an indepth investigative report done by the Ottawa
Citizen, backed up by independent laboratory testing, which
showed that mercury levels in several species of fish available
in the marketplace today, including shark, swordfish and fresh
and frozen tuna, were twice the limit set by Health Canada, if
not more.
The news that was generated from that story was greeted with a
less than positive response by the government. I was shocked
that this finding was not treated more seriously by the
government of the day. I had fully expected that the
parliamentary secretary or the Minister of Health would have
stood in the House and said that the findings concerned them and
they would investigate and take appropriate action.
Instead the response of the government was as follows. The
suggestion was that these fish in fact were gourmet fish and
therefore were eaten in such limited quantities that the impact
on human health was negligible. This statement was made despite
the fact that there are no studies or findings to determine
levels of consumption of those species of fish in Canada today.
1910
The government then suggested, and the Minister of Health in
particular, that Canada's limits were so prudent that we could
afford to take a risk with high levels of mercury in certain
fish. The Minister of Health suggested that our limits were
twice the limits set by the United States.
I point out that the limit set by Canada, which is 0.5 parts per
million of mercury in fish, is a limit that is genuinely accepted
across the board in numerous countries. According to the
government's own information and statistics, Canada is not
dissimilar from many other countries and in some instances is
less prudent than other countries.
Also it is important to point out that when it comes to the
United States, which is often cited as an example of having a
less than cautious regulatory approach, the real level used that
helps consumers make decisions is on par with those of Canada.
Our concern in raising this question is not scaremongering or
fishmongering, as the Minister of Health so foolishly suggested
in the House. It is to require the government to take the
necessary steps to ensure consumers are protected.
I ask again if the government is prepared to issue warnings to
all consumers so that they are aware of the levels of mercury in
fish and so that pregnant women in particular can take necessary
precautions. I also ask the government to issue an advisory to
all fish sellers across Canada asking them to provide some
notification to consumers purchasing these products.
In the absence of government action and leadership, fish
retailers and wholesalers across the country are making decisions
on their own. They are in a quandary as to what to do. They
expect and demand action from the government. I think it is a
reasonable request and I would ask the government to respond
accordingly.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for some time now, a Health Canada
directive has provided for a tolerance of no more than 0.5 ppm of
mercury in fish.
Some species are not covered by the directive: swordfish, shark
and both fresh and frozen tuna. These are large predatory
species that tend to accumulate mercury and therefore have higher
levels of it.
[English]
Rather than preventing perfectly wholesome and nutritious foods
from being available in the marketplace, a strategy to protect
health in the case of exempted species was warranted. Contrary
to recent media reports, Health Canada did not instruct CFIA to
exempt these fish from testing or other surveillance activities.
In fact fish are subjected to regular inspection by CFIA. The
agency enforces the guideline and monitors levels of mercury in
these fish.
In 1998 Health Canada issued an advisory recommending
consumption of no more than one meal per month in the case of
women of child bearing age and children, and one meal per week
for the general Canadian population. This advisory was reissued
last week.
[Translation]
I am sure everyone understands that, when it comes to health
protection, the same strategy cannot be employed in all
circumstances. While laws and directives are useful in the
production and sale of foods, there are other situations where it
is just as legitimate to use strategies based on the use of
information or, as in this case, consumer advisories. In this
instance, the advisory to limit consumption seems the best
strategy.
[English]
Other jurisdictions have also exempted species. The European
Union, for instance, has a 0.5 ppm limit for the mean total
mercury content of fish and exempts many more species than does
Canada.
[Translation]
I maintain that Canada can proudly take its place in the world
as a nation that acts responsibly to protect groups sensitive to
mercury in fish.
Canada is not at all imprudent in the case of mercury, and, in
some instances, it is even more prudent than others in its
recommendations. The directive in effect and the advisories
issued should be seen as strategies that both help disseminate
important health information.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24.
(The House adjourned at 7:15 p.m.)