37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 058
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 9, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| FOREURS DE VAL-D'OR
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| EDUCATION MERIT AWARDS
|
| Mr. Shawn Murphy |
1405
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| WOMEN'S ARMY CORPS
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| WARREN PERRIN
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1410
| ETHANOL
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| FOREURS DE VAL-D'OR
|
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| MINISTER
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
1415
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| COMMON CURRENCY
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1425
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1435
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1440
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| FINANCE
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
1445
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
1450
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
1455
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| WATER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION IN SEPT-ÎLES
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Hon. David . Collenette |
| RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| TOBACCO PRODUCTS
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1500
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Member for Kitchener—Waterloo
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| CULTURAL GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-348. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1510
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-349. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| PETITIONS
|
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Fuel Costs
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1515
| Rights of the Unborn
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
|
| Bill C-17. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Motion No. 1
|
1520
1525
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1530
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1535
1540
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1545
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| MARINE LIABILITY ACT
|
| Bill S-2. Third reading
|
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1550
1555
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1600
1605
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1650
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1655
1700
1705
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1710
1715
1720
1725
1730
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
|
| Bill C-17. Report stage
|
1755
(Division 93)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1800
(Division 94)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| HOUSING
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| Motion
|
1805
1810
1815
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1820
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1825
1830
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1835
| Mr. James Moore |
1840
1845
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1850
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 058
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 9, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Saint
John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on Monday several members opposed to Bill C-287 quoted the recent
report of the Royal Society of Canada as saying there was no need
for mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods in Canada.
What the members neglected to mention was the very next sentence
in the report. I quote:
The Panel wishes to emphasize, however, that these conclusions
are premised upon the assumption that the other recommendations
of this Report concerning the conditions for the effective
assessment and management of the risks of GM organisms are fully
implemented by the regulatory agencies.
We have a very long way to go before we can dismiss any need for
mandatory labelling. I encourage all members to read the full
report before they so disingenuously cite it.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this year alone the Liberal government will take more
than half a billion dollars from the people of B.C. in the form
of fuel taxes. That is an annual tax grab that could pay the
entire Vancouver area highways budget until the year 2006.
Yet the Minister of Transport stubbornly refuses to return to
B.C. a single cent of those taxes to support our highway system.
While greater Vancouver residents line up in gridlock on a
Trans-Canada Highway built in the 1950s the government pumps over
$500,000 in grants into cultural special interest groups in
central Canada.
Our taxed to the hilt drivers have had enough of filling up the
pork barrel for the Prime Minister. They want their share of the
national highways funding and they want it now.
When is the minister going to deliver?
* * *
[Translation]
FOREURS DE VAL-D'OR
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Foreurs de Val-d'Or have emerged as the Quebec Major Junior
Hockey League playoff champions.
The Guy Lafleur Trophy for best player in the playoffs went to
Simon Gamache.
Along with all the people of Abitibi, I was filled with pride by
this sensational victory. With their win over the
Acadie—Bathurst Titan for the President's Cup, our junior team
has made it abundantly clear that the calibre of hockey in
Quebec is truly at the national level.
Our players' victory was a tribute to their skills, playing
strategy and tenacity. Not only are they an honour to us all
but they have made the world of hockey realize that Val-d'Or is
a force to be reckoned with.
Hats off to Coach Claude Bouchard and each and every player for
this remarkable exploit.
I am sure their stellar performance in the playoffs is an
indication of future success in the Memorial Cup tournament at
Regina.
* * *
[English]
EDUCATION MERIT AWARDS
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to recognize the hard work, talent and innovation of
seven professors and researchers from the University of Prince
Edward Island.
Dr. Raymond Doiron, Dr. Paula McLean, Dr. Kay Diviney and
Professor Lawrence LeClair were each awarded the UPEI Faculty
Association Teaching Merit Award for their commitment to success
and outstanding dedication in teaching.
1405
Dr. Alastair Cribb, Dr. Gordon MacDonald and Dr. Henry Srebrnik
were each awarded the UPEI Faculty Association Research and
Scholarly Achievement Award for their accomplishments and
innovation in research.
The faculty and students at the university identified and
honoured them as being exceptional teachers and researchers. The
merit awards for excellence have been designed to acknowledge
individuals whose work has contributed to the instructional
excellence at this university.
On behalf of all residents of Prince Edward Island, I am proud
to pay tribute to these seven individuals. Their commitment and
devotion has enriched the education and lives of many students at
this university.
It is my belief that our future depends on the skills, knowledge
and innovation of such dedicated Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in recent
weeks during my weekends in the riding of Brome—Missisquoi, I
have had the pleasure to attend several galas as part of
National Volunteer Week.
I must again express my admiration for the men and women of
Farnham, Magog, Bedford, Cowansville and many other localities
who give time and energy to their community.
I told them at these galas just how much I have been touched
over the years by the anecdotes and little stories I have heard
from them all because of their great human interest.
They never make the headlines yet they are unique examples of
the spirit of respect, sharing, patience, generosity, love and
creativity.
In this the International Year of Volunteers, I salute all the
volunteers of Brome—Missisquoi whose contribution is so vital to
our communities.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, most Canadians turn on the tap and
expect the water to be safe to drink. The recent developments in
North Battleford and the tragedies in Walkerton raised questions
regarding the potential dangers lurking in our taps.
As an Edmontonian, I am relieved to know that Alberta
regulations require drinking water to be 99.5% free of
contaminants, which is the highest standard for water quality in
the country. The problem is that parasites like cryptosporidium
are microscopic and can pass through mechanical filtering.
Researchers at the University of Alberta, in partnership with
Epcor and the provincial government, are working to perfect a
process using ultraviolet light to kill microscopic parasites
such as cryptosporidium. If this process is proven effective,
the province has agreed to pay a substantial increase for water
treatment costs.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the government
of Alberta, the University of Alberta and Epcor for their
continued efforts to improve the quality of drinking water for
Alberta families.
* * *
WOMEN'S ARMY CORPS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I invite members of the House to join me in honouring the
Canadian Women's Army Corps.
Last weekend 1,200 people attended the unveiling of Stepping
Out, a statue of a uniformed corps member that stands just
outside of the new Kitchener armoury.
More than 21,000 women served in the CWAC during the second
world war and of those 17,000 came to Kitchener.
The Canadian Women's Army Corps was one of the most striking
innovations of Canadian military policy during the war and one of
its most successful. The CWACs launched women into a much
broader, more active role, both in Canadian society and more
particularly in the modern day Canadian forces.
This new statue is a lasting monument to those who led the way.
Through its image, the story of the Canadian Women's Army Corps
will be told. It is a story of pride, purpose and great
accomplishment.
I wish to extend congratulations to the CWAC Memorial Fund
Association for creating this lasting monument.
* * *
[Translation]
WARREN PERRIN
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in Montreal, I had the great honour of meeting the
strong supporter of Acadian culture and francophone rights in
Louisiana, Warren Perrin, when he made a presentation at the
11th symposium on international law organized by Mr. Justice
Allen Babineaux as part of the Quebec bar's annual convention,
in co-operation with the French section of Louisiana's bar and
the council for the development of French in Louisiana, which is
chaired by Mr. Perrin.
Warren Perrin, who is himself a descendant of deported Acadians,
became acutely aware of the consequences of deportation when he
was trying to answer his children's questions on the origins of
their family.
They could not understand why their ancestors had been treated
like criminals and deported all over the world.
This remarkable man then decided to pursue an initiative
launched over 200 years ago when, after 1763, a petition
condemning the deportation was presented to King George II by a
group of deported Acadians. The British crown never deigned to
follow up on that petition. Mr. Perrin is now asking the British
crown to apologize to Acadians.
It is never too late to recognize that a mistake was done. I
want to salute Mr. Perrin and ensure him of our support in the
pursuit of his efforts.
* * *
1410
[English]
ETHANOL
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the use of ethanol blended fuel across Canada has
prevented the release of almost 25 million kilograms of carbon
dioxide over the past year.
That is good news for our environment, as research proves that
ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 36% compared to
conventional fuels.
It is great news for our farmers. The most commonly available
ethanol fuel, known as E-10, is a high octane, water free alcohol
produced from Ontario corn and agricultural feedstock.
Chatham-Kent and Essex counties produce 150 million litres of
ethanol, more than half of the 248 million litres produced in
Canada each year.
With our government's vow to triple ethanol production to help
meet our Kyoto targets, it will help our transportation sector
reduce emissions and give more environmentally friendly choices
to drivers.
Our farm sector is part of the solution.
* * *
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the long arms of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
picked the pockets of thousands of Alberta taxpayers expecting to
receive a provincial energy rebate this spring.
Canada's revenue agency improperly seized the provincial heating
rebates of at least 3,000 Albertans when it had no legal right to
do so.
The excuse provided by Revenue Canada is that it had no idea if
these people intended to send in a payment for taxes owed, so it
kept their heating cheques.
This guilty until proven innocent mentality of our revenue
agency is disgraceful. This high handed approach by Revenue
Canada must stop. It is time it learned to respect
taxpayers.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREURS DE VAL-D'OR
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to mention yesterday's victory by the Foreurs de Val-d'Or hockey
team.
This is the Foreurs' eighth season in Quebec's major junior
hockey league and they have won the playoffs for the second
time in their history.
I am proud of what the team has achieved, particularly considering
that it finished in last position last year. I am also proud
because my son Samuel plays for the Foreurs.
I also want to mention the performance of all these young
players, particularly Simon Gamache, who had at least one point
in each of the 21 playoff games to end the series with a record
57 points. He was also awarded the Guy Lafleur trophy.
Maxime Daigneault's performance is also worth noting. At 16 he
is the first rookie goaltender to lead his team to the
President's cup.
Congratulations to the team, the coaches and all those who took
part in this victory.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister will be giving Canadians an economic update next
week. It has been reported that he plans to announce paying down
the national debt by the amount of $15 billion to $17 billion.
Paying down the debt is important, but at this time it is
crucial that as a country we address the crises of our lack of
housing and our failing infrastructure.
A commitment by the government of $1 billion per year for 10
years would address the housing shortfall in all of Canada. A
commitment of $1.5 billion per year would give us a real start on
improving our highways as well as supporting increased public
transit and green infrastructure like water and sewers.
One of the main reasons we have a surplus is that the government
has abandoned its responsibility for housing, roads and
infrastructure. Now the health and lives of Canadians are at
risk. Canadians have lost confidence in a safe water supply and
local governments are resorting to tolls to improve road safety.
The finance minister has more than enough resources to address
these problems. No more excuses: let us fix the problem.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week in
Toronto the Prime Minister of Canada told us that the countries
of the Americas were adopting Canadian values.
Does this mean that the values of the people in all these other
countries are lower than those of Canadians?
Is this another version of Canada “the best country in the
world”? This attitude is condescending and contemptuous of the
people. And what are these values the Prime Minister is citing?
Do they include the abuse of democracy through the denial of
parliamentarians' right to know the content of the texts of the
free trade area of the Americas?
Do they include the attack on young people and women in
particular under the employment insurance regime?
Do they include values opposing the family as expressed in the
rejection of a real parental leave policy for Quebec or in the
policy of the stick for young offenders?
Holding values is one thing, expressing them in specific action
is another. Rather than preach at other people, the Prime
Minister should be true to himself and put his own values into
practice.
* * *
1415
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada
Millennium Scholarship Foundation last week distributed its
excellence awards for the 2001-02 academic year.
One hundred and twenty-four graduates in Quebec were awarded
scholarships in recognition for their academic achievement,
community involvement, leadership and innovation.
I want to congratulate Mathieu Carignan of Saint-Césaire in the
riding of Shefford, who is among the winners of an excellence
award.
Winning this award represents a unique moment in the life of a
student. It is an excellent way to encourage and recognize the
academic work of our young people, the next generation.
Created through the initiative of the Government of Canada,
these awards represent a major investment in the future of our
students. It is a fine way to promote academic excellence.
Bravo Mathieu, once again. Canada enjoys great wealth in the
promise of its youth and you are a shining example.
* * *
CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, today
hundreds and hundreds of demonstrators are meeting in Quebec
City to call on this government to take action and set an
example in the safe use of chrysotile asbestos.
These men and women from Asbestos in my riding, and Thetford
Mines in the riding of Frontenac—Mégantic are fighting for
their survival and want their MPs to do something.
Here in Ottawa we should lead by example. This week's
announcement about the removal of asbestos from the parliament
buildings sends a very mixed message.
I am joining these men and women in order to raise parliament's
awareness regarding the safe use of chrysotile asbestos, a
natural product which is found in Canada and which saves lives.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a former prime minister and former
leader of the Liberal Party has indicated just yesterday that he
believes that parliament needs to be reformed. Those comments
show that it is not only Canadian Alliance supporters across the
country who want to see democratic reform but there are others
also, and we are encouraged by that.
Will the Prime Minister listen to the advice of his former
leader and take immediate steps to bring in true parliamentary
reform to the Chamber?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a committee will be reporting in June on that very
topic.
I could quote the hon. member when he was in Edmonton, where he
did not want parliament to sit, because when parliament was
sitting in Alberta it was creating too much demand on the
treasury. I just want to say that I do not want to follow his
example. We do want some reform and we are working on that. The
committee will be reporting on that next month.
I want to say that there were no free votes before this
government came to power. We have authorized more than 100 free
votes on this side, which is much more than on the other side.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this matter is too serious to just
reply with old rhetoric. Forty per cent of Canadians stayed home
during the last election because they felt so dissatisfied. They
felt their voices did not matter since their own members of
parliament could not even speak for them or vote freely.
Would the Prime Minister be specific right now? Mr. Turner said
that at the very least, at a minimum, MPs should be able to vote
freely on all matters other than possibly the throne speech and
the budget speech. Would the Prime Minister agree to at least
that much?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, free votes were not part of this institution
until we formed the government.
I would like to say, for the edification of the House of
Commons, that the Leader of the Opposition chaired a special
committee on parliamentary reform in 1993 in Alberta. It
recommended that committees should not be allowed to issue
minority reports. That is a good example of the type of reform
he has in mind.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am talking about members' right to vote
freely here in this House. The former leader of the Liberal
party says that the present government has too much control over
its members.
Does the Prime Minister agree with his former leader, his former
friend? If so, what specifically is he going to do to reform
parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when he himself was House leader in Alberta's legislative
assembly, he did not allow a single free vote.
Right now, he is the last person who should be offering opinions
on members' freedom.
* * *
1420
[English]
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have had somewhat troubling news today. They found out
that an ageing veteran who went to his MP was turned down simply
because the MP said that he had not voted Liberal. Is that not a
dreadful thing?
Will the Prime Minister tell his members that they are members
for every single constituent, not just those who voted Liberal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I talked with the member of parliament a few minutes ago
and he said that he was willing to help his constituents. He
said that he has always received all of them. It is unfortunate
that this letter was written. He said that he was hoping the
person would call him and he would help him.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, now that it is public and now that every Canadian knows
about this, I am sure he will help him as fast as he can.
Let us imagine a helpless, ageing veteran going to his member of
parliament asking for help and he is told that because he did not
vote for that member of parliament he could not help him. Will the
Prime Minister simply say here in the House today that this will
not happen again?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did. I talked with the member and he said that he
would be willing to help this gentleman.
I am very happy to hear the other side say that a member of
parliament has to work for his constituents. I have said that in
the House of Commons for the last two weeks about my own
constituents.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMON CURRENCY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
the Governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before the Standing
Committee on Finance, he acknowledged that maintaining the
Canadian dollar involves some costs. In fact, David Dodge
referred to a ten year horizon for adoption of a common
currency.
This position is nothing new for the Bank of Canada, as last
year the director of its international division wrote that “a
common North American currency is not such a farfetched idea”.
On the eve of his economic statement, is the Minister of Finance
going to take the Bank of Canada analysis into account and
acknowledge that consideration must be given to the adoption of
a common currency within the context of an integrated economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
position of the Canadian government and the position stated by
the Governor of the Bank of Canada is that the best solution for
the Canadian economy is to maintain the Canadian dollar.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
directing my question to the Prime Minister because it is
obvious that his Minister of Finance is saying one thing and
Mr. Dodge something else.
Since he refers to a ten year horizon, and even the division
director spoke of adopting a common currency, does the Prime
Minister not think that what is needed is simply to give some
thought to the idea of adopting a common currency within the
context of North America, give some thought to it, debate it
and discuss it in a reasonable manner?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I have said on several occasions, it is in Canada's best
interest, as the Minister of Finance has just said, to maintain
a currency that is different from that of the United States.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the past four years Canada has dropped from sixth
to ninth place in productivity terms, far behind the United
States.
The Canadian dollar keeps dropping and has reached a level the
Prime Minister could not even imagine when he mocked the
“Lévesque buck” at 75 cents. All the while, the Minister of
Finance intones a patriotic refrain.
In view of this constant erosion of productivity, the dollar and
our standard of living, will the Minister of Finance finally
agree to consider the possibility of a single North American
currency in an effort to resolve the productivity problems
Canada is facing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is mistaken. There was certainly a drop in Canada's
productivity in the 1980s and early 1990s, but since 1997 it
has been on the rise. In fact, last year was a very good year
in terms of Canadian productivity.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a weak dollar helps our exports in the short term, but
represents a substantial handicap to the economy in the medium
term.
In addition, instead of making absurd statements on the supposed
political uncertainty of Quebec, would the Minister of Finance
not agree, as do the Governor of the Bank of Canada, a Nobel
prize laureate in economics, the Toronto Dominion Bank and
Quebec, that in the end the road to the future for Quebec and
Canada is to work starting now to establish a single currency
for all of North America, including Canada, the United States,
Quebec and Mexico?
1425
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
can tell the hon. member that the position of the Governor of
the Bank of Canada is exactly the same as the one I have just
stated. I have discussed it with him on a number of occasions.
I would next like to ask the member a question. How is it that
throughout the debates on Quebec's sovereignty, even the
sovereignists said they wanted to keep the Canadian dollar?
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the U.S. defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, confirmed
that the Bush government wants to weaponize outer space,
realizing the U.S. space command's goal of dominating the space
dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and
investments.
Now that the U.S. has confirmed that its missile defence plans
will in fact include a new star wars scheme, will the government
finally make it clear that Canada will have nothing whatsoever to
do with this dangerous U.S. missile defence scheme.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said that the American government is making some
propositions and that it will be having discussions with Canada,
all the NATO nations, plus the Russians and Chinese, before
putting this new program of defence into place.
The Canadian government is willing to listen but we have
expressed some reservations in the past. We have some questions
to ask and we will keep asking questions. However no decisions
will be made in the weeks or months ahead.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): So much for
leadership, Mr. Speaker. Even Brian Mulroney had the guts to say
no to star wars in the 1980s.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of National
Defence.
If Canada has really taken no position on the NMD, why is it
that we are posting a senior military officer in the Arlington,
Virginia headquarters of the U.S. ballistic missile defence
organization, the only non-American in that position? The BMDO
says that the guy is much more than an observer. Why is there
this direct Canadian military link with the missile defence plan,
right in the heart of the scheme?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise to the hon. member,
because it has been part of the defence white paper since 1994,
that we would engage in consultation and observation. In fact,
having somebody in that office is a good way of getting the
information that we need to make a decision and to understand the
process that the United States is going through at the moment.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
as a party leader, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has
requested a direct briefing by the American experts on the
proposed missile defence shield. I hope the Prime Minister would
agree.
However, as a more general question, would the Prime Minister
also agree to meet personally with the other party leaders to
work out a new practice to give parliament earlier and more
complete access to sensitive information affecting trade and
foreign policy. That was done with the provinces in negotiating
free trade. Would the Prime Minister show the leadership and
take that co-operation a step further with this parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I understand it, there was a debate in the House
before the meeting in Quebec City and ministers gave information
to members of parliament. The same information has been given to
the provincial governments.
I do not think there was anything that was of a different
nature. Everything that could be made public was made public.
* * *
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on the question of parliamentary reform, the Minister of Finance
has expressed an interest in giving more power to members of
parliament. The economic policies presented in October were
never approved by a vote in the House because the Prime Minister
called an election.
Now the minister proposes to introduce his next economic
statement in committee. Why is he not presenting it to the House
and letting the House vote on it? How do his actions reflect a
commitment to parliamentary reform?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. At the time, prior to the
election, a ways and means motion was presented in the House and
was passed by the House.
I would also remind the hon. member that the economic policies
of this government were submitted to the highest tribune in the
land, the Canadian people, and they voted for this government.
* * *
1430
HEALTH
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are losing confidence in their health care
system. The portion of Canadians who rated the health care
system as excellent or very good has plummeted from 60% in 1991
to less than 25% last year.
The verdict is in on our health care system. It needs
resuscitation today. The Romanow commission will take 18 months
just to finish its report. What actions will the government take
to restore confidence today?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the member did not mention, and perhaps he does not know, is
that consistently over 80% of people who had personal experience
with the health care system over the last year rated it excellent
or very good, this member included.
What I want to stress is that last September all governments
came to the same place. They had agreement with all the premiers
and the Prime Minister, which involved not just more money but a
coherent plan to address the issues we face, and that is what we
are about to do.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians deserve more than mediocrity in their health
care system. Yesterday's report card highlighted that the
federal government did not meet its own targets for review of new
drugs. The fact is that it takes twice as long as it is
recommending.
My question for the health minister is very simple. Will he
throw severely sick Canadians a lifeline and guarantee at least
to meet his own targets in life saving drugs?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we published through the Canadian Institutes of Health
Information a report on the state of health care in Canada. It
is not yet complete, but it was an extremely good picture of
where things stand. It contained some good news and some news
that was not so good.
Overall the health care system is providing the care that
Canadians need. In terms of drug approvals by Health Canada, we
can and we will do better. However Canadians should know that
all governments are working to improve quality care for all
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
organized crime bill would give undercover officers immunity by
allowing them to commit certain offences with complete impunity
in order to make it easier for them to infiltrate organized
crime groups.
Will the minister guarantee the House that the immunity provided
for in the bill will be limited to infiltrating organized crime
groups and nothing else?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is referring to the
delegation of undercover agents to do work to gather evidence and
be able to provide the proper evidence to bring to court, I can
assure him that they too will be responsible for their acts. They
also have to provide a report to me each year.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, he
has completely failed to answer the question.
The bill would allow the Solicitor General of Canada and
Quebec's Minister of Public Security to authorize the commission
of offences. It is unacceptable for the political arm to have
the power to authorize the police to commit illegal acts.
My question is a simple one: Will the minister assure this House
that authorization will have to be given by a judge, as is the
case for wiretapping?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are certain limitations
as to what an undercover agent can do when he or she is
designated this power.
With regard to sexual assault or abuse to individuals, the
person has to ensure that he or she follows my designation or
that of any provincial solicitor general who gives the
designation to any police officer under provincial authority.
* * *
NATURAL RESOURCES
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about water.
Why is the government sponsoring legislation that will allow for
bulk water exports?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important for future
generations, for everyone, that we take steps to ensure that
Canada's water cannot be taken from its lakes and rivers.
That is why we voted in favour of the bill at second reading
yesterday evening. The bill was referred to committee and will
be reported to the House. It is very important for all future
generations of Canadians that we protect our Canadian waters.
1435
[English]
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want is a full public
debate. Bill C-6, now before parliament, licences water
exporters and its sister bill, Bill C-10, will establish where
the water will be taken through cabinet order.
Why is the government not telling the people who live along the
Great Lakes that it is setting the stage to allow the selling of
their water in bulk?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the opposite.
Our intention is to conserve our Canadian water. We are using a
method to prevent the bulk removal of water. That is what we
will be doing, in co-operation with all the provinces.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister of
public works explained that the $615,000 contract was awarded to
Groupaction to evaluate the sponsorship system across the
country. The Globe and Mail says the opposite, contending that
for $615,000, the minister only received a 20 page list of
companies interested in getting sponsorships.
Does the minister confirm that all he got for $615,000 was a
list of companies? It is a lot of money for each page.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the firm was paid to conduct a
market study on sponsorships across the country.
The department received the report Officials examined it and
they received and paid, I imagine, the bills. Therefore I
assume that we got our money's worth.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
just said that the $615,000 contract was awarded to evaluate his
sponsorship system.
Since that program has no written criteria, will the minister
agree to release the alleged evaluation of his sponsorship
system conducted by Groupaction for $615,000, so that the public
and parliamentarians can finally see how these millions of
dollars of public money were used?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it just so happens that right
after the study was completed an audit of the sponsorship
system had to be conducted.
We have issued new guidelines and we have even held a new
competition for the agencies managing these sponsorship
projects. All this information is on the department's Internet
site so that members and all Canadians can read it.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this week we learned that local police in Belleville,
Ontario, caught a convicted bank robber who escaped from a
federal prison almost 30 years ago.
Currently the Liberal government does virtually nothing to
capture violent, hardened criminals who escape from federal
institutions. Will the minister commit today to creating a
special unit within the RCMP to apprehend the hundreds of federal
fugitives at large in Canada today?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that
escapes are taken very seriously. When anybody escapes from CSC,
the person is apprehended as soon as possible.
I am pleased to report that escapes from minimum security
institutions have been cut by 55% in the last seven years.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, no wonder there is no reform in parliament if 30 years
is a short time.
In Ontario police estimate there are as many as 900 federal
fugitives at large. The federal government contributes $500,000
to track them down. By comparison, the Ontario provincial
government gives $4 million.
This is a threat to public safety. Why will the federal
government not provide the necessary resources to apprehend
dangerous federal fugitives at large?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is not trying
to indicate that there are a large number of people escaping from
maximum and medium security institutions.
I think my hon. colleague is well aware that his party is losing
members quicker than we are losing prisoners.
* * *
1440
FISHERIES
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, aquaculture
is one of the fastest growing food production activities in the
world. The potential of the Canadian aquaculture industry and
the benefits to the Canadian economy are enormous.
What is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans doing to give the
Canadian aquaculture industry the tools it needs to reach its
potential?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always tough to follow the
solicitor general.
Aquaculture is extremely important for Canada. We have had a
12% growth in the aquaculture industry. This week I announced
$20 million in Halifax to bring the federal government, the
provincial government and industry to work in partnership to be a
world leader in sustainable aquaculture.
* * *
FINANCE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Many
Canadians cannot drink their water, highways are crumbling,
family farms are dying, and health and education are in a crisis
in the country. Yet it appears the Minister of Finance is paying
off the bondholders by putting about $15 billion of the surplus
on the national debt. The costs of the day are the investments
of tomorrow.
Why does the minister not align his priorities with those of the
Canadian people and invest the surplus in programs for people in
order to bring down the human deficit instead of paying off the
bondholders of Bay Street? That is what the Canadian people
want, not the direction he is going.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should take a look at the amount of
money the government has invested in things like the
infrastructure program precisely to deal with that problem.
I would simply remind the hon. member that it was the hon. Tommy
Douglas who said that government should be in sound financial
shape so it would not be beholden to bondholders.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice. The minister will
know that today is the 10th anniversary of the terrible tragedy
at the Westray mine. It is some time since the justice committee
recommended that the criminal code be amended so as to make sure
that the kinds of people who are responsible for these kinds of
events do not literally get away with murder, as is sometimes the
case and certainly the case in this case.
Has the Minister of Justice had discussions with the Minister of
Industry and other members of her cabinet? I have raised it with
the House leader. What is the government's plan for bringing to
fruition the recommendation of the justice committee so finally
there will be amendments to the criminal code?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very
serious and important question on this, the very sad and tragic
anniversary of the Westray mine disaster.
As I indicated before in the House, the justice committee issued
a report in relation to possible changes around corporate
criminal liability. Unfortunately the justice committee did not
hear witnesses from the corporate community or from labour, as
was pointed out to me by the hon. leader of the New Democrats
last week.
In discussions with my colleague, the Minister of Industry and
the chair of the industry committee, we would like to move
forward on this important matter and hold hearings that would
ensure the interests of the corporate community, labour and
others—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
study submitted by the Canadian Institute for Health Information
indicates that our chances of survival vary according to where
we live.
We have in the Health Act five major principles, including that
of accessibility. What is clear is that the people living in
the regions do not have the same services and run more risks
than those living near the big cities.
What does the Minister of Health plan to do to ensure, with his
provincial partners, that the people living in the regions have
access to properly equipped hospitals and quality health
services.
Finally, is it not time to review the Canada Health Act?
1445
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
not a question of reviewing the Canada Health Act; the five
principles are still appropriate.
However, the hon. member is right in saying that it will be a
major challenge for us to ensure that Canadians living in remote
regions have access to quality health care services.
This is why at Health Canada we started with an office of
rural health to look into having a cross Canada strategy to make
services available to everyone in this country.
* * *
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of
Industry said that the cleanup of St. John's harbour would take
all the infrastructure money allocated to the whole province.
This is incorrect. The $100 million cost is to be spread over a
five to ten year period.
The province has committed its one-third share. The
municipalities have committed their one-third share. In light of
this, will this environmentally conscious minister commit to the
one-third share, $3 million to $6 million a year, to finish the
job?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program is a joint program of
municipalities, the provincial governments and the federal
government.
We have a situation in Newfoundland where the province has
decided to focus its attention under the infrastructure program
on smaller communities. Certainly it wishes to deal with the
issue of water, drinking water, and I think that is appropriate
in light of some of the developments that have occurred recently.
That is the decision and the proper decision of the people of
Newfoundland and not of the federal government.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the wheat board minister
refused to support organic farmers and blandly propped up the
Canadian Wheat Board monopoly.
The minister claims that the board's policies allow organic
farmers to sell their own production. He is wrong. All the
Canadian Wheat Board does is lend money to organic producers so
they can afford to buy back their own grain from the board.
Why does the minister not cut through all this absurd red tape
and allow organic growers the freedom to sell their own barley
and wheat?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman continues to deny the effectiveness
of the democratic process that has been put in place with respect
to the Canadian Wheat Board.
He would impose his judgment upon the Canadian Wheat Board
rather than trusting in the confidence of the 10 farmers who have
been elected to run all the affairs of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The issue with respect to organic farmers has been raised in the
House for a number of days. I have also received some
correspondence on the matter. As promised, I will make sure that
this is laid before the directors for their consideration.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this tyranny of the monopoly has to
end. That is clear. The wheat board minister is dictating
poverty to organic farmers.
John Husband is the president of the organic special products
group. He has clearly stated that the wheat board is killing
value added in western Canada.
The Canadian Wheat Board does not represent organic growers. It
does not market their grain and farmers do not want it to start
marketing that grain. Yet the minister continues to support the
wheat board's oppressive monopoly.
Does the minister believe that granting organic farmers an
exemption poses some threat to other wheat and barley producers?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obviously the hope and the expectation of the
Government of Canada that all farmers, including organic farmers,
will be treated properly and fairly under the marketing practices
that apply, in this case with respect to the Canadian Wheat
Board.
Mr. Husband, the gentleman just referred to, has written me on
this subject. I intend to raise his concerns with the Canadian
Wheat Board so that the duly elected directors can take them
under consideration.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
young families of Quebec are going to have to wait until January
2003 to be able to benefit from real parental leave because of
the Minister of Human Resources Development's refusal to
transfer the necessary funds to Quebec, as allowed in the
legislation.
If the Minister of Human Resources Development has the best
interests of women and young people at heart, as she claims,
what explanation can she give to justify her position of
refusing young Quebec families access to parental leave that is
far more advantageous than employment insurance and that all the—-
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
1450
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has been paying
maternity benefits to Canadian women for 30 years and there
have been parental benefits for the past 10 years.
We have improved our maternity benefit and parental leave
program without any additional cost to Canadians. If certain
employers or certain governments wish to add to our program,
they are welcome to do so.
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government resisted nearly 30 years before giving in to
the arguments of Quebec and transferring manpower management
over to it.
Does this mean that the minister's refusal is an indication that
young Quebec families are going to have to wait another 30 years
before gaining access to decent parental leave?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not in the least. Our program provides
parental leave to all Canadians, Quebecers included.
There is nothing stopping other provinces from paying out
amounts based on the solid platform set out in the employment
insurance program.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, John Stubbs School in my riding
serves Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt. Paint there has lead
concentrations of 100 to 300 times the maximum allowed. There
are 400 students wandering around that school.
I have asked the Minister of National Defence to give that
school the resources to clean up this toxic mess. Why will he
not do it?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the school is not under the jurisdiction of the
Department of National Defence. It is in fact under the
operation of a local school board with responsibilities to the
province of British Columbia.
We have the school on our property. That is quite true. We
have indicated we are anxious to lease the property to them, but
the function of the school and the repairs and maintenance of the
school are the responsibility of the local school board.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with respect to
these people, these children and these armed forces personnel.
The buck is being passed back and forth. Not only is there lead
in the paint but there is asbestos in the halls. This is toxic
for these children. It causes learning disabilities. In fact it
is a poison.
I am asking the minister, I am begging the minister again, to
stop passing the buck and give the school the resources to fix
the problem so these children will not be poisoned.
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of passing the buck. Everybody
knows that the provinces have responsibility for education. We
are willing to do anything we can to co-operate.
We certainly want the school board to do its work to clean this
up so that the children of our forces personnel will be safe. We
will do everything we can to co-operate. It quite clearly has
the responsibility to do the work.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance. In order to be part
of our communities many physically handicapped Canadians must
purchase their vehicles and then convert them to hand drive, yet
a GST rebate is given on the conversion cost only.
Could the minister would tell us why there is no GST rebate on
the vehicle purchase price, especially when the provinces rebate
their sales tax on the total?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member does well to bring this up. The
exemption is on the medical and assistive devices. As well, the
costs of altering the vehicle also qualify, I would say, in
addition to those raised by the hon. member for the medical
expense tax credit.
I would point out that help for disabled Canadians includes the
disability tax credit and the caregiver credit. This combined
approach is indeed the best way to deal with this.
I would also point out that in budget 2000 we increased the
amount of these measures by over $45 million and in the October
update by over $100 million. They now total over $1 billion.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week in fisheries committee DFO
officials echoed Pacific Salmon Commission authorities who warned
of sweeping closures of summer run sockeye in the Fraser River
this summer to protect Adams River stock.
These warnings were in direct conflict with testimony from a
recently retired senior official of the Pacific Salmon Commission
who warned that failure to harvest surplus sockeye stocks would
result in overcrowded spawning grounds and dramatically lowered
returns of these runs in four years' time. Given this
conflicting advice, what is the minister's intention?
1455
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will be looking at all the facts
before we announce the salmon agreement.
We have a salmon commission. We have a treaty with the
Americans. We work together once we have all the facts and all
the science to make sure we make sound decisions based on
conservation.
The member's view of the surplus clause is simply not the case.
I do not accept that for a moment.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, again I think the minister's
inexperience is showing here. In fisheries management experience
is everything. The DFO witnesses, the expert witnesses, admitted
they lacked a long time attachment to Fraser River fisheries
management.
We have now learned that the minister has removed Fraser panel
chair Wayne Saito, a man with a long experience of the Fraser
River, from his position and is replacing him with a refugee from
the coast guard. Why is the minister rejecting experienced
managers at this critical time?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is recognizing
the experience and the good work of our officials in DFO. Many
of them are on the commission as well.
We will look at all the advice that comes forward. We will make
sure we look at the science. We will be responsible to make sure
that we protect those threatened species but that we take
advantage when we do have a large run.
We have to make sure that we allow those species that are
threatened to spawn because that is part of conservation.
Everyone agrees that conservation has to be a priority in
managing our fisheries.
* * *
[Translation]
WATER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION IN SEPT-ÎLES
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Quebec's environment minister asked the municipality of Sept-Îles
to build a water system to serve the citizens of the beaches
area which was contaminated by toxic substances used by
Transport Canada to de-ice airplanes.
Since the Minister of Transport has already admitted his
department's responsibility in contaminating the beaches area,
will he tell us whether he intends to contribute funding for the
water system, and how much?
Hon. David . Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question many times in the
House of Commons. There is obviously a problem. Transport
Canada wants to help the residents of Sept-Îles, who have a real
problem. We have offered solutions and we are prepared to work
with the provincial government and the citizens of Sept-Îles to
find a lasting solution.
* * *
[English]
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. Would the minister
tell the House what the government is doing to keep its
commitment to double research and development spending in Canada
by 2010? Is the government doing anything concrete?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for his question. I
am very pleased to advise him that because of the excellent
financial stewardship of the country over the last seven or eight
years by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the rest
of the team, we were able to move quickly this year to fulfil our
commitment to double R and D investment in Canada, with $750
million more for CFI and $140 million more for Genome Canada.
We are well on the way to establishing 2,000 new research
chairs. This morning we announced $346 million in new research
grants for 2,000 professors in every university in every province
of Canada.
* * *
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, seven years ago the Deputy Prime Minister told the House
that 700 RCMP officers would be dedicated to catching everyone
involved in cigarette smuggling across the Akwesasne reserve.
Three years ago an affiliate of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco was found
guilty and fined $15 million in the United States for helping
those smugglers.
How much longer will it take for the Deputy Prime Minister's 700
dedicated RCMP officers to lay charges in Canada? Have they been
told to keep their hands off the tobacco executives?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that the
RCMP is working all the time to make sure that smuggling
operations will cease, in particular smuggling of tobacco.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
earlier when they answered my question, I sincerely believe
that the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice
completely failed to understand what I was asking. I am going to
repeat it because it is very important and I want a serious
answer.
Will the Minister of Justice reassure the House, and
particularly the people of Quebec and of Canada, by stating here
in the House that the immunity granted police officers to commit
illegal acts will be limited strictly to investigations into
organized crime and that such an authorization will be given by
a judge?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, it will not be given by a judge and
it will not be limited only to organized crime. However it is
important to note that there are strict guidelines to make sure
that whoever has this ability certainly follows the law.
There is also political accountability. If there is any
difficulty, we have the courts, as well as the annual report
which is submitted to the solicitor general. This is done to
make sure that we are able to investigate organized crime and
other major criminal acts in this country.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for CMHC may have forgotten the leaky condo
file, but the thousands of homeowners facing bankruptcy and
rising repair costs have not forgotten. It is something they
face every day.
Will the minister meet with the delegation that is in Ottawa for
the next few days? Will he, at a minimum, provide GST relief and
non-taxable grants to help those people facing bankruptcy and the
anxiety of dealing with leaky condos? Will the minister at least
do that?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been working
very hard with the province of British Columbia on this file. I
have not received any requests to meet with any groups. I am
open to meeting with any group that wants to meet with me. I
would be glad to meet with them in the next few days, if they are
here.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR KITCHENER—WATERLOO
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank all members of
the House for their restraint and understanding in not attacking
me on the recent controversial statements attributed to me by the
media. Members have allowed me an opportunity to explain myself.
I sent all members a media release dated May 8.
As many members know, I am a Hungarian refugee who fled the
Soviet oppression through minefields as a 10 year old boy with my
parents, my 12 year old brother and 3 year old half sister. My
mother, a Roman Catholic, and my stepfather, a Jew, suffered
terribly under both Nazi and Soviet dictatorships. I loathe
everything those regimes stand for. This is very much part of my
family's legacy and forms my frame of reference.
Recently some comments I made were misunderstood, misinterpreted
and misstated. It was not my intention to imply or suggest that
our country or our judiciary is in any way to be compared with
Nazism or Stalinism. I meant no offence to any group or
individual. If my lack of clarity caused any hurt or discomfort,
I apologize.
I have always worked to bring people and communities together to
create a stronger Canada, and I have a lifetime record of
fighting for justice. That will continue.
I resigned as parliamentary secretary because I believed then,
as I believe now, that the charter of rights and freedom should
apply to the six million Canadians who are citizens by choice.
Revocation of citizenship is a matter for the courts, not a
matter of political decision.
My concern is for the principle of fair and proper treatment for
everyone, whether born in Canada or, like me, a Canadian by
choice.
* * *
1505
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order.
On Friday, two weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister suggested
that there had never been any connection between the Auberge
Grand-Mère and the Grand-Mère golf club and asked me, since I was
contending the opposite, to table any proof establishing a
direct connection between the Auberge Grand-Mère and the
Grand-Mère golf club.
We can establish the existence of such a connection with a 10
year lease signed by the auberge and the golf club. Therefore, I
am once again asking for the unanimous consent of the House to
table this document.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for the
tabling of this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to
present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the
OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Parliamentary Assembly Standing Committee meeting in Vienna,
Austria, February 22-23, 2001.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 14th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in both official
languages, regarding the question of privilege raised by the
member for Provencher and referred to the committee on March 19,
2001.
Because this report involves an important matter of privilege
and was referred by the House following your decision Mr.
Speaker, this is a matter that should be considered for
concurrence in the future.
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance
regarding its order of reference of Monday, April 23, 2001 in
relation to Bill C-22, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Income Tax Application Rules, certain acts related to the Income
Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax
Act, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and
another act related to the Excise Tax Act.
The committee has considered Bill C-22 and reports the bill with
amendments.
* * *
CULTURAL GRANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACT
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-348, an act to require public
acknowledgement of support given to a cultural project that
involves public funds.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf
of the constituents of Calgary East to introduce this private
member's bill in the House today.
1510
The bill would require the recipients of grants and public funds
for cultural projects to acknowledge that a grant has been made.
It would also require recipients to specify the percentage of the
total cost that the grant represents at the time the program is
announced or advertised and open to the public. Non-compliance
could result in the recipients having to repay the grant.
The intent of the bill is to bring transparency to groups that
are receiving taxpayer money. I hope that the members of the
House will seriously consider the bill's intent and purpose.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-349, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (sale of intoxicating products).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill
which arises from a serious concern in my constituency and many
other communities in Canada.
The purpose of the bill is to make it an offence under the
criminal code to sell inhalants and other sniff products for
purposes of intoxication. It seeks to stop those in our society
who deliberately prey on our young people at times of
vulnerability. It is an attempt to stop young people from
inhaling, sniffing and drinking poisonous substances which have
lasting side effects and cause permanent damage.
The bill is a result of 12 years of work by members in my community,
under the guidance of Larry Leroux and the non-potable alcohol
and inhalant abuse committee. It makes the statement that the
House and our society does not condone inhalant abuse. It seeks
to promote and protect the health and well-being of all citizens
of Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
table in the House a petition supporting rural route mail
carriers.
Rural route mail carriers are asking parliament to repeal a
subsection of the Canada Post Corporation Act that prohibits
them from bargaining collectively to improve their wages and
working conditions.
The petitioners say that this denial of a fundamental right
allows Canada Post Corporation to maintain the wages and working
conditions of rural route mail carriers at an unfair level and
discriminates against rural workers. They hope that the
situation will be corrected.
[English]
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present two more petitions from citizens of the Peterborough
area who support the re-establishment of VIA Rail commuter
service between Toronto and Peterborough. The petitioners point
to the environmental advantages of this. For example, it would
reduce greenhouse emissions, accidents and traffic delays on the
highways. It would also add to business advantages for
Peterborough, including making it a stronger centre for services,
education and tourism.
The petitions have support in six federal ridings:
Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Durham, Whitby—Ajax,
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Markham and in
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
These petitions call upon parliament to re-establish VIA service
between Peterborough and Toronto.
FUEL COSTS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very proud to be able to table today under Standing Order 36, a
very testy and weighty document signed by literally thousands of
Winnipegers who feel very strongly that they are being gouged,
ripped off and cheated by oil companies and by the spiralling
out of control energy costs.
As a remedy to this situation, the petitioners call upon
parliament to create an energy price commission. The commission
would be responsible for regulating the cost of energy, setting
the prices and setting a fixed term during which those prices
would have to remain constant. They believe that this would
bring them some relief and add some element of stability to an
otherwise out of control situation.
1515
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition on behalf of citizens in the town of Wallaceburg who,
out of respect for the sanctity of human life, call upon
parliament to protect the rights of the unborn.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to present a petition under Standing Order 36. The
petitioners call upon parliament to repeal regulation 53 of the
EI Act.
Regulation 53 requires that 85% of the workforce return to work
after a work stoppage because of a strike or lockout. That leaves
it wide open for vindictive employers to punish employees. People
in my area of Windsor and Essex county call upon parliament to
repeal the regulation.
* * *
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 21 could be made an order for return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 21—Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold:
For the fiscal years 1997-98 and 1998-99, can the government
provide a detailed list of all grants awarded by the Economic
Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec in
Quebec's 75 federal ridings?
Return tabled.
* * *
[English]
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 28.
I ask that the question and the answer to Question No. 28 be
printed in Hansard as if read.
.[Text]
*Question No. 28—Mr. Guy St-Julien:
With respect to the situation of the occupants of the 185
unhealthy houses in the Cree community of Chisasibi,
attributable to the very high levels of mold and mildew that have
been growing in these houses, can the departments of Health
Canada and Indian Affairs and Northern Development answer the
following questions with reference to 1999, 2000 and 2001: (a)
how many times has each department visited this James Bay Cree
community; (b) how much has each department spent to remedy
this problem; and (c) having recognized the extreme urgency of
this situation from the standpoint of public health, what
resources and means have these two departments put in place?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib): I am informed as
follows:
Health Canada
The health portfolio for all northern Quebec Cree communities
has been under the provincial government jurisdiction since the
signing of the James Bay agreement. Consequently, Health Canada's
regional environmental health services have not been involved in
the community's housing assessment since 1978. Since the James
Bay agreement of 1978, Health Canada has not visited the
Chisasibi Cree community; Health Canada did not spend anything;
and Health Canada, first nations and Inuit Health Branch, Quebec
region, can visit the community if the Quebec government agrees
to it and makes recommendations accordingly.
Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Five times; $2.1
million plus $1.9 million under the new onreserved housing
policy; the department is quite aware of and concerned about the
health implications of mold and mildew in houses in Chisasibi.
While there is no ongoing program or financial resources
dedicated to this problem, the department provides the Cree
communities with $3.7 million annually to assist them in
addressing their housing needs. However, in recognition of the
serious health concern, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development advised the chief of Chisasibi that the
department would provide emergency financial assistance to help
in dealing with the immediate problems, and, as well, would
continue to offer assistance in the form of information on the
prevention of residential mold contamination.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps in part to pre-empt the member for New Brunswick
Southwest, I advise him that written answers to his written
questions were signed off by me on behalf of the government House
leader this morning and I will be tabling them in the House
tomorrow.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary and I will read
remarks made yesterday in defence of this place we call
parliament by the former prime minister, John Turner, when he
said:
The member of Parliament is at the basis of our system...Give
these members a voice. Let them speak their minds, let them
speak their consciences and let them represent the interests of
their constituents.
That is the point I have been trying to make, but I appreciate
the parliamentary secretary's response.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Motion for the Production of Papers No. 19, in the name of the
hon. member for Malpeque, is acceptable to the government with
the reservation stated in the reply and the documents are to be
tabled immediately.
I ask that all other Notices of Motions for the Production of
Papers be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Subject to the reservations or conditions
expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt Notice of Motion No. 19?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions for
the Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-17, an act to
amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997 and the Financial
Administration Act, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: There is one motion in amendment
standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-17,
an act to amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997 and the
Financial Administration Act.
Motion No. 1 will debated and put to a vote.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-17, in Clause 6, be amended by
replacing lines 14 to 22 on page 3 with the following:
“6. (1) Section 85 of the Act is amended by adding the following
after subsection (1):
(1.1) Sections 89 to 130.2 and 153 and 154 do not apply to the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to my
motion, which is a fairly simple motion regarding a fairly simple
bill. Bill C-17 is only about four or five pages long, but it is
the last two paragraphs I had a problem with.
They are the only two paragraphs in the bill that deal
specifically with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. A
clause in Bill C-17 asks for broad exemptions in the Financial
Administration Act for the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
1520
While we agree with exemptions that would allow the board to act
more as a private organization, we take serious exception to the
fact that Bill C-17 would prevent the auditor general from
looking at the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
I raised this issue at committee the other day and I introduced
an amendment, as hon. members are aware, that the auditor general
be allowed to examine the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board if
he or she so desires and to be the auditor of the plan if he or
she so desires.
The genesis of this clause is that it was inadvertently omitted
when we last amended the Financial Administration Act and an
exemption that had been granted the board was inadvertently
re-introduced. Now the government wants to put the exemption
back in place and exempt the board from the Financial
Administration Act.
I want to ensure that the auditor general has the opportunity to
look at the plan. The reason I put the motion forward on the
floor of the House is that when I went to committee we had a
debate about whether the auditor general wanted to be involved in
auditing the plan. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Finance said that it was no problem to the auditor general in
1998 and that the auditor general had said that there was no
problem, that he agreed with the amendment and that everything
was fine.
However I am a bit concerned that everything is perhaps not fine
and that the auditor general did have serious concerns about
being prevented from auditing the Canada Pension Plan Investment
Board.
We are talking, first, about a $40 billion amount which is
growing. We are talking about an investment plan that is there
for all Canadians. We are talking about money that is paid by
all employed Canadians and held in trust by the government to be
repaid to them during their retirement years. We are talking
about a lot of money.
We need a lot more supervision than a financial statement
addressed by an auditor once a year to the Minister of Finance.
Canadians need to know that the watchdog of parliament, the
auditor general, if he or she so desires, has the opportunity to
do a value for money audit on the board. That is what my motion
intends to achieve. It is more narrowly drafted than the one I
presented at committee but it is absolutely mandatory.
We heard the Prime Minister talk today about parliamentary
reform, openness and transparency. All I am asking is that the
auditor general have the opportunity, if he or she so desires, to
look at this plan. Is that too much to ask? I do not think so.
I do not think any Canadian would want it any other way. That is
what I am arguing for. I am not asking for a change in
legislation. I am not asking for a change in the way the board
does its business. I am not asking for any change other than
some accountability on behalf of the board that holds $40 billion
of taxpayer money. I am asking that it ensure Canadians are
satisfied that their money is well managed and is held in trust
appropriately on their behalf. That is all we are asking for.
At committee I asked that the auditor general come in. Other
members said no, that they had a letter and that everything was
fine. We moved to clause by clause and then it was too late for
the auditor general to speak at committee.
Although I do not have definitive proof, I believe that the
auditor general, when it was debated in 1998, had fairly serious
concerns about his inability to audit the plan.
A compromise was reached because the government in essence held a
gun to his head and told him it was all he would get.
1525
That is not fair to Canadians. We must let the auditor general
be the watchdog on behalf of all Canadians. We must give him the
opportunity to audit the plan. In that way the government and
Canadians can be assured the plan is managed appropriately and in
the best interest of all Canadians. I ask all members and
parties in the House to recognize the importance of the amendment
and to support it.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Albert
exaggerates the case when he talks about a broad exemption. We
debated that at committee just yesterday.
The amendment proposed to Bill C-17 by the hon. member would
mean that sections 131 to 154 of the Financial Administration Act
would apply to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This
was not intended when the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
Act was passed by parliament in 1997.
Amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act in 1998 inadvertently
removed the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board from subsection
85(1) of the Financial Administration Act, a change which made
the board subject to various crown corporation control provisions
under the FAA. The error put it in conflict with its mandate to
operate at arm's length from government, a result which was
neither wanted nor intended.
The objective of Bill C-17 is to reinstate the Canada Pension
Plan Investment Board as one of the crown corporations exempted
from divisions I to IV of the Financial Administration Act. This
was the intent of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act
and of parliament in the first place.
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board was created through
federal-provincial agreement to operate at arm's length from
government. Its legislated mandate and sole objective is to
maximize returns for CPP contributors and beneficiaries without
undue risk of loss.
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has been structured
with great care to ensure independence from political
interference. At the same time, the board's own legislation
contains strong accountability provisions. The board makes its
quarterly reports public and is required to submit its annual
reports to parliament. The board is also required to hold public
meetings at least every two years in participating provinces.
The auditor general is responsible for auditing the financial
statements of the Canada pension plan as a whole. The auditor
general has access to whatever information from the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board he or she considers necessary to
audit the Canada pension plan.
In a 1997 letter to the finance committee chair Mr. Desautels
indicated he was satisfied with audit and access provisions for
the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, information that is
contained in the Canada pension plan legislation. For these
reasons I urge members to vote against the amendment we discussed
yesterday in committee.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, we are
supportive of the amendment. In no way, shape or form would it
impede the operational efficiency or flexibility of the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board.
1530
It would improve the accountability from a financial perspective
and it would provide the auditor general with the power to
oversee at least part of the operations of this board, which
would have immense responsibilities in terms of the amount of
capital that it would oversee.
In a parliament where we increasingly speak about the importance
of parliamentary reform and the accountability of members of
parliament, it is completely inconsistent with the stated message
of the government, which is that it will refuse to recognize the
importance of auditor general oversight on this issue by
supporting the constructive motion introduced by the member for
St. Albert. Our party does support the amendment.
If the government wants to act consistently with the stated
objectives of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and
others on that side of the House to improve parliament and to
improve accountability, then this amendment would be an easy and
simple step to take. The government has consistently not
provided the auditor general's office with the appropriate level
of respect.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the amendment
put forward at the report stage of the bill is of such a nature
as to satisfy numerous criticisms from various people in
connection with accountability and improves the act. I would
however like to speak about the reasons why we are opposed to
Bill C-17, even with the amendments.
Understandably, everyone is in favour of supporting research and
development, and innovation. I sit on the standing committee on
industry and as the matter progresses, we begin to wonder if
there is not something other than a financial strategy behind
the funding of R and D efforts.
At this time it seems to me that there is one aspect that is
totally lacking. For example, there are the post-secondary
institutions, which are key figures in R and D support and in the
training of the people involved in it. The bulk of the funding
for post-secondary institutions, which are administered by the
provinces, comes from the provinces, but of course there are
federal transfer payments for post-secondary education.
All the additional funding since we have moved from a context of
zero deficit to a context of surplus has been via initiatives
such as the budgets allocated to bodies outside the government,
such as the foundation. Non-governmental structures are being
created in various fields and then they are given funding.
On the one hand, the government is putting money into human
genome research, which is desirable, praiseworthy and correct.
Yet there is one essential key element that must not be lost
sight of: the funding of basic services and the necessity to
increase the budget for transfer payments to the provinces, which
in turn have to increase their budgets for post-secondary
education accordingly. This is where the first problem with
basic activities lies.
There is a second one as well.
I have had the opportunity to mention it several times in a
parliamentary committee and I once again want to make my message
very clear to the government. There is another shortfall in
terms of research and development and I am talking about the
indirect costs related to the need for post-secondary
institutions to submit projects and funding proposals to the
Canada foundation for innovation or granting councils. For
instance, universities have to pay additional indirect costs
related to these proposals while their core budgets remain
relatively stable. There have been cuts, but now their budgets
are stable and have not been adjusted accordingly.
1535
I understand part of the government's reasoning on this;
although I do not agree with it, I understand the logic of it.
It believes that this money is not as visible as direct
investments in granting councils or agencies like the
foundation. These investments are also necessary, extremely
important and a top priority at this time. We have to stop
thinking in terms of politics and start thinking about
efficiency.
One fact remains: we have to be more open about the investment
objectives set for research and development.
There is no problem with setting a target and saying that
investments in research and development will double over the
next ten years, but our priorities need to be defined more
clearly. If such a vision does exist, it should be more
transparent.
The auditor general himself has, on several occasions,
criticized the fact that there seemed to be a problem in terms
of follow-up, as well as a lack of transparency with regard to R
and D investments.
We sense that there is some kind of agenda because huge sums are
being invested in this area, but effectiveness should not be
measured merely by the amount of money invested. In this case,
the bill will authorize an extra $750 million for the
foundation on top of the $500 million announced last fall and
on top of previous measures. This is a lot of money.
I am convinced that all these people do commendable work. In
most cases there are peer review panels where people from the
scientific community play a very important role in the selection
of projects. However, there is a certain amount of criticism
regarding the overall strategy and also regarding the ability of
small universities, those located in less populated areas
outside the large urban centres, to compete with larger
universities. This kind of criticism cannot be ignored.
As a member representing a region, I know what this means in
practical terms. We know the importance of post-secondary
institutions and of their ability to generate research and
economic activity in our communities. A post-secondary
institution is an extremely important tool for the economic
development of a community.
It is also a tool for social development because research is
not limited to the economy, but also takes in social and other
fields.
Nor must we forget basic research, which is extremely important
in increasing our knowledge in all fields. This requires
research which is more basic. Educational institutions are far
more oriented toward basic research than private companies
often are even though it is in their interest and certain
companies are very good at it. Unfortunately, they are all too
rare because we have a problem here.
The research and development efforts of private companies are
not what they should be, with the result that there are often
problems of competitiveness which are not solely due to public
under-investment in research and development.
The approach needs to be rethought in order to ensure that
private sector stakeholders do more and are more aware. There
is perhaps also a message here that small companies have trouble
qualifying for government programs, which are often geared more
toward supporting the research and development efforts of big
business.
There are therefore concerns for small communities. There are
also concerns for small businesses which often have some very
clever individuals. We should make better use of them in order
to improve our research and development efforts and bring about
innovation.
We are far from being opposed to a research and development
timetable, but we do not like it when political objectives take
centre stage and funding does not proceed according to a
timetable readily understandable to everyone, while at the same
time, a very important aspect, that of basic funding through
transfer payment programs, is being neglected.
As for the other provisions of Bill C-17 and the amendment moved,
the latter will likely set to rest a number of fears expressed
by other opposition parties at second reading and in committee.
We do not have much to add on this particular amendment.
There is one aspect of the bill which leaves us basically
unsatisfied however. Although the amendment is positive in
nature it does not change the essence of the bill, nor will it
change our position.
1540
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to the bill again and clear some of the
way for the industry committee. Between the industry and
transport committees, we have been extremely busy in the last
while. One would hope that we do not neglect parts of these
bills that are not truly addressing the needs of Canadians.
I would like to give a refresher on the bill for those who are
listening. We are debating Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget
Implementation Act, 1997 and the Financial Administration Act.
This too is an omnibus bill introduced by the government to
increase the grant to the Canada Foundation for Innovation by
$750 million.
The Canada Foundation for Innovation is a government agency that
gives grants to the public and not for profit research
institutions, such as universities and hospitals, to finance
acquisition and the development of research infrastructure. This
part of the bill is extremely credible. There is no question
that there is a need to invest in research and technology and
post-secondary institutions. Our party supports that part of the
bill.
Some concern was raised in committee, when discussions were
taking place, that there should be more accountability as to the
way the money given to the Canada Foundation for Innovation works
its way through the system. We need more accountability. The
auditor general gave some indication that he would have preferred
to see things looked at more thoroughly. However, it is
important that we do invest and that we see the dollars go to the
foundation.
I want to emphasize at this point that, although it is extremely
important that we see investment in this area, we need to
recognize that there has been a serious lack of support on the
part of the present government in the funding of students
attending post-secondary institutions within Canada. As a
result, a number of students, who attend university to take
advantage of all the wonderful research and technology that is
available to them, have huge debtloads. We need a balance here.
The government has failed to meet the needs of students attending
post-secondary institutions.
The second part of the bill deals with the closing up of
loopholes. There are two amendments to the Financial
Administration Act. The first amendment closes a loophole that
allows government departments, agencies and non-exempt crown
corporations to effectively borrow without the approval of the
Minister of Finance.
One of the core principles of the Financial Administration Act
is that departments, agencies and non-exempt crown corporations
must get the finance minister's approval before any borrowing.
This way the finance minister is ultimately accountable for any
debt taken on by any branch of the federal government. Some
departments were able to get around this requirement by taking on
financial obligations that did not fall under the current
definition of borrowing, such as lease agreements, and therefore
did not need the finance minister's approval. Bill C-17
addresses that issue. In that sense, this is a very good part of
the bill.
However, our party does not support the amendment dealing with
the Canada pension plan board that exempts it from accountability
and that does not allow parliament to have a say over investments
that it would be making. I believe very strongly that Canadians
do not want their pension plan dollars invested in just anything.
Parliament needs to make sure that investment of Canada pension
plan dollars would not be going into things such as tobacco
companies. We are fighting a war against smoking and we are
trying to discourage people from smoking.
Should we be seeing the investment of Canada pension plan
dollars in tobacco companies? Should we be seeing the investment
of Canada pension plan dollars in companies that use sweat shops
or have terrible human rights violations in other countries? I do
not want to see my dollars invested that way. I am very
comfortable in saying that the majority of Canadians do not want
that either. They do not want their Canada pension plan dollars
going into sweat shops or into businesses outside of Canada or,
for that matter, within Canada because we are not above having
sweat shops either.
1545
There are situations in Canada that do not meet ideal labour
conditions or human rights standards. Those places exist in
Canada as well, but we do not have the kind of control offshore
that we should have within Canada. Canadians do not want to see
their dollars invested in those kinds of operations. Because
they are Canada pension plan dollars, parliament should have a
say over the way the investments are handled. That has been a
serious issue with our party, the people who support us, and
Canadians as well.
The suggested amendment to the bill may try to increase the
accountability of the pension plan board, but I am not convinced
that it would. Our party will not be supporting the bill because
there is no parliamentary oversight by the Canadian pension plan
board. The board, by the way, has been more or less appointed by
the governing side of the House. It does not ensure that it
truly identifies with the entire population of the country.
There are very good parts to the bill such as the dollars that
would be invested into research and development through the
Canada foundation for innovation. If the amendment should happen
to make its way we would be support that amendment as well.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Bakopanos): Is the house ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
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
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The division on the
motion stands deferred.
* * *
MARINE LIABILITY ACT
Hon. Brian Tobin (for the Minister of Transport) moved
that Bill S-2, an act respecting marine liability, and to
validate certain bylaws and regulations, be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure
that I rise today on third reading of Bill S-2, the marine
liability act.
Before I speak about the bill I would like to acknowledge the
critical role played by members of the House, senators and the
standing committees that have conducted a thorough examination of
the legislation. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to
thank members on the other side of the House for their support
and good questions along the way.
Bill S-2 is a good example of our ability to work together for
the good of all Canadians. The introduction of the new
legislation would not have been possible without the dedicated
efforts of government officials, in particular those from the
Department of Transport and the Department of Justice.
Throughout the legislative process officials from the Department
of Transport held consultations with the industry, including
shipowners, passengers, cargo owners, the oil industry, marine
insurers and the marine legal community. I take this opportunity
as well to thank industry groups for their participation in this
reform and their contributions and support for the new
legislation.
I am thoroughly convinced that the new legislation represents an
important step toward the modernization of the Canadian maritime
liability regimes. The act introduces for the first time
Canadian legislation regarding shipowner liability for the
carriage of passengers and new rules for apportionment of
liability in maritime cases. At the same time the act would
consolidate existing marine liability regimes into a single
statute.
1550
Let me briefly review the principal elements of the new marine
liability act. The introduction of a new regime of shipowner
liability to passengers is the key substantive element of the
bill. This regime is set out in part 4. It is an initiative
born out of the concerns of passengers who may be involved in an
accident during maritime transport. The provisions of the
passenger liability regime as set out in part 4 are based on the
1974 Athens convention relating to the carriage of passengers and
their luggage by sea as amended by its 1990 protocol.
The legislation was previously introduced as Bill C-59 and Bill
S-17, both of which died on the order paper when parliament was
dissolved in April 1997 and October 2000 respectively.
There are currently no statutory provisions in Canadian law
which establish the basis of liability for loss of life or
personal injury to passengers travelling by ship. The intent of
the regime of liability to passengers is to ensure in the event
of a loss, particularly a major one, that claimants have a
guaranteed set level of compensation and at the same time that
shipowners are provided with a means of determining their
potential exposure for passenger claims. The financial
responsibility of the shipowner to passengers would be abundantly
clear.
Of equal concern is the absence of Canadian legislation, with
the exception of the Quebec civil code, specifically preventing
shipowners from contracting out their liability to passengers.
Such contractual exemptions are null and void in other countries,
notably the United States, France and Britain.
Similarly such contractual exemptions from liability for
passenger death or injury are generally absent in other modes of
transport in Canada or are expressly prohibited as in the air
mode where the liability of air carriers to passengers has long
been regulated by the Carriage by Air Act.
There appears to be no basis for maintaining the contractual
freedom currently enjoyed by water carriers to exempt themselves
from their liability to passengers. Therefore part 4 would
prohibit such a practice in the future.
The second policy objective of the bill deals with the
apportionment of liability in maritime cases. The legislation is
needed to deal with important aspects of liability in situations
where the claimant has been partly responsible for his or her
loss. In the past two rules of common law have been the source
of serious concerns to the marine community.
The first rule prevents a claimant from recovering anything if
it is proved that the claimant contributed, even in the slightest
degree, to his or her damages. This is not fair.
The second rule deals with situations where one defendant pays
the total amount of the loss but cannot in turn recover his or
her costs from other persons who may have contributed to the
loss.
The common law provinces have replaced these outmoded and harsh
rules with legislation which allowed courts to apportion
responsibility and to permit litigation parties to claim
contribution and indemnity from other persons. However
parliament has never enacted any legislation similar to the
provincial apportionment statutes, except for a few provisions
covering the topics of damage caused by collisions between ships
and pollution from ships.
In its recent decision the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it
was unjust to continue to apply the old common law rules to
maritime negligence claims. In light of this decision, new
legislation is needed to establish a uniform set of rules that
apply to all civil wrongs governed by Canadian maritime law. Part
2 of Bill S-2 would achieve this objective.
The new act would also consolidate existing marine liability
regimes and related subjects which are currently located in
separate pieces of legislation. This one stop shopping approach
to marine liability would avoid in the future the proliferation
of separate legislative initiatives in the area of shipping
policy.
In preparation for the new legislation on passenger liability
and apportionment of liability, it became evident that it was not
very efficient or user friendly to leave the various liability
regimes scattered all over the legislative map. Thus we are
bringing forward the act which would consolidate all marine
liability regimes into a single statute. It includes provisions
on fatal accidents or personal injuries, limitation of liability
for maritime claims, liability for carriage of goods by water,
and liability and compensation for pollution damage.
Part 1 of the bill re-enacts the provisions on fatal accidents
that currently appear in part 14 of the Canada Shipping Act and
revises them to give effect to various Supreme Court of Canada
decisions.
These provisions have been brought forward in appropriately
modernized language.
1555
Similarly, part 3 of the bill re-enacts existing provisions
found in part 9 of the Canada Shipping Act on the limitation of
liability for maritime claims. This part is based on the 1976
international convention on limitation of liability for maritime
claims as amended by its 1996 protocol.
Part 5 re-enacts existing provisions of the Carriage of Goods by
Water Act respecting the application of the Hague-Visby rules in
Canada and the eventual implementation of the Hamburg rules. The
Carriage of Goods by Water Act was last revised in 1993. It was
the subject of a recent review in which the minister submitted a
report to the House in December 1999.
Part 6 continues the existing regime governing liability and
compensation for maritime pollution by re-enacting existing
provisions of part 16 of the Canada Shipping Act. This part is
based on two international conventions, the 1992 convention on
civil liability for oil pollution damage and the 1992 convention
on the establishment of an international fund for compensation
for oil pollution damage. The regime set out in part 6 of the
bill governs the liability for oil pollution damage caused by
tankers and pollution damage caused by other ships.
This concludes my overview of the existing regimes that would be
consolidated in a proposed marine liability act. I would like to
add that, as a supplement to the existing regimes that would be
consolidated in a proposed marine liability act, there are other
liability regimes on the horizon. Notably, there is the 1996
regime on liability and compensation for hazardous and noxious
substances and the regime of liability for spills caused by
ships' bunkers adopted in March 2001 by the International
Maritime Organization. Another regime currently under
consideration at the International Maritime Organization is the
new protocol to the Athens convention on compulsory insurance.
I believe that the maritime liability act would serve us well in
the future as a logical framework for these new regimes should
Canada decide to adopt them.
In conclusion, Bill S-2 would first introduce a new regime of
shipowners' liability to passengers and a set of new rules for
apportionment of liability, and second, consolidate existing and
future liability regimes. The intent of the bill is to modernize
our legislation to ensure that it meets the current and future
needs of Canadians in legislating shipowners' liabilities,
particularly their liability for passengers.
I urge all hon. members to give their full support in order to
pass the bill to the benefit of all Canadians.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak to Bill S-2. The
Alliance Party will be supporting the bill because it would be an
improvement over the existing policy.
Our sole reason for supporting the bill is that it is better
than what we have. However there is a serious omission or flaw
in the legislation and I would like to speak to that.
Yesterday in the House, in response to a water crisis situation,
we voted almost unanimously in support of a national safe water
standard and for the federal government to get involved with
quality water. We did not really address the problems, one of
which is how communities get the resources in place to put in
modern water systems to ensure they have good water. That was
completely omitted. I believe North Battleford will spend $20
million to put such a system in place.
We never really gave any thought to what a workable standard is.
Somehow we seem to think that we have the wisdom in Ottawa that
we would know what it is. We have two judicial inquiries on the
subject of water that will take a hard look at the cause of these
sorts of problems. I hope they come up with some good
recommendations.
In our wisdom, we know what we require for good water standards.
We will put it through and forget about the real question, which
is how these folks get their resources in place to deliver water.
1600
I am raising that as an issue only because I am going to tie
that in with our debate over one defect in the bill. There is no
minimum mandatory passenger liability insurance in the bill, this
despite the fact that in committee industry representatives from
the insurance sector said that type of insurance would be a very
minor cost and would not create any great burden for the
industry.
We tried to make some common sense amendments to the bill which
would allow for minimum passenger liability insurance, but those
advocating that were stonewalled by members of the government who
thought there were all sorts of problems with it. We could not
get a logical explanation as to why it would be a great
difficulty, but in their wisdom they blocked it. Last night we
had two motions to deal with it, both defeated by the government.
I find it strange that on the same day the government is
unanimously supporting a water safety act it is turning down
minimum passenger liability insurance coverage.
What would minimum passenger liability insurance do? I think it
could avoid a major disaster. Insurance companies do not accept
unreasonable risks. If the quality of the vessels is not of a
satisfactory standard and if the crews are not competent or have
a bad safety record, the insurance industry will not accept that
risk. Believe me, there are ways of regulating an economy other
than government regulations. Insurance would be one good way of
achieving the goal of safety in passenger shipping.
Fortunately we have not had a major commercial passenger ship
disaster in Canada. I cannot recall one in my time. That is
good, but we know it has happened elsewhere. Some day it could
happen in this country. I would suggest that the day it happens
here we will have a judicial inquiry and there will be a lot of
finger pointing. I would suggest that a lot of the finger
pointing will be directed at the government that is in power
today. It had a choice and it took the path of neglect and
indifference. What will it tell the passengers and their
families when that happens? Will it tell them that there is no
insurance coverage, that the carrier is insolvent, that there are
no assets to pay them, that there is no insurance money? What
will it say?
I suppose if it happens during an election campaign the Prime
Minister might come up with some instant taxpayer dollars to help
out those folks. That would be the government's way of doing
things, to roam from one crisis to another.
That is what will happen. A lot of people will be pointing
fingers at the government when that happens. That is why I am
speaking on this matter. The Alliance Party wants to be on the
record at this stage of the game to show that our party did due
diligence on this matter but the government was very neglectful
of it.
To add insult to injury in regard to the NDP motion last night,
if the government is not going to put in mandatory insurance
coverage there could be a simple notice published on the ship to
inform the public that the carrier does not have insurance. The
government does not want to do that. Just about anybody in
industry who provides a service to the public is required to
provide warnings and notices, but the government in its wisdom
says it does not want to do that. Why inform the public? Why
inform passengers when they are getting on a ship that there is
no insurance on the ship? Why inform them that the ship may be
insolvent, that if it goes under there is not going to be any
protection for anyone?
In a lot of ways the government's response to these amendments
is shameful.
The day a disaster happens and this thing crops up, the folks on
the other side of the House will have to hang their heads in
shame and try to justify why they ignored this very simple
amendment to the legislation.
1605
When our constituents voted for us to come to the House of
Commons, one of the skills they asked us to have is foresight. We
develop public policy in the House. We pass laws. The folks who
sent us here expect us to have foresight. I think we have
anticipated a serious problem here. We have tried to use
foresight. The opposition parties have tried to used foresight.
The government has ignored very real legitimate concerns.
That is typical of a Liberal government. A Liberal government,
as has been said before, likes to drive in the middle of the
road. However, when we drive in the middle of the road we run
into a lot of yellow stripes and skunks. The Liberal government
likes driving in the middle of the road. It likes that
neighbourhood. I guess it is called compromise. The Liberals
will put some things in the Shipping Act, but not others. As one
of my colleagues said, it is like Liberals making porridge. If
one mixes some sand in the porridge, it may look like porridge,
it might even smell like porridge and it might taste like
porridge, but it will be hard to swallow and it will be hard on
the digestive system.
Folks on the government side have the power to do things the
right way. Why do they not do it? Why do they always insist on
going only halfway? In this case they could have gone the full
way and addressed some really key areas the opposition raised. It
was not just the Alliance people who raised this issue. The
Progressive Conservative member brought it to the attention of
the government, as did the Bloc member and the NDP member. We
all tried to work on constructive ways of solving this, but the
Liberals just would not listen. We gave the Liberals two
opportunities last night to address this problem in a certain way
and they would not do it. Why? Is it a sign of arrogance or
what? They were two very constructive proposals.
I will summarize the Alliance position. The bill is an
improvement over the existing policy, but I wish the government
had gone the full nine yards on this thing and addressed some
serious concerns.
Last night we went through the motions and got platitudes for
the sake of public image. If a disaster happens in the country,
everybody comes to the House. If the people want safe water,
bang, the government will pass something in the House: magically
in this land from coast to coast our water will be safe because
we passed that bill last night. We know how unreal that is and
how unrealistic. We cannot manage by dictating results. It
takes work.
Last night we proposed to the government ways of managing
something to get the results we want, which is safer vessels and
good protection for the travelling public, and the government
chose to ignore us. Some day when there is a disaster in our
country in commercial passenger travel, government members will
be held to account for it. They have an obligation and a duty in
the House to pass good laws, not incomplete laws. They have
failed to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, first, I want to say that the Bloc supports Bill
S-2 as modified, tampered with and fixed up by the government to
finally improve marine liability, while at the same time
ensuring that the needs and wishes of taxpayers, waterway users
and those who are major or occasional users of maritime
transport are not met.
1610
What I am saying is important and it is important that those
listening understand how, because of the government's arrogance
and pressure from political lobbies, a good bill can be turned
into a mere improvement on the existing system, which I feel was
rotten to the core to begin with. For decades, people have been
asking that the legislation be changed to make sea carriers
responsible, and that is what the people wanted.
Of course, part 2 of the bill in its premisses, deals with the
“Apportionment of Liability”, which has to do with personal
injuries and fatalities. What the bill states in clauses 4 to 14
is that this allows the dependants of a person injured or killed
in a marine accident to claim damages. This is a situation that
exists in Quebec at least. The legislation was changed and the
civil code was changed accordingly. Laws are made in such a way
that people responsible for damage must compensate for it.
Part 2 of the bill says that in the apportionment of liability,
once it has been established that the person causing the damage
is liable, there is the principle—which is still a principle of
common law in the other provinces, but a principle of civil law
in Quebec—that if several persons or ships were liable, the
liability of each one would be proportionate to the degree of
fault. But if the degree of fault could not be established
their liability would be equal.
These are principles of law which are well understood now. In
law, the standard is always the reasonable person standard, that
is, how a reasonable person would manage as a prudent
administrator and ensure that equity and common sense prevail in
any situation.
Obviously, if someone causes damages, logically that person is
liable and if two ships or pieces of equipment are damaged, their
liability, when it can be established, is proportionate to the
degree to which they are respectively at fault. When it is not
possible to establish who is at fault they are jointly and
severally liable for the damages they caused.
Under part 4, liability is defined as “liability for carriage of
passengers by water”. Therefore, a whole part of the bill deals
with the public. It would be normal for someone travelling by
ship, if that person were to suffer personal injuries—which
would be rather unpleasant for that person—but also loss of
luggage—which is a rather regular occurrence—to be compensated
for the damages suffered.
Part 4 of the bill sets as a principle that persons using
carriage by water will be compensated for personal damages and
for lost luggage.
Unfortunately under clause 39 of this fine bill, the governor in
council may require those responsible to get insurance. This is
where the rub is; this is where we see the arrogance of the
government yielding to the pressures of political lobbies, big
shipping companies, and those who would have to get insurance to
cover liability for damages caused.
Yesterday in the House we saw the party in power defeat
amendments whereby parties were asking that those involved in the
carriage by water of passengers be required to carry insurance to
cover liability for damages caused.
It is only too easy these days to set up a numbered company and
register a ship under it, thus avoiding getting insurance. When
one is responsible for damages one is sued. Those who could have
collected damages will get nothing because the company is
insolvent or bankrupt.
We tried to make this point in committee. One must realize that
the shipowner lobby is very powerful and is a main contributor to
the campaign funds of several members of parliament. This big
lobby was successful in conveying the message that the time had
not yet come to impose an obligation to carry liability
insurance on all those whose business it is is to carry passengers.
1615
This is difficult to understand all the more so when officials
from the Department of Transport appeared before the committee
and told us that the insurance industry would not be able to
support—if the industry ever had to do it—the whole new
economic burden, all the new demands there could be and all the
obligations that passenger carriers could have. Apparently it
was too big a job. They are not able to integrate into their
insurance system the supplementary demands that that legislative
amendment would entail.
What did the committee do as a good manager of public
interests? We asked that some insurance industry representatives
appear before the committee. All the industry representatives had
a good laugh at the officials' answer that the insurance industry
was unable to accommodate the supplementary volume of business
that arises as a result of the obligation for those who carry
passengers and their luggage to get insurance and provide
compensation for damages. For the insurance industry this can be
done very easily. That can be integrated very quickly. The
industry already insures much of shipowners' fleet that carries
passengers and there would be no problem.
This explains why amendments have been moved by the Canadian
Alliance and the New Democratic Party. Believe it or not, all
these amendments have been rejected by the government party. One
of these amendments went as far as to say, in essence “Listen,
if we think the industry, which says today it can integrate
this, does not want to do it, let us delay implementation until
2003 so that starting on January 1, 2003 insurance will be
compulsory”. Well, this has also been rejected by the government
party.
Some things are hard to understand.
This is a very good example of a bill that purports to be
perfectly logical so that all the users, all our good citizens
who pay taxes and travel by ship for leisure or for work, can be
insured, just like they are when they travel by plane, bus,
coach, city bus, metro, train, and so on.
There was no insurance for carriage of passengers by water. The
government has introduced a bill that could have been excellent.
Admittedly, it is an improvement.
Previously marine carriers were not liable. The government
decided to put them on an equal footing with other passenger
transport industries and said “From the date this bill takes
effect marine carriers will be liable for injuries to
individuals, users and passengers and for luggage lost”.
However, I want to warn all Canadians, and Quebecers in
particular, that before they get on board a ship they should
ensure that the carrier has insurance coverage, because in its
wisdom the federal government has decided not to force marine
carriers to take insurance. If they do business with a carrier
that does not have any insurance, that started its operation as
a numbered company and that goes bankrupt, then their
families will
get no compensation at all if they should happen to die in an
accident.
If they are injured or if their luggage is lost, they will get no
compensation under this great piece of legislation.
Again, this started as an interesting bill, but lobbyists
managed to put so much pressure on this arrogant government that
it finally brought forward amendments that make it very
difficult to get any compensation for losses suffered in an
accident.
This is not the only change and the only interpretation made to
please the lobbyists and to show how arrogant the government can
be.
The sixth part of this bill deals with liability for pollution.
1620
This bill is indeed an improvement. As I said before, the Bloc
Quebecois will support it since, in our opinion, half a loaf is
better than no loaf. The fact is that with regard to pollution
this bill is based on the principle that all those who cause
damages will be held responsible and will have to compensate
those who incur such damages.
It must be understood that the government had the sense to
include in the bill a list of those who could incur damages
other than environmental damages.
I am thinking, for instance, of those who earn a living from
fishing, from fish farming or from water plant growing, owners
of fishing vessels and fish processing plant workers in Canada
who suffer a loss of current or future income or a loss of
supply as the result of a discharge of oil from a ship. They may
now be compensated by a special fund.
Members understand that the government had to act
because of pressures coming from all those who wanted something
done in terms of liability and compensation for pollution. There
were pressures from the industry, from those who rely on sea
products to earn a living, from all those people who could or
did incur damages.
If they incurred damages in the past, they are asking, as would
be the case in any industry, that the party responsible be
required to provide compensation.
For compensation, a fund is being established and managed by the
Government of Canada. For each metric ton of oil carried by
ship, a certain amount is paid into this compensation fund,
which is managed by the Government of Canada. Believe it or not,
these amounts are the same as those that were negotiated in the
1990 international agreements.
Once again, following pressure by shipowners, the influential
members of our society, primarily politically influential by
means of the campaign funds of our colleagues opposite, they
managed to say to them “Now that you are requiring us to
compensate people who were not compensated before and are
clarifying the law, what we need to know now is the extent of
the damages”. The shipowners did not need to be made too
liable. They did not want costs to rise.
The money paid into this compensation fund is the same as in
1990 and is indexed.
The indexing is expected but does not include the increase in
the cost of energy. Finally, most of the text on liability and
compensation in the case of pollution covers primarily oil
pollution, according to what is in the bill. Imagine, an
industry in the business of carrying oil and oil carriers pay
into the compensation fund. The money is contributed according
to a formula dating from 1990.
These are the same amounts as were contributed in 1990. They
are indexed according to the cost of living but not the cost of
energy. These people live from energy, and we know very well
that the increase in the cost of living over the past three
years was due primarily to the increase in the cost of energy.
They managed to convince the government that it would be a good
idea to index the 1990 amounts but to ignore the main factor in
the increase in the cost of living, that is energy costs. Once
energy costs are excluded there is almost no increase. The cost
of living has practically not gone up since 1990, if energy costs
are not taken into account.
It is once again a perfect example of a very interesting bill
aimed at compensating people who depend on sea products for their
livelihood, who could sustain damages as the result of an oil
spill caused by oil carriers. Compensation will now be provided
through a special fund to which corporations and shipowners
contribute. The amount they contribute, however, is the same
amount they were paying into a similar fund in 1990.
1625
This fund had been adopted in many parts of the hemisphere to
provide compensation to people sustaining damages. Shipowners
have been paying the same amount since 1990. The amounts are the
same, but the liabilities have increased.
Our main question, the one I have asked the government
representatives is this: Will there be enough money to compensate
everyone? The answer was “Yes, there is no problem. We are
talking about $100 million, which is enough”. In an ecological
disaster $100 million is nothing, particularly if all the
industries and sea products in one part of the country are
affected. This amount is nothing.
It is a drop of fresh water in an ocean of salted water. This is
what this may represent.
Once again we are getting lip service from the government, a
nice bill that is an improvement. The industry is being made
liable for damages it might cause but the industry does not want
to suffer too much economically; we have to be careful, it does
not make enough money as it is. Canadian shipowners are allowed
to do business in foreign countries. For example, in Barbados,
they can manage businesses and through agreements signed by the
Government of Canada they pay only 1% in taxes on all the
income they may earn.
This is allowed; it is in agreements. The Bloc Quebecois has
asked the government in this House to deal with this now
ironic situation of businesses moving to the islands.
This example is a concrete one. This is an agreement the
Government of Canada has signed with the Government of Barbados,
allowing for capital transfers, allowing Canadian businesses to
have ships registered in Barbados and to pay only 1% in taxes on
their profits. This is the reality.
Moreover, in a bill to make them responsible for damages
resulting from an accident, a failure or an environmental oil
disaster, they are told “Not only are you responsible, but you
are to compensate all those who make a living in the fishing
industry. The only thing is that there is a limit on
compensations that may be paid by businesses”. They contribute
to a fund. They pay a given amount for each metric ton carried
by sea. They use barrels. The amount has been the same since 1990.
As I said earlier, there is a cost of living adjustment that
does not include the energy costs when we all know that these
companies rely on energy in fact.
What we have here is another example of a very interesting bill
designed to protect the interests of all Quebecers and all
Canadians, but with this arrogant government and its huge
majority that always sides with the shipowners' lobby, I am sure
members will agree with me that this will probably just be
wishful thinking. I do not wish for an ecological disaster that
will make it blatantly clear that the compensation fund is
underfunded. That is not what I wish for.
Part 7 of the bill validates among other things the Pilotage Act
and the 1992 Laurentian pilotage tariff regulations.
When Canadian or foreign ships enter the waters of the St.
Lawrence Seaway system they are taken care of by expert pilots
who are members of various organizations and associations. In
this case, it is the Laurentian Pilotage Authority. We also have
the St. Lawrence Pilotage Authority and the Great Lakes Pilotage
Authority. There are about 400 to 500 pilots, men and women, who
take care of the ships plying the St. Lawrence Seaway, to avoid
any natural disaster.
For several years now lobbyists for shipowners have been trying
to decimate these pilotage authorities by systematically urging
the government to review the legislation and allow their own
pilots to take over from these specialists in the St. Lawrence
Seaway system.
1630
With this bill, the government had a wonderful opportunity to
finally put an end to all the hesitation and discussions on the
future of the St. Lawrence Seaway pilots, who are members of
various associations. It was a wonderful opportunity for the
government to resolve this endless debate, which has led these
people, these men and women, to live in a constant state of
insecurity.
They call us and they call members of the opposition to say
that once again the shipowners and the government are
exchanging letters and documents because of the additional
costs.
If the government can refuse to make a cost of living adjustment
to the sums invested since 1990 in the compensation fund, it can
easily decide to abolish all the associations and the very
principle of having St. Lawrence Seaway pilots, people who
protect us from serious disasters such as a fuel spill in the
St. Lawrence, that estuary which flows into the Great Lakes. One
must be careful about this, because some people have been wrong
about which way the water in our rivers and lakes flows.
Nevertheless, it was a wonderful opportunity for the government
to put an end, once and for all, to all the shilly-shallying
about the usefulness of pilots, those experts on the St.
Lawrence Seaway. I repeat that these pilots take charge of ships
as soon as they enter the St. Lawrence Seaway.
They take charge of them and take them to the Great Lakes, to
their destination. This is still our best safety measure.
We are not the only country in the world that uses expert
pilots. They do it in the United States on the Mississippi. They
also do it in Europe. In fact, in all countries where there are
large estuaries, tributaries or rivers with very specific
characteristics, there is a system of expert pilots.
We are being told today that there are all kinds of
technological inventions that can be used to pilot these ships
without human involvement. However, the reality is very
different. No machine can replace humans. If that had been
possible, machines would have replaced humans long ago in the
House. That is not the case. Machines have still not invaded
this place and I do not foresee the day where they will, the way
things are going now.
This is the hard reality facing a government that, once more, is
seeking to improve legislation but has failed to give what they
want to stakeholders who depend on shipping for their livelihood,
for leisure or spare time activities. This is what is so
difficult.
We realize how arrogant the government is when,
because of its strong majority, it will not even listen to
interesting advice given by the opposition, to interesting
questions it asked in committee. For example, when we asked
questions of representatives of the insurance industry, they said
“There is no problem”.
Tomorrow, if we make the system mandatory, that is not a
problem. It does not raise the premiums and the cost will be
less than a person pays for home insurance.
They gave us an example of an 85 passenger ship for which the
premium would be $1,600. That is the cost of the insurance.
That is the reality. That is what the insurance industry
spokespersons told us.
Tomorrow morning, if the decision is made to make insurance
mandatory for all those who carry passengers, this will not
increase premiums across Canada. The industry is very much
capable of handling it. It has already done some market
analyses and the actuarial studies are all ready as well. It
already has part of this market, since it provides coverage to
part of the industry. That is not a problem.
Once again the government decided, in response to pressures
from various lobby groups, to take a step backward. In dealing
with a bill, especially one in the shipping sector and
entitled an act respecting marine liability and to validate
certain bylaws and regulations, the orientation must be to make
people liable for certain things. In addition to imposing
responsibility upon them, they must be required to adhere to
certain standards.
1635
I will close my remarks with the comment that this would have
been a very good opportunity to settle the future of the
St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, which has been
operating the 13 locks along the St. Lawrence Seaway for some
years.
It has therefore been operated by an independent authority, in
connection with which there has been a transfer agreement
indicating that all five year plans must be reported to the
government, through Transport Canada. From the security aspect,
it is also required to administer the locks and marine traffic
on the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is also required to ensure its
safety.
On June 1, 2000, in St. Catharines, a 70 year old
woman lost her life simply because she decided to cross a
bridge that was being raised to give way to marine traffic. She
did not have time to cross, panicked, fell into the mechanism and
died. That was on June 1, 2000.
On July 28, 2000, without waiting for the coroner's
report, because obviously such a violent death calls for a
coroner's inquest, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
decided unilaterally, apparently for financial and safety
reasons, to tell its employees working at its 13 locks in Canada
that starting with the 2001 season, which is now under way,
it would reduce staff at all locks. The number of employees would
be reduced from three to two.
This was a directive from the St. Lawrence Seaway Management
Corporation to its employees. Some permanent employees and some
temporary employees were affected. Termination notices were sent
to them to say that their contract would not be renewed.
The coroner's report was released on October 17, 2000. Of course
it criticized certain facilities at the St.Catharines
lock but also made the comment that there should be four
employees, not three, on every shift at that location.
People who work at a lock are mostly involved in tying down and
control activities. Control is necessary because there are many
tourists.
There are those like recreational boaters who use the
locks. There are also all those who go for a walk and watch
the boats. They should be monitored. To prevent accidents like
the one that happened to this lady in her 70s, people should be
kept at a fair distance from the facilities.
If there is a problem with a ship it has to be moored. There
are cables and mooring bitts. This is done manually. The machine
to do this automatically has not been invented yet. There has to
be people alongside of the locks to moor ships, especially in
case one would break down. Navigation locks are not used only by
small recreational crafts. There are also huge oil tankers that
share the seaway with these crafts. If one of them were to break
down, experienced people are needed on shore to hold and move the
others.
That is the reason why the coroner made this recommendation.
Obviously the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation was
not pleased. At first it said this was a bad report by the
coroner, as if it were possible to have good and bad coroner
reports. When there is an accident a report is written. The
coroner examines the occurrence from the point of view of
security and tries to find ways to prevent it from happening
again.
One of the recommendations was to have four people instead of
three at the locks in St. Catherines. I am raising this because it
has an impact, because of the guideline issued by the management
corporation. If affects the safety of all 13 locks along the St.
Lawrence Seaway.
Since it deals with liability, compensation and definitely
safety and since making people accountable forces them to act more
safely, this bill would have been a good opportunity to deal once
and for all with the need to have the required staff at the locks
along the St. Lawrence Seaway in order to avoid a repeat of the
situation experienced on June 1 of last year by this lady in her
70s.
1640
We tabled a letter in committee but that letter was not
received by government officials for all sorts of reasons.
Nothing that comes from the opposition is ever good, apparently,
but the government should realize that when we take initiatives
in the interest of our constituents, of Quebecers and Canadians,
it is always good. This is the logic that should guide this
House, not political interests and lobbies.
We recommended that the Standing Committee on Transport hear
officials from the management corporation, the officials from
Transport Canada who were involved in the inquiry, and workers'
representatives. They tried to make us backtrack by saying that
this was a labour relations issue. I must say that none of the
employees who were notified lost his or her job; they were all
relocated elsewhere.
The issue is not workers' interests but the safety of the
public, of the boaters and tourists who use the 13 locks along
the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Bloc Quebecois cares about these
people. Each member of each party in this House should care about
these people, not about shipowners.
The problem with the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
is that it charges a fee to ships entering the locks. Of course
costs are increasing and shipowners do not want to pay more.
These shipowners are asking the management corporation they are
part of that fees be reduced, that staff be cut back. Instead of
listening to the coroner, who says that the staff should be
increased from three to four at the St. Catharines locks, and it
would be the same at the 13 locks along the St. Lawrence Seaway,
the corporation says it will cut back because there are costs
involved. The concern is not safety but fees.
Incidentally, fees have doubled for pleasure craft owners while
they have been reduced by 40% for shipowners. This is the
reality. The shipowners' lobby is taking control of political
organizations. Finally, they know how this works; they know where
the campaign funds are and how parliament works.
For us, the representatives of the community, it is hard to see
situations such as these and to be prevented in committee to hear
at least the seaway management corporation and to ask it: “How
did you decide to cut back on staff? Why was the staff cut back
when we have a coroner's report saying this is dangerous, this is
not safe and the staff should be increased and not cut back?”
I repeat that this is not a problem of labour relations. The
permanent employees have all been relocated. This is not the
problem. The problem is discussing safety. This bill could have
been a wonderful opportunity to do so.
This bill purports to be a bill on marine liability.
I repeat, responsibility means that if one is responsible
safety must be improved so that damage and accidents do not
happen.
In the presentation I made on this particular issue there was a
letter from a pilot dated November 11, 2000. This pilot entered
the lock at St. Catharines; he had engine trouble and could no
longer stop because he could not reverse. He had to warn the
stevedores “I am without power. I am drifting toward you. You
must stop me. Bring the equipment”. They managed to stop him,
but if they had not the ship would have destroyed everything in
its path. As he says in the letter he wrote to his union, “If
there had been only two of them there, I would have destroyed
everything in front of me”.
That is the reality of the situation. This happened in November
and it will perhaps happen in the middle of July. I for one, as
an MP, would have made the House aware that such situations could
have been avoided if parliament had assumed its responsibilities
and included in bills such as the one on marine liability
provisions making the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation
liable for lock safety. If that had been done, they would
certainly have taken less draconian measures than they have.
This is a business decision to reduce costs for shipowners, for
whom the lives of lock workers or those watching boats or
pleasure craft do not matter anyway. What matters is the money
they make and put into their pocket and on which they pay only
1% in taxes, because they are registered to Barbados; they are
part of a company flying the flag of Barbados.
That is the reality of the situation in Canada. This is why many
citizens, many Quebecers, no longer believe in the Canadian
system.
1645
We have lost the credibility we had probably earned over the
last 100 years. Why? It is because for the past 15 years political
lobbies have taken over this parliament.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for New Brunswick Southwest, National Defence.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Madam Speaker, it
is a great pleasure to make a few remarks on the marine liability
act.
First, we support the bill and would advocate its speedy passage
in the House of Commons. As a layman in the field, I am somewhat
astounded that such a bill is necessary at this time. As a
Canadian citizen, I take for granted that I have to carry
liability insurance if I want to operate a motor vehicle, be that
vehicle the family car or local school bus. As a Canadian, I
take for granted that tractor trailers full of freight are fully
insured, especially regarding liability insurance.
There is no such assurances if one is a passenger on a ship or
is shipping goods overseas. Bill S-2 would consolidate various
existing marine liability regimes. It would incorporate certain
international conventions on marine liability into Canadian law.
Bill S-2 is long overdue. Canada is playing catch up with its
trading partners on this issue. We support speedy passage of the
bill.
One of the substantive aspects of the bill is part 4. It
concerns the long overdue adoption into Canadian law of the
Athens convention relating to carriage by sea of passengers and
their luggage. The convention sets forth an internationally
accepted comprehensive liability regime for injuries and loss of
life by passengers. We support that.
Existing Canadian legislation deals only with global limitation
of liability for maritime claims. Part 4 of Bill S-2 sets out
the basis upon which liability for passengers may be established.
The new regime would apply to both domestic and international
carriage of passengers by ship, and accordingly would finally
bring Canadian law into line with that of our trading partners.
We support that.
The bill also sets out a new regime for apportioning liability
for maritime claims where the blame falls on more than one person
or vessel. It clarifies what at present is a very confusing area
of Canadian law.
There is another area of the bill that is good. Part 1 of Bill
S-2 confirms that claims for wrongful death and injury could be
made against persons as well as ships. It would enable relatives
of deceased or injured to claim for loss of care and
companionship. Otherwise, part 1 would generally re-enact the
fatal accidents provision of the existing Canada Shipping Act.
One change that sparked debate in committee was the provision of
clause 46 that would extend Canada's legal jurisdiction to deal
with the cargo claims of Canada's importers and exporters.
Representatives of the shipping lines did not want Canadian
jurisdiction specified, preferring instead to have clauses on
arbitration and judicial proceedings in their contracts of
carriage.
Indeed a culture has grown up that sees most of these disputes
resolved in British boardrooms and British courts. That suits
the big shipping lines and the British legal profession just
fine. However I would submit that a small Canadian exporter
would be badly outclassed going up against the big boys in that
kind of a setting, so we are supportive of asserting Canadian
jurisdiction.
Left to themselves, the big boys as they are called, used to
insert clauses into their carriage contracts denying liability
for loss of goods, or life or limb.
Such liability exemptions are no longer allowed in France, the
United Kingdom or the United States. Bill S-2 now forbids the
opting out of liability in Canada, putting us more in sync with
our trading partners. We are pleased that clause 39 of the bill
would allow the minister to introduce regulations making marine
liability insurance compulsory.
1650
There was some disagreement among stakeholders as to whether or
not liability insurance should be compulsory. Some committee
witnesses said it would take time to set up a more comprehensive
system. They indicated that there was currently no system in
place in this nation for licensing vessels to carry less than 12
passengers. However once the provisions of the new Canada
Shipping Act currently before the House are enacted, there will
be a consolidation of all commercial vessels under the Department
of Transport and all pleasure craft under the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. I can see licensing for all these vessels
coming and insurance cannot be that far behind.
I assume bank financing and provincial tourism rules might
require small tour boat operators to carry liability insurance,
but I still feel a little uncomfortable with the fact that the
insurance at this point in time is not compulsory.
The Canadian Passenger Vessel Association wrote me recently to
indicate that it favoured compulsory liability insurance to
protect itself, its passengers and the reputation of the Canadian
tourism industry.
I want to indicate to the minister and the parliamentary
secretary who is here today that we do support the bill. All in
all it is a good bill. It is long overdue. It is worthy of
support.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
want to commend my colleagues from the Alliance and the Bloc for
the excellent presentations they gave on the bill. I know that a
lot of what each of them said and what I will say will be
repetitious.
As a committee, we had to repeat over and over again the
seriousness of the lack of mandatory insurance in the bill. We
got absolutely nowhere with the governing side of the committee.
Therefore, it is only fitting that we should repeat it again.
Hopefully this time a good number of Canadians will hear this and
will be as equally upset as we are over the government's failure
to ensure that there is mandatory liability insurance.
My colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party said the
party would be supporting the bill. My initial critic
recommendations were pretty much the same as in the previous
parliament when we dealt with this bill. Then because of the
feelings of the Prime Minister that it was time for an election
everything was dropped. However, the bill is back again.
Previously my critic recommendation ended with suggesting we
support the bill. There were a lot a good changes. There was a
comprehensive view of this bill amalgamating a number of issues
that related to marine liability. It was very positive. The
number of people involved in the industry were supportive, and
there had been co-operation in coming up with the bill. I would
have supported it.
However something happened this time around. I guess that is
the benefit of having to redo things sometimes. As a committee,
we listened to a transport official who told us the insurance
industry could not handle putting in place mandatory liability
insurance.
Some people do not realize what happens within the passenger
carrying industry and a good part of it is the tourism industry
in Canada.
1655
I know we are not supposed to point out who is not here, but I
was really pleased that the Minister of Industry listened to a
lot of this debate. He must be aware that a lot of the
passengers are carried within the Canadian marine tourist
industry and that there is no liability insurance for those
passengers, only if it is a responsible carrier.
I am also glad to see that the Canadian Passenger Vessel
Association supports mandatory liability insurance. It is fully
aware that until liability insurance is made mandatory, it will
not be found throughout the industry. However, if carriers do
not have insurance, the tourist industry has a lot at stake.
We register our cars, we get our drivers' licences and we get
insurance. A good number of us probably pay approximately $2,000
a year for car insurance. At the most we can probably carry a
maximum of five passengers in our vehicles. For $2,000 we can
drive every day and probably put thousands of kilometres on our
car every year.
Tourist buses have liability insurance. Airplanes have
liability insurance. Helicopters have liability insurance. I am
sure the bus lines, the little buggies in Churchill, Manitoba
that take people out to see the polar bears, probably have to
have liability insurance. The rail lines also have liability
insurance.
However do boats that tour the Great Lakes in Ontario have to
have insurance? No, they do not. Why do they not have to have
insurance? Because the Liberal side of the House said that it
was not needed. It does not care if there are accidents. The
Liberals do not care if the owners of the boats have liability
insurance. If someone wants to sue the person can sue. The
Liberals will not ensure that shipowners have insurance.
Each and every one of those members of that committee felt it
was necessary and that the regulations would come. They thought
it was necessary but they did not put it in the bill.
What do we do when we get a piece of legislation and we know
there is a problem with it?
It was recognized that there was a problem and that the act
respecting marine liability should be fixed. How many years has
it been since it was worked on? It has been a long time.
We now have this bill and we recognize that something is
still missing. We should be fixing it now. It is before the
House. We should not wait for ten years down the road. We
should not wait until there is another accident like the one that
took place on Georgian Bay in Ontario. There was no liability
insurance. The legislation is before the House. Now is the time
to fix it, not five or ten years down the road. That is simply
bad business. That is doing a bad job at what we are here to do.
It would be different if we did not know about it. I admit the
last time around I did not know about it and I was going to
accept it. However not this time around. It is a serious
mistake that not to include this in the bill.
The people who are at risk are the people who will get on board
the tourist boats this summer. Those tourist boats do not have
liability insurance nor do other boats that carry people in our
inland waterways. Anyone crossing the ocean will be covered.
That is not a problem. However in Canada there will no be
coverage because the Liberal side of this House said there would
be none.
This was one time in that committee where every member of the
opposition tried their darndest to make sure it was put in this
bill. We do not often agree on a lot of things on this side of
the House, but this was one area that we thought was serious
enough because the welfare of Canadians could be jeopardized. It
would not hurt the industry because there was no real great cost
to the industry, as my hon. colleague from the Bloc mentioned.
It would cost a 100 to 150 passenger boat less than $2,000. For
an 80 passenger boat, it would cost $1,600 a year. That is less
than we would pay for car insurance. How is that going to hurt
the industry?
The saddest part is we listened to transport officials tell us
that the insurance industry could not handle it. That was a
bunch of malarkey because the insurance industry could handle it.
What is put in question is the information that came from the
transport officials who appeared before committee. I will never
trust them again. It was just garbage which was supported by
that side of the House.
It was extremely disappointing for me to hear member after
member on the Liberal side say they know they have to change the
legislation and that it will come.
1700
When? When is it going to come? How many pieces of legislation
has the Liberal government said it would bring forward to deal
with issues in the country? It never does anything about them.
It is all promises, promises, and the government never comes up
with the legislation or it drags it out time and time again.
This is an area that should not be dragged out. There is
absolutely no excuse for not including mandatory liability
insurance in the legislation. My hon. colleague from the
Alliance Party put forth an amendment saying we would give the
government time and it could put in the bill that this would be
put in place by 2003. That is reasonable. All the Liberal
members said it will be coming. The parliamentary secretary sat
there and said it will be coming because the government knows it
is necessary and it will come.
Therefore, the Alliance Party put the amendment saying to give
the industry until 2003. Committee witnesses said the insurance
industry could already handle it, that it would not be a problem.
However, what happened last night in the House? The Liberal side
of the House voted it down and said no, the government would not
give that to us by 2003.
The New Democratic Party put forth an amendment, saying that if
we will not have mandatory liability insurance, carriers should
at least post a notice because passengers have a right to know.
What happened last night in the House? The Liberal side of the
House voted it down, saying in effect that there will be no
liability insurance and that the government will not be telling
Canadians there is no liability insurance. There are very few
Canadians who realize that carriers do not have liability
insurance. They expect that carriers do. They think carriers
do. They expect that because that is good legislation and good
business. Based on that expectation, they are jeopardizing their
welfare because they trust us to do the job we should be doing.
From this moment on, with this not in the legislation, I will go
out of my way to make sure the message gets out throughout the
country so that people know they do not necessarily have
liability insurance. The Liberals had an opportunity to correct
the mistake and they have blown it. They did not fix it. As a
result I think there is an onus on each and every one of us to
make sure that each and every Canadian knows there may be no
liability insurance on a passenger carrier.
There are good passenger carriers out there. I would say that a
majority of them carry insurance. However, it is like anything.
Those that do not are the problem. More than likely they are the
ones that are not necessarily the safest carriers. That is why
it is an issue. We know that good, responsible businesses carry
liability insurance. However, what did the Liberal government
say about those who do not? It said that they do not have to
post a waiver or let anyone know.
There is an onus on each and every one of us to let people know.
Not only will it affect Canadians but anyone else who has come to
our country and who is travelling on a boat when something
happens. Sure they could go through a civil liability suit, but
I wish them luck. If a boat with 80 passengers went down, how
many of us think that owner would have enough personal insurance
to cover anything? How many houses or cars would he or she have
to sell off? There would not be enough to cover it.
For the sake of $1,600 or $2,000 a year the Liberal government
is willing to jeopardize an industry, because it will have an
impact on the entire industry once the message gets out that
there is no insurance. It is a serious problem.
I especially want the people in Ontario to hear this, because
that is where the majority of those members on that side of the
House come from. I will wager that the greatest amount of
passenger lake travel takes place in Ontario. Those members are
in the group that has said to people in Ontario that they do not
need liability insurance.
First, I would like to encourage all the carriers out there to
do the good and honest thing, to do the right thing morally, and
make sure they carry liability insurance. Second, all those who
do carry it should let their passengers know they do so that then
they can question the next carrier, which may not have it.
1705
We will have to do whatever we can in a roundabout way to let
people know, simply because the government did not do its job.
It had an opportunity to put in good legislation. It had an
opportunity to fix bad legislation. Each and every member on
that side had an opportunity to vote against the bill and let
their government know that they did not like it because something
was missing, but they chose not to.
They chose to do exactly what the parliamentary secretary did at
the transport committee. He got his little ducks in a row and
said we cannot do this, we cannot put it in there, guys—sorry,
but it was all guys—and everybody did exactly what he said. What
happened last night? All the little ducks got in a row again and
did not even think about it.
There should have been at least a thought. When there is an
Alliance motion and an NDP motion looking for the same thing, it
has to be a big enough issue. It has to be important enough to
the opposition parties if they are trying to address the same
problem. At least that should have flagged for the Liberal
members that they had better pay more attention to it.
I was extremely pleased today to hear the strong comments of my
colleague from the Bloc. He mentioned a lot of other areas that
are of concern. From my perspective those issues did not come
into the discussion when we dealt with it the last time. I
recognize, the member being from Quebec, that his concern over
the seaway is great and rightfully so. The Alliance member spoke
very strongly on this as well.
I have to admit I was disappointed in the Conservative member,
who had said his party would support it. Actually I had the
impression that he may have thought there was liability insurance
just down the road. Maybe he did not realize that last night the
government voted no and that even by 2003 we will not see it.
I say to the members in the House that this was one of those
times when they needed to pay attention to that legislation. For
those from Ontario, I absolutely hope that they are not in a
situation where they are chewing on this legislation later on,
because somewhere down the road somebody will not have insurance
and be passengers will be affected.
I would encourage those members and say to them that the
government can, under regulation, put this in place. It can make
sure there is mandatory insurance. I would hope that members on
this side will put pressure on so that it does come out in
regulation. I would also hope that the Liberals on that side
take a good look at it and push for that regulation, because
there is no question that those who will be at the greatest risk
will probably be people of the province of Ontario because of the
inland waterways and the numbers of passengers. Certainly it
will affect all provinces without question.
In regard to the people of Ontario, I listened to the transport
minister make a comment one time that had something to do with
the toll roads, that people voted in Liberals so they would get
toll roads. It was a comment like that, indicating that people
voted for the Liberals and if the Liberals think this is the way
it should go this is the way it will go. I guess that is it: if
we vote in Liberals we get bad legislation. That is what we have
here.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-2.
I would like to congratulate my colleague from
Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel who spoke earlier this afternoon.
I want to tell him how much I appreciated his comments and how
true I found them to be.
What I believe once again is serious. I believe it is a sad
thing to see this government introduce bill after bill dealing
with a very specific problem. The idea is good, but as soon as
the opposition parties bring forward amendments to improve the
bill the government says nothing and refers the matter to the
parliamentary secretary. As far as he is concerned, everything
coming from the opposition has to be dealt with in a very
negative way. This is a serious problem.
1710
This afternoon I listened to Alliance members and the member
for the New Democratic Party. As I had not debated this bill, it
gave me an idea of what should have been included in it.
Listening to the opposition parties does not mean one is an
idiot, but rather it shows that one is intelligent. They had good
ideas, they were on the right track, but they stopped halfway
there.
Stopping halfway is serious because this bill deals with a
particular problem. We do not rewrite the
same laws every year, I believe they are made to last a few
years.
Why stop halfway in dealing with a problem that really had to be
addressed in order to have, in the end, something tangible and
forward looking?
I think that, as my colleague was saying, this government is
arrogant. It is not a word to be used lightly, but I am sorry to
say that this government is indeed arrogant. We were all elected
by the people we represent. They told us to represent them,
hoping we would pass on to the government their wishes and their
suggestions for a better society. I see that they did not get the
message, or if they did they did not understand it. It is very
sad.
I think we are all people of goodwill, whether we belong to the
Canadian Alliance, the NDP, the Progressive Conservative Party or
the Bloc Quebecois. Sometimes I wonder if the Liberal government
has the same goodwill.
It is too bad that we just had an election because Canadians
already feel that this government is not listening to them. It
has been only five or six months since it was elected. Imagine
how out of touch it will be in three or four years. We will have
passed bills that will have done nothing for the advancement of
Quebec and Canadian society.
This bill dealing with marine liability validates certain
bylaws and regulations. It was introduced in the Senate on 31,
January 2001. Current Canadian legislation relating to the marine
mode of transportation includes several regimes governing the
liability of domestic and foreign shipowners and shippers, and
their responsibility for damage to property, environment, or loss
of life or injury to others during maritime activity and
therefore dealing with the economic and legal consequences of
maritime accidents.
The environment is an issue that is very important to me and I
will be addressing several parts of this bill that are related to
it in various ways. I will finally get the opportunity to talk
about threats to the environment. We no longer have the right not
to protect the environment for current and future
generations.
This is a serious threat to our planet. We cannot afford to make
any concession where the environment is concerned. I think we
ought to take every known measures and every measure soon to be
discovered to fight against any threats to the environment. We
have to face some serious threats like oil spills at sea or close
to the coast.
The bill would consolidate existing marine liability regimes,
fatal accidents, limitation of liability for maritime claims,
liability for carriage of goods by water, liability and
compensation for pollution damage, into a single piece of
legislation which would also include new regimes concerning
shipowners' liability to passengers and apportionment of
liability applicable to torts governed by the Canadian maritime
legislation.
1715
The bill would retroactively validate certain bylaws made under
the Canada Ports Corporation Act and certain regulations made
under the Pilotage Act. The validating provisions are of a
strictly housekeeping nature and are unrelated to the marine
liability regimes set out in the bill.
I would like to talk about the description and the analysis
contained in part 1 dealing with personal injuries and
fatalities. Those provisions are set in clauses 4 to 14.
It follows a decision made in 1993 by the British Columbia Court
of Appeal where the court found that relatives of persons killed
in marine accidents could sue under part 14 of the Canada
Shipping Act.
Part 1 of the bill would generally re-enact the provisions
concerning fatal accidents that currently appear in part 14 of
the Canada Shipping Act, revising them to give effect to the
various Supreme Court of Canada decisions. More specifically,
part 1 would update Canadian maritime law to reflect developments
in provincial fatal accidents legislation and to confirm that
maritime wrongful death and injury claims may be made against
persons as well as ships.
Part 1 would apply only in respect of claims for which a remedy
would be sought under Canadian maritime law, as defined in the
Federal Court Act, or any other law of Canada in relation to any
matter falling within the class of navigation and shipping or
dealing more precisely with clause 5. Any action based on part 1
of the bill would be barred for two years.
This would improve legislation but would not solve the new
problems users would be facing.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with this part, whose aim is to permit
the dependants of a person injured or deceased to recover damages
and interest. We agree with these measures, but we could have
been, as my colleague has said, more attentive to what the
witnesses said when the bill was being examined in committee.
I will also address part 2, that is clauses 15 to 23, which set
out the apportionment of liability. It involves the application
of the principle that if several people or ships are liable each
is apportioned part of the blame, and if it is impossible to
determine individual degrees of fault all are equally and
jointly responsible.
The claimant may initiate proceedings for negligence in shipping
matters in Canada. First, the common law defence of contributory
negligence prevents a claimant from recovering anything if the
defendant can prove that the claimant's own negligence, even in
the slightest degree, has contributed to the damages.
Second, a defendant who is found responsible for paying a
claimant damages is then prevented from claiming a contribution
from other persons. It really concerned these clauses; it
improved them and the problems. It also made it possible to link
this new apportionment of liability with the Quebec civil code,
which had always recognized these rights.
At the federal level, however, apportionment legislation such as
currently exists at the provincial level has never been enacted,
except with respect to damage caused by collisions between ships.
It is important to have this vision so that this problem may be
really linked with provincial jurisdictional distribution.
1720
Also, the Quebec government with its civil code has always
been further ahead. I am not saying this because I live in
Quebec: I think this has been recognized throughout Canada with
many issues. The civil code, which was updated a few years ago,
has really been updated to respond to what is happening. That is
what is important to legitimize, to allow the apportionment of
liability in part 2 which includes clauses 15 to 23. We agree
in principle with this apportionment of liability in part 2.
I will also deal with part 3, which includes clauses 24 to 34.
It covers the “Limitation of liability for maritime claims”. This
is very important. I believe it is very important to ensure the
apportionment of liability, whether financial or by units of
account or special drawing rights issued by the International
Monetary Fund under the London convention of 1976 and the Canada
Shipping Act, with an extension to cover the liability of dock,
canal or harbour owners.
I would also like to point out that claims arising from a ship
in collision will be limited to two years. This is in subclause
23(1).
However, a court with jurisdiction to deal with such an action
could, in accordance with the rules of the court, extend the
two year time limit to the extent and on the conditions that it
thought fit. As well, the court could extend the time period for
arresting a ship if satisfied that the two years had not afforded
a reasonable opportunity to arrest the ship within the waters of
a province or of Canada.
It is a very important provision, because these things could
take a long time. These legal actions took a long time to settle.
Ships could be tied down and, before everyone could agree on some
kind of settlement undue extentions could be granted.
We all know how long judicial proceedings can
be.
This clause would speed up the determination of liability and
the processing of maritime claims. That is what is called
limitation of liability for maritime claims.
As my colleague pointed out, this provision could have been
improved upon further. I think that we in the Bloc Quebecois will
support this aspect in relation to part 3. Given all we have
heard in the past, legal actions that went on for years on end,
witnesses that came before the committee urging us to take action
and to take all necessary means to do so, I think the government
is not going far enough.
I know that my time is quickly running out. As I said at the
beginning of my speech, I also want to talk about the
environment. As we know, it is a very important issue.
It is just incredible how many environmental disasters we see
around the world. We hear about ships accidentally discharging
their cargo into the environment. We can see how unacceptable
this is from the ecological point of view. It will be years and
years before all the flora and fauna, all the shore areas
affected by spills can recover and finally get back to the way
they used to be.
We know that many species are endangered. There are endangered
birds and marine species. It is very important to ensure heavy
vigilance. I believe we can no longer allow these companies to
travel about the planet anywhere they want, doing anything they
want.
1725
As for the $100 million figure for the fund, I will take the
example of the incident on the coast of France a few years ago.
Initially this was to cost a few million dollars but in the
end the figure was escalating; $100 million is very low. This
bill ought to have given a far higher figure. We have absolutely
no idea today what it will cost to restore what we have
destroyed.
Far be it from me to alarm the people listening to us today.
That is not my intention. I have never wanted to do that, but we
must be responsible.
As responsible persons we must tell oil companies which have a
major responsibility that they must assume their responsibility.
Under the heading “Payments into the Ship-source Oil Pollution
Fund”, clause 93 and the following clauses say that ship owners
must pay 30 cents per metric ton “in respect of each metric ton
of oil in excess of 300 metric tons imported by ship into
Canada or shipped by ship from any place in Canada in bulk as
cargo”. This levy set as of March 31, 1999, will be adjusted
annually. I believe it is generous. This bill is generous toward
the oil companies.
These days, for the past year and a half to two years in fact,
we have experienced spiralling costs. The government says it is
not responsible. Oil companies say they are short of money but
they are making record profits. I will not tell the House what
people back home are saying. In the Saguenay we have words to
describe this kind of people but I will not say what they are
because it is not parliamentary. Allow me to
think and say that it is indecent. Let us talk about how much
money the oil companies are making on the back of the poor.
You must have poor people in your riding, Mr. Speaker. You have
farm workers, taxi drivers, school bus drivers. All these people
need a car to go to work. Do you not think it is very hard for
them?
In the Quebec City area I paid 89 cents for a litre of regular
gasoline. It is a lot. What is it going to be this summer? They
say that during the holidays people are not cost conscious. I
believe it is indecent to think that way.
As mentioned by my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois will support
the bill with some reservations. I believe it could have been
improved to show that we were finally going to do the right
thing.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
1730
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend
the Budget Implementation Act, 1997 and the Financial
Administration Act, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Pursuant to order made
earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of Bill C-17.
Call in the members.
1755
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
| Comartin
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
|
Elley
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Harris
|
Hearn
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Laframboise
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Paquette
|
Penson
| Perron
| Peschisolido
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 93
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Savoy
| Scott
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 139
|
PAIRED
Members
Carroll
| Cauchon
| Coderre
| Dubé
|
Gauthier
| Guimond
| Harb
| Minna
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1800
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent to apply the vote on the previous motion in reverse
to the motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I would like the record
to show that the member for Fundy Royal is voting with his party
on this one as well.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Savoy
| Scott
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 139
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
| Comartin
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
|
Elley
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Harris
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Laframboise
| Lanctôt
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Peschisolido
|
Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
| Yelich – 94
|
PAIRED
Members
Carroll
| Cauchon
| Coderre
| Dubé
|
Gauthier
| Guimond
| Harb
| Minna
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration
of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
HOUSING
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
introduce legislation that offers GST relief to the victims of
premature building envelope failure who are eligible for
compensation through British Columbia's PST Relief Grant Program
and to make any and all consequential amendments required.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the building envelope failure, or a leaky
condo crisis, has been devastating to British Columbia's real
estate market. It has devastated families, evaporated peoples'
savings, thrown families into financial crisis and drowned the
dreams of thousands of homeowners.
The leaky condo crisis involves over 50,000 damaged and
destroyed homes. Those affected face an average repair bill of
$21,043 per owner. The average owner faces a total loss of
$58,543 on their investment, 12,879 consumer bankruptcies have
been the direct result of the leaky condo crisis and at least
7,500 condo owners have or will claim bankruptcy due to this
disaster.
This issue is not just about statistics. I want to tell the
House about a couple of constituents of mine who are being
crushed by this issue.
Carma Albert lives in the Glenborough in Coquitlam Town Centre.
Carma is a member of her strata council and she is helping to
co-ordinate its $1.7 million reconstruction project. Carma and
her husband had hoped that their suite would be a stepping stone
to buying their future house.
It now seems that with an assessment of nearly $19,000 their
plan will have to be put on hold for quite some time. By the
way, Carma is the mother of a tiny baby only a couple of months
old.
Claudette Friesen is another constituent of mine. She lives
with her husband and daughter in the Madison in Coquitlam Town
Centre in my constituency. They also have a newlywed daughter.
Claudette is very involved in my community as president of the
Coquitlam Town Centre Community Association, president of the
Madison Strata Council which is managing roughly $1 million in
repairs. She is the founding member of the tri-cities condo
group and she sits on several city committees, including the
mayor's task force on building envelope failure.
She also has multiple sclerosis. Her family has been assessed
$15,000 with an additional assessment of approximately $3,000.
These sorts of tragedies are seen all across British Columbia.
If we count the owners of leaky condos and their extended
families, this crisis has directly affected 250,000 people, one
in 10 British Columbia voters. Twenty-four of 34 constituencies
in British Columbia are affected by this issue directly. The
impact of this issue is enormous.
The collateral economic impact of this issue is devastating.
When local governments are taken to court as defendants in leaky
condo court cases, all taxpayers are on the hook.
1805
Taxpayers are soaked again when Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, a federal crown corporation and the largest mortgage
insurer in the country, bears the brunt of the cost of
foreclosures. Also, when homeowners declare bankruptcy, their
creditors pass on the debt expense as a business expense, which
is then borne by all consumers.
With all this in mind, it has been three years since former
British Columbia premier David Barrett was appointed to chair a
commission to look into this disaster. His report was tabled in
June 1998 and it made 82 recommendations to, as the title of his
report suggests, create a “Renewal of Trust in Residential
Construction”.
Among the recommendations, the federal government was asked to
pay $300 million into a compensation plan that would help
homeowners repair their leaky condos. On July 17, 1998, the
minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
announced that the federal government would lend $75 million to
the reconstruction fund. In truth, the federal government will
not give a dime to affected homeowners.
Quite to the contrary. At the same time that the federal
government is giving a no-interest loan to the province of
British Columbia for $75 million, money that has yet to be spent
or seen, by the way, it is raking in a tidy profit from the
application of GST to the cost of repairs. The three year
carrying cost, that is the lost interest on the $75 million
federal loan to British Columbia, is roughly $13 million.
However, before members of the Liberal government pat themselves
on the back for this contribution, they should know that they are
profiting mightily from this crisis.
To date, the federal government has received $40.7 million in
GST revenue on the $581 million that leaky condo owners have
spent on their repairs. If we deduct the $13 million carrying
cost of the $75 million loan, we arrive at roughly $30 million,
which is the net GST profit that the federal government has
pocketed on this disaster from its victims. That is the
government's profit.
While low and middle income families in my riding and across
British Columbia struggle to keep up with the bills that are
rolling in because of this disaster, the government is helping no
one, but laughing all the way to the bank.
My motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
introduce legislation that offers GST relief to the victims of
premature building envelope failure who are eligible for
compensation through British Columbia's PST Relief Grant Program
and to make any and all consequential amendments required.
The motion is nothing more than the implementation at the
federal level of Barrett commission recommendations 79 and 80,
found on page 52 of the “Renewal of Trust in Residential
Construction”, part 2, volume 1.
Those recommendations read:
79. For purposes of reconstruction, all GST and PST, payable on
qualified repairs and renovations, should be repealed. In this
way, the owner/occupier is treated by taxation the same way as
the owner/landlord.
80. All GST and PST that has been paid on renovations should be
refunded to the homeowners.
I would like to point out three things with reference to these
recommendations. First, that the Barrett commission believes
that all taxpayers should be treated equally. If a landlord can
deduct the cost of leaky condo repairs from his taxes, then GST
relief should also be offered to an individual owner of another
similarly affected leaky condo in the same complex.
The government, while pretending to be a friend of the poor, the
downtrodden and the little guy, taxes the working class owners of
the leaking and rotting condo on the cost of repairs to their
homes but it does not tax the same repair costs in the same
manner when those repairs are paid for by the building's owner.
The second point I would like to note is that the government of
British Columbia has wholeheartedly embraced recommendation 79
and 80 and created the PST relief grant program that is
administered through British Columbia's homeowner protection
office.
The provincial government ensures that the PST relief is only
given to the intended class of victims, those who own or live in
leaky condos and those who can prove that they have paid to have
their homes repaired.
Among the documents those who qualify must submit are: First, a
certificate to verify that the repair was necessary due to a
premature building envelope failure and is not simply related to
maintenance; second, a statutory declaration by the contractor
confirming repairs have been completed; and three, copies of
contracts with change orders, invoices or certificates of payment
that support the cost of repairs being submitted on the
application.
The federal government could easily piggyback on this system and
give GST relief only to those who qualify for the PST relief
grant program. Unlike the home heating fuel rebate that this
government botched earlier this year, this approach is foolproof
from waste and error and, more important, it is compassionate and
the appropriate thing to do.
The third point I would like to make is the very nature of
embarking on commissions like the Barrett commission in the
future if its findings are simply to be ignored by the federal
government.
1810
The federal government is currently looking at the issue of
reforming our health care system. Mr. Romanow, a respected
former premier of the province of Saskatchewan is leading the
effort and he will report to Canadians and the House in up to 18
months with recommendations.
I ask the government to think about the precedent it is setting
by ignoring the Barrett commission and the cynicism such a move
will engender. If the government ignores the Barrett commission,
how can Canadians have any confidence that the government will
respect any future reports from similar commissions? If the
government turns a deaf ear to its obligations, as stated by the
Barrett commission, it sends a signal that the reports of future
commissions, including the Romanow commission, will also do
nothing more than gather dust on Liberal shelves.
What hope, or better yet, what point is there in even asking
taxpayers to ante up a dime for this type of bogus political
posturing if commission recommendations are simply ignored?
We know that the cost of repairs on the average leaky condo is
$21,043 per owner. GST on the repairs works out to $1,473 per
condo. If we assume that the estimate of 50,000 leaky condos
from the Barrett commission is correct, that would mean that the
federal government would forgo $73.6 million in GST on leaky
condo repairs.
That is what my motion calls for, granting GST relief only to
those who qualify for the PST relief from the government of
British Columbia. That, by the way, is a paltry 20% of the
announcement last week by the Minister of Canadian Heritage of
$560 million for Internet art and assorted cultural posturings.
It has not escaped my attention, or that of those watching and
who own leaky condos, that while this motion is not being voted
on and is not being taken seriously by the government, we will
soon be voting on the weighty matter of creating the position of
a parliamentary poet laureate. I can only hope that the poet
laureate will be able to adequately capture in iambic pentameter
the depth of frustration and distress felt by those who live in
leaky condos who will not be applying for Internet funding and
whose needs are being ignored by the government's harsh
decisions.
My motion is in the spirit of strengthening federal-provincial
relations and in encouraging the federal government to partner
with the government of British Columbia to implement the Barrett
commission recommendations 79 and 80. By respecting these
recommendations the federal government would send a clear message
to the people of British Columbia that it is willing to work with
their government to solve major problems that affect them the
most.
My motion is probably good also for the federal purse as
contractors cannot avoid paying income tax on the repairs they
perform if clients need a receipt to claim their GST relief.
Presumably this is part of the justification for the government's
partial GST relief on new homes and renovations to homes.
The government has repeatedly resisted calls for GST relief on
the repairs to leaky condos. In a July 17, 1998 press release
entitled, “Gagliano Announces Federal Aid for Leaky Condo Owners
in Lower Coastal B.C.” we find the following paragraph:
Tax relief or a tax subsidy, as suggested by the Barrett
Commission report, would not be an equitable option for all
Canadians. The Government of Canada's position is that the
federal tax system is nationally based and it would be difficult
to provide tax assistance to owners of water-damaged dwellings in
B.C., while excluding others. It would also be difficult to
provide a tax subsidy for unexpected repair costs arising from
one particular cause but not others.
It is my understanding that this accurately articulated the
government's position at the time, and that position has not
evolved. The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance is here with five books on his desk to
respond to my speech says that the government will respond to my
motion on an economic basis, and the minister himself will not be
responding.
I want to draw the House's attention to the final sentence from
the minister's release that I just read. He said:
It would also be difficult to provide a tax subsidy for
unexpected repair costs arising from one particular cause but not
others.
Let me quote from page 5 of Revenue Canada Bulletin 4028
entitled, “GST/HST New Housing Rebate” as updated online on
April 26 of this year. It reads:
You may be eligible to claim a rebate for a part of the GST/HST
you pay on the purchase price or cost of building your home, if
you are an individual, and: You buy a new or substantially
renovated home, and you lease the land from the builder; you
construct or substantially renovate your own home, or carry out a
major addition (or hire another person to do so); or your home is
destroyed by fire and subsequently rebuilt.
Note how this final point, GST relief in cases where one's
“home is destroyed by fire and subsequently rebuilt,” flies in
the face of the minister's comments I just read to the House.
If I understand the government's position correctly, then it
will not give GST relief to owners of leaky condos facing
unexpected repairs and affected by the 1999 collapse of the new
home warranty program, but his colleague, the Minister of
National Revenue, will offer GST relief to those “facing
unexpected repair costs arising from one particular cause”, in
this case fires, even though in many cases fire damage is covered
by insurance.
1815
Such a contradiction in policy seems typical of the government.
It offers help to those who do not really need it while taxing
and profiting from those in distress. The Liberal government is
even contradicting a core principle of the GST. Many Canadians
know that by law the government extends partial GST relief to
Canadians who build a sun deck, add a second storey to their
house, or turn their carport into a garage.
However the government will not extend that relief to Canadians
who try to repair their own leaky condos and thereby avoid
deterioration of their homes. This sort of judgment, with a
clear contradiction of principle and policy and with blatant
disregard to its impact on victims, is the sort of judgment that
alienates Canadians from this institution and undermines the
ability of parliament to claim to represent those in need.
We have seen how the government is prepared to give GST relief
to cases where certain repairs and renovations are undertaken and
even to the construction of new homes. However it stops short of
extending the umbrella of GST relief to those most in need,
namely 10% of my constituents. A respected provincial commission
recommended such relief. The province was quick to embrace the
same recommendation and has already established an efficient
mechanism to distribute this relief. Surprisingly the government
stops short of giving this GST relief to only those who need it.
On behalf of thousands of my constituents, tens of thousands of
British Columbians and all those who seek compassion and justice
on this issue, I ask the government to implement Barrett
commission recommendations 79 and 80 to give leaky condo owners
the same treatment as those who repair fire damaged buildings and
to show compassion to those whose homes and lives have been
destroyed by this crisis. I call on the government to support my
motion and to treat leaky condo owners with the justice, respect
and sense of compassion they deserve.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to comment on the motion put forward by the hon.
member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
The motion proposes that the government introduce legislation to
offer goods and services tax relief to victims of premature
building envelope failure, or what we commonly refer to as leaky
condos, who are eligible for compensation through British
Columbia's PST relief grants program.
The federal government is sympathetic to the difficulties and
inconvenience being experienced by individuals in British
Columbia over premature building envelope failure to their
condominiums as a result of moisture damage. I was in Victoria
not too long ago and I spoke to many people who were victimized
by this unfortunate event.
I can assure the hon. member that the federal government has
given careful consideration to requests for assistance from
condominium owners in the British Columbia lower mainland and
Vancouver Island areas.
As evidence of its concern I remind the House that the federal
government through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
announced $27.7 million in assistance for owners of moisture
damaged homes in British Columbia in October 2000. That was the
$75 million interest free loan program. These funds, which were
made available through B.C.'s provincial homeowners
reconstruction loan program, would greatly assist those
homeowners who are having financial difficulty making necessary
repairs.
With respect to the hon. member's motion, the federal government
believes that the GST is not the appropriate vehicle for
providing relief in regional crises. Hon. members will recall
that the GST is intended to be a broadly based tax applied to the
same tax base throughout the country. As a result it would be
very difficult to justify providing tax assistance to owners of
water damaged dwellings in British Columbia while excluding
people in other areas of the country who also purchased homes of
substandard quality. What do we do for them?
In addition, it would be difficult to justify providing a tax
subsidy for unexpected repair costs arising from water damage but
not for repair costs arising from other causes. Is there
something particularly special about water?
1820
The government is sympathetic and has given careful
consideration to requests for assistance of all types, not only
in the context of the condominium problems in British Columbia
but also for the extensive damage to homes resulting from the
floods in the Saguenay in 1996 and Manitoba in 1997, as well as
the ice storm in Quebec and Ontario in 1998. As regional GST
relief was not provided following these crises, it would be
inappropriate in this case to use the GST to provide regional
relief that is limited to British Columbia.
The government supports the view that it is more appropriate to
provide tax relief for low income Canadians than to exclude
specific items from the GST base. This is achieved through the
GST credit which helps to offset the sales tax burden of low
income families and individuals, thereby ensuring that the sales
tax system is sensitive to differences in income and family type.
The member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam talked
about the energy rebate. It reached 11 million Canadians at a
cost of $1.3 billion. It was driven through the GST rebate and
went to Canadians directly. It did not go to the oil companies,
as was the proposition put forward by the Alliance Party. The
rebate went directly to Canadians who needed some relief from the
high energy costs this past winter. The credit has proven to be
a very effective means of targeting and delivering tax relief,
particularly to low income families.
For these reasons the government does not support using the tax
system as a means to provide relief. However I assure the hon.
member that the federal government would continue to work with
the government of British Columbia in assisting owners of
moisture damaged homes or leaky condos with their repair costs.
The federal government's October 2000 announcement of $27.7
million in assistance is evidence of this commitment. The Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation will continue to work in
co-operation with others involved in housing research and design
to find practical solutions to moisture related problems. For
the reasons I have just outlined, I am unable to support the hon.
member's motion.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam
for bringing the motion forward for debate. Like the hon.
member, I am a member from British Columbia. I know from
personal experience, in speaking with my constituents and
visiting homes in east Vancouver, the devastation that has been
caused by leaky condos.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary speak on behalf of the
government to the motion. I cannot help but comment on the
absurdity of the government saying that it is sympathetic to the
inconvenience of owning a leaky condo. We are not talking about
inconvenience. We are talking about families who have gone into
bankruptcy, families who could not sell their apartments for a
dime. Everybody knows they are leaky condos; they have put
plastic and awnings on the outside. These families know they
will never be able to get rid of them.
We are not talking about an inconvenience when these people use
all their RRSPs, beg and borrow at the bank, and throw their life
savings into trying to repair their condos. It causes sleepless
nights and incredible anxiety because they are dealing with the
most important purchase they have ever made. British Columbians
are facing a billion dollar tragedy.
The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam
outlined some of the issues very well. I support his motion. I
am very proud to say that the provincial government of B.C. took
the issue very seriously. It set up a public inquiry, headed by
former premier and former member of parliament Dave Barrett.
1825
They held exhaustive public hearings. They tried to get to the
root causes of what had caused this problem in condominiums and,
I should mention, in federally funded co-ops. They have also
experienced the same problem.
In reading through the volumes of reports of the Barrett
commission, we see that the B.C. government did come forward with
very proactive and positive measures to provide relief to
homeowners, who were suffering terribly. For example, the
provincial government provided PST relief. The province provided
about $100 million in no interest loans. The homeowner
protection office has been operating since October 1998. There
are very tough new licensing requirements for developers and
contractors. The province even approved $30 million in interest
free loans for federally funded co-ops because the federal
government would not do anything. In fact, the province has made
extensive recommendations and has acted on them to provide some
assistance.
It is quite appalling to know that there has been virtually no
response from the federal government. I really take offence to
the suggestion on the other side from the government that because
this is “a regional issue” it does not qualify for the kind of
relief called for in the motion.
Anyone who thinks this issue of leaky condos, leaky co-ops and
building envelope failure is contained to this one province
should think again, because this issue is now cropping up in
other communities across Canada. The idea that because it is
regional somehow people will not qualify for the kind of help
they need is an idea I find offensive.
I want to say that my colleague, the member of parliament from
Burnaby—Willingdon, the former member of parliament from
Kamloops, and three members from the NDP in British Columbia
wrote time and time again to the minister responsible for Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In one of the many letters we wrote to him, we told him that the
Barrett commission had urged the provincial and federal levels of
government to provide compensation and had further recommended
that the federal government ensure that CMHC provide assistance
as well as tax relief on repairs. Ironically, though, we told
him, because the federal government rejected the recommendations
that would allow homeowners to repay their RRSPs, the government
was actually making money off people who were forced to liquidate
their RRSPs to pay for repairs.
It is just so insulting to people to have to withdraw their life
savings and then find out that they are being taxed on those
savings. The federal government is actually making money off
this tragedy of people having to deal with costly repairs for
their homes.
One thing the parliamentary secretary did get right is the fact
that last October the federal government provided to the province
of British Columbia a one time grant of $27.7 million. This is
important to note, because during the last federal election
campaign our local Liberals, including the member who was
defeated by the member bringing forward the motion today, tried
to spin that, saying that the federal government was actually
providing $75 million in support.
Let us be clear. The $27 million grant allows the province to
finance $75 million worth of no interest loans. In other words,
the federal money basically pays the province the interest on $75
million. However, during that campaign the claims were just
outrageous. There were claims in the media by Liberal candidates
who were running around saying that the federal government had
coughed up $75 million. It was no such thing.
The motion today is very straightforward and basic. The motion
deals with one of the issues that came forward from the Barrett
commission. It seems to me to be the most common sense and the
most minimal thing the federal government could do, which is to
provide GST relief just as the provincial government has provided
PST relief.
However, surely we have to go further than that. People should
be able to withdraw from their RRSPs and not get dinged on having
to pay the taxes. People should be able to have an income tax
deduction for the cost of repairs.
1830
Finally there is the issue of compensation. Mr. Barrett made a
very strong recommendation for compensation because people,
through no fault of their own, are living in a state of disrepair
and dysfunction because of what is happening to their buildings.
Compensation is something I support and I believe the federal
government has a responsibility to compensate those people.
The parliamentary secretary raised the issue of other disasters
in Canada. Let us look at the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec
and how quickly the federal government responded to it. The
government saw it as an emergency and put forward some $900
million or $700 million to deal with it. That was the proper
thing to do.
The issue of leaky condos in British Columbia is no less of an
emergency but it has been completely ignored by the federal
government. We must continue to press on this issue.
I say to the minister today in the House that if he has somehow
forgotten the file on leaky condos or thinks other people have
forgotten, he has only to go into any community in B.C. and talk
to people to understand the horror of what they are facing. This
is a very real financial burden for homeowners and families in
British Columbia.
I very much support the motion. It is one aspect of a much
larger program that needs to be undertaken. I also say shame on
the federal government for ignoring the problem and cutting out
homeowners who are legitimately concerned about an emergency over
which they have no control. I urge the government to support the
motion and provide GST relief.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to say a few words on the issue.
A little less than a year ago, shortly after I was elected, I
found myself in British Columbia with a colleague, Gilles
Bernier, who was then my party's critic for the department. Mr.
Bernier did a lot of work on this file and we became well aware
of the major problem facing people in British Columbia. People
in other provinces were affected as well, but certainly the
crisis was in British Columbia.
A lot of people do not realize the magnitude of the problem. The
building envelope failure or, as we call it, the leaky condo
crisis, has led to at least 7,500 condo owners having to claim
bankruptcy. That is 7,500 owners.
Average repair costs are over $21,000 per owner, a total loss of
investment of almost $59,000 for the average owner. There are
estimated to be almost 13,000 consumer bankruptcies as a direct
result of the leaky condo crisis. The issue impacts about 70% of
the districts in British Columbia. This is not an isolated case
of a housing program in some community. It is a major concern to
many people in the province of British Columbia.
In reaction to the leaky condo crisis the British Columbia
government empowered the Barrett commission to make
recommendations. Motion No. 293 which we are discussing seeks to
implement at the federal level the spirit of recommendations 79
and 80 of the Barrett commission. Recommendation 79 states:
For purposes of reconstruction, all GST and PST, payable on
qualified repairs and renovations, should be repealed. In this
way, the owner/occupier is treated by taxation the same way as
the owner/landlord.
1835
Recommendation 80 states:
The B.C. government has embraced the plan and eliminated the
provincial sales tax from qualified repairs. However the federal
government has repeatedly refused to remove the GST from leaky
condo repairs although it has exempted new homes from the GST and
does not tax certain luxury items. The government does not tax
luxuries in some cases and yet it taxes misfortune. That is what
is occurring here.
As I listened to the parliamentary secretary I was hit by a
couple of the words he used. One was sympathetic. He said that
the government was sympathetic to the problem in British Columbia
and that it was giving it serious consideration. I ask the
parliamentary secretary and the government: How many leaky
condos can be repaired with sympathy or serious consideration?
The parliamentary secretary said that tax credits could not be
used for relief in cases like this. The government of British
Columbia found a way to use taxes to relieve the situation. If
there is a will there is a way. The problem with the federal
government is that the will is not there.
Yesterday in the House we had a debate about the cleanup of St.
John's harbour. Let us talk about coincidence. The NDP member
who spoke before me mentioned $27 million that the parliamentary
secretary said had been given to British Columbia. That was very
good of him but he did not say when it was given. The hon.
member from the NDP, a British Columbia resident, said that it
was in October of last year.
What happened in October? An election campaign was going on.
Perhaps it is my devious mind but I wonder if the $27 million
given to British Columbia, which the government bragged about as
if it were $75 million, had anything to do with the election. At
the same time the government promised Newfoundland $33 million to
clean up St. John's harbour.
We saw what happened yesterday. The government said that there
was infrastructure money but that it needed to pick and choose.
It said nothing about the ordinary infrastructure agreement last
October. It was a specific program.
Two things are becoming quite clear. First, the government has
no will to do what it should be doing. Ways can be found to help
the people of British Columbia. A very simple way is being
recommended here this evening with this motion. However the
government says that it will not do so because it does not have
the will. There are ways to help but the government says that it
will not do so.
This is no surprise to any of us. The people affected by this
are going through severe trauma. Many of them are bankrupt or
wondering how they will pay for the necessary repairs. What are
we saying here in the House? The government says that it does
not care. That is not the way it should be.
This evening we hope to convince the government to change its
mind, agree with us on the motion and provide the people of
British Columbia the assistance they not only need but deserve.
There is a way if the government is willing.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my
colleagues' comments, particularly the member for Vancouver East
and the member for St. John's West who just spoke on the issue.
1840
I came to the House with a big heart, hoping that I could raise
issues that were important to my constituents, and we have spent
40 or 45 minutes of discussing the issue.
When I went into the general election campaign in my
constituency, I went in with big ideals that I and my party would
move mountains, that we would cut taxes and that we would have
new Canada, and that these were the things would talk about.
However when I got into an election campaign I discovered what
most members discover. The issues that people are most concerned
about in their constituencies are the issues that affect them
most at home, the bread and butter issues such as are they safe
walking down the street, or is the government going to take more
from their pockets than it should. Those are core issues.
During the campaign I knocked on doors in Port Moody, Anmore,
Westwood Plateau and in Port Coquitlam of my constituency. When
I met the people of my riding, I discovered very quickly that the
most important issue in my constituency was the issue of leaky
condos. It affected almost 10% of the people in my riding. It
was by far the biggest issue.
Lou Sekora, the former member of parliament for my constituency,
was elected in the byelection in March, 1998, largely on the hope
of people from my constituency because this is a non-partisan
issue. We have the members for Vancouver East and St. John's
West supporting the motion. It is not an issue of conservatism
versus liberalism versus socialism. This is a non-partisan
issue, and we all supported it.
The people of my constituency, because this is a bread and
butter issue, probably the most important in my riding, got
together and said they were going to elect Lou Sekora in the
byelection. They thought if they had the mayor of Coquitlam at
the table of power in a Liberal government, he would bring
attention to this most important issue. He could not do it, and
I think for reasons that we see here today.
Those who are watching the debate should note that the
government side had 10 minutes to discuss the issue. Since 1998,
frankly I believe this is the first time that this issue has ever
been raised in the House in a full debate. The government took
four and a half minutes of that ten minutes to address it. It
affects 10% of my riding, up to 250,000 people in British
Columbia, and the government took four and a half minutes,
wrapped it up and said “so long”. That is not good enough.
The member for Elk Island, one of my most esteemed colleagues in
this entire House, has been here since 1993. He has been
re-elected three times with massive majorities in his
constituency because of the great work he does in his riding. He
has been here for that long and has had zero private members'
bills drawn out of a pool to be debated and brought to the floor
of the House, like as this one. I have been elected once.
I do not know if I will run a second time, or a third time or if
I will have the fortune of having the endorsement of my
constituents. However this is the manner in which the most
important issue in my riding is being dealt with by the House?
The government spent four and a half minutes on it, denied it and
blocked in committee the right for the bill to come forward for a
vote. It treats my riding and my constituents like that?
How does the government expect me, my constituents and the
people I represent to have any respect for the government in the
House, when it treats the issues that are of most importance to
them with that little respect?
I came here to talk, as I said, about the big issues of
conservatism versus liberalism. However on the bread and butter
issues, like the issue of people having a home that does not melt
around them and that the government does not profit off the
people who are losing their homes, the government gave it four
and a half minutes of debate and brushed it aside.
These are the kind of things that make people like me and people
who want to run for office say “To hell with it. I'm not going
to run for office”. For the government to give my riding four
and a half minutes of disrespect, slap it aside, deny it the
right to come to the House of Commons for a vote and deny that
members of the House be held accountable for this issue, is
disgusting. It is absolute disrespect for people whose homes are
melting around them.
The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Finance stood up
and said it was okay if the government profited from people
losing their homes. He said that it was not a big deal and that
it was an inconvenience. As the hon. member for Vancouver East
said, that is not good enough.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is travelling to
British Columbia on a fact finding mission to find out why
British Columbians are not voting for the federal Liberal Party
and why there is this thing called western alienation. This is
why. Read Hansard. Look at the number of people in the
House who are paying attention to the debate. Look at the four
and a half minutes that the government spent on this issue. That
is why the government is going nowhere in the province of British
Columbia, and why people are totally alienated from this
institution and from this government.
This is my final plea. This is the last legislative tool I
have. The government has blocked it at committee. It has
blocked it from taking it seriously. It gave it four and a half
minutes of debate. The government has slapped my constituents in
the face.
There are only three members of the government who can block
this from happening: the hon. members for Mississauga South,
Etobicoke North and Markham. I would ask those members: Will I
have unanimous consent from the House to make this motion
votable, and show respect to the people of my constituency?
1845
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent to make the motion votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. Since
the motion was not deemed votable, the item is dropped from the
Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am again on my feet in relation to questions I put to
the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services regarding Lancaster Aviation.
For the listening audience and for members who are interested,
Lancaster Aviation is the company that was formed after the 1993
election to specifically sell aviation parts. It was awarded a
contract in 1997 by the Government of Canada to do exactly that,
to sell spare parts.
The reason I became interested was that I noticed Lancaster
Aviation, although it was contracted and bid to sell spare parts
and equipment, was awarded a contract without tender. A change
in a contract to sell spare parts suddenly became a contract to
sell 10 Challenger jets and 40 helicopters. In total dollar
value it sold those units for approximately $77 million.
One of the questions I asked in terms of this contract was how
much was Lancaster's commission to sell that equipment. I think
the Canadian public has a right to know because it is taxpayer
dollars.
In addition to selling the Challenger jets, the biggest factor
in the selling, which is probably the way I should express it, is
that it sold those Challenger jets for less than half the market
value. Less than 50% of their value is what the Challengers were
sold for, so the contract was obviously given by the present
government.
Incidentally the president of Lancaster Aviation happens to be a
former DND employee. Would he have inside connections within the
system to make this deal happen, to be awarded this contract? I
think any examination of the facts would point to the fact that
he obviously had some inside contacts within DND to allow him to
sell the Challenger jets and helicopters without having to
actually bid on the contract. There was no open competition.
In addition, Lancaster Aviation has now closed its offices, its
warehouse in Milton, Ontario, and has moved in excess of $70
million worth of equipment owned by the Government of Canada to a
warehouse in Florida owned by a convicted felon. A convicted
money launderer and drug dealer in Florida now owns the warehouse
in which Canadian goods are stored.
The question to which I would like an answer is why this has
been allowed to happen. What security do we have on the assets
owned by the Government of Canada now sitting in a warehouse
owned by a convicted drug dealer in Florida under contractual
agreement or arrangement with Lancaster Aviation based in Milton,
Ontario?
I think those are questions to which we need answers before we
will feel comfortable on this file. Up to now the government has
not answered.
Just to conclude, when the parliamentary secretary is on his
feet he never specifically mentions Mr. McFliker, the drug dealer
in Florida who now owns a warehouse which controls the goods
owned by the Government of Canada. Why does he not come good
with the facts?
1850
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has addressed all the questions raised by the member
last evening, previously, and in the House during question
period.
Lancaster Aviation won competitive contracts in 1997 and again
in 2000 for the disposal of surplus aerospace assets, not simply
spare parts, which is the representation of the member. He also
suggested that DND awarded contracts, which is again wrong.
Contracts are awarded by Public Works and Government Services.
Allegations that the contract to dispose of the Twin Huey
helicopters and the Challenger aircraft were sole source are
false. They were competitively bid. The 1997 RFP contemplated
special project sales such as planes. When such a need arises
the process calls for an amendment of the contract to legally
bind the parties.
That is what we did for the sale of the Twin Huey helicopters
and the Challenger aircraft. With respect to the Challenger
aircraft, eight were sold to DDH Aviation in Fort Worth, Texas,
for approximately $30 million. The sale was the result of a
competitive tender issued by Lancaster. These aircraft did not
have civil certification. Nor were they outfitted for executive
use. Also, they were in need of extensive modifications.
Lancaster was paid a fair commission for its services and is
subject to the privacy provisions of the Access to Information
Act, which is why the information is not public. Lancaster
therefore had an incentive to sell the surplus aircraft at the
highest possible price.
Finally, the assets are in Florida because that is where the
market is. The Department of Public Works and Government
Services has no relationship whatsoever to some party he alleges
is a convicted felon.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The motion to adjourn is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.)