37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 092
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 4, 2001
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
VIA Rail |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order
Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Request for Emergency
Debate |
|
|
Softwood
Lumber |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures
of the House of Commons |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the
House |
|
|
Procedure and House
Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures
of the House of Commons |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois
(Terrebonne--Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada
Act |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read
the second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Blood Samples Act |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
Suspension of
Sitting |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(The sitting of the House
was suspended at 1.27 p.m.)
|
|
|
Sitting
Resumed |
|
|
The House resumed at 2
p.m.
|
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate
|
|
|
[------] |
|
|
Speaker's
Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Dana Canada
Incorporated |
|
|
Mr. John Richardson (Perth--Middlesex,
Lib.) |
|
|
Salmon Fishery |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk
(Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Communities in Bloom |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges,
Lib.) |
|
|
Literacy |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West,
Lib.) |
|
|
Oktoberfest |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Strathcona Christian
Academy |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mental Illness Awareness
Week |
|
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan,
Lib.) |
|
|
World Teachers' Day |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois
(Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
Mental Illness Awareness
Week |
|
|
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mental Illness Awareness
Week |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Fire Prevention Week |
|
|
Mr. Gurbax Malhi
(Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Médecins du monde
Canada |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ) |
|
|
World Teachers' Day |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau
(Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.) |
|
|
National Library |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Industry |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
International Security |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and
Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Trade |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Public Works and Government
Services |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Transportation |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Inter-American Democratic
Charter |
|
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State
(Latin America and Africa), Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Industry |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence and Veterans
Affairs |
|
|
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean--Carleton,
Lib.) |
|
|
International
Co-operation |
|
|
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
The Chairman |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich--Gulf Islands,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Chairman |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
The Chairman |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien
(Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien
(Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Chairman |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain,
BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
The Chairman |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Chairman |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien
(Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo--Cowichan,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
(Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the
Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson |
|
|
The Assistant Deputy
Chairman |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson |
|
|
The Assistant Deputy
Chairman |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Assistant Deputy
Chairman |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
National
Defence |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, October 4, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(0955)
[English]
Petitions
VIA Rail
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition on
behalf of the thousands of citizens of Peterborough who are in favour of the
restoration of the VIA Rail service between Toronto and Peterborough. They
believe that this will reduce greenhouse emissions, reduce accidents on the
highways and greatly improve the efficiency and business environment of the
Greater Toronto area including Peterborough.
* * *
(1005)
Questions on the Order
Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Speaker:
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Request for Emergency
Debate
Softwood
Lumber
[S. O. 52]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I request
leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House on Thursday, October 4,
for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent
consideration.
The softwood lumber trade action started by the U.S.
against Canada is costing thousands of jobs and is threatening one of our most
important industries. In British Columbia alone there is an estimated 15,000
forest workers laid off as of today.
The estimates run as high as 30,000 in British Columbia
by the end of the year and nationally we are looking at 40,000 to 50,000
unemployed forest workers. This is a very serious situation indeed.
I do not think I need to go into further detail at this
time but there is certainly much to discuss that would be usefully done in the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully and earnestly ask that you
grant this request.
The Speaker:
The Chair has carefully considered the matter and
wishes to take a little more time to consider the request of the hon. member. I
must say that my initial inclination is to grant the request. I am leaning that
way but I will consider the matter for a while yet. I will get back to the
House before two o'clock with an answer. I will communicate to the hon. member
as to when I will come back to make that decision.
Mr. Gary Lunn:
Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative
Democratic Representative caucus would concur with the motion by the member for
Vancouver Island North.
The Speaker:
I am sure there are members on every side that would
concur but that is not the point of the application. It is a question of
whether the Speaker concurs. It is one of the few opportunities where it is my
decision that will really end the matter. I appreciate the hon. member's
intervention. I am sure all hon. members do.
* * *
Business of the House
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West—Nepean, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all
the parties, as well as the member for Fraser Valley, concerning the taking of
the division on Bill C-217 scheduled at the conclusion of private members'
business later today, and I believe you would find consent for the following
motion. I move:
|
That
at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-217 all questions necessary to
dispose of the motion for second reading be deemed put, a recorded division
deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, October 16 at the expiry of the time
provided for government orders. |
(1010)
The Speaker:
Does the hon. the chief government whip have the
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures
of the House of Commons
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved:
|
That
the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the
Procedures of the House of Commons, presented on Friday, June 1, 2001, be
concurred in, provided that the proposed amendment therein to Standing Order
52(13) be amended by deleting the words “of his or her party” and that the
recommendations of the Report, as amended, come into force on the Monday
following the adoption of this Order. |
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to take
part in today's debate to adopt the report of the Special Committee on the
Modernization and Improvement of Procedures of the House of Commons.
First, I would like to acknowledge the excellent
co-operation of opposition House leaders, namely the hon. member for West
Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, the House leader for the Alliance Party; the hon.
member for Roberval, the House leader for the Bloc Quebecois; the hon. member
for Winnipeg--Transcona, the House leader for the New Democrats; the hon.
member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, the House leader for the
Progressive Conservative representative coalition; as well as the hon. members
for Fraser Valley and Longueuil.
I would also like to recognize the Deputy Speaker, the
hon. member for Stormont--Dundas--Charlottenburgh, for the excellent guidance
and leadership which he demonstrated as chair of the special
committee.
Also a word of tribute to all members who took part in
the debate in the House and to my own colleagues who attended the caucus
committee meetings of the Liberal caucus to contribute their views. Presumably
the same thing occurred in other caucuses, and I want to congratulate all
members for their participation.
Needless to say, the members of our committee had a
specific agenda, one which was collective. The agenda was to improve our
procedural rules of this great institution so that members, both present and
future, could do better what they were sent here to do: represent their
constituents and defend their parties' policies, whether government or
opposition; a delicate balance. That is why we adopted at the outset that our
report would only have those items on which we all agreed to unanimously. Every
clause in the report is unanimous. The report is unanimous. If it was not
unanimous, it was not in the report at all. That is the system we established,
and that is one of the reasons why it worked. I credit everyone who contributed
to that process.
I am encouraged by the outcome of the deliberations.
The report proposes substantive recommendations which focus on the need to
improve procedural tools, members need to promote good governments and
modernize the functioning of the institution.
However, this is not the be all and end all of reports.
This is the first phase. I would like colleagues to consider having a second
phase of modernizations in which we could inspire ourselves from the work done
by other parliaments.
[Translation]
Let us examine some of the recommendations. For
example, we have recommended increased ministerial responsibility. I will give
a few examples of this.
There will be a 30 minute debate on the use of time
allocation and closure motions. Time allocation is necessary, of course, when
debating legislation, so that the government can put through its legislative
program. The opposition parties are, I am sure, aware of that necessity but
they object when the government makes use of it. There will be what might be
termed a formal protest in which members could express their grievances and
explain why, in their opinion, time allocation was hasty, unnecessary or
whatever, depending on the circumstances.
As for the main estimates, there will now be a
measure by which the Leader of the Opposition can refer two of the estimates to
the committee of the whole. In the past there has been criticism in this area.
I recall comments by the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in
this connection.
In his opinion, certain ministers did not appear
enough before committees to defend their budgetary estimates. If this occurs in
the future, the Leader of the Opposition could require them to debate their
budgetary estimates in the House before the cameras. This would be an incentive
for ministers to appear in committee, knowing that otherwise they will be
brought to the floor of the House. I think this is a good measure and I agree
with those who wanted it.
With respect to the workings of the House, a certain
number of existing rules have been modified and new rules have been
recommended. For example, votes held at the end of the day, which require a 15
minute bell, and sometimes a 30 minute bell if the vote is unexpected, are not
always necessary. If, for example, votes were held immediately following oral
question period, when parliamentarians are already in the House, clearly we
would not need to wait for 15 minutes since everyone would already be present.
Therefore there will be a rule whereby votes may be held immediately following
oral question period, as many parliamentarians have suggested. I thank them.
This will now be part of the standing orders, when we return from the
Thanksgiving break, a week from now.
Regarding the timetable for government bills,
there will now be a mechanism, to be tested for a six month period only because
it is controversial in the eyes of the opposition, which will make it possible
to establish a timetable for a bill. If the bill takes more time in the House,
it will automatically be given less in committee. If the bill goes through the
House more quickly, it will allow for a more in-depth study in committee. We
could thus, if we so decide, establish a timetable similar to what exists in
the British parliament. This measure will be tested for six months.
(1015)
[English]
There are written questions on the order paper, a
matter which again is a source of contention. I have had to deal with that in
the many years I spent in opposition, too many if I could
editorialize.
Members want to have their questions answered. If
ministers pass the deadline for answering them, the matter would now be
referred to a standing committee in which a report would be required in
addition to permitting an additional question for every one that remained
unanswered. If a member was entitled to have four questions on the order paper
and the minister did not answer any of them, at the end of the deadline the
member could add a fifth one.
One does not stall the process of answering questions
by allowing the order paper to be overloaded. That will not be possible anymore
in the unlikely event that any minister, or particularly their officials, are
inclined to do that at the present time.
On the ratification of the appointment of officers of
parliament, the rules right now are a hodgepodge. The appointment of certain
officers of parliament require a resolution of the House. Others require a
study by a committee and the House. Others require a debate. Some are
non-debatable and so on. On others the House is not consulted at all. Now there
will be a uniform method.
An officer of parliament would now be appointed by a
vote of the House in every case and there would not be a debate. It would
simply be a non-debatable motion, but the House would always pronounce itself
whether it be the appointment of a clerk, or the auditor general or any other
officer of parliament. The system will be made uniform for all
appointments.
Notice of opposition day motions was a bone of
contention for government members in the past. They always felt that they found
out the subject matter for debate at the last minute. The opposition group or
party proposing the motion obviously knew what it would propose, so it had a
head start and the government could not react because the minister was not in
town to answer or had little time to prepare.
Now, one hour prior to opening on the sitting day
prior to an opposition day, the government and Speaker would have to know what
the subject would be. I believe that will be a good system. It will permit the
government to hopefully provide better answers, although I thought the answers
were already pretty good, to debates initiated on opposition days.
Members would be given a greater opportunity to
participate in parliamentary debate and to be heard under the new mechanism. I
thank everyone for agreeing with this.
Then there is the issue of candidacy for speakership,
something that is of interest to every MP, particularly new MPs in parliament.
When they are called upon to vote for a speaker they may never have met or seen
the candidates. Now, candidates would be able to speak for five minutes in the
House to announce to their colleagues their candidacy, if they wish to do so.
It is not obligatory for someone to do so but this opportunity would be given.
We were informed that this procedure which exists in the U.K. House.
(1020)
[Translation]
On the topic of ministerial statements, the members
of the committee agree to recommend strongly that the government make greater
use of ministers' statements.
We will therefore change the order of the House to
allow a minister to make a statement on a bill he or she will then introduce.
At the moment the order is reversed and this is not allowed.
I come now to the broadcasting of committee
proceedings. If ever there was a good time to speak of this it is today. With
the situation, national security and the unspeakable events that occurred in
the United States on September 11, I think one committee room equipped for
television is not enough. From now on there will be two.
I think that if this does not prove to be enough we
can have a third, but at least we will double parliament's ability to televise
committee hearings. This is more than double, if we count it, because it is
exponential.
One committee monopolized the room almost all the
time. This arrangement will make the room more accessible than it was in the
past.
Take note debates will now be conducted in committee
of the whole. This will enable fewer members to join together to hold in the
House of Commons a somewhat more intimate debate, rather than speak some 50
metres away, which is often the case in evening debates.
We have in fact used this approach informally for
several months now. Here again this is something I noted in the British
parliament and suggested to my colleagues. Informally, we tried it on several
occasions, and I think we are happy with it.
As regards private members' business, we know how
important it is to members. We are aware of the impact of any change. In this
regard, the House leaders agreed that we should hear from the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs rather than deal with this ourselves
because, after all, none of us, by definition, is a backbencher, but we do
listen to comments.
[English]
In conclusion, the changes today would fulfill in
part a commitment made by the government in the Speech from the Throne earlier
this year to modernize the rules of the House. They would also fulfill an
unwritten commitment, if I can call it that, that all of us have had for a long
time: to improve the rules and the functioning of this place.
The changes are part of the ongoing work of the House
on parliamentary reform. They are based on all party and all member agreement
and they reflect our goodwill and desire to make the institution
work.
I will repeat something I said at the beginning. This
is only the first phase. During the first phase I went to the U.K. with the
then opposition House leader and we learned a lot from what it did. We should
repeat the same exercise and learn what other parliaments do. We should have a
second phase of modernization once we have had a few months to test how this
round works. We could then adjust it if necessary with the consent of everyone,
and hopefully proceed to the second phase.
I offer my sincere thanks to all hon. members for
their co-operation. Although the rules are imperfect, having been made by
humans, I am convinced they would make parliament work better.
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will start this morning by thanking all
members of the committee for the work they have done on the modernization of
parliament. I specifically thank the clerks, Audrey O'Brien and Diane Diotte,
for the great job they did in assisting the committee through all the work, as
well as our researcher, James Robertson. They did a commendable job.
I also thank the Deputy Speaker, the member for
Stormont--Dundas--Charlottenburgh, who acted as chair for the committee which
had to come up with a unanimous report. It is not always easy to be a chair and
deal with all the political parties in this type of debate. I congratulate
members for the work they did. I thank them on behalf of all parliamentarians
and all Canadians.
Democratizing government and improving its
accountability are bedrock Alliance principles. When the 37th parliament began
the Liberal government was not interested in reforming parliament in a
meaningful way. It started off on the wrong foot. The only reform pursued by
the government was the restriction of the ability of members to submit
amendments at report stage. The scheme was so unpopular it required the use of
closure to ram it through.
Despite that start the House established a
modernization committee. I commend the government House leader for agreeing to
the parliamentary reforms in the report. Most of the proposals tend to favour
the opposition. I think the government House leader recognizes that over time
the opposition has lost a great deal of procedural ground.
As a result parliament has been on the brink of
becoming dysfunctional. The government's powers are sweeping. If the opposition
is to provide the necessary checks and balances it must be accorded certain
rights. An opposing view is crucial to the functioning of
parliament.
Stanley Knowles, who was a fierce defender of the
rights of the opposition, said:
|
--you
do not have full political democracy let alone the economic as well as
political democracy unless you include a full and unquestioned recognition of
the rights and functions of the opposition to the government of the day. Only
in this way can you protect the rights of minorities. Only in this way can you
make sure that the force of public opinion will be brought to bear on the
legislative process. |
Another respected parliamentarian, former Prime
Minister John Diefenbaker, believed that:
|
If
Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His Majesty’s Loyal
Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions...The reading of history
proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. |
Our goal should be to work toward establishing equality
of strength between the government and the opposition. While the report is
moving in the right direction we still have a long way to go. I am pleased the
government House leader talked about digesting the report for a while and
looking forward to making further changes in the future.
Many of the ideas and concepts in the modernization
committee's report came from the Alliance Party's parliamentary reform package,
building trust, that it launched at the beginning of parliament. We approved
allowing candidates for speaker to make speeches prior to their election. This
would let all members see and hear the candidates in the Chamber before there
is a vote.
Another change pertains to the use of written questions
and the reference of unanswered questions to a standing committee. This would
increase the opposition's long term ability to hold the government accountable
for its actions, something we have not been able to do in the history of this
parliament. It is an important change.
There is a requirement for the minister sponsoring any
bill whose passage involves closure or time allocation to justify the use of
closure in a 30 minute question and answer session. This would make the
government pay a political price each time it invoked closure.
It would ensure Canadians received an explanation from
the minister. They would be entitled to an explanation not from the minister's
parliamentary secretary or the government House leader but from the minister
responsible. The minister would need to explain why the bill needed to have
closure in the House. It is an important move.
The approval of the House of the appointment of the
clerk of the House and officers of parliament would recognize that they report
to parliament and not to cabinet or the Prime Minister. That is a positive
move.
Requiring that annual reports of officers of parliament
be referred to and considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs would ensure that elected parliamentarians gave them careful and timely
consideration.
The televising of committees should be expanded.
Committees are where most of the real work of parliament happens. Up to now few
have been televised. The proposal would have them videotaped and made available
to CPAC and the press gallery.
In this time of crisis due to terrorism and the
prospect of going to war it will be especially important that all major
committee hearings over the next few weeks are televised across the nation.
People should be able to see the head of CSIS, the head of our defence forces
and the ministers in charge being questioned by all members of the House. That
will be very important. It is a crucial part of the report.
(1025)
The committee recommended an improvement to the way the
estimates are considered. Each year the Leader of the Opposition, in
consultation with opposition House leaders, would be empowered to refer the
estimates of two departments to committee of the whole. Ministers would be
required to defend their estimates in the House for up to five hours. This
would improve and highlight the accountability process of the
estimates.
This is done in provincial legislatures now. When I was
minister of the environment in British Columbia I would sometimes be questioned
in the house by the opposition for hours and days on the estimates in my
department. That would happen here with only two ministers but it is a good
start. It would bring accountability to each minister.
Witnesses in committee would be reminded that they are
required to tell the truth when appearing before a committee. They would be
informed by the chairman of the consequences if they do not. That is
important.
I would be remiss not to mention the report's
unfortunate omissions. We have a lot more work to do. I am pleased that the
government House leader agrees with that. The committee did not consider
tackling the issue of free votes.
The McGrath committee studied the confidence convention
and concluded that only explicit motions of confidence or matters central to
the government's platform should be treated as confidence. All references to
confidence were expunged from the standing orders that regulate the functioning
of parliament.
Despite these reforms most votes of parliament still
take place along strict party lines. Recently the opposition adjourned the
House on a Thursday afternoon. Some members wondered if that could be
considered a matter of confidence. This is a clear sign that members need to be
reminded about the confidence convention.
The hon. member for Calgary Southwest described this
point in a speech he delivered in the House in April 1998. He said:
There is a myth in the House that
lurking out there somewhere is the fiery dragon of the confidence convention,
the erroneous belief studiously cultivated by the government that if a
government bill or motion is defeated, or an opposition bill, motion or
amendment is passed, this obliges the government to resign. This myth is used
to coerce government members, especially backbenchers, to vote for government
bills and motions with which they and their constituents disagree and to vote
against opposition bills, motions and amendments with which they substantially
agree. The reality is that the fiery dragon of the confidence convention in its
traditional form is dead. The sooner the House officially recognizes that fact,
the better for all. |
We did not recommend changing any rules because there
are no relevant rules to change. We wanted to reaffirm what the rules are. We
could adopt a motion that says the House shall not consider the vote on any
motion to be a question of confidence in the government unless the motion is
directly related to the government's budget or the motion is explicitly worded
as a question of confidence.
We were hoping the committee would recommend wording to
clarify ministerial responsibility. We have a lot of documents written by the
PCO and academics, but the House has never made a statement of its own. It is
ironic because ministers are responsible to the House.
The U.K. passed a resolution regarding ministerial
accountability. It can be found on page 63 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May.
We should come up with our own wording. The statement should include the usual
constitutional references and some additional statements to address recent
issues.
The House should urge the Prime Minister to make
important announcements in the House and not at Liberal fundraisers. The ethics
counsellor still reports to the Prime Minister instead of to the House
regarding the ethics of cabinet ministers.
The election of standing committee chairmen and
vice-chairmen by secret ballot were not included in the report. It would have
brought more autonomy to committees. The election of the Speaker by secret
ballot was designed to take the choice away from the Prime Minister and give it
to the entire House. Since committees are creatures of the House and the
independence of chairmen is as important to members when they are in committee
as when they are in the House, the secret ballot procedure used to select the
Speaker should be applied to the election of standing committee chairmen and
vice-chairmen.
Removing parliamentary secretaries from committees was
another proposal the government felt it could not live with. This would have
strengthened the independence of committees. Committees will continue to be
impeded by the interference of cabinet through parliamentary
secretaries.
There was progress on closure and time allocation.
While the committee recommended a 30 minute question period before a motion of
time allocation or closure is moved, it could have gone further. It could have
recommended that the Speaker be granted more authority to deny a motion from
being put if he felt the rights of the minority were being
infringed.
The committee also failed to come up with an agreement
on adding a question and comment period to a minister's speech on second and
third reading stages of a bill. We will therefore have to continue the practice
of allowing ministers to drone on for 40 minutes without an opportunity to
challenge what they are saying. The most interesting and informative aspect of
debate is the question and comment period. The bill would deny us that on most
important speeches.
(1030)
Regrettably there is no progress on private members'
business, just the expression that the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs should deal with it.
Our supply motion last June was designed to commit the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to come up with a workable
proposal allowing for all items to be votable by November 1. The recent survey
by the subcommittee on private members' business indicated that over 70% of the
members were unhappy with how the system works. An overwhelming majority wanted
all items in the House to be votable. We hope that will happen by November 1.
The committee did not see fit to come up with a
workable procedure to deal with omnibus bills. The way we presently deal with
omnibus bills is described on page 619 of Marleau and Montpetit. It suggests
that historically disputes over omnibus bills are brought about by political
interaction. It describes on page 618 how the opposition paralyzed the House
for 14 days in 1982. Surely there is a better way to resolve disputes of this
kind.
Our most recent example of Bill C-15 was handled in a
similar although less severe way. Apart from the begging of all opposition
parties, the official opposition had to threaten the smooth and timely manner
that legislation is processed through the House. There must be a better way.
The Speaker could be given the authority to divide a
bill if in his opinion the omnibus nature of a bill prevents members from
casting their votes responsibly and intelligibly on behalf of their
constituents. I do not see why committees cannot be given the authority to
divide a bill without having to seek the authority of the House.
There may also be a simpler solution. The government
could negotiate with the opposition what principles are to be lumped together
in an omnibus bill before tabling the legislation. This would eliminate
unnecessary procedural battles in the House.
I thank all my colleagues and the House leaders in this
institution for the changes that took place. They are not perfect but we are
certainly moving forward.
(1035)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Order, please. From now on, the hon. members who take
the floor will have 20 minutes to deliver their speeches, which will be
followed by a period of 10 minutes for questions and comments, unless these
members indicate to the Chair that they want to split their time.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by explaining to those who
are listening to us that it is extremely important, in a debate like this one,
in a job like the one done by House leaders, to be objective and
non-partisan.
The reason is quite simple. To amend the rules of
debate in parliament is not a partisan exercise and it must never become one.
On the contrary, it is a highly democratic exercise whose objective must be to
improve the quality of the discussions in a this Chamber and to allow members
to play a meaningful role in the management of public business and in debates
on bills.
It is always from this perspective that the business of
the House is conducted. In this regard, I must salute the efforts of the Leader
of the Government in the House of Commons who, unlike his predecessor from the
same government, never wanted to make any change that was not fully supported
by the House leaders of each party.
Any change to the rules of debate in parliament should
get the unanimous support of the political parties concerned, because it has to
do with the balance of powers held by the various members, by the opposition
parties and to the government party in parliament.
The changes we are making today are extremely limited.
As the House leader of the Canadian Alliance pointed out earlier, much remains
to be done. Many of us could, and indeed do with all our heart, wish for
amendments to the standing orders but what we must understand is that what I
hope we are seeing here is the beginning of an ongoing process.
To this process, we have all brought our objectivity,
our experience and our desire for quality debate in parliament and, as I said
earlier, the result, however modest, reflects not just consensus but
unanimity.
I have some advice for the government should it ever
wish to change the rules under which parliament operates, as it has done in the
past, without the agreement of all parties.
Whenever a government proceeds in this manner, it uses
its majority to unbalance, as it were, the debates we hold in the House of
Commons. Even if the intention is sometimes worthwhile, even if the purpose of
the change is good and desirable, this should never, in my opinion, be
something decided upon by only one, two or three parties. There must be
unanimity.
In this regard, I pay tribute to the government House
leader, who had the courage and drive to follow through to the end. I also wish
to thank the colleagues from other parties who set aside all partisan
considerations in the interests of the quality of the debates we hold in this
parliament.
Why do I place such emphasis on this? Let me explain.
What one must understand is that whenever changes are made to the ways things
are done, the manner of debating, or the rules of procedure in a parliament
based on the British model, as ours is, not only does this affect the balance
within that institution but it also affects what is done in other
parliaments.
Those listening are entitled to know that, naturally,
we are not insensitive to what has gone on in the British parliament, in the
Australian parliament, or in other similar parliaments.
(1040)
Over time, parliamentarians have made changes to their
procedures, in good faith and often by consensus. No one should accuse us of
wanting to reinvent the wheel just because we want to make changes. These must
be based on experience, precedent and rulings, in order to avoid actions being
taken with totally unexpected consequences.
We must, therefore, be extremely prudent, but we also
need to compare what is being done elsewhere. Debates held in the parliament of
a country like Canada cannot be compared to debates held at the municipal
level, no matter how large the municipality, or in other types of deliberative
assemblies. Although we can occasionally take inspiration from good initiatives
elsewhere, we cannot model ourselves on anything other than parliaments with
the same task as our own.
That is why, every time we make changes here, it has an
impact on provincial legislatures such as the Quebec national assembly, the
Ontario legislature and the like. It has impact on the British parliament, or
other types of parliaments, because it is a generally accepted practice for
parliamentarians anxious to improve the quality of their debates to look at
what others are doing.
Seen in this light, our changes, no matter how modest,
are a step in the right direction. Some of them will allow MPs to play a more
significant role in the way things are done. Some will open up interesting
perspectives, so that we can continue what we have started.
I must tell my colleagues in other parties that, in my
opinion, what we are doing today, and the report we are approving, is not the
end of the process but the beginning. We could not consider we had completed
our mission as House leaders by bringing in these changes to the way parliament
operates.
Many other improvements are needed as well but they can
all be introduced over time as the thoughts of each House leader and political
party evolve. We do not need an adversarial debate to explain to the government
that it is necessary to be more open, to allow the opposition to play a more
significant role. Nor can the government convince the opposition in an
adversarial debate that we have to accept the process operating more smoothly,
more rapidly and more efficiently.
Everyone wants to hang on to their privileges. The
opposition wants to be able to stop unfortunate government incidents. The
government wants to be able to govern and make legislative decisions it
considers fair. The secret behind the job we have done and will continue to do
is to keep at all cost the balance we currently have while promoting the role
of the members and the opposition parties.
Unfortunately, at this point in time, the role of the
executive is increasingly important. This is what the analysts and the experts
in political science are saying: in our system, the Office of the Prime
Minister and the Prime Minister appoint all the ministers who sit here and draw
on the parliamentary majority. They pretty well hold all the power.
The only way the opposition gets to be heard is to
utilize parliamentary means to make the government pay the political price of
certain decisions we do not consider desirable. If the government is within its
right, public opinion will be the judge. The role of parliament is therefore to
alert public opinion to some of the government's decisions. Sometimes the
political cost forces the government to back down, to be a little more
conciliatory, even if all powers, in absolute terms, are in the hands of the
executive.
(1045)
Certain tools have to stay in the House of Commons for
reasonable use by the opposition to put a halt to undesirable government
activities. This is what parliament is all about.
A person does not need a lot of love for parliament to
recognize that a functioning parliament is an assurance of democracy.
Regardless of the difficult times we may face as a society, when parliament can
guarantee healthy and balanced debate between the various factions of the
opposition, the left, the right, the centre and the centre left and the
government, the public recognizes that the system works. Parliamentarians
recognize that their voters are being properly served.
In a democracy where parliament is nothing more than a
pretence at democracy, we can expect the public to be discontent and totally
disdainful of an assembly where nothing happens other than members making
promises in speeches but powerless to change or influence the decisions of the
executive.
Therefore, it is extremely important that our work,
which is well underway and which has led to non-partisan co-operation between
parliamentary leaders and political parties, can continue. We must go further
and benefit from other people's experience. We must improve the role of a
member of parliament and we must achieve an even better balance between the
opposition and the government to ensure that our debates can be conducted in
the most serene way possible, for the greater benefit of the people who elect
us--or members of other political parties--here every four years.
It is in this spirit that we must work. It is in this
spirit that we have worked and it is in this spirit that, personally, I have
always defended our participation in the parliamentary leaders committee. There
are two improvements that I find extraordinarily interesting and that I want to
briefly discuss.
The first one has to do with a member asking questions
to a minister after hours. There is now a better balance in the exchange
between the minister who provides a reply and the member, since the latter can
now respond. A kind of balance has been achieved and I think it benefits the
opposition, which is an excellent thing.
There is also the fact that an opposition day motion
cannot be amended without the agreement of the party that presented it. Under
the parliamentary system, such an amendment could change the nature of the
debate, since it could significantly change the nature of the issue debated.
The proposed change is a good one.
Also, when the government resorts to closure, the
minister who sponsors the bill will have to face a series of questions during a
certain period of time in the House of Commons. This will allow us to better
understand the reasons why the minister is using closure to pass his bill. It
will also give the opposition a better opportunity to explain why it is opposed
to a bill.
Each time a change is made to the rules of the House to
enhance the members' role and to hold those who are elected to this Chamber
accountable, we cast a vote of confidence in all those who cast their votes on
election day. As my role or the office I hold becomes more meaningful, so does
the decision made by my fellow citizens to elect me. By enhancing the role of
members and parliamentarians, we are paying tribute to the citizens who send us
here.
(1050)
I would like to conclude by saying that this is but a
beginning. We must continue to work together. We must look to what others are
doing elsewhere in order to find the best possible approach. Beyond partisan
politics and beyond any political options, it is in everyone's interest that
the debates that take place in this parliament—as the ones that take place in
the national assembly in Quebec City and in the British parliament—be
constructive, positive, and earn it the confidence of the citizens that elect
the members.
With this end in view, I affirm that this is a first
step, and we will continue the work. I offer my co-operation, and my colleagues
from the Bloc Quebecois also offer their co-operation. We need to do more in
this regard.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it
passing strange that as we debate something which has to do with increasing the
relevance of parliament what quorum we have has to be provided by the
opposition, if in fact we have quorum. In fact we do not, so before I proceed
any further I would call quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
There is no quorum. The bells shall ring for a maximum
of 15 minutes. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
(1055)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Quorum has been reached. Debate shall continue.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I did that for a couple of reasons: first,
because I am tired of seeing either no one or one or two members on the
government side, and second, it relates to one of the recommendations in the
modernization committee report which we are now debating, and that is the
recommendation to have committees sit at times other than when the House is
sitting, in the way that the House used to be run when I first arrived here 22
years ago.
What we now have with this telescoping of the timing of
the work of committees and the sitting of the House into the same period of
time is a situation that is rendering this place increasingly irrelevant and
increasingly meaningless in terms of the sense one has when one is
participating in a debate on the floor of the House.
We should at least have the feeling, Mr. Speaker, and
we should in fact have the reality that we are actually speaking to somebody,
not just to you, with all due regard to the intensity with which you listen to
what we have to say. The fact of the matter is that if there is no one on the
government side to talk to, to even hear our--
An hon. member: Out of order.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: There is nothing out of order
about referring to the government in the collective sense, I would remind the
hon. member.
If there is no one on the government side to talk to,
then what is the point? What is the point of the opposition speaking? Who are
we speaking to?
I think one of the recommendations in the modernization
committee report, which is that the whips come up with a plan to have
committees meet at times other than when the House is sitting is in fact one of
the best recommendations in this committee report, because we cannot continue
like this. We cannot do our job properly if we have to be in two or three
places at the same time. While I am here I am not at the justice committee, of
which I am also a member and which is sitting right now, hearing witnesses on
Bill C-15. I cannot be in both places at once.
That may happen from time to time but it should not be
a regular occurrence. It should not be something that members have to deal with
all the time, constantly having to choose between the Chamber and committee. I
would certainly urge that after the passage of this report the whips get busy
right away. It may mean that committees would have to sit, God forbid, on
Mondays or on Thursday evenings or on Fridays. Committees always sat on those
days when I first came here. They sat Monday through Friday. We did not get a
week back in the riding after every three or four weeks either.
As far as I am concerned, the whole place has become
kind of wimpy as far as work schedules are concerned. We should be making
better use of our time and not trying to telescope the work of the House and
the committees into this smaller and smaller period, which is getting to be
about two and a half days now. It just makes for a lack of quality time, shall
we say, here in the House of Commons and in committee. I am very much concerned
about it. One of the reasons I called quorum was to make that point.
I want to read to the House something from the
committee report and highlight a few things. Let me read what the report says
under “Ministerial Statements”.
I hear a cellphone, and that is another thing I do not
like, having cellphones in the House of Commons. We should have a rule against
it. We should not have to listen to cellphones going off when--
(1100)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
There is a rule which states very clearly that
cellphones are not allowed in the House, and this is the third one I have heard
this morning. I urge colleagues to please abide by this rule because it can be
very annoying for the member speaking. It is as simple as that: common
sense.
Mr. Bill Blaikie:
Are we all so self-important that we cannot shut off
our cellphones when we come in here and pay attention to the business of the
House for the duration of time that we are here? It just makes me sick.
As I was saying with respect to ministerial statements,
the report states:
First, it is important that more
ministerial statements and announcements be made in the House of Commons. In
particular, topical developments, or foreseeable policy decisions, should be
made first--or, at least, concurrently--in the chamber. Ministers, and their
departments, need to be encouraged to make use of the forum provided by the
House of Commons. Not only will this enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament,
but it will also reiterate the legislative underpinning for governmental
decisions. While we recognize that not all announcements will be made in
Parliament, it is important that more of them be made in this
setting. |
It is ironic that we should be debating and adopting
the recommendations of the modernization committee report that I just read, on
a day and in a setting where we have had major policy announcements repeatedly
made on topical developments.
What could be more topical than the events of September
11? Major policy announcements have repeatedly been made, not in the House but
at Liberal fundraising dinners.
I say to the government House leader that there is
something deeply ironic, if not hypocritical, about adopting this policy in the
context of a time when we have seen major policy announcements made, not in the
House but at Liberal fundraising dinners. I do not hold him responsible for the
behaviour of his Prime Minister or of the government entirely, and I hope that
in his heart of hearts he would agree with me
The Prime Minister should have reported to the House
first after his meeting with George Bush as recommended by the modernization
committee report. He should have reported to the House first, not after or in
the course of fragmented responses to questions in question period.
However he did not. He is in violation of the spirit of
the report for not doing so, as is the Minister of Transport for whom I
otherwise have a great deal of respect. After a take note debate in the House,
which made the airline issue the property of the House of Commons, the Minister
of Transport did not come into the House and say that this is what we debated
last night and this is what he will do about the problem. No, the announcement
was made in the press gallery.
How many times does this kind of abuse have to happen
before the Canadian public gets the message? Maybe Canadians already got the
message that parliament does not matter. It does not matter to the government
so why should it matter to them?
I would hope against hope that the adoption of the
report would mean a sea of change in the way the government relates to
parliament through the increased use of ministerial and prime ministerial
statements. That would have been the statesmanlike thing to do. The prime
ministerial thing to do would have been to use the House of Commons in that
context.
Question period, even at its best which it seldom is,
is too adversarial a context for delivering the kind of comprehensive policy
statements we would have expected of the Prime Minister in the context of what
happened in New York City on September 11.
There are many good things in the report and I will not
have time to elaborate on them all. I have already alluded to the
recommendations having to do with ministerial statements and with the timing of
committees.
The procedure that is recommended with respect to
closure or time allocation is a good one. We will see how it works. I hope it
will act as a brake on the government when it comes to time allocation.
(1105)
When time allocation occurs I hope the government will
provide an opportunity for ministers to justify what they are doing, or at
least allow members of the opposition an opportunity to question the
appropriate minister. I am looking forward to seeing how it works.
As was said by the Alliance House leader, I would have
preferred that the Speaker had been given some power independent of the House
to rule on whether motions of time allocation were in order, but that was not
to be. We could only do what was unanimously agreed upon.
I want to enter a reservation on another item which may
turn out to be all right. It has to do with candidates for Speaker making
speeches to the House. The original McGrath committee, of which I was a member,
made a recommendation about how a Speaker should be elected. It was felt at
that time that it would be unseemly for members to campaign for the
speakership.
This was not a view shared by Alliance members when
they came here as Reformers. It is something they have managed to create a
consensus about, that there should be some opportunity for candidates for the
speakership to speak to members. I hope this will not lead to full scale
campaigning. I will wait to see whether or not the initial reservations of the
McGrath committee are borne out in this regard.
The recommendation with respect to estimates is a good
one. We are going back to a former way of dealing with the estimates before my
time. It was in 1969 that the estimates were taken out of the House and sent to
committee in the way they are now.
This was not something that was done by all party
agreement. It was part of a package of so-called parliamentary reform imposed
through closure by the government at that time. The process may have worked for
a while, but it has not led to the kind of scrutiny of the estimates and
accountability in terms of spending that Canadians expect of their
parliament.
I am glad to see we will return some of the estimates
to the floor of the House of Commons. As the Alliance House leader indicated,
this is something which is done regularly in many provincial legislatures where
ministers are accountable. Ministers have to answer for their spending in a way
that federal cabinet ministers do not have to do.
I will comment on what the Alliance House leader said
with respect to the confidence convention. The whole issue about free votes has
been a preoccupation of his party since it got here. The Alliance House leader
pointed out that the confidence convention did not exist procedurally. However
it used to exist procedurally.
There was the language of confidence in the standing
orders prior to the adoption of the McGrath committee report in 1985. Members
were able to hide behind procedural language which said, for instance, that
because opposition day motions were motions of supply they were in fact
confidence motions. Therefore people had to treat them as confidence
motions.
That is all gone. All the language of confidence has
been removed from the standing orders. The Alliance House leader is noticing
that in spite of that we have not had any significant change in the culture of
confidence. We have changed the procedure and the standing orders but we have
not changed the culture of confidence.
I hear what the Alliance House leader is arguing for.
At one point I would have hoped this would not be necessary. Maybe we do need a
motion in the House which lays out that only certain things are matters of
confidence unless they are deemed to be matters of confidence in the wording of
the legislation itself.
(1110)
This happens informally from time to time. A couple of
times the current Prime Minister has said something is a matter of confidence.
It is a way of signalling to his backbenchers that he will not tolerate any
dissent on the matter.
This is something that should be regularized. If it
were regularized the possibility would exist for government backbenchers to
rein in their government when they feel it was going in the wrong
direction.
A piece of legislation could then be defeated without
defeating the government. That is what this is all about. However that was not
accomplished in this report. It waits for another day and will probably wait a
long time. I do not see the current Prime Minister or the current culture of
the Liberal Party as being terribly open to this kind of parliamentary
development.
The government House leader said that parliamentary
reform was an ongoing thing. I do not regard this committee report as reform.
It is well named when it is called modernization. Reform to me suggests a
redistribution of power between the government and the opposition and between
the Prime Minister and his backbenchers.
There is not much reform here; there might be a bit. I
am trying to make the government House leader feel better, but there is not
much that I would call reform. That does not mean that what is in the report is
not worth doing. However let us not go overboard and call it something that it
is not.
We still wait for the day when members of parliament
will have more independence from the government, particularly in committee. At
the risk of alienating the member for Fraser Valley because he sometimes
complains that I mention the McGrath committee too much, we recommended then
that committee members not be pulled off committees by the government when they
had the audacity to have independent thought, to think that the government was
not perfect, or to amend legislation in ways that had not already been
suggested to them by the parliamentary secretary.
That raises another matter and another recommendation
in the McGrath committee which stated that parliamentary secretaries not be on
committees. Government members do not and should not need a coach in
committees. Presumably government members are able to exercise some kind of
rational, intelligent function and make decisions themselves without having to
take their cue from a parliamentary secretary.
Had these kinds of things been included in this report
then I would call it parliamentary reform. I do not call this parliamentary
reform. Nevertheless I welcome it and I hope that we will be able to make the
best of what little we have before us.
(1115)
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill
today. I am sure the House leader of the NDP, who has long been an advocate of
parliamentary reform, will be in the House of course to listen to my speech
since he called us all in a few minutes ago to be part of that. I am sure he
will not be leaving momentarily to do anything else.
A lot of people have put a lot of work into bringing
this forward and they should be congratulated. Although these are tiny steps in
an effort to modernize parliament, they are good in the sense that something
has been done. I thank the members who sat on the committee for their work. I
know it is not easy to bring consensus on these kind of things, and they have
been able to do that.
I hope that maybe I had a small part in this as well.
In January of this year I brought forward a document called, “Building Trust”.
At the time, when I was House leader, we made 12 specific proposals that we
thought would at least help parliament be more responsive and help to build
trust between constituents, Canadians and the House of Commons. The immediate
reaction from the government House leader was that these were half-baked and
preposterous ideas, and that they could not be done. I do not know if he was
right or not but exactly half of the recommendations that I brought forward at
that time are included in the report. So maybe they were half-baked in the
sense that only half of them were accepted.
It is interesting that after the initial knee-jerk
reaction of nothing can change, it always has to stay the same, we did make
some progress with the report and the baby steps of change perhaps have started
once again. Perhaps under a different administration, and I think that is what
it will take, the important steps necessary for true parliamentary reform will
take place. It is very important that change does take place.
In Maclean's magazine last year it did a poll
amongst business people and concluded that 7% of business people believe that
members of parliament have a significant impact on the actions of the
government. Only 7% think that what we do here makes a difference in the laws
of the land. When people want things changed do they go to their member of
parliament? Knowledgeable business people frequently do not bother. They go to
NGOs, business advocacy groups and to lobbying firms. They find that is more
effective than talking to members of parliament because members of parliament
are shut out too often from the important work of parliament.
I will read a quote from 1968 in which a person
lamented:
So this is your Member of Parliament;
whipped by the discipline of the party machines; starved for information by the
mandarin class; dwarfed by the Cabinet and by bigness generally in industry,
labour and communications; ignored in an age of summitry and the leadership
cult. |
That was said by John Turner.
If that was a problem in 1968, I can assure Mr. Turner
that the problem is at least as severe now, perhaps worse.
Members of parliament are often the last to know about
important government decisions and important government legislation. Time and
again, in the last parliament and again in this parliament, we see members of
parliament coming forward with points of privilege asking why it is that some
industry leader or some advocacy group got a copy of a piece of legislation
before it was tabled in the House. Why is it that ministers go to press
conferences and make announcements or ministerial statements without bothering
to even consult or tell the House or even announce it simultaneously in the
House? We just read about it in the newspapers. The Speaker frequently gets up
and says doing that is not good practice and urges the government not to
continue to do it, but of course it just continues to do it.
It is important, for real parliamentary change, to
enhance the role of members of parliament. Enhancing the role of members of
parliament would not only allow us to recruit good candidates in years to come
but good people who are willing to give of themselves in public service which
would make this place more efficient, more effective and more relevant.
(1120)
It would build trust again between our constituents and
parliament, a trust that I think has been broken. It would also allow for
better laws, regulations and communication between constituents, Canadians and
the House.
It may be a pipe dream, but many of us, from Mr.
McGrath on down, continue to believe it is a battle worth fighting for. The
changes we are talking about today are small steps. I am under no illusion that
they will break the log-jam of control that is currently exerted by the Prime
Minister's office and through the bureaucracy to the privy council.
A few positive things have been done. I specifically
refer to a recommendation I made in January which was adopted by the committee
on the issue of closure. When the government wants to bring in closure it is
obliged now to at least get the minister into the House of Commons to talk
about why it had to do it. Is it time sensitive? Have there been hours, days
and weeks of debate? Have there been obstruction tactics on the opposition
side? He or she has to at least come into the House to explain.
Again that is a small step forward. Maybe the
government will be a little more reluctant to use closure. It has used closure
at a record pace, a pace that sets it in a class all its own, although not a
good class. It has certainly used it time and again and just after a couple of
hours of debate it shuts it down and we are forced to move on. The legislation
is basically rammed through here like sausages through a factory, and that is
unfortunate. This committee report will at least get the ministers to come
forward, and that is a good thing.
Another thing I hope will be good is that candidates
for speaker in the next parliament will be able to explain to parliamentarians
what it is they hope to accomplish: their style, their modus operandi, the
things they consider important, the things on which they want to do more. They
will be able to explain their position and we will be able to vote on that
position by secret ballot. It is important to know what we are voting on and
who we are voting to support. I believe that is another small step
forward.
The appointment of important positions like the clerk
of the House and officers of parliament should be approved by parliament. That
is also a step forward and something that I recommended in January. I
anticipate no problems with that. In fact we have been blessed with good clerks
and good officers of parliament, but people should know and perceive that those
positions are non-partisan, that they have the support of everyone in the
House. Canadians need to know that those important technical officer type
positions are not partisan appointments in the sense of favouring one party or
one government over another.
There are some other things that could have been put in
the report, but one that is actually in the report is the greater use of
ministerial statements. I have to agree again, as I so often do, with the House
leader of the New Democratic Party on this particular issue. He points out how
this fall we started off with what I think is a disgraceful example of not
including parliamentarians in the important business of the day. That is why we
feel the frustration bubbling.
People are concerned about terrorism right now. It is
obviously dominating all our thoughts and prayers, but it is also dominating
the business of the House, or at least it should be. However, instead of the
government telling us in the House about the important announcements, decisions
and tactics that it may be employing or initiating, or about the consultations
that are going on, these things are told to Liberal fundraisers or told on
Larry King Live. Decisions are announced at press conferences maybe
coming out of a cabinet meeting but nary an important decision or announcement
is made in the House of Commons.
(1125)
I think to myself how much I would have appreciated it,
and still would frankly because it has not happened, had the Prime Minister
stood up on September 17 and said that parliamentarians would be included in
this most important war of the 21st century. During the gulf war, for example,
he invited the leaders of all parties to sit down with him for some private
briefings about matters of the day so they would not have to stand in the House
of Commons searching for answers. Members should know when things are happening
and that security briefings are being given to the Prime Minister. We should
not have to read about those things in the paper. We do not need to know the
contents but we should know something about them because parliament is
included.
I would have loved if the Prime Minister had said that
he asked his House leader to take housekeeping legislation off the table and to
immediately bring in an anti-terrorism bill that the House could debate and
pass post-haste.
Would it not have been good to get parliamentarians
involved right away on the issue of the day? Instead we have debated, for
example, gopher control on the prairies. While that may be of some importance
to farmers, it is not what is gripping the nation. We should have put
housekeeping stuff aside and seized on the security issue until it was solved.
It would have been good for parliament and Canadians would have seen that
parliamentarians are as concerned as they are with security issues.
I would have loved if the Prime Minister had stood up
and said that he had struck a special all-party committee to deal with the
relationship we were going to have with the new home security secretary of the
United States of America. That person is co-ordinating the entire security
activities of the most powerful nation in the world and we have no relationship
to him. We do not know what he is doing. We do not have a clue as to what our
response could be. Maybe we could even help him in his very important business
of making the United States safe, but by inference the world safe and certainly
North America safe. We will have no influence on that because we have no means
of talking to him, no committee, no structure other than what might be
happening at the bureaucratic level. We do not even know what that is because
we are not included in that.
We do not ask for any briefings or any publication of
anything that could affect national security or any investigations of
terrorists, but certainly it is the business of the House to make Canadians
secure. We should be talking about the modernization of our military, about
long term military procurement contracts, how that will be done and budgeting
for that. We should be talking about the perimeter security issues of the
country in a way that dominates the House and dominates the
committees.
Instead we run the risk, I see it already in
committees, of just following the regular course of events, regular business
that happened to be on the plate last June as if nothing has happened.
I would say a lot has happened. While the business of
the world must go on as far as the regular budgetary process and so on, right
now parliamentarians feel frozen out of the process. We have a system now where
instead of a budget that is brought in in a timely fashion--and that should be
another piece of modernization, something where we can at least know when the
next budget is going to come down--we are left here every day wondering what
impact the recession and the world situation will have on the budget of the
federal government. No one knows if or when we will have a federal budget. If
it does happen the finance committee has an obligation to be part of that, to
have consultations and to travel the country. Instead committee members do not
even know if it will happen so they cannot even start the process of talking to
people.
It is not right. It is something again where
parliamentarians are sidelined. That is why only 7% of business people think it
is worth talking to their member of parliament, and that is
unfortunate.
(1130)
Most parliamentarians I have met are willing, able and
thirsting for a way to impact the business of the House on behalf of their
constituents and Canadians but too often they find out that they are just an
afterthought.
While the modernization report tinkers with a few
things, and they are good things which I approve of, it does not get to the
core of the issue which is respect for the role of the members of parliament to
represent their constituents here and be an advocate for those positions. There
is just not enough opportunity to do it. I do not think the report strikes at
the essence of it, which is that there is too much power given to too few
people who make all the real decisions.
A year ago Gordon Gibson wrote an article in his
newspaper column lamenting about how it would not take too much to change
things. This was just before the last federal election. He said all it would
take to change things at that time was only six Liberal members of parliament.
Many have complained about how irrelevant they are, how they are trained seals
who have to vote as they are told, that they do not have real impact in
committees and that the committees are a sham. However, at that time it would
have taken only six Liberal members of parliament to stand up with the
opposition to change the way we do business in here.
For example, the Canadian Alliance brought forward a
motion about free votes. If six Liberal members had stood up and said that they
thought that the defeat of a government motion should not mean the defeat of
the government unless followed by an explicit vote of non-confidence, history
would have been changed. True modernization would have happened in the House of
Commons. The stranglehold that the Prime Minister's office holds on this place
would have been broken. Instead, too often there is lip service about the need
to change but too much cache put in the fact that allegiance to the party or
the leader is paramount. I can speak with some personal testimony that while
loyalty to the leader is a good thing, blind loyalty is not.
If true change is going to take place in the House of
Commons, people are going to have to stand up and be counted. When they will
not stand up and be counted even when they know things are not right, when they
do nothing, then they are aiding and abetting the problem they are complaining
about. Instead of standing and demanding things of the Prime Minister and the
circle of people around him, they quietly go into the night. Then when an
election comes around they wonder why they cannot get quality candidates. They
wonder why they do not have any impact. They wonder why businesses just write
them off as a joke. Only 7% of businesses even think they have any impact. Why
even go to anyone?
That is a shame. What a difference it would make if we
could say, “I know some members of parliament and you had better have your
ducks in a row because when you go before committee and they give you a
grilling and you cannot answer their questions, they will change that
legislation and you will be behind the eight ball one way or another”. Instead
we all know what happens. Legislation comes forward. The minister meets with
people behind the scenes. They cook it all up ahead of time. They get it into
committee and have some hearings. Then whatever the Prime Minister has decided
just goes through that committee like sausages and it comes out just the way
they wanted it to. That is a shame.
It is no wonder that MPs go to committees and in
frustration walk away. They do not become experts in their field. There is
often no point to it because they feel all their work is for naught. There have
been committees where people have spent six months on a bill. They have become
clause by clause experts on it, but then at the last minute when the clauses
are actually voted on, the government whip has come in and changed the
membership of the committee. All of those people who have become experts are
taken off the committee and trained seals are put in their place for voting.
All of the amendments are tossed out and that bill goes through the committee
in a day.
(1135)
No wonder people on both sides of the House get
frustrated. It is going to take a few more people on the Liberal side since
they have 100% of the power in here, to stand up and say that this is not just
frustrating but it is unacceptable. Things like free votes in this place would
be a great step forward.
I would urge the government, and the government House
leader in particular, to consider looking at what other jurisdictions are
doing. It is not absurd to have important international treaties negotiated by
the government on behalf of Canada approved in the House of Commons. It is done
in Australia and New Zealand. It is certainly done in the United States of
America. Nothing can go through there unless the senate has given its approval.
The president negotiates and the senate gives final approval. Why is it those
sorts of things are considered taboo in this place?
What about looking at British Columbia as an example?
Premier Gordon Campbell took office with a mandate to have fixed election
dates. He was not constitutionally obligated to do that, but what a novel idea.
Within 90 days of the election he said elections would be held the third
Thursday in November every four years. People can count on it and put it in
their diaries. If they want to take a holiday they can book it before or after
because that is when the election is going to be. There is broad support in
Canada for that kind of thing, yet for some reason those sorts of things are
considered taboo.
The modernization committee steps are small ones. They
are not going to break the ice jam. They are not going to change the culture of
this place.
I urge members of parliament to consider that steps
that enhance the role of members of parliament are what will enhance our
reputations back home both with businesses and individuals. Canadians will
thank us if real parliamentary reform and modernization brings about an
important and increased role for members of parliament.
Mr. Peter Adams:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which is not
irrelevant to the debate.
Discussions have taken place between all parties with
respect to adding names to the associate membership list of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent for the
following motion: that a list of associate members to procedure and House
affairs be now tabled; that the names of members on the said list be printed in
Hansard as if read into the record; and that the said list be concurred
in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Does the member have unanimous consent to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, this is a critically important matter to
this parliament. Many members have described this parliament as dysfunctional.
The member for Toronto--Danforth has stated in the past that parliament does
not work, that it is broken and is like a car motor that is working on two
cylinders.
I agree with the member for Fraser Valley that this is
a great first step. I want to compliment him on the document entitled “Building
Trust” which he presented after the recent federal election. It deals with
trying to make parliament more functional.
The concern the House leader for the NDP and I have is
that it is fine to put all of this on paper but is it actually going to change
anything.
The events of September 11 were very important and
critical to every Canadian. Announcements were made by the Prime Minister at
events outside the House. The Prime Minister does not brief parliamentarians.
I would like the member to comment on the things in
this report. Are they going to change things? Are we going to see a drastic
change in the attitude from cabinet to make parliament more functional? I have
concerns. It is great to put it on paper, but to actually change things or make
that significant a difference, we will need to see a great willingness on the
part of members on the other side to change their attitude.
(1140)
Mr. Chuck Strahl:
Mr. Speaker, it is true that all organizations take on
the culture of their leadership. It does not matter whether it is one's own
home or business or in this case the Parliament of Canada.
The culture that has been developed here over the last
several years is not one that rewards initiative, outspokenness, newness or new
creative ideas. It just does not reward that. In fact it penalizes that.
I will quote what Gordon Gibson said in an article
about the powers that are already in this place and vested with the Prime
Minister:
The Prime Minister of Canada has the
powers of a despot, to a degree unmatched anywhere else in the developed world.
He or she appoints the head of state, and the heads of the military and
national police. The PM appoints the political and the permanent heads of all
government departments, plus the governor of the Bank of Canada and all
senators. He or she appoints all of the judges of the supreme court who
interpret the constitution, plus all other important judges, and the heads and
most members of all significant boards, commissions and crown
corporations. |
The PM writes or approves all
legislation, directs or approves all tax and expenditure decisions, approves or
controls chairs of committees and the actions of committees and even the office
space and the boondoggle-type travel of MPs. He or she calls elections at a
time of unilateral choosing, and then has a veto (by law) over whether this or
that MP can run again. Some countries have what they call “iron triangles” of
power. We have a fully closed circle. |
The problem is the culture. The culture is that if one
speaks out, to quote the chair of our caucus, it is like that whack a gopher
game at the fair. If someone puts his head up to say that he would like some
change, the Prime Minister smacks that gopher right into the basement. If a
little while later another brave soul peeks his head out and says that he would
like to have more independence on committee, he is driven into the twilight
zone. That is the problem. The culture is to do as one is told, take the orders
and do not rock the boat. That is the problem.
The culture is never going to change under the Prime
Minister. I have a great deal of respect for him for some things. He has been
here for 40 years. However in a sense his strength is also his weakness. He is
so cautious and worried about what might happen that change is unthinkable.
That culture has been developed over many years. People
in the organization over there understand the culture. They do not rock the
boat. They do not speak out aggressively. They do not buck the big guy. And if
they do, he can refuse to sign their nomination papers. They will not get an
important job or they will be taken away from an important job. There are
important committees just begging for people like that, such as the Library of
Parliament and a couple of others that meet once a year.
That is the truth and that is the problem. It is a
cultural problem. It is going to take a change of government to break that.
Until people start to believe that what they do here matters and they get the
gumption to stand up and say it is important that they speak out, then nothing
will change. That is unfortunate. It affects the type of people who can be
recruited into this place. People sometimes wonder why we cannot get people
with a big long pedigree of involvement in community service or extensive
business background or NGO experience. Those people look on and say, “What is
the point? I am more influential over here in my organization than I would be
as a member of parliament”.
Those of us who fight for parliamentary reform fight
because we want members of parliament to matter. We want them to count. I think
of the former leader of the Reform Party who has basically said that he is
going to retire at the end of this calendar year. Why? He is a person dedicated
to reform and I do not just mean big R reform, I am talking about
changes, someone who breaks the mould, who steps outside the status
quo.
(1145)
He has basically said that he can have more influence
championing his position as the head of a university department and that he
could have more influence on the course of action in the House of Commons by
being a provocative speaker for the Fraser Institute. He has said that he could
have a bigger impact if he were free to speak his mind, and free from the
constraints of this place, as a regular editorial writer in national
publications.
What a loss for this place that a man of that calibre
feels so constrained by the petty games that go on in this place that he would
take his interest and his love for this place and for parliamentary reform and
democratic representative government, his passion for that subject, and say
that frankly he has to move on. What a loss that he would say he has given 10
years of his life to it and it is time to ply his trade in other circles
because he has concluded, like too many other good men and women, that it is
more effective to be outside pressuring in instead of inside fomenting change
from here.
That happens because of a culture, and the culture is
that the leader is always right. Second rule? Look at the first rule. That is
the problem and it will never change until we get somebody sitting in the Prime
Minister's Office who says that he or she wants to involve members of
parliament, that he or she has enough respect for this place that important
decisions, announcements, legislation and so on are made here, not at Liberal
fundraisers, not on Larry King Live, not at a press conference where
there is the possibility of winning votes at a special conference of some NGO
group, or not as happened a few years ago when a minister, and, Mr. Speaker,
you will remember my point of privilege, went over to China and announced the
creation of a Canada-China friendship group. He had no authority to do that.
Those groups are creations of parliament and he announced, as a minister in
another land, that parliament had approved something of which we had never even
been apprised.
Until we break that culture, we will continue down the
path that says it is my way or the highway, and important decisions, important
innovative ideas and representing one's constituents will take third, fourth or
fifth row seats behind loyalty to the leader and to the Liberal Party of
Canada.
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fraser Valley
for his speech but I will remind him, and he probably knows this, that it was
not just the Liberal government that invented that type of culture. Previous
Conservative governments also had that culture.
One thing I would like to reiterate in the House, and
my colleague for Saanich--Gulf Islands was on our committee when we did this,
is that the 1998 east coast fisheries report was a unanimous report by all
members of the committee, including the parliamentary secretary. The nine
Liberals and five political parties agreed to every single word in that
document. It cost us over $180,000. My colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands can
easily say that people were out there pouring out their heartfelt emotions to
us. We had a unanimous report and brought it to the House. Nine Liberals signed
the document and then stood in the House on a vote of concurrence and voted
against their own report.
I would like the member's comments on that.
(1150)
Mr. Chuck Strahl:
Mr. Speaker, it is a good example. I remember that
report well, because there were also unanimous recommendations for the west
coast for ditch maintenance and other things that were important in my own
riding. I made submissions and I was pleased that it was a unanimous
report.
However, it is not just the fact that the report was
rejected after they had already voted to approve it. That happens all the time.
It was like the ethics counsellor. They put it in their literature but when
they are given a chance to vote on it they reject it.
What is important is the demotivation that takes place
when members of parliament are asked to spend months of their lives and all of
their political capital to come up with a unanimous report and then are told
that their unanimous report does not even matter. That is what is
wrong.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Committees of the
House
Procedure and House
Affairs
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions
have again taken place among all parties with respect to adding names to the
list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, should you seek it, I believe you would
find consent for the following motion. I move:
|
That a
list of associate members to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs be now tabled, the names of members on the said list printed in
Hansard as if read into the record and that the said list be concurred
in. |
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
Does the hon. member have consent to table the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as
follows:]
Jim Abbott |
Gary Lunn |
Diane Ablonczy |
James Lunney |
Rob Anders |
Peter MacKay |
David Anderson |
John Maloney |
André Bachand |
Preston Manning |
Roy Bailey |
Inky Mark |
Sue Barnes |
Keith Martin |
Michel Bellehumeur |
Philip Mayfield |
Leon Benoit |
Grant McNally |
Stéphan Bergeron |
Réal Ménard |
Bill Blaikie |
Val Meredith |
Rick Borotsik |
Rob Merrifield |
Garry Breitkreuz |
Bob Mills |
Scott Brison |
Dennis Mills |
Andy Burton |
James Moore |
Chuck Cadman |
Lorne Nystrom |
Bill Casey |
Deepak Obhrai |
Rick Casson |
Brian Pallister |
Dave Chatters |
Jim Pankiw |
Joe Clark |
Charlie Penson |
John Cummins |
Joe Peschisolido |
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
Marcel Proulx |
Stockwell Day |
James Rajotte |
Norman Doyle |
Scott Reid |
John Duncan |
Gerry Ritz |
Reed Elley |
Werner Schmidt |
Ken Epp |
Carol Skelton |
Brian Fitzpatrick |
Monte Solberg |
Paul Forseth |
Kevin Sorenson |
Peter Goldring |
Larry Spencer |
Jim Gouk |
Caroline St-Hilaire |
Gurmant Grewal |
Darrel Stinson |
Deborah Grey |
Chuck Strahl |
Art Hanger |
Paul Szabo |
John Harvard |
Greg Thompson |
Loyola Hearn |
Myron Thompson |
John Herron |
Vic Toews |
Grant Hill |
Maurice Vellacott |
Howard Hilstrom |
Elsie Wayne |
Betty Hinton |
Randy White |
Rahim Jaffer |
Ted White |
Dale Johnston |
Bryon Wilfert |
Gerald Keddy |
John Williams |
Jason Kenney |
Lynne Yelich |
(Motion agreed
to)
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[Translation]
Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures
of the House of Commons
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I listened earlier with considerable
interest to the speech of the government House leader. Like an orchestra
conductor, he conducted all the leaders of all the parties. He was proud,
clearly, of this unanimous report.
I should acknowledge the objectives I consider worthy
in this report. What we want most of all is the modernization of the expression
of democracy. A society necessarily changes, as do the people representing it.
People change. We do not do things today the way we did 5, 10 or 30 years ago.
We might even say we will never again do things the way we did before the
unfortunate events of September 11. This is a clear illustration that society
changes and that democracy must change.
I recognize the efforts of the government House leader
and his role in the achievement of objectives that are solid and creditable. I
also acknowledge the concern to incorporate changes in the rules of procedure
that govern us as representatives democratically elected by the people. I
recognize the merits of a consensual process.
As I understand it, the government House leader has
agreed with the House leaders of all parties that changes to the Standing
Orders would require not a majority but unanimous agreement, a consensus. I
think this is to his very great credit and I congratulate him on achieving
consensus on certain matters.
But this orchestra leader, the government House leader,
who was conducting a symphony--in which we were able to pick out the House
leaders of all parties--was unfortunately conducting Schubert's Unfinished
Symphony. The government House leader would have to agree that his symphony
is unfinished. Why? Because there are a few things missing from the report. If
we question all 301 members of the House, excluding the Speaker, it will become
apparent that there is consensus on what those things are.
I do not wish to hold up adoption of this report,
because the member for Roberval, the Bloc Quebecois House leader, has very
clearly set out my party's position. I would not want members to interpret my
remarks as being inconsistent with those of my party leader. But it must be
admitted that there are a few things missing. Certain undertakings given did
not make it into this report.
As an example, I would like to mention the Speech from
the Throne. The governor general, or the Prime Minister speaking through her,
told us:
In this new session of Parliament,
the Government will make further proposals to improve procedures in the House
and Senate. |
There is a reference to “further”, to certain small
improvements. We could say that the government delivered only partially on this
commitment made in the speech. The throne speech goes on to say:
Among other measures, voting
procedures will be modernized in the House of Commons. |
(1155)
Why am I saying that the symphony that the Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons was boasting about is an unfinished
symphony? Because, among other things, the report is silent on the recorded
division process that has been used in this House since 1867, since the first
parliament. This archaic system, which consists in getting up to vote when a
clerk calls our name, is totally obsolete in 2001.
The Prime Minister uses every possible opportunity,
even when visiting dignitaries are next to him during a press conference, to
boast about Canada being “the very best country in the world”, or something to
that effect. He says that in front of heads of state. I can just imagine what
these people think. It does make a visiting head of state feel very good to
hear that he is in the very best country in the world. Does this mean that his
own country is lagging way behind? So much for diplomacy.
Why do we still have this archaic roll call vote in
Canada, which claims to be a modern democracy? Why can we not record our vote
like they do in the United States, where they use a card about the size of a
credit or health card to record their vote at a station? Some of my colleagues
and myself have friends in the United States. We could go to specific stations
and insert our card to record our vote.
I would like to clarify something. We discussed it
within our caucus and we do not agree with the idea of voting from our riding
offices, our cars, or by using our cellular phones. This is not the idea.
I am reminded that we are not allowed to use props in
this House. I apologize for what I did earlier.
So, we could have stations where members of parliament
would insert their card for identification purposes and where they could say
yes or no, as is done in modern democracies, such as the United States.
While acting as a representative for my party at the
Association des parlementaires de la Francophonie, we took part in a conference
on developing democratic rules and we had the opportunity to see how they are
being dealt with on a day-to-day basis in new, emerging democracies. I remember
visiting Sofia, Bulgaria, in 1997. It is known as a new democracy. When
Bulgaria cut the umbilical cord from the Eastern Bloc countries, it became a
new democracy. I believe it was January 1, 1991, if my memory serves me well.
So, we visited Bulgaria's National Assembly in Sofia. They have an electronic
voting system. I think there is a significant difference in the average annual
revenues of Canada and Bulgaria. It is an emerging democracy. The country had
to put in place new institutions. However, when Bulgarians set up a
democratically elected parliament in 1991, one of the mechanisms they chose was
an electronic voting system.
There are numerous countries in Africa that I have not
had the opportunity to visit. We spoke with colleagues from all of the parties
while on parliamentary missions and in meetings of various international fora,
such as the Commonwealth and the Francophonie. Some emerging democracies in
Africa have electronic voting systems in both their parliament and their
national assembly.
So, this is the first reason why I am describing this
symphony as an unfinished symphony. The report is incomplete. The second
reason, and I will speak fairly quickly on this point, is nonetheless quite
important.
(1200)
During certain discussions in the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, the Bloc Quebecois suggested a different approach
to parliamentary proceedings, particularly on Fridays.
Mr. Speaker, you have sat here as a member. You have
been a member since 1988. You yourself have seen the parody of democracy that
takes place here on Fridays. It is a joke.
The opposition parties do a responsible job, starting
very early in the morning--the Bloc Quebecois starts at 7.30 a.m.--so that we
can prepare a decent question period, with questions which are coherent and
which address the problems concerning Quebecers, and often even the problems
concerning Canadians as well.
We make an effort and we do a good job of getting
questions ready. However during oral question period on Fridays, from 11 a.m.
to 12 p.m., and this is also true for 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. during the business of
the House, and from 12 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. until the House adjourns, we find
ourselves looking at a House that is literally empty.
I am not suggesting that members are all on the golf
course or away at their cottage. That is not what I am trying to say. I am
trying to say that members are often either on the road, headed for their
riding or, on Fridays, actually in their riding offices.
It is too bad that is not mentioned in this report, but
the Bloc Quebecois suggested that the whole issue of Fridays be given a second
look. The government could say that it is easy for us, that all we do is
criticize. Our answer to that is that yesterday, three Bloc Quebecois members
outlined specific measures for helping the economy to recover in the wake of
the events of September 11. These were specific, doable measures. That is
something concrete.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are not content to criticize
for the sake of criticizing. We have constructive suggestions. One suggestion
for improving parliamentary proceedings on Fridays was to look at what is done
in the Quebec national assembly.
Is it because the idea comes from Quebec that it is not
worthy trying or modifying? I trust that is not the case. There is a system in
operation for Fridays in the Quebec national assembly. The three parties in the
assembly can be asked for references on it: the Parti Quebecois, the Liberals,
and even the Action démocratique. Friday is question day. A minister is in
attendance and is subjected to a barrage of questions by MNAs of all parties to
answer for his actions.
This system merits serious examination but
unfortunately the report does not mention it. One of the suggestions might have
been--a suggestion I repeat here--to see what is being done in the Quebec
national assembly when it comes to questions.
Our productivity would be increased if we did so,
instead of debating to empty seats on Fridays, asking questions of
parliamentary secretaries who do not have the slightest clue about the issues
we raise and look as if they had just landed from another galaxy when asked
questions, as if we were saying to them “Earth calling. Welcome to our planet”.
That is how efficient Friday oral question periods are.
To those who are listening at present, I suggest they
put this to the test tomorrow between 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. They will see the
quality of the answers given, and who is giving them”. Regularly, out of the
entire cabinet of 24 or 25 ministers, there are 16, 18 or 19
missing.
Can we do an efficient job as parliamentarians?
Quebec's system for questions should be given serious consideration.
As my second last point, I would simply like to state
that I subscribe to the comments by the House leader of the Canadian Alliance
to the effect that this opportunity--changing the standing orders--ought to
have been taken advantage of to seriously examine the entire matter of electing
the chairs and deputy chairs of each committee.
(1205)
One can tell that the orders, the directions, are
coming from the top. I have witnessed this in the standing committee on
transportation, where the candidate was imposed by the PMO, or by the office of
the whip, who gets all the dirty work to do. We had imposed upon us an MP who
was totally incompetent, ignorant, and undemocratic in his management. The
decision had, however, been made that this would be the MP who would chair the
committee, while the committee membership included fine candidates and, by
consensus, the opposition parties and government could have agreed on one to
fill the job.
A serious look needs to be taken at the Canadian
Alliance proposal concerning the appointment of committee chairs and
vice-chairs.
In closing, this report is the work of the
parliamentary leaders only. If our Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs is a real, efficient and meaningful committee, I trust that we, its
members, will be able to address certain matters and submit reports for system
improvements, which will also be adopted by the government.
I have referred to certain matters that were not
addressed, but if I had more time there are a whole lot I would like to
suggest.
Our expectation is for the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am a member, to do a proper job,
instead of the government leader, in consultation with his fellow leaders,
proposing amendments or changes.
I believe that something needed to be done, that
certain matters needed to be looked at seriously, but that does not prevent the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs from being allowed to do its
job effectively for the rest of this session.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as all the leaders mentioned this morning,
this is but a beginning. This is the beginning of a dialogue, the beginning of
co-operation between the leaders in order to enable the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs to improve certain procedures.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Roberval in
particular, the Bloc Quebecois's House leader, who did an excellent job
representing the party on the committee and who argued the case for some of our
requests to improve the system.
We have managed to lay the groundwork, to pour the
foundation, and we hope that the government will not wait years before further
improving the system, or building the roof.
That being said, the member for
Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans
as far as Saint-Tite-des-Caps, just made an excellent speech, in which he
touched on an element that interests me.
He spoke of electronic voting, and of voting stations
that use a magnetic card. I think that we could—at least, that is the purpose
of my question—take a step forward. We know that today, new technology, with
computers and other electronic systems, allows us to do many things, and I
think that it would be easy to vote from our seat. The best station is right
here, in our seats in the House of Commons.
We were elected by the voters in our ridings to
represent them here, in the House of Commons. With an electronic voting system,
members could vote for or against a bill from their seats in the House, without
having to stand up all the time.
Does my colleague not think that, for members, the
prospect of being able to vote for or against a bill from their seats in the
House of Commons is an excellent improvement?
(1210)
Mr. Michel Guimond:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the number of stations
there will be in the House. I do not know how they should be arranged
architecturally.
Are we talking about individual stations in front of
each desk? Would this be a centralized arrangement, as I have seen in the
States? As the bells sound, for 15 or 30 minutes, we come along with our
magnetic cards, our vote is taken, we return to our seats for the result. I do
not know about the mechanics of it.
I am sure that the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs can look into having 300 individual stations or one or two
central ones. We are more interested in the mechanics.
I think the member for Charlevoix joins me in wanting
primarily to have the principle debated and passed.
Ms. Diane Bourgeois
(Terrebonne--Blainville, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my
colleague from
Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans
and to congratulate the members of the Bloc Quebecois, who have proposed ways
to improve proceedings and the work done here in the House.
Perhaps my reaction will appear naive. However, I just
realized—and I am a newer member—that important decisions are being made in
this House that affect Canadians and Quebecers, and we do not even have a
quorum.
I find this situation appalling for the simple reason
that the House of Commons and all within it and all the work done here is paid
for by our constituents' taxes.
I say this in all naivety. Women in Canada and Quebec—I
am speaking of the living conditions of women, since I am the critic for the
status of women—need to be heard, to be lent an ear. If they knew that, today,
in this House, we frequently had no quorum, they would begin to wonder.
Sometimes when a vote is called, members swarm in like flies.
It makes no sense. It is totally ridiculous. I wanted
to say that. Perhaps I should not have mentioned it. I just want people to know
that changes are needed, and they are paying for changes to be made.
Mr. Michel Guimond:
Mr. Speaker, when I go back to my riding on Fridays, by
plane or by car, I think about what I will do during the weekend. I miss my
family and my constituents, whom I am proud to represent. When I am feeling
so-so—I do not want to use the word down—when I become bitter, I think about
things such as those that the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville just
mentioned.
We make speeches, we work, we have assistants and
researchers who work hard to prepare speeches that are interesting, good, well
researched and not just empty words. But unfortunately, these speeches are
delivered in front of empty benches, in front of 177 empty benches or so. Right
now, for example, there are two government members out of 177 who are listening
to us. This gets to be discouraging. This is a depressing part of our
job.
But we love our work and we try to do it as best we
can. We are human beings with qualities and flaws. I think each one of us here
will admit to not being perfect. We can all do better. But unfortunately, the
reality is such that we experience situations such as the ones referred to by
the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, who was elected here on November 27,
2000.
I would like to tell her that if Canadians and
Quebecers, to some extent, have lost confidence in politicians and in the
parliamentary system as we know it today, it is perhaps because of situations
such as these, because of speeches delivered in front of empty
benches.
There are people who come to see us in the gallery.
There are people up there. Are these people going to be favourably impressed
after seeing 175 empty benches out of 177? Are those who are listening to us
proud of this situation? These people will go back thinking that this is not a
very good example of democracy at work. I appreciate the hon. member's
comments.
(1215)
The Deputy Speaker:
Admittedly, I am replacing my hon. colleague in the
Speaker's chair. But, on the strength of all my experience in the House, I wish
to remind all members that we must avoid mentioning the individual or
collective absence of members in the House.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the most important
issues in this parliament that is not dealt with often enough. I note that you,
Mr. Speaker, chaired the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement
of the Procedures of the House of Commons. I commend you for your efforts.
However, I will speak somewhat critically not about what is in the report but
what is not in it.
My colleagues, including the hon. member for Fraser
Valley, spoke very eloquently about some of the positive changes. He also spoke
about some of the shortcomings of that report.
It is important to note that the first order of
business today is the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons motion
on the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of
the Procedures of the House of Commons. It is ironic that we are talking about
the modernization of this parliament. Yes, there are some positive steps.
However, I was elected in 1997. I have looked at some of the things that have
been said and some of the things that have happened since being elected, and
the fact that we increasingly hear from our constituents how dysfunctional this
place has become. It is true.
I have concerns that this report does not deal with
some of those issues. I will quote a few members. The Liberal member of
parliament for Toronto--Danforth said, “Parliament doesn't work. It's broken.
It's like a car motor that's working on two cylinders.”
The member for Lac-Saint-Louis, again another
government member, said, “Being in the backbench, we are typecast as if we are
all stupid. We're just supposed to be voting machines.”
These are quotes from Liberal government
members.
The current Minister of Finance said last year “We have
been discussing the role of Parliament in enshrining the values of the nation
and its response to change.” This is very telling. He went on to say “This is
an empty debate unless it recognizes the role of the parliamentarians
themselves. MPs must have the opportunity to truly represent both their
consciences and constituencies.”
These words speak volumes. There are things that are
not dealt with in this report and I will try to address some of them. I will
read from the document entitled “Building Trust” which the member for Fraser
Valley wrote in January 2001 and which has been widely circulated. I applaud
him as he put forward some very constructive changes.
One change the hon. member talked about was free votes
in the House of Commons. I will read a quote from the Leader of the Reform
Party of Canada, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest. He said:
There is a myth in the House that
lurking out there somewhere is the fiery dragon of the confidence convention,
the erroneous belief studiously cultivated by the government that if a
government or motion is defeated, or an opposition bill, motion or amendment is
passed, this obliges the government to resign. This myth is used to coerce
government members, especially backbenchers, to vote for government bills and
motions with which they and their constituents disagree and to vote against
opposition bills, motions and amendments with which they substantially agree.
The reality is that the fiery dragon of the confidence convention in its
traditional form is dead. The sooner the House officially recognizes that fact,
the better for all. |
This is not dealt with in this report. I would submit
that if there is a government bill and there are government members who want to
vote against it, it is probably a bad bill. It probably needs more work. It
probably needs more amendments.
The wrath of the Prime Minister should not come down
upon these members, as we have seen many times in the House. They are
threatened with not having their nomination papers signed or the possibility of
not being candidates for the Liberal Party in the next election. We have seen
examples of that. Members literally have left here in tears because they had to
vote against their constituents and their conscience. This a practice that has
evolved over years and it has to change.
(1220)
A government should not be defeated if a government
bill is defeated. I would submit the only time there should ever be a
confidence vote is on a throne speech or a budget bill, and that is it.
Unfortunately, at the Prime Minister's own whim he can declare a confidence
motion and the trained seals stand up and vote against their
consciences.
I can give some examples, and I believe this is a
serious matter. With respect to the ethics counsellor becoming a true officer
of parliament, I will quote what the government said:
A Liberal government will appoint an
independent Ethics Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in
the day-to-day application of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The
Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all
parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to
Parliament. |
That comes right from the Liberal red book 1 campaign
in the 1993 election. Of course the Liberals had an opportunity to vote on
that. This was in their campaign promises. As we are fully aware, this was an
opposition supply day motion, which was written word for word from the
government promise, and the government members stood up one by one and voted
against it. That is wrong.
If we are going to really empower parliamentarians, we
have to bring a change of culture. As the member for Fraser Valley so
eloquently stated, it is the culture that has to change. There are 301 members
of parliament elected to the House, coming from five political parties at the
moment. There is a lot of talent and expertise in so many areas on all sides of
the House which is so often ignored. We could be a much stronger country, if
these free votes and debates were allowed.
One NDP member asked a question a few moments ago. I
was part of the fisheries committee when I was first elected in 1997 under the
chairmanship of the member for Gander--Grand Falls. He did an excellent job
chairing that committee. The fisheries committee wrote 13 reports. Eight of
those reports were written unanimously by five political parties.
We sat down for hours of painstaking debate, making
compromises, asking what was in the best interest of the country and the
citizens in these fishing communities and how could we help them. We went to
those communities and listened to those people. Sometimes we sat up until 2.00
o'clock or 3.00 o'clock in the morning in community halls listening to their
concerns. Then those members sat down and wrote a detailed report with very
positive, substantial recommendations. It was a unanimous report that would
have made a difference in these people's lives and would have improved the
commercial fishing industry.
When the report left the committee room and came into
the Chamber, the opportunity to vote arrived. Guess what happened? Government
members stood up one by one, including the people who wrote and put their
signatures to it as a unanimous report, and voted against the report. That is
not good for democracy. It is a scam. It is not good for the country. That is
what needs to change.
Again, I submit that if there are members on that side
or this side who want to freely vote for or against something because they
believe it is in the best interest of the country and their constituents, they
should do so. If they believe the bill is not right and needs further
amendments to make it right, then they should put them forward.
Look at the immigration bill now before the Senate.
That is another example. It desperately needs more work. The government opposed
numerous amendments from the opposition members which would have strengthened
the bill.
(1225)
When that bill was before the House, we were told that
it was critical that it be fast-tracked through the House of Commons because it
was needed to deal with the boatloads of people arriving on the shores of
British Columbia claiming refugee status and changes to the immigration system
were needed.
Now that very same bill is before the Senate and the
government is saying that the legislation needs to be put through to deal with
terrorists. This is the same piece of legislation. It needs to be strengthened
and the government needs to listen to some of the proposed amendments. It is
critical that we deal with that. It has not been dealt with.
It is the culture that has to change. I encourage the
government to take the opportunity with the acceptance of this modernization
bill, as it is called, to modernize the culture rather than modernizing
parliament. Let us bring back what Canadians really want.
There are so many other issues with which we need to
deal. We often hear of the importance of having an elected Senate to bring back
accountability and integrity. I fully support the need to reform the Senate,
but the members of the House need to look in the mirror. The House is more
dysfunctional than the Senate.
When we talk of modernizing parliament, we should talk
about empowering all 301 parliamentarians from all parties to bring these ideas
forward and make a difference. Some of the best work done in parliament is at
the committee level. There we have committees of 16 or 17 members of parliament
from all parties who bring in witnesses and have a great opportunity for
debate.
I appreciate there are some changes coming with respect
to the televising of these committees. I have to admit that I personally have
some concern with that recommendation. As opposed to concentrating on the
important work that is accomplished now, it may actually give rise to a desire
to grandstand before the television cameras. I feel that committees are very
effective. One of the highlights of my parliamentary career is my involvement
with committees and the work that we have been able to accomplish. Therefore, I
do have some concerns there.
Although, I believe committees do some incredible work,
but the reports they write almost always sit on a minister's shelf collecting
dust and never see the light of day. There are millions of dollars every year
spent in committees. They go out and talk to Canadians, they research and study
these reports and listen to witnesses, yet the report never sees the light of
day. Everyone in the House knows that. There are numerous hard
examples.
If we are going to modernize parliament, we need to
look at how we can change the culture in the House. How do we empower
parliamentarians from all parties? How do we remove the partisan chip that is
there?
I appreciate that the government has a mandate to
govern and that cabinet has to bring forward this legislation. I understand
that, I accept it and I support that. However, that does not mean that it has
to gag its own backbenchers and all the opposition members. Nor does it mean
that it has to ram through closure to get a bill through.
There is a reason why this is happening. It is because
there is an outcry from Canadians that this is not the direction in which they
want to go. When it comes from government members and they are completely
ignored, when they are forced to vote with the government or face the wrath of
the Prime Minister that they may not be candidates for that party in the next
federal election, that is wrong. That is what needs to change.
I appreciate there are some positive steps in this
document toward modernizing parliament, I feel it is important to stand up and
state that we must be willing to change the culture when parliamentarians bring
forward these excellent private members' bills.
(1230)
What does the government do? It does not make them
votable. The committee has the power to deem which private members' bills are
votable. There are many good ones that have never seen the light of day. The
government votes against the ones that do. Once in a while it rewrites them
into its own legislation. Why does it not allow us to pass these bills?
I would encourage a change in the culture, but I am not
convinced it can happen under the leadership we have now. I hope we will see
steps in that direction with this report. Whether the government is willing to
change the culture and make a difference in parliament will remain to be seen
in the years ahead.
The Deputy Speaker:
There being no further members rising to debate the
modernization motion, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, October 3, 2001, the
motion is deemed adopted.
(Motion agreed
to)
* * *
(1235)
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada
Act
The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-34, an act to establish the Transportation Appeal
Tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party as we give second reading to Bill
C-34. It is always a privilege to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of
the NDP and of my constituents in the Churchill riding.
Bill C-34 would establish the transportation appeal
tribunal of Canada. The independent quasi-judicial body would be made up of
people with expertise in the transportation industry and would be an expansion
of the Civil Aviation Tribunal. The mandate of the Civil Aviation Tribunal was
provided for by part IV of the Aeronautics Act.
The Civil Aviation Tribunal has been extremely
successful and has been recognized as a model for the enforcement of the
Aeronautics Act. It makes sense that such a tribunal be available to other
areas in the transportation industry.
At the request of interested parties the Civil Aviation
Tribunal holds review and appeal hearings with respect to certain
administrative actions taken by the Minister of Transport. Extending the
tribunal to other transportation areas is a move that I believe would be
welcomed. The creation of the transportation appeal tribunal of Canada would
provide the marine and rail industries and the aviation sector with an
impartial appeal and review system.
The transportation appeal tribunal would replace the
internal review process that currently exists. In the current system,
enforcement decisions made by inspectors are subject to review only by senior
officials or the minister. It would be preferable to have a separate and
impartial body to hear appeals.
If anyone does not think the Department of Transport
needs a separate and impartial body to oversee its decisions, we should look no
further than at what the department is doing to hours of service regulations
for the trucking industry. The bureaucrats responsible for that file are trying
to get Canada to adopt an 84 hour work week for truckers. In certain weeks
truckers would have to work 96 hours.
I will not get into the mountain of evidence from
scientific experts in the area of fatigue and sleep deprivation indicating the
sheer madness of the proposal. That can be done another time. My point is that
the minister can do this with no accountability. He can do it through an order
in council on the advice of his bureaucrats .
Truck driver hours of service regulations would not be
covered by the legislation. Nor should they be. However the issue serves as a
useful example of how it can be useful at times to have an impartial outside
agency in place to review ministerial decisions.
All this is to say that the New Democratic Party
supports the general principle behind the bill. We welcome greater scrutiny and
oversight into ministerial decisions. Bill C-34, by providing for an
independent quasi-judicial body to review decisions in the transportation
industry, is a step in the right direction.
Having an independent and effective review and appeal
process for the transportation industry quite frankly makes sense. The
tribunal, in helping deal with appeals and reviews of administrative and
enforcement actions, would prevent action from being taken in court. In short,
the tribunal would simplify and streamline the whole appeal and review process.
We will need to look more closely at some of the finer
details of the bill. It is important that the tribunal have members with
expertise in all areas of the transportation industry. It is perhaps worth
considering having separate tribunals to deal with individual appeals and
reviews in each sector.
It may not be appropriate for someone without knowledge
of the rail industry to rule on issues concerning rail. However I am sure this
and other questions could be discussed at committee. The NDP is prepared to
support the bill in principle at second reading.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to Bill C-34 on
behalf of the coalition. It is interesting that the government is introducing
the legislation. There are many important issues concerning transportation in
the country. This is not one of them. Airline security, the state of Canada's
airlines, and commercial transportation at the borders are all far more
important to the average Canadian than the housekeeping bill the government has
put before us today.
As is frequently heard from all parties in the House,
September 11 has changed everything. It has changed the way the world operates.
If there is any doubt, particularly from a transportation point of view, I need
only point to the events of yesterday when a passenger slit the throat of a
Greyhound bus driver in Tennessee. This caused an accident in which six people
were killed. It was a tragic event.
Greyhound's response was to immediately shut down its
whole U.S. transportation network. That is the kind of response we are seeing
when something like this happens. Prior to September 11 it would have been
treated as an isolated incident and dealt with by local authorities.
In the wake of September 11 with these kinds of
situations happening it is interesting that the Liberal government feels we
need to debate a housekeeping bill to create the transportation appeal tribunal
of Canada. The purpose of Bill C-34 is to create the transportation appeal
tribunal of Canada, an independent quasi-judicial body which would act as a
mechanism for administrative and enforcement actions taken under various
transportation acts governing the marine, rail and aviation sectors.
The new appeal tribunal would replace the Civil
Aviation Tribunal which was established in 1986. The Civil Aviation Tribunal is
a functioning body. It has been in existence since 1986. The changes being
introduced by the legislation would expand it into a transportation tribunal as
opposed to mere aviation tribunal. It would carry out the same basic functions
as the Civil Aviation Tribunal but its responsibilities would be expanded to
the marine and rail transportation networks.
Reviews of decisions affecting the marine and rail
sectors are currently conducted by senior departmental officials and the
minister. I think Canadians feel it is wise to move these kinds of reviews to
an independent body as is done in the aviation industry. They feel it is better
to get these kinds of appeals out of bureaucratic hands. There is no question
that would be good.
The real issue with this housekeeping bill is that the
Liberal government has had plenty of time during its nine years in office to
have made the necessary changes. The aviation tribunal has been around since
1986. Why has the government chosen this time to bring the legislation on to
the floor of the House?
It is quite clear that this is not a main concern to
many Canadians. We did a computer search of Canada's major newspapers for the
last three months. We turned up exactly zero articles that mentioned the Civil
Aviation Tribunal or the proposed transportation appeal tribunal. It is not on
the agenda of the ordinary Canadian or for that matter any political party. It
has not been on anyone's agenda.
(1240)
As a former member of the transportation committee I
can say that the committee never dealt with any issues regarding the tribunal
although the processes were mentioned in passing and whatnot. If people and
government committees have not been talking about the need for it, why does the
government see it as the most important transportation issue for the House to
be addressing?
This housekeeping bill concerns the makeup and
legislative authority of this new tribunal. The Civil Aviation Tribunal
currently consists of a chair, a vice-chair and six other full time members in
Ottawa. There are 26 part time members around the country who are supposed to
be chosen on their knowledge and experience in aeronautics.
Bill C-34 states that the new tribunal, which would
bring in marine and rail component industries, would consist of members who
collectively have expertise in transportation sectors in respect of which the
federal government has jurisdiction. One has to assume that the makeup would be
of individuals who have knowledge of the marine, rail and aviation industries.
We do not know how many additional members would be appointed or what the
expansion of the budget would be.
Last year the budget of the Civil Aviation Tribunal was
$1.2 million. To the ordinary Canadian that may sound like a lot of money, but
to a government agency it is a very small amount. Unlike many other government
agencies, the tribunal did not use its full budget. It only used $1.12 million.
This is not an issue of a grand haven for patronage
appointments. It is not a tribunal that will expand to a size that Canadians
should be concerned about. It is a housekeeping issue of changing the
parameters of how the tribunal operates to include other modes of
transportation outside aviation.
I urge individuals who have concerns about where the
tribunal is going, its makeup or its mandate, to contact a transportation
critic member or a member of the transportation committee to raise their
concerns because it has not been a topic of high interest to people in the
transportation industries or to members of the transport committee. To date we
have not heard from anybody with concerns.
The coalition will be supporting this housekeeping
legislation. We are concerned that this has been considered a priority of the
government and has been put on the House agenda before other very important
transportation issues. We urge the government to move quickly on the
transportation concerns that have been identified as a result of the tragic
events of September 11.
The U.S. congress passed legislation for airlines just
10 days after the terrorist attacks. The American senate is holding hearings
about its concerns regarding the Canada-U.S. border.
While the U.S. congress is talking about the important
issues confronting its country and the world, we are talking about housekeeping
changes that could have been done any time in the last nine years.
The coalition's concern is that the greatest failing of
the government is not what is in the bill but that the bill is what it feels is
its priority on transportation issues.
(1245)
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I can only echo the comments of my
colleague when she stated that the government has been slow to respond to
issues of importance. She has indicated that this housekeeping bill could have
been passed any time in the last nine years.
The government is continuing with a legislative program
as though nothing has happened, at a time when we are facing a changed reality
not only in Canada but in the world due to the events of September
11.
It is making some movement in some areas. However it
has been very slow. It has not been comprehensive. It has not included all
members. It has not activated our committee process in a meaningful way to
address legislation that would take a look at issues such as border security
and the perimeter of North America.
It has not taken any bold initiatives in bringing
forward anti-terrorism legislation immediately. It has not brought a budget to
the House to discuss with the people of Canada what the priorities of the
government will be and how it will address issues such as border security,
immigration and increased resources to find individuals who are under
deportation order or are illegally in Canada.
We have not seen any concrete leadership in those
areas. We have seen it in the United States and my colleague referred to that.
We have seen the house of representatives and the senate committees getting to
work the very next day after this event and changing the entire legislative
agenda in the United States. It is changing the agenda of other legislatures
across the world, yet it seems to have merely a ripple impact in the House of
Commons.
I have stood on a number of occasions since September
11 and congratulated the government when it has done a good thing. I have also
indicated that it is not doing enough.
We can tell when someone cares about an issue by the
time, the effort and the resources they put into something. We implore the
government to take this a little more seriously, to set the tone, to change the
direction in this place, to bring us together in a less partisan way and to put
us all to work. We are itching to make some concrete changes in these areas
which in many ways have accumulated due to the neglect of resourcing from the
government for the last eight years. I would like my colleague to comment on
those concerns.
(1250)
Ms. Val Meredith:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising some of
those serious issues. The most serious issue facing Canada right now is the
need for perimeter security which encapsulates Canada and the United States.
The threat to Canada right now is that there might be a
security wall built along the Canada-U.S. border that prohibits the flow of
goods and services as we experienced in the past and which we require for the
growth and the stability of our economy.
That should be a major issue that the House addresses
in a very serious way from security, transportation and foreign affairs points
of view. When the United States decides it is creating this secure control we
must ensure that Canada is within that wall, that we are part of what the
United States considers the perimeter.
I am very concerned that from a transportation issue
perspective we are not asking how to move goods and services more efficiently
and quickly across that border. How will we prevent 4, 6, 12 and 16 hour tie
ups for our trucks trying to get goods and services across the border into the
United States? Our economy depends on that ability.
It depends on our ability to move deliveries from
Canada to the United States just in time. If Canadian companies and
manufacturers cannot meet that requirement, the American companies that depend
on our manufactured goods will find an American company that can provide those
goods.
That is a critical point that transportation and other
agencies need to be addressing. How do we ensure that Canadians continue to
participate in the economic growth and development of the North American
continent? If we are not careful and if we do not start addressing those
issues, our economy will be left out.
Canadians will suffer even greater unemployment and
downturns in the economy. Those are the issues we should be discussing in the
House and in committee. Those are the issues that are important to every
Canadian, not the addition of marine and rail sectors to an aviation tribunal.
That is not important to Canadians and it should not be the most important
issue for the government and the House of Commons.
(1255)
Mr. Grant McNally:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up with two other
comments. One of them deals with airport security. Some individuals have told
me they are still concerned about workers at the airports not going through
metal detectors but coming to work with uniforms and security or clearance
badges. I have not heard the minister address that concern. It is something
that has to be looked at.
We have seen that the individuals who perpetrated the
crimes of September 11 will go to any means to conceal their actions and
participate in devious methods to gain access to secure areas.
I want to talk about something that I had hoped the
immigration minister would have talked about: interdiction, sending individuals
abroad. We have had an interdiction program in Canada. Royal Canadian Mounted
Police officers worked with forces from other countries to expand our security
perimeter not just to North America but to other areas where individuals who
boarded planes to come to North America might gain access to our country.
This was a very good pilot project. I have not heard
the minister talk about extending it. This would be the time to effectuate the
program. It is an issue that I raised in committee a number of years ago. My
colleague was also on the immigration committee in previous years. I would like
to hear her comments about both airport security and the idea of interdiction
abroad.
Ms. Val Meredith:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insight into
some of the issues the government should have before the House for debate. I
report to my hon. colleague and to the House that the transport committee has
started its work. We will be looking at the issues of airport and airline
security. The committee will continue to work on that to make sure everything
that can be considered will be put before the government for consideration.
The immigration interdiction program was a great pilot
project. It had some very good results. This too is another area in which the
government should be making sure that these kinds of issues are dealt with.
Canadians feel that these are important issues. They
want to know that their government and legislators are dealing with the issues
that have been brought to our attention as a result of September 11 and not
that we are just sitting in the House of Commons.
They want to know that we are busy working on making
our country, immigration system, airlines, rail lines and buses more secure.
They want to know that this is the agenda of the government and the House of
Commons, not minor housekeeping issues that can be dealt with later.
The Deputy Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the bill is
referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Government
Operations.
(Motion agreed to, bill read
the second time and referred to a committee)
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada:
Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it you would
find unanimous consent for the House to proceed directly to Private Members'
Business.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker:
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed
to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order
Paper.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1300)
[English]
Blood Samples Act
The House resumed from May 16 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-217, an act to provide for the
taking of samples of blood for the benefit of persons administering and
enforcing the law and good Samaritans and to amend the Criminal
Code, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there is someone who
wants to debate the bill. If not, perhaps I, as the sponsor of the bill, could
be given a couple of minutes to summarize it before we ask the question, as is
commonly done. There may be someone who would like to speak to it.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to private member's Bill
C-217 brought forward by the member for Fraser Valley. The bill would allow
collection of blood samples so that we could protect our emergency workers. If
there were to be a concern that in the line of duty there was a question of a
communicable disease from contact with someone, a sample could be obtained so
that the emergency workers would actually know what they would be dealing with.
At present there is no legislation in the country that protects our police
officers, firemen and emergency personnel in this situation.
We have to set priorities for who we are going to
protect. Following the incident on September 11, which is so often referred to
now in the House, we see just how heroic these frontline officers are who
protect us each and every day. There were hundreds of firemen who immediately
entered the World Trade Center towers to help people. Probably many of them
knew exactly what they were going into when they entered the towers, that is,
trying to fight a fire some 100 floors above ground.
It is remarkable that the instinct of these workers is
to go in and protect people. We, as parliamentarians, should be giving the same
type of dedication to them. We should not hesitate at all when a bill like this
comes before the House. Emergency workers and police officers in the country
have been asking us to pass legislation so that they would be protected in such
circumstances. We should rise to the occasion as they did, as we witnessed on
September 11. They did not hesitate or flinch. Their instinct was to do their
job and protect people. We should not flinch either. We have an opportunity to
show emergency workers in our country that we want to protect them and give
them every advantage.
I applaud the member for Fraser Valley who brought the
issue before the House. This goes to one of my earlier speeches where I talked
about a bill coming before the House and how if it is a good bill it should
pass, just like that. There should be no politics. We have just had a debate on
the modernization of parliament and now we will have an opportunity to see if
it actually means anything. All the members of the House will have an
opportunity. Are they serious about changing the culture of parliament? That is
what this is about: changing the culture.
Here is a perfect example. Members will have an
opportunity to do what is right, not to flinch or worry about politics, about
whether it is a bill from the government or cabinet, but to look at the bill
and say that emergency workers deserve our protection. When they are out there
on the front line, in the line of duty, they at least have a right to know if
people they are in contact with have a serious virus or serious diseases such
as hepatitis B or AIDS, which could have a huge impact on the frontline
officers and their families. They need this information. It is absolutely
critical.
(1305)
If I can use the terminology, Mr. Speaker, this is a
no-brainer. This one is automatic. This is one where parliamentarians should
stand up unanimously to support this bill.
I will conclude by saying that I hope every
parliamentarian will not flinch just as all the emergency workers who went into
the World Trade Center towers did not flinch. We have an opportunity to show
the emergency workers of the country how much we care for the work they do and
how much we support them.
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I would very much attach myself to the
remarks of my learned colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands. He has in a very
eloquent way put into perspective for Canadians and for the House the
importance of this bill.
He stated in a very poignant and emotional way that
while others were fleeing those World Trade Center buildings that were under
attack, while others were running for their lives to escape that atrocity,
emergency workers, police officers and firefighters were running in. They were
going into the buildings and many of them did so at a horrific cost, the cost
of their own lives.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the bill brought
forward by the member for Fraser Valley, my colleague in the coalition, is
aimed specifically at allowing those firefighters, emergency care workers or
anyone else who acts in a magnanimous way to at least be afforded the right to
know what terrible consequences might flow from those actions. It helps those
persons who put their own health and safety secondary to their attempts to
assist people in dire straits, whether it be someone who has fallen ill on the
sidewalk or victims of catastrophe. It helps those persons who put their lives
at risk.
Let me be clear on what we are talking about. What I am
talking about is the contracting of a deadly illness or life altering virus
that the person who has acted so selflessly may have contracted in the process
of rendering assistance. That also applies to citizens. If we are to encourage
the values we all hold so dear in Canadian society, such as encouraging people
to help their neighbours, encouraging people to help those in dire straits or
those in need, I think it certainly bears enshrining in law the ability to
later assist those individuals in finding out if in fact they have contracted a
life altering illness.
There are so many practical and pragmatic elements to
the bill. To reiterate the comments of my colleague from Saanich--Gulf Islands,
the bill would allow those individuals some certainty and peace of mind as to
the ensuing consequences of their actions. It would allow them to find out, for
example, whether they have to undergo agonizing treatments in many instances,
whether they have to embark on a process of prevention by taking chemical
cocktails that are intended to fight off or in some ways stave off the effects
of the illnesses that may have been contracted, whether it be hepatitis C, AIDS
or any other illness that might be contracted through exchange of bodily
fluids.
It could be the act of a civilian coming upon an
accident scene where blood has been spilled. We have to speak in these graphic
terms. If that person, in his or her efforts to save an individual in need or
to somehow try to revive an individual, contracts an illness the bill would
simply provide a legal avenue that can be pursued to determine whether an
illness has been contracted.
I very much commend my learned colleague for bringing
forward this issue. I think he has done so with the assistance of many
Canadians across the country, many who work in emergency services and those who
would be directly affected by this. If nothing else, what happened on September
11 put into a profound perspective for everyone the incredibly valuable and
important service that is provided by emergency service workers.
As previously stated, I hope all members of the House
will neither flinch nor hesitate in supporting this legislation so that it
might be put forward immediately.
(1310)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I echo the compliments to the members from
the PC/DRC who put forward the bill in both the last parliament and this
parliament. It is a bill that is intended to protect those individuals who, in
the line of duty, in the line of protecting individuals, who seek to serve and
protect others, are inadvertently potentially infected by a disease that could
make them sick or at the very worst could be fatal. In particular we are
talking about HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C, the three primary viruses
prevalent in our society and unfortunately on the increase. The bill is
designed to focus on those people who are doing good Samaritan acts or also
acts in the service of others, particularly those people who are firefighters
and police officers.
The bill has been on the legislative table for quite
some time. As such, the member for Fraser Valley, like many others in the
House, has done a lot of work in trying to get co-operation.
If the bill were bad, if the bill were somehow going to
trample on the rights of others, we would not see the support we see for it
from dozens of groups, and I will name just a few today, including the Canadian
Police Association, the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police, the Toronto Police
Service, the RCMP veterans society, the Central Saanich Police Association and
so on. Additionally there are dozens of police organizations, firefighting
organizations and hospital organizations that support the bill.
The purpose of bill is to enable an individual who has
been accidentally infected to have the blood of the person who accidentally
infected him or her, or occasionally deliberately, as police officers have
found in the line of duty, taken and examined. The information would be shared
by the physicians treating the person and the physician or the medical
personnel treating the individual who is accidentally infected. This
information, as medical information, would be treated with the utmost respect
and as such would not be shared with the general public. That was a concern of
those individuals who in fact composed the bill.
Some say that the bill tramples on the rights of the
individual who is sick and whose blood accidentally infects emergency
personnel. The fact of the matter is that we have a legal precedent which says
that it does not actually infringe upon the rights of individuals. That
overarching philosophy imbued within our legislative codes is the good
Samaritan bill, whereby if we found somebody sick on the side of the road we
would be obliged to some degree, to the extent of our abilities, to help that
person. If in the course of trying to help that person something happens where
that person is injured or we are injured, we are protected by the overarching
belief within our legal system that we were trying with the goodness of our
heart and to the best of our ability to help that particular individual who was
hurt. Therefore we are protected. The fact that we are protected also means
that we are protected from other eventualities that could happen when we are
trying to help that other person who is sick. That is what the bill is all
about.
The bill, as the member for Fraser Valley has put it so
articulately in the past, is meant to protect the good Samaritan, just as that
good Samaritan is trying to protect the individual who is hurt. I define a good
Samaritan as not only the member of the public who is trying to help somebody
but also as the firefighters, the police officers and indeed the medical
personnel who try constantly to help individuals in the line of
duty.
We do not often speak about how prevalent this is, but
we know at it is. There are people like Isobel Anderson, a constable here in
Ottawa who has done a tremendous job of putting this on the board, and dozens
of personnel who in the line of public service are accidentally infected by
blood products. They go through all kinds of trauma. They go through emotional
trauma and trauma with their families. They go through a great deal of
uncertainty that by and large is not necessary.
(1315)
The bill would remove that uncertainty to a large
degree. It would give them much greater peace of mind, not absolute, but it
would greatly diminish the consternation and psychological trauma they would
endure if they were potentially infected.
As a physician I have worked in emergency medicine. I
have treated many colleagues who have been accidentally infected. In the course
of our duties in the emergency department we are continually confronted by
blood sprayed out in all manner of ways when treating patients who are very
sick. There are cases where unfortunately, people are infected. It does not
happen very often but it can happen in the line of duty.
There are individuals who seek to deliberately infect
police officers, firefighters and emergency room personnel. This is an assault
of the most vile nature. As such, the emergency response personnel need to be
protected. They must be protected in that particular environment.
I wanted to address a couple of issues because I am a
strong supporter of the bill. A number of people have said that this bill is an
effort to root out those people who have these diseases, that it is an effort
to stigmatize those individuals. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
There is not a man nor a woman in the House today who
does not want to see a cure and a prevention for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis
C. All of us recognize the scourge and the incredible heartbreak exerted on the
individuals who are infected with these diseases. Our hearts go out to
them.
Reciprocally, we have to put ourselves in the shoes of
those people who are trying to help those individuals who have been infected
and unfortunately, encounter blood borne product. On balance, the legislative
framework within our country today, the good Samaritan laws clearly articulate
that it is within the realm of fairness and of our legal system to protect
those individuals who put their lives on the line in the service of
others.
I encourage the House to adopt the bill, put it into
legislation. The bill will give a great deal of comfort to the police officers,
firefighters and emergency personnel who day in and day out put their lives on
the line.
Given the number of groups in those three professions
across the country that have supported the bill from the outset, those
individuals and groups that have made eloquent interventions in support of the
bill, it is important that the government listen to them. They are on the front
lines. They are the ones who put their lives on the line and they deserve to be
supported.
(1320)
The Deputy Speaker:
Before I recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley,
let me say by way of an explanation that while the right of reply is of course
applicable on non-votable items which do not enjoy the same length of debate,
the member for Fraser Valley who was seeking the floor could certainly turn to
his peers by way of unanimous consent.
Mr. Chuck Strahl:
Mr. Speaker, we are on a bit of a different schedule
today and private members' business is not normally debated at this time. I
would ask for the unanimous consent of the House for three or four minutes to
summarize the bill.
The Deputy Speaker:
From past experience we have put a definite limit. In
this case I will take the liberty of saying a maximum period of four
minutes.
The House has heard the terms of the proposal giving
the hon. member for Fraser Valley four minutes of debate, closing the debate on
his motion. Does the House give its consent for his proposal?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence. It
may be quicker than four minutes.
I would like to thank the several people who brought
the bill to this stage. The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, who is a
medical doctor, has done so much to promote this cause. Both he and I had very
similar bills in the private members' hopper at the same time. It was the luck
of the draw that mine was picked. It could just as well have been his bill we
are voting on today. He certainly deserves at least half of the credit for what
has gone on here, both for his expertise in drafting his bill, which again was
very similar to mine, and for being a champion for this cause. I want to thank
him personally for that.
I would also like to thank Isobel Anderson, who is a
member of an Ontario police force. She is someone who has done a lot of service
in highlighting the problem. She had a needle stick injury that put her and her
family at risk. She pointed out the emotional trauma she went through and how
unnecessary it was. The street person who could have infected her gave a blood
sample to the medical practitioner in exchange for a hamburger. Her life was
changed because a person accepted that exchange. It is just not fair and it is
not right that someone's life goes on hold because someone else wants something
to eat or is willing to trade that information for something as mundane as a
hamburger. She pointed that out. She has done a great service on behalf of all
of the people who work in emergency services by showing that laws needed to be
changed.
I would like to thank a young man from my riding who,
as a good Samaritan helped to arrest and hold someone who had stolen something
from the Canadian Tire store where he worked. This 18 year old young man
exemplified the best of our community's ideals. He put himself at risk to
enforce the laws of the land and to do what is right. He went through six
months of treatment with chemical cocktails because the person who was
apprehended would not give a blood sample. That young man gave of himself for
all of us. I want to thank him and his family for what they have been
through.
I am pleased to report that now, after three years,
that young man has no sign of any long term infection. He was fortunate, even
considering the trauma he went through. Now he is a married man and is getting
on with his life, but his life was on hold for a long time because our laws
were inadequate.
The last time this bill was before the House it was
passed unanimously and was sent to committee. While I do not claim that the
bill is perfect, I think it should be sent to committee. At committee we will
have to wrestle with balancing the rights of different individuals to make sure
their charter rights are protected and so on. We can do that at committee. I
urge members of parliament to pass the bill again, preferably unanimously, so
that it will be sent to committee where we can wrestle with some of those
intricacies. The justice committee is a good place to do that and it is
infinitely qualified to do it.
Finally, all members of parliament will be getting an
information packet with frequently asked questions and the detailed support
from the dozens and dozens of national organizations that have supported the
bill. I ask them to look at that in the days to come.
(1325)
The Deputy Speaker:
Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions
necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-217 are deemed put
and a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, October
16, 2001 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada:
Mr. Speaker, I suggest we suspend proceedings until
statements by members.
* * *
[English]
Suspension of
Sitting
The Deputy Speaker:
The House has heard the terms of the proposal by the
deputy government whip. Does the House give its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House
was suspended at 1.27 p.m.)
* * *
Sitting
Resumed
The House resumed at 2
p.m.
Request for Emergency Debate
[Speaker's Ruling]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Speaker's
Ruling
The Speaker:
Earlier this day the chair received submissions from
the hon. member for Vancouver Island North concerning a request for an
emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 52. I wish to advise the House that
the Chair has decided to accept that request and grant it. Accordingly, there
will be a debate this evening under the terms of Standing Order 52 at 8 o'clock
on the subject of softwood lumber.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Dana Canada
Incorporated
Mr. John Richardson (Perth--Middlesex,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in
the House today to congratulate Dana Canada Incorporated for announcing the
creation of 125 new jobs in the town of St. Marys, Ontario.
Dana Canada will be building a 140,000 square foot
addition to its current automotive parts plant. This will be the second
expansion for the growing St. Marys operation, with a 90,000 square foot
addition to the truck parts manufacturing plant having been added last year.
Dana Canada's new addition will be completed next summer and will house a new
line of parts for the Ford Motor Company.
The addition of 125 new jobs is good news for the
people of St. Marys, many of whom have been affected by layoffs resulting from
two plant closings in nearby Stratford.
Congratulations to Dana Canada Incorporated for taking
the initiative to provide these new jobs to the people of St. Marys. Best
wishes to all new and present employees of Dana.
* * *
Salmon Fishery
Mr. Jim Gouk
(Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the fruit growing town of Oliver has
endured attacks by weather, insects and U.S. apple dumping policies with little
help from the federal government. Now it is under attack by the government
itself.
Oliver provides farm irrigation through the operation
of a canal. It has been in use since the 1920s. Now the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans has decided to enhance the salmon fishery in the Okanagan River by
having an elaborate fish screen placed over the mouth of the canal and is
demanding that Oliver pay the $400,000 cost, this despite the fact that the
canal has operated and presumably the fishery has survived for over 80 years
without one. The cost may not be much for a government that squanders more than
that per day on subsidizing VIA Rail, but it is devastating to a small
community.
When I spoke to the minister about this, I mentioned
that it was not fair that DFO decided to enhance the salmon fishery and stick
the town of Oliver for the cost. His response was “DFO makes lots of decisions.
Obviously we cannot be expected to pay for all those decisions, we would be
broke”.
If DFO wants it, it should be prepared to pay for it
instead of downloading it on a small British Columbia town.
* * *
Communities in Bloom
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the town of
Richmond Hill in my riding of Oak Ridges for being awarded a four bloom rating
out of a possible five for its 2001 Communities in Bloom program. The results
were announced on September 22 at a national awards ceremony hosted by the
greater Saint John, New Brunswick area which honoured competing municipalities
from each province and territory across Canada.
Richmond Hill achieved high scores in community
involvement, environmental efforts and a special mention for its efforts in the
area of heritage restoration. With its four bloom rating, the town is eligible
to compete on the national stage next year.
The judges noted that they were impressed with the
strong support from many groups of Richmond Hill volunteers and commented “a
beautiful city is being created with highly landscaped commercial areas, treed
boulevards, an abundance of trees, play fields and open spaces, naturalized
water drainage and urban forest areas”.
Mr. Speaker, I could not be happier to
agree.
* * *
[Translation]
Literacy
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, recently, on behalf of the Government of
Canada, I presented a cheque for $14,000 to an organization in my riding of
Laval West the name of which is “Au jardin de la famille de
Fabreville”.
This funding, which is part of federal-provincial
literacy initiatives, will allow the organization to pursue its objective of
facilitating participants’ social, economic and cultural
integration.
It is especially important to encourage all Canadians
to take up the challenge of literacy. I am proud that the Government of Canada
has made a commitment to take specific measures to support literacy and
organizations such as Au Jardin de la famille de Fabreville.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Oktoberfest
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this coming weekend, Kitchener invites the
world to share in the great German tradition of Oktoberfest. The nine day
festival is the largest Bavarian celebration in North America and boasts
Canada's greatest Thanksgiving Day parade.
The 33rd annual Kitchener-Waterloo Oktoberfest
celebrates our local German Canadian heritage with over 20 festhallen
and 45 family and cultural events. Through the gaiety of this spirit of
gemuetlichkeit, the local economy is stimulated and over 70 charities
and not for profit organizations raise funds to benefit the residents of
Kitchener-Waterloo.
Kitchener is firmly rooted in its German heritage.
Oktoberfest is an opportunity to commemorate the traditions and culture of our
nation's three million German Canadians.
I would also like to congratulate the hundreds of
volunteers who commit their time and energy to the success of
Kitchener-Waterloo's Oktoberfest. Kitchener is the place to be for the next two
weeks. I invite all Canadians to don their lederhosen and head out to
Oktoberfest.
* * *
Strathcona Christian
Academy
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, two grade six students from Strathcona
Christian Academy in my riding have penned a prayer. They gave it to me and
asked me to ask members of parliament to pray this prayer with them:
Dear Father, please be with America,
and all the grieving Americans who lost friends and loved ones. We pray that
those who are in charge will make wise decisions. Also, be with the younger
children, because they don't really understand what is going on right now in
the world, and for those children who lost parents and grandparents. Thank you
that it was not worse than it already is. In your Name we pray,
Amen. |
I would like to thank Alexis Foster and Sarah McConnell
for the inspiration they have given to us through this prayer.
* * *
Mental Illness Awareness
Week
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, next week is Mental Illness Awareness
Week. This is an opportunity for Canadians to raise awareness about mental
illness, to give hope to those who suffer from such disorders, and to recognize
the many groups and individuals who have helped to bring about changes through
research and through public awareness projects.
During the past decade there have been many scientific
advances that have led to new medications for severe mental illness.
A new perception of mental illness is emerging, thanks
to public information programs that eradicate the myths and stigma that once
prevented people from seeking treatment. Today individuals with these disorders
have a real chance at reclaiming full and productive lives.
All Canadians can make a difference in promoting mental
health awareness by providing hope to the courageous individuals who struggle
with these illnesses.
* * *
[Translation]
World Teachers' Day
Ms. Diane Bourgeois
(Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ)
Mr. Speaker, October 5 is World Teachers' Day. Let us
reflect on the vital role teachers play in our society.
Teaching is about more than passing on knowledge. It is
also about listening, understanding, explaining, guiding, encouraging,
developing, training, educating, and instilling values, principles and
ideals.
Teaching is also about helping to shape an
identity.
Teaching is a profession that carries with it some very
weighty responsibilities and, too often, we neglect to point this out. We
forget to thank the people who are there for students, who support their
initiatives and who guide their steps.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois pays tribute to these women
and men who play a role in developing our society's most important resource,
our young people.
* * *
[English]
Mental Illness Awareness
Week
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join with my colleagues and
recognize Mental Illness Awareness Week sponsored by the Canadian Psychiatric
Association.
The focus for this year's campaign is “Making a
difference-Shed light, Give hope, Take action”. These are words that evoke a
great deal of meaning to those who live with or suffer some form of mental
illness.
Through information workshops held throughout the week
the Canadian Psychiatric Association hopes to shed light on this largely
misunderstood disease, to give hope and to ask the public to take
action.
Mental illness affects a dramatic number of Canadians.
One in five will likely experience a bout of mental illness some time in their
lives serious enough to impair daily function. A great deal of research is
continuing in this area through the Canadian Institute on Health Research and
other research institutes.
I acknowledge the work of the advisory board of the
Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction and recognize in
particular a member of that board, Mr. Phil Upshall, who volunteers his--
(1410)
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill.
* * *
Mental Illness Awareness
Week
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, many of our fellow citizens and their
families face the challenges of mental illness. I am told that 50% of emergency
room admissions are related to mental illness. Fourteen billion health care
dollars each year go toward the treatment of mental illness.
Mental illness is not just a health issue. Problems in
the workplace and family setting are also factors. We need to strongly affirm
the personal dignity and worth of every individual, including those with mental
illness. These fellow citizens need to be assured of their valued and active
roles in our communities.
Disability payments alone will not provide needed
integration into the larger society. We also need more mental illness research
to find new and better ways to relieve those affected by mental illness. We
need to be aware of ways to promote good mental health in ourselves and in
others around us.
I trust that each of us will set aside a little time
during the upcoming Mental Illness Awareness Week to reflect on these important
considerations.
* * *
Fire Prevention Week
Mr. Gurbax Malhi
(Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to inform the House
that from October 7 to October 13 Canada will once again observe Fire
Prevention Week.
Before elaborating on activities of this year's events
I should like to take a moment to express my deepest sorrow and remember those
members of the fire service and their families who were touched by the tragic
events in the United States on September 11.
Each year we move closer to our fire prevention goal
through public awareness, promotion of fire safety measures and escape
planning. The tragic events of recent weeks have reminded us how important
safety procedures are to us.
Fire Prevention Canada with the support of the labour
program is launching an exciting series of animated public service
announcements targeting fire prevention and safety in the home. These pubic
service announcements are scheduled for broadcast on national networks and
local affiliates across Canada in the next few weeks.
I hope members will support and participate in
promoting fire safety awareness this week and throughout the year.
* * *
National Security
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, as a result of the tragic events of
September 11 traffic at the Windsor border crossing, the busiest in Canada, has
been dramatically reduced because of necessary security measures.
The slowdown has resulted in thousands of jobs being
lost. Workers have been laid off at automotive companies, in feeder plants and
throughout the whole service sector. It has been quite devastating on our
community.
The people of Windsor are acutely aware of the need for
the increased security. However they do not want open borders. They do not want
to be at risk for the possible influx of crime from the American side of the
border.
We know from prior experience that if we work together
with our neighbours to the south there are technologies and additional
resources that can be put into place to allow for security and the free flow of
goods and people.
I called on the revenue minister to raise these
concerns with U.S. officials and to encourage them to take immediate steps to
increase--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve.
* * *
[Translation]
Médecins du monde
Canada
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my congratulations
and encouragement today to three Quebec physicians from Médecins du Monde
Canada, Drs. Réjean Thomas, Glidor Delev and Amir Khadir, who, along with
engineer and project manager Jean-Philippe Tizi, will be taking part, starting
October 6, in a huge humanitarian project in Iran, which shares a border with
Afghanistan and faces an influx of some 400,000 refugees from that
country.
Médecins du monde Canada condemns the September 11
terrorist attacks, but while maintaining the political neutrality that enables
it to intervene in the hot spots of the world, this non-profit organization
dreads a military retaliation against Afghanistan and the consequences of such
action on civilian populations.
A public awareness campaign has been launched,
involving private donors and various levels of government. I call upon everyone
to support the humanitarian actions of Médecins du monde, an association of
international solidarity, dedicated to providing care to the most vulnerable
populations in situations of crisis and marginality, anywhere in the
world.
* * *
(1415)
World Teachers' Day
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau
(Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, October 5 is World Teachers' Day. All
levels of government should focus attention on the essential work done by
educators in modeling and building the future.
Teachers are at the centre of the present and future of
our society; they are, in fact, at the crossroads between the two.
Teachers are, however, expected to transmit values that
sometimes appear to have been rejected by society as a whole: effort,
discipline, respect of authority.
In a context of increasingly cosmopolitan communities
and the reality of cultural globalization, teachers must shape responsible and
competent citizens.
The emphasis of this international event is on teacher
training, and this year's theme is “Qualified Teachers for Quality
Education”.
Teaching requires a total commitment. Can our societies
and our governments make that same commitment to teachers?
* * *
[English]
National Library
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, many of our most treasured historical
documents continue to be exposed to irrevocable damage. The National Library of
Canada is tasked with preserving Canada's published heritage so that it is
available for present and future generations. Yet over $2 million of
irreplaceable information has already been lost since the Liberals took over in
1993.
Works like the original hand drawn maps of Champlain,
pages from the original Guttenberg Bible and the first newspaper ever published
in Canada are threatened daily by leaky roofs, exploding pipes and a climate so
humid that it routinely sets off the fire alarm.
When asked about her plans to protect the 20 million
items representing our shared history, the heritage minister said that the
government was still deciding on whether or not this was a priority. I find it
amazing that the minister can find half a billion dollars for new culture
spending but is still mulling over whether she will take action to find safe
storage for priceless documents.
The current repair costs already exceed the budget.
Collections are being stored under tents of plastic and the rains are going to
come. Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage commit today to saving what
remains of these irreplaceable documents before it is too late?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
National Security
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is day 23 and still no lead from the
government at all in terms of calling for a non-partisan federal provincial
initiative on perimeter security which would protect our citizens and
cross-border trade.
The president of the Canadian manufacturers and
exporters says we need to do this. A number of premiers of various political
stripes say we need to do this. Most Canadians say we need to do this.
It is time to put aside partisan politics and
immediately convene a federal-provincial initiative on perimeter security. Why
will the Prime Minister not do this?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed time to put aside partisan
politics. That includes fearmongering about security in our country. It
includes implying that somehow or other Canada was responsible for the events
that occurred on September 11. It includes working constructively across the
border with our partner, the government of the United States, on cross-border
issues.
That is exactly what we have been doing in
consultations between myself and Mr. Ridge, between the solicitor general and
the attorney general of the United States.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister is here this
gentleman sounds non-partisan. As soon as the Prime Minister is not here, he
slides right into the Prime Minister's mould and starts looking and sounding
like him.
[Translation]
With Quebec's exports to the United States down 15%
since September 11, the business community supports the Canadian Alliance's
idea of holding a federal-provincial summit on the North American security
perimeter.
The president of the Alliance des manufacturiers et
exportateurs du Québec, Paul-Arthur Huot, stated that he believed it was a very
good idea, and that the government must show leadership on this
issue.
My question is simple: Will the government show
leadership on this issue by holding a summit?
(1420)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, allow me, once again, to
congratulate the customs officers who have done a remarkable job and who have
been working round the clock since September 11. We have reason to be proud of
them.
Second, both prior to September 11 and since then, I
have had the opportunity to meet with the business community to discuss the
approach we need to take towards customs. Business people are fully aware that
there are two requirements: to ensure the smooth flow of trade and also to
ensure the safety of Canadians.
It is my view that Bill S-23 strikes the right balance.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, provinces are having to set up their own
security forces because the federal government is not doing anything. Now we
have 22 U.S. senators who are calling for tripling of the border guards, who
are calling for more extensive searching at the border and who are calling for
sharing of the files with the FBI.
This will severely slow down cross-border trade. It
will impair Canadian business. All this could be avoided if the government
would simply set aside partisan politics, avoid wasteful
interprovincial-federal duplication and put together a federal-provincial
summit on this issue.
What is the government--
The Speaker:
The hon. the Minister of National Revenue.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, if the hon. member were to look at
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency website, he would see that the traffic at
Canada's borders is pretty much back to normal.
Second, if he were to look at Bill S-23, he would see
that we have a balanced approach to make sure that with technology we will be
able to keep the borders open for trade and at the same time protect Canadians.
Above all that, we have to keep working--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, premiers are calling for action on our
border. Employers and investors are calling for action on our border. U.S.
senators are calling for action. In fact yesterday one held up an orange
traffic cone to show the level of security at some border points at night.
Americans will not be satisfied if the government continues to ignore the
problem.
Will the Prime Minister take action today by convening
a federal-provincial summit on the border?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the border issue one must
be quite proud of what we did with Canada customs.
First, we started to reform the system a year and a
half ago. Second, with regard to what is called the perimeter, that is to say
the airports and the seaports, we made a major announcement last June. Third,
the way to manage the volume we face with trade and to protect Canadians is to
use more technology.
However the problem is that while the government was
taking care of Canadian interests the opposition members were doing nothing.
They were not interested in customs.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is concerned for
the safety of our customs officials at the border, something the government has
refused to address.
The people in the community are asking for action. The
official with BMO Nesbitt Burns says that Canada needs to make sure the border
issue does not escalate into something that will devastate Canadian
factories.
Will the Prime Minister immediately call for a
federal-provincial summit to ensure secure borders and prosperity for Canadian
workers?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, Canada customs handled the
situation in the proper manner. We put in place the reform. As soon as we have
the full enactment of Bill S-23, we will speed up the implementation of that
reform.
We must keep working in co-operation with our
neighbours. We did it in the past when we signed the Canada customs shared
border agreement in 1995. We will keep working with the United States to
provide Canadians with one of the best customs systems in the world.
* * *
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is proposing a
$5 billion plan to stimulate the economy without incurring any deficit, and I
insist on that aspect.
While others, including the United States, are taking
concrete action, this government is satisfied with what it has already done,
not realizing that the economic situation has changed drastically. President
Bush is proposing a plan of at least $60 billion. And the Canadian government
will enjoy huge surpluses in spite of the slowdown.
What is the Minister of Finance waiting for to act and
to propose a plan in order to meet the economic challenge that is facing
us?
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois leader talks about the
plan proposed by President Bush, a plan which is not yet in effect and which is
being discussed by the United States Congress.
The hon. member must know that this plan deals
primarily with rebuilding the Pentagon and the city of New York. Fortunately,
we do not have that problem.
The hon. member also talked about speeding up the tax
reduction program. We already did that. Finally, he referred to the program to
help the unemployed, but the Minister of Human Resources
Development—
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in other words, last year, all the
measures adopted in the mini budget were in anticipation of the current
situation. This simply does not make sense.
There is more that needs to be done. Indeed, measures
are being taken in the area of security, defence and air transportation.
Should we not have a global plan? Could the minister
tell specifically what is not good in the plan that we are proposing? What does
he object to in our proposals?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, the Bloc Quebecois' forecasts are
wrong.
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh!
Hon. Paul Martin: Absolutely! There is not one
economist in Canada who accepts the Bloc Quebecois' forecasts.
Second, we are already far ahead of the Americans. Our
employment insurance program is already in place and our plan to speed up the
tax reduction process is already in effect.
Like the Bloc Quebecois, the Americans are playing
catch up compared to what our government has already done.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in the past five years, the Bloc Quebecois
has made forecasts accurate to within 2% or 3%. His forecasts were out by 150%.
He knows nothing.
Will the Minister of Finance recognize that, by
restricting himself to case by case interventions rather than tabling a
coherent plan to support the economy and jobs, he risks raising costs for
everyone and being more ineffective? Is he aware of that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to an error I
made. The error was to reduce our national debt by $17 billion last year. The
error was to reduce our national debt by $35 billion over four
years.
That is the error we made. Because of that, we have
$2.5 billion year after year to lower taxes and invest in the future of
Canadians.
If these are errors, we will keep making them, because
improving public finances will help Canada.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, his colleague responsible for security,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs, made a commitment to table a security plan and
a bill when the House resumed.
Could the Minister of Finance also not assume his
responsibilities, get to work and promise to table a statement, a plan for the
economy? There is no time to waste.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly that the government
intends to present an economic update or a budget. The options are
open.
I accept the reference to my colleague, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, who will present his plan, as will the Minister of Justice,
the Solicitor General of Canada, the Minister of Revenue, the Minister of Human
Resources Development, and the whole government.
We have a comprehensive plan, and the member will see
it. But he will have to listen and stop getting in a state.
* * *
[English]
Airline Industry
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development. In recent days when the minister was asked about what
the government was prepared to do to help with the airline situation, the
minister only referred to what could be done within the context of existing
programs.
Is the minister prepared to consider new arrangements
that would make it possible for senior and higher paid employees to have
severance packages so that younger employees could stay with the company, keep
working and be able to support their younger families? That is what people are
looking for in this situation.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are happy that we have
an employment insurance program in place that can work now for Canadians who
through no fault of their own find themselves without employment.
I am happy to report to the hon. member that this
morning union representatives and Air Canada and Air Transat met with
government officials at the same table. They talked about the programs that
exist under employment insurance and then broke off into separate tables to
talk specifically about applications.
I am quite convinced that, with flexibility and
goodwill, we will find ways and means to help Canadians at this time.
(1430)
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question
about whether she is willing to consider new arrangements that would make it
possible for the senior employees to take a severance package.
Perhaps she could also address the following question.
I notice that President Bush has talked about extending unemployment insurance
benefits in the United States at this time due to the crisis.
Is the minister prepared at this time to do what was
recommended unanimously by a committee of the House and at the very least
extend eligibility for employment insurance benefits by reducing the number of
hours as was recommended by the committee?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all indications are that the employment
insurance program is there and will work effectively for Canadians, no matter
what sector they are working in and no matter where they are in
Canada.
As a result of the changes that we have already made,
the program is more ready than ever to assist Canadians in these difficult
times.
* * *
International Security
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has refused to
give this parliament intelligence information about Osama bin Laden, yet Prime
Minister Blair of the United Kingdom tells his parliament and publishes that
information on the prime minister's website. I have it here. He also has
provided full confidential briefings to opposition leaders of all parties in
his parliament.
Why does the Prime Minister of Canada not extend to
this parliament the same trust and courtesy on such important matters as the
prime minister of Great Britain extends to the U.K. parliament? Why does the
government hold secret information which Canadians should know?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a former prime minister should be fully
aware that we have a very efficient security intelligence agency and one of the
best police forces in the world. We are one of the safest countries to live in
the world because we do not disclose security secrets on the floor of the House
of Commons or anywhere else publicly.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, what a double standard. While the British
parliament provides that information, the Canadian parliament does not. They
probably do not even tell their own Prime Minister because it is clear he does
not know what is going on.
We have learned that CIDA is investigating its funding
to determine if there are any links to terrorists. Is the Export Development
Corporation conducting a similar investigation? Is that happening with other
agencies or departments of the Government of Canada? Will the results of those
investigations be made available here to this freely elected Parliament of
Canada?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely not one shred of
evidence with respect to the article that was in the paper today alleging that
CIDA moneys were spent incorrectly. We tracked every single dollar and made
sure that the funds received by IDRF were absolutely used for the forum for
which they were intended.
There was not one shred of evidence that CIDA dollars
went to anything. It is totally unconscionable, based on unsubstantiated
information and is unacceptable.
* * *
Citizenship and
Immigration
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration.
Americans are very concerned about Canada's lax refugee
policies. In fact for over 10 years the government has failed to determine a
list of safe third countries under the Immigration Act.
A memorandum on a joint responsibility agreement with
the U.S. was signed over six years ago but still has not been
implemented.
Why will the government not finally determine a safe
list of third countries from which we do not accept claimants?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me share with the member opposite and
all members in the House what senior commissioner for the INS, Mr. Ziglar, had
to say about his relationship with Canada. He said “Our relationship with
Canadians is a very productive, very friendly and very co-operative
relationship. It is because of that relationship with Canadians, in terms of
intelligence sharing and information sharing, that they have been extremely
helpful to the United States in our abilities to detect and apprehend criminal
aliens on our northern border”.
This country works very co-operatively with the United
States. The member should know--
(1435)
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we all know the minister did not answer
the question.
Under the principle of country of first safe haven, why
has the minister not negotiated a bilateral agreement with the United States
for us not to accept any refugees from them and they do not accept any from us?
It would be an immediate big relief on resources on both sides to help keep our
borders open.
Why has the minister not negotiated such a good
neighbourly agreement with the United States so we both could feel much more
secure?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear in my
answer.
In the existing immigration bill and in Bill C-11 the
ability to negotiate a bilateral safe third agreement is there. A number of
years ago there were discussions but given the fact that more than 40% of
refugee claimants in Canada come to Canada through the United States, the
United States was not interested in pursuing that agreement.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, last June, when the economy was in fine
shape, hon. members unanimously adopted a report recommending that the Minister
of Human Resources Development make some significant changes to the EI program.
What was urgent last summer is all the more urgent now.
I am asking the minister whether she intends to accept
the committee's arguments, follow up on the Bloc Quebecois proposals, and put
in place the unanimous recommendations she has had on her desk for five months
now.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last June the House adopted changes to the
employment insurance program that have made it more useful and available to
Canadians than it would have been back then.
I would remind the hon. member that he and his party
voted against those changes that accorded better access for women and better
access for men and women in seasonal industries.
Why is it so much more urgent now than it was back in
June?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said she had no
reason to believe that special measures were necessary. Today, she is repeating
the same blasted thing.
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh!
Mr. Paul Crête: She is the only one who seems
not to be aware that there has been a fundamental change in the situation. Even
President Bush has just suggested adding 13 weeks to the American unemployment
insurance program.
Is the minister going to finally get going, realize the
urgency of the situation, and announce special measures to deal with the
crisis?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, no matter what the timeframe, if men and
women in Canada find themselves through no fault of their own without
employment, we believe the employment insurance program should be there to help
them. We are glad we are continuing to improve it to make it more accessible.
We have nothing to learn from that party on the
importance of employment insurance. We are glad it is there.
My priority is to ensure that my officials are working
with Canadians who need those benefits so they get them in a timely
fashion.
* * *
Citizenship and
Immigration
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we read in the media this morning that the
minister welcomes Ontario's initiative to enforce deportation orders but in
committee today her own colleague dismissed the idea as
grandstanding.
We are left wondering what the government's real
position is.
Will the minister commit unequivocally to working with
Ontario and any other province that comes forward to pick up the slack in the
deportation of people illegally in Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when someone is in Canada illegally it can
mean they have overstayed a visitor's visa. It can mean that they are a failed
refugee claimant with a deportation order.
What I hear the member opposite doing, which concerns
me, is equating refugees with criminals. When I think of refugees I think of
Hungarians, of Vietnamese, of Kosovars and others who have come to us and who
are in need of our protection.
It is simply wrong to broad-brush all of those who are
in Canada who have deportation orders.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister was not listening. A
provincial government is now enforcing federal immigration laws. Provinces are
now forced to ensure the safety of their residents because the federal
government did not act.
If, as the minister has said, her government welcomes
and supports the creation of a special police enforcement unit by Ontario, will
she announce today that the federal government is willing to commit both funds
and personnel to this new initiative?
(1440)
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. For many years, in
fact as long as I think most Canadians would know, departments of government,
different levels of government and police forces have worked
together.
I have to tell the member opposite that there is a
24-hour, seven day a week warrant centre. All police forces across the country
and different levels of government work together to check anyone who is
apprehended to see if there is an outstanding warrant. We have worked together
and we will continue to work together to make sure that those people who should
leave Canada leave Canada as soon as possible.
* * *
[Translation]
Foreign Trade
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the foreign trade of Quebec and of Canada
has been greatly affected by the September 11 attacks, which have resulted in
security taking priority over the flow of goods at the Canada-U.S. border.
According to the Manufacturiers exportateurs du Québec, exports by Quebec
companies to the United States have dropped 15% since the attacks. On an annual
basis, this represents a shortfall of $8 billion.
Would it not be wise for the Minister of Foreign
Affairs to give serious thought to creating a North American security perimeter
with his NAFTA partners in order to ensure the uninterrupted flow of goods and
people, with due regard for security imperatives?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said in committee this morning, we
must work directly on existing problems and on those which are perceived to
exist between the two governments.
Until now, our problems have not been the same as those
of the United States, but I myself indicated to Governor Ridge, who has just
been appointed, to my colleague, the solicitor general, and to the U.S.
attorney general, that we are prepared to work with them, step by step, to find
the best solutions to the border situation.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in this context, would the minister agree
to call a meeting of his NAFTA partners, the United States and Mexico, to
discuss an agreement to establish a security perimeter which would strike a
fair balance between trade and security imperatives, our humanitarian
commitments and respect for civil liberties?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member may be making matters more
complicated than necessary. There are already problems between the United
States and Mexico with respect to the border between those two countries. We do
not need to complicate the situation at the Canada-U.S. border by dragging in
the situation at the border to the south of the United States.
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, unlike this government, the United Kingdom
did not wait to be asked to commit military support. It volunteered.
Unbelievably, yesterday the Prime Minister accused Prime Minister Blair of
raising the level of fear and rhetoric and he derided him as Tory
Blair.
Canadians agree with Mr. Blair when he says that
whatever the dangers of the action we take, the dangers of inaction are far
greater.
Why does the Prime Minister not comprehend the wisdom
of those words?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we volunteered any of our capabilities,
either in a military context or any other context, right from the very
beginning.
In fact, we were asked on September 11 to take
airplanes out of U.S. airspace into Canada. We were asked on September 12 to
put additional aircraft into NORAD. We have done both of those. We were asked
on September 12, 13 and beyond that to help in terms of additional intelligence
gathering and analysis. We have done that.
We have also offered many other ways of supporting this
campaign against terrorism. We have been up to the plate and
volunteered.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, rather than criticizing Prime Minister
Blair, our Prime Minister should consider emulating him. The United States has
asked NATO for help and the United Kingdom is already there.
The Australians and Germans have indicated they are
ready to go but all this government seems to be talking about is backfilling in
the Balkans while American and British troops redeploy to Afghanistan's front
line.
Why should Canada's commitment be limited to holding
the coats of Americans and Brits while they do the fighting for
freedom?
(1445)
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. At NATO a number
of capabilities have been asked for and we have indicated agreement with
them.
On top of that, we have been in touch on a daily basis
with the United States in terms of what we can provide and in terms of a
bilateral agreement with it.
We have been there. As the ambassador of the United
States to Canada said, Canada has been there and Canada has come to the plate
whenever it has been asked. We will continue to be there.
* * *
[Translation]
Public Works and Government
Services
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in recent years, the government has
defended the safe use of chrysotile asbestos nationally and
internationally.
In this regard, I would like to ask my colleague, the
hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services if he intends to promote
the safe use of chrysotile asbestos in federal buildings?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has recognized that today's
asbestos products can be used perfectly safely.
As my hon. colleague mentioned, the government has
defended the safe use of chrysotile asbestos nationally and
internationally.
I have asked my officials to start work on a policy on
the safe use of chrysotile asbestos in all federal buildings.
* * *
[English]
The Economy
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that President Bush has
announced a comprehensive package of at least $60 billion to stimulate the
American economy. This is money in addition to money already committed to the
war on terrorism, disaster relief and to the airline industry.
The minister knows also that all four opposition
parties are in agreement that we need a budget now, in the fall, before
parliament.
Will there be a budget and, as we enter a recession
around the globe, will the minister commit himself to a package of about $5
billion to $7 billion on infrastructure and jobs to stimulate the economy in
areas such as rapid rail, housing, agriculture, the environment and
training?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to deal with the
basic premise of the hon. member's question.
If we take a look at what President Bush is talking
about, the bulk of the money will go toward reconstruction in New York City and
at the Pentagon, which is very important and which was a disaster from which we
fortunately were spared.
If we look at the rest of the program, he is talking
about accelerating his tax plan. We have already accelerated our tax plan and
in our tax plan there is far greater stimulus than even that being promised by
President Bush, or indeed the congress.
The third part of it is in fact what he will be doing
for the unemployed Americans--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Sackville--Musquodoboit
Valley--Eastern Shore.
* * *
Employment Insurance
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the only person the EI fund is working for
is the Minister of Finance so he can divert the almost $40 billion into other
expenditures and not to unemployed workers.
As a former airline employee, it saddens me to know
that thousands of my colleagues are facing layoffs along with many other
employees of other industries as well.
What the NDP is asking is for the minister to commit to
the unanimous recommendation of the human resources development committee to
reduce the number of eligible hours from 900 to 700 so that thousands of
employees can have access to EI funds and so that thousands of small businesses
can rely--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our monitoring assessment report indicates
that the vast majority of Canadians who are eligible for employment insurance
will have access to the program dollars.
We have made changes to ensure employment insurance is
there for Canadians when they need it. For many, unfortunately, that time is
now.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect a certain level of
competence from the head of our security forces.
The events of September 11 have certainly magnified the
need for foreign intelligence gathering. The solicitor general confidently last
month stated that we already operate abroad, yet CSIS only has overseas liaison
officers. It does not engage in foreign espionage.
The solicitor general has once again muddled the facts
and seems oblivious to his own department's responsibilities and
capabilities.
Does the solicitor general know if a foreign spy
service will be created and will new money be allocated from the treasury for
its creation?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, the
Minister of Finance has indicated quite clearly that whatever funding is
required would be provided for security intelligence and the RCMP.
Also, as my hon. colleague must and should know, CSIS
has the authority to collect information that affects security inside or
outside the country.
* * *
(1450)
National Defence
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, we have been informed that due to a
shortage of spare parts at Cold Lake, Alberta, some CF-18 aircraft from 410
squadron were stripped of essential parts that are needed and used to keep the
aircraft of 416 and 441 squadrons in the air.
How can the minister justify this type of mechanical
cannibalism when we are having this horrible terrorist situation? When can we
expect a new federal budget that will put money in the budget for the military
and give it the resources it needs so we can play a full--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we put $3 billion of additional money into
defence. We have made it quite clear that we will provide the Canadian forces
with the resources they need to be able to do the job.
With respect to the CF-18s, defence white paper 94
calls for between 40 and 60. We have 80 of them that are operational. We have
additional ones that are not needed at this point in time. We use additional
parts from time to time to make sure we get all the operational CF-18s ready to
go when needed.
* * *
Transportation
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, media reports indicate that there was an
air marshal on Air Canada flight 792 which returned to Los Angeles under U.S.
military jet escort last week. After an altercation between a belligerent
passenger and a flight attendant, a witness stated that an air marshal wearing
casual clothes walked from the front of the plane and took control of the
situation.
My question is for the minister. Have any on duty
Canadian law enforcement officers travelled in plain clothes on Canadian
commercial flights since September 11 as air marshals?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are trying to build
confidence in air travel all the hon. member is doing is using speculative
reports in the media to heighten attention. I say shame on him.
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is not building confidence in
Canadians in flying if he does not answer simple questions about whether or not
there are air marshals on planes. He should answer the question.
There is something else the government can do. If the
government wants to show confidence in the commercial airline industry, here is
a suggestion. Will the Prime Minister park his Challenger jet and fly
commercial skies as other Canadians do as a sign of faith that security
works?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is new to the
House, but it is a well accepted principle that the Prime Minister uses the
executive fleet for security reasons, as advised by the RCMP.
* * *
[Translation]
Terrorism
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in the fight that they have begun against
international terrorism, the Americans stated yesterday what they expect from
their NATO partners, and Canada will have to make a contribution.
Can the Minister of National Defence confirm that he is
about to take over from the Americans responsibility for the protection of
North America's airspace under the NORAD agreements?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there were eight requests. We can meet a
number of them now or have been meeting a number of them. For example we have
been enhancing intelligence sharing and co-operation. Again the American
ambassador says that our intelligence sharing was very good, but since
September 11 it has been extraordinary.
We could go on with a number of these where we are
already meeting or are prepared to meet it. We are prepared to consider other
ones that are on here as well. We are also dealing directly with the United
States with respect to other capabilities we can offer.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that I asked him a
question on the protection of North America's airspace, not on intelligence
sharing.
I have a second question for the minister. Will he
provide Canada's F-18's to protect North America's airspace? It is also said
that Canadian troops are about to take over from Americans troops on their
observation mission in the Balkans.
Could the minister tell us about the costs generated by
the protection of North America's airspace and the increased Canadian
participation in the Balkans to relieve Americans troops?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have said many times over the past week
or two that we put additional aircraft into the Norad system. We have done that
right from the time it was requested by the United States.
With respect to the issue of backfilling on selected
NATO assets in the Balkans or other places, that is being looked it. More
detail is needed on it. We have made no decision in that regard.
(1455)
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Finance. The minister has stated that he will seize the assets of those who
raise funds for terrorist organizations.
Last year the minister was the guest of honour at a
dinner sponsored by the front organization for the Tamil tigers. Will he now
excuse himself from any decision regarding naming FACT as an organization which
raises funds for terrorist organizations?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this question has been answered many times
in the House. I think it is irresponsible for any member, particularly at this
time, to try to link terrorism with ethnic communities. It is
inappropriate.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let me quote what the Minister of
Immigration and Citizenship and the Attorney General of Canada said in a
Supreme Court of Canada document:
|
—the
Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils (“FACT”) are examples of
political and benevolent front organizations which support the
LTTE-- |
That is what the government said. Will the Minister of
Finance excuse himself when naming this organization as a terrorist
organization?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on any organization. It
is truly unfortunate that my hon. colleague is linking organizations to the
particular terrorism problem. Linking the two communities is
inappropriate.
* * *
[Translation]
Inter-American Democratic
Charter
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on September 11, Canada joined with 33
other member countries of the Organization of American States to adopt the
inter-American democratic charter in Lima, Peru.
Will the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa tell the House how the adoption of this charter will back up Canada's
efforts to promote democracy in the Americas?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State
(Latin America and Africa), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this charter will enable us to protect and
preserve democracy throughout the hemisphere. It will also enhance the ability
of the OAS to combat threats to democracies.
The U.S. secretary of state himself witnessed a vicious
attack on his own democracy. He is aware of the importance of the charter and
decided to remain in Lima to ensure that it was adopted.
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is vulnerable to a terrorist strike
on our energy infrastructure. The Minister of Natural Resources says that our
power facilities and distribution network are secure.
In reality, Canada's energy network includes hundreds
of thousands of kilometres of vulnerable natural gas and power lines in the
most remote areas of the country. What has the minister done to assure
Canadians our energy infrastructure is secure?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, quite literally within just a few moments
after the unfortunate events on the morning of September 11, Canadian
regulatory agencies swung into extraordinary action.
Both the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the
National Energy Board have taken the appropriate steps in consultation with the
RCMP and CSIS to make sure that security is on a heightened basis.
They are continuing their dialogue with all the
security authorities and with the office of critical infrastructure under the
Department of National Defence to make sure that our critical infrastructure is
indeed secure.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the government talks a great deal about
providing increased security measures for our energy infrastructure. Yet it has
been unable to give Canadians one example. Real leadership would provide
action, not just empty rhetoric.
How can Canadians believe the government is doing
anything to protect our energy infrastructure? What specific action has the
government taken to protect our energy infrastructure?
(1500)
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural
Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the things I mentioned
earlier, I should also point out that our officials and authorities have been
in touch with the International Energy Agency, the International Atomic Energy
Agency and the government of the United States of America.
I have personally spoken with Secretary Abraham to make
sure that all actions are co-ordinated nationally and internationally. I am
sure the hon. gentleman would not want me to detail security arrangements on
the floor of the House of Commons for any terrorist to read.
* * *
[Translation]
Airline Industry
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, according to some sources, the Minister of
Transport contacted ONEX to try to involve it in a possible plan to bail out
Air Canada.
Could the minister confirm this and tell us whether or
not he contacted ONEX with this in mind?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false.
* * *
[English]
National Defence and Veterans
Affairs
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chair of the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. There has been
some concern expressed that the standing committees of the House may not be
sufficiently involved in a response to the terrible events of September 11.
Could the chair of the defence committee advise as to
what the committee has done or intends to do to provide input into the response
to the terrorist attacks on the United States?
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean--Carleton,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that last
Tuesday the defence committee unanimously adopted a motion to produce a report
on Canada's operational readiness as it relates to counterterrorism.
The committee will hear from a wide range of witnesses
in such areas as special forces, intelligence gathering, emergency preparedness
and the defence against nuclear, biological and chemical attacks.
The report will form part of the prebudget
deliberations. Our first witness this afternoon will be the hon. Minister of
National Defence. I will take this opportunity to thank all members of the
committee.
* * *
[Translation]
International
Co-operation
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay
(Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this week, the World Bank said that
developing countries would be hard hit by the aftermath of the events on
September 11. It is estimated that approximately 10 million more people will
sink into poverty next year and that another 20,000 to 40,000 children will die
as a result of the deteriorating situation.
Does the government plan to substantially increase
CIDA's budget in response to this new information and thus combat one of the
breeding grounds for terrorism, which is poverty?
[English]
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have announced $6 million for relief in
the area. I am constantly in touch with our team on the ground to assess the
situation. We have just recently converted $447 million of debt to social
programs for Pakistan which will be about $16 million a year.
Of course we are monitoring it on a daily basis. We
will be increasing our funding as the need arises. I am in contact with my
officials on the ground at all times.
* * *
Health
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I notice the health minister's spin
doctors were very busy yesterday after it was revealed that he is not even a
full member of the new cabinet security committee, and he says there are 165
field hospitals ready to go.
Since there are not enough doctors and nurses to staff
our existing hospitals, from where will these emergency hospitals get
staff?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the hon. member's
question as notice and bring it to the attention of my colleague, the Minister
of Health.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in
the gallery of His Excellency Vasyl Rohoviy, Vice-Prime Minister of
Ukraine.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1505)
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations earlier
today regarding the debate under Standing Order 52. However I have not
circulated the motion because events have been evolving quite quickly. I invite
other House leaders to follow attentively to ensure we are doing exactly what
was agreed to. I seek unanimous consent to move the following motion. I
move:
|
That,
notwithstanding any Standing Order, Special Order or usual practice, during the
present sitting: |
1. The debate ordered for this day,
pursuant to Standing Order 52, shall commence immediately and, when no Member
rises to speak thereon, or after three hours, whichever is earlier, the House
shall adjourn to the next sitting day, and that the debate take place in
committee of the whole provided that the Speaker may act as chair from time to
time; |
2. The first representative from each
party may speak for no more than ten minutes, with a five minute question and
comment period, and no subsequent member may speak for more than ten
minutes; |
3. The Chair shall not receive any
dilatory motions, quorum calls or requests for unanimous consent; |
4. When no member wishes to speak or
after three hours, whichever is earlier, the committee shall rise and the House
shall adjourn. |
The Speaker:
Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Svend Robinson:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take it
there will be adjournment proceedings immediately upon adjournment as is the
practice traditionally. Is that the case?
Hon. Don Boudria:
Mr. Speaker, immediately after the business statement
we will be proceeding to the adjournment debate, that is the debate under
Standing Order 52.
Mr. Svend Robinson:
Mr. Speaker, regarding what we traditionally refer to
as the late show, will there be adjournment proceedings at the conclusion of
the emergency debate or not?
Hon. Don Boudria:
No, Mr. Speaker, there will not.
The Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent for the government House
leader to proceed with his motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Svend Robinson:
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest if I may that immediately
upon adjournment, as is the practice in the House traditionally, there be an
opportunity for the adjournment proceedings and debate.
Hon. Don Boudria:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we would agree to that. After a
visual consultation with my colleagues I think there is unanimous consent to do
that at the conclusion of the debate under Standing Order 52, notwithstanding
our usual practices and standing orders because this is unusual in that
sense.
The Speaker:
What is unusual is that the motion under emergency
debate is a motion to adjourn the House. One would have thought that once it
was carried perhaps the House would adjourn. However, if there is unanimous
consent, perhaps we can have another adjournment debate after the first one and
have a second go at it. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is the motion proposed by the
government House leader agreed to?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
(1510)
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will ask my usual Thursday question.
Could the government House leader bring us up to date on what we will be doing
for the rest of the week and when we come back from Thanksgiving break?
Could he tell us if the anti-terrorism legislation will
be ready when we return? If so, what areas will it be covering? Could he give
the House an assurance that between now and when we return on October 15 there
will be no leaks about what is in the legislation other than what he will
advise us of today?
Hon. Don Boudria:
Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to inform the House of
the business statement. As announced and unanimously adopted by the House, we
will now proceed with the emergency debate under Standing Order 52 concerning
softwood lumber.
Tomorrow we will consider Bill C-35, the foreign
missions bill. Should that legislation be completed tomorrow I do not propose
to call any other legislation or government bill.
Next week the House does not sit.
On Monday, October 15, we shall have an allotted day. I
have consulted with opposition House leaders about a bill we propose to
introduce that day and debate on the following day. The bill will introduce
measures to implement the United Nations conventions; amend the criminal code,
the Official Secrets Act and the Canada Evidence Act; and propose other
measures to improve security and protect Canadians. We hope to commence
consideration of the bill on Tuesday, October 16.
I take this opportunity to inform the House that we are
making arrangements to give the relevant critics an advance briefing of the
contents of the bill on the morning of October 16 prior to its introduction. I
intend to discuss this with House leaders at the earliest opportunity. I will
arrange to do so early on the morning in question so critics can have an
advance copy of the bill. Obviously we intend to make quantities of the bill
available on introduction.
We intend to seek the consent of the House to have
introduction of government bills at 11 o'clock that morning rather than 3 p.m.
We want to give hon. members additional time to familiarize themselves with the
bill because by exception we would be dealing with it on the floor of the House
the next day.
Hon. members have been very co-operative in this
regard. I take this opportunity to thank all House leaders for the co-operation
they have demonstrated in the face of these important events. I thank them for
their co-operation in advancing other legislation and the consideration they
have thus far given my suggestions in that regard.
The Speaker:
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform
the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of the second
adjournment debate is as follows: the hon. member for
Burnaby--Douglas,
National Defence.
Pursuant to Standing Order 52 and to the order made
earlier this day, the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the
whole to consider a specific and important matter requiring urgent
consideration, namely softwood lumber.
I do now leave the chair for the House to go into
committee of the whole.
EMERGENCY DEBATE
[S. O. 52]
* * *
(1515)
[English]
Softwood Lumber
The Chairman:
House in committee of the whole to consider a specific
and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely softwood
lumber.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That this Committee take note of the
softwood lumber industry. |
He said: Mr. Chairman, does the minister not speak
ahead of me? I ask because we have had three days of meetings in Washington
this week and I understand there may be late breaking developments. I do not
want to find that whatever I might say is pre-empted by more recent events.
That is the only reason I ask if the minister would like to precede me. I am
pleased that the minister and others in the House are interested in hearing
what I have to say.
We have had two other debates in the House since we
came back on September 17. One was about the airline situation, an obvious area
of priority. The other was about the situation on the prairies, another obvious
area of concern.
Anyone who suggests softwood lumber is not a major
concern in Canada would be incorrect. As of today in British Columbia alone
somewhere in the order of 15,000 workers have been laid off. Estimates are that
30,000 may be laid off by the end of the year. On a national basis 40,000 to
50,000 people could be laid off at either end. Obviously this is an unhealthy
situation for workers, their families, their communities and their
employers.
If free trade in lumber between Canada and the U.S.
cannot triumph over protectionist U.S. legislation, Canada and the U.S. will
both be losers. The Government of Canada must take this situation with the
utmost seriousness. So far its track record is not good.
I will offer some solutions, but a bit of background is
in order first. Until March of this year, the same month the quota driven and
detrimental five year softwood arrangement expired, the government had no
publicly enunciated direction on softwood. When it finally adopted the free
trade position the Canadian Alliance had been promoting for months, we were
encouraged by its action.
At a time when there is every reason for optimism about
achieving free trade in lumber there needs to be strong representation from the
Prime Minister. There is no sign that this is happening in a real sense.
We have had several optimistic signs from the U.S.
administration. On September 20, U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick
wrote an important piece in the Washington Post called “Countering
Terror with Trade”. I will quote a couple of statements from the
article:
Our nation has drawn together in
shock, mourning and defiance. Now we must thrust forward the values that define
us against our adversary: openness, peaceful exchange, democracy, the rule of
law, compassion and tolerance. Economic strength--at home and abroad--is the
foundation of America's hard and soft power...To that end, U.S. leadership in
promoting the international economic and trading system is vital. Trade is
about more than economic efficiency. It promotes the values at the heart of
this protracted struggle. |
Zoellick went on to say:
Congress, working with the Bush
administration, has an opportunity to shape history by raising the flag of
American economic leadership. |
With the stroke of a pen the Bush administration
removed tariffs on some of the products of its trading partners to solidify the
coalition against terrorism. Indonesia had duties removed from plywood exports
to the tune of about $200 million per year. This demonstrates what is
possible.
(1520)
On Monday of this week the American Consumers For
Affordable Homes, who represent 95% of lumber consumption in the United States,
wrote to President Bush and asked him to reverse the commerce department's
preliminary countervail duty of 19.3%.
The American Consumers For Affordable Homes
organization has consistently promoted free trade in lumber. It represents many
more jobs in the U.S. and represents the consumer interests as opposed to the
U.S. lumber lobby.
With these series of events and with senior Bush
administration officials and U.S. federal reserve chairman Alan Greenspan all
promoting free trade and suggesting that U.S. protectionist legislation is
counterproductive, the stage is set for a push by the Prime Minister to break
through and appeal directly to President Bush to set aside the CVD
determination imposing a 19.3% duty on Canadian lumber.
The American consumer group pointed out to the
president this week the importance of a strong housing sector in a fragile
economy and that U.S. gross domestic product growth could be reduced by 15% to
30% because of the 19.3% tariff.
What is concerning me today is that we are hearing, as
a consequence of talks going on in Washington, that there may be an arrangement
whereby these talks have actually turned into negotiations which have strayed
from the free trade path and have now taken us into an area where we may have
direct negotiation between the U.S. trade representative and our provincial
jurisdictions. If this is the case, and I am waiting to hear from the minister
on whether it is, then I want to put a warning shot out there that this is
betraying free trade and the strong coalition that has been built up over the
last two years on both sides of the border to pursue free trade in lumber. If
that is the case then I can only say that I am disappointed that this
government can lose its vision and its principles.
We entered into a very bad deal in 1996 when we got
into the five year softwood lumber agreement. If we agree today to these kinds
of balkanized negotiations I can only say that would be a total abandonment of
the consumer interest, local governments and the greater Canadian
interest.
This will only lead to a situation where the U.S.
lumber lobby will have divided and conquered. It will only lead to a lack of
accountability where the federal government can say that it has washed its
hands of responsibility for these bilateral trade negotiations. This is a
federal area of jurisdiction and it will place us further from free trade in
lumber than we have been in a long time and I do not know how we would ever get
back there.
What is clear is that if we appeal at the highest
levels, as other countries have done, if this is the number one priority of the
Prime Minister and he talks directly to President Bush, the Bush administration
is sympathetic if we can get the right priority placed on this file.
The government and almost everyone else who is involved
in this circumstance agrees that if we stay the course, go to the World Trade
Organization and to NAFTA panels, we will win.
(1525)
I just want to make it clear that any deal with the
U.S. beyond free trade will cause us permanent long term damage. It is already
clear from the likes of Senator Baucus from Montana and others in government
who are part of the U.S. lumber lobby coalition that any negotiated deal would
have to include restrictions on Canadian lumber.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich--Gulf Islands,
PC/DR):
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the hon. member
a question.
The question that comes up all the time and one we hear
at home is whether we should be linking other commodities. I think most people
are aware that it is generally bad economic policy to start linking one
commodity to another. There is no question about that. It is a very slippery,
dangerous road to go down.
Having said that, the United States is looking for $30
billion to $50 billion in oil and gas. Does the member think there could be
some significance to our Prime Minister getting directly involved with that?
Could it have an impact on the positive outcome of this dispute in the long
term?
Mr. John Duncan:
Mr. Chairman, when it comes to linkage, I think what is
clear to everyone is that what is linked is our two economies. Any restrictions
on softwood lumber are detrimental to both economies. The consumer movement in
the U.S. recognizes it, the Bush administration recognizes it and obviously
Canadians recognize it.
A vastly greater number of jobs in the U.S. are related
to the lumber consuming business rather than to the lumber producing industry.
Both of our economies are somewhat fragile, particularly after the events of
September 11. As housing starts are a big part of that, it is crucial that
lumber flow freely in order to maintain those levels of housing
starts.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the member for
Vancouver Island North what his position and the position of the Alliance is
with respect to the issue of raw log exports.
Many Canadians, certainly British Columbians, are
deeply concerned about the level of raw log exports and are calling for more
value added in the British Columbia forest industry. I wonder if the Alliance
member would agree that we must resist any suggestion of increased export of
raw logs from crown lands and in fact should be doing whatever we can to end
the export of raw logs and ensure that we process those logs and create jobs in
Canada.
(1530)
Mr. John Duncan:
Mr. Chairman, on the issue of raw log exports, I think
the member was referring specifically to British Columbia which is the one
jurisdiction we have where this is a contentious topic.
What I have endorsed is British Columbia, with federal
authority, imposing a border tax equivalent to the 19.3% countervailing tariff
imposed by the U.S. It would level the playing field in terms of whether the
exports are lumber or logs. Some of the industry in British Columbia has
determined that this is a good idea also.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Chairman, I was a bit surprised at the last remark
by the Alliance member.
Do we not in this House all think that, on the essence
of the question, we are fundamentally right, that there is no market where
there is no competition and where Canada's international agreements are not
honoured? Should we not instead be looking for a solution that would eliminate
this type of tariff?
It seems to me, from his position, that the member is
quitting before any steps can be taken toward really settling the matter and
eventually being successful.
I would like him to give me some reassurance, and
ascertain that some form of consensus still exists so that we can claim a
victory in the end. On the essence of the matter, I have no doubt we are right.
We must show appropriate solidarity with our workers and industry and arrive at
a long term solution that does not penalize them.
If we go back to paying this kind of rates, we will not
have gained any ground in the present battle.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the member. We would not
want to impose these in the long term. I was simply suggesting that as long as
a lumber tariff there, which I would like to see gone, it is only appropriate
to have a similar tariff on logs.
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for
International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your allowing me to rise in
the House today to debate a matter of considerable concern to me.
[English]
I am a bit surprised that the Alliance has decided to
consider this to be an emergency debate but has not found the opportunity to
ask any question on this file for the past three weeks.
For anyone to say that this has not been a top priority
for the government is absolutely wrong. On the advice given to us by the member
from Vancouver Island we have been working on it. The Prime Minister has raised
it with the president.
I hear a member saying something but it is my
opportunity to speak. Yesterday the party opposite told the whole House that
the government had not met its targets. It was completely wrong again because
it does not do its homework. The Alliance members have a hard time.
The Chairman:
I would interrupt for a moment. I understand that this
is a very important debate and that is why we are having an emergency debate. I
am not taking sides on this issue but I caution members on both sides of the
discussion to make their comments through the Chair otherwise we might just get
away from the topic and get into something else very different and not as
beneficial.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew:
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to
this, but I want to be quite clear. The Government of Canada has been working
very hard on this file and for a very long time. If we let the softwood lumber
agreement die last March it was not that we had not foreseen its end. It was
that after narrow consultations with industry from all over the country, narrow
consultations with the provinces and the advice of opposition parties there was
a consensus of not renewing that agreement, of letting it die precisely to see
what American producers would then do.
We have been bitterly disappointed with the attitude of
the American producers. We have been extremely disappointed that the Bush
administration has listened narrowly to the U.S. producers' protectionist
demands and has given them everything they have been asking for. We find the
19.3% tariff absolutely indecent. We have found, of course, that in regard to
the inclusion of re-manufacturers, these shops trying to enter value into the
softwood lumber, their inclusion in this litigation is wrong. We also find it
amazing that they found the critical conditions to put that countervailing duty
retroactive.
We have been saying these things loud and clear. I was
in Washington on September 10 and met with both trade representative Zoellick
and secretary of commerce Evans. We made our position very clear: we do want
free trade and we do not believe that we have been subsidizing our softwood
lumber industry.
We reminded them that in 1994 we had a similar dispute.
Panel after panel and court decision after court decision, the softwood lumber
producers lost their case. A billion dollars in taxes that had been collected
by the Americans was given back to the Canadian producers. We won in
1994.
We intend to work very hard. Saying that we have not
done a thing is just so wrong. The member for Vancouver Island North himself
has quoted all the successful things we have done, precisely because of the
very hard work and leadership that our team Canada, non-partisan, above
parties, from all provinces, the east and west of the country, has been able to
do in the United States. A team of members of the House and Senators obtained
great success in Washington. We obtained a letter from a hundred congressmen,
both senators and representatives of the house, who wrote to President Bush
siding with Canada. That has never been seen before.
We have, and the member has quoted it, support from the
consumers, from the coalition for affordable homes in the United States and the
Home Depot people. We have it because we have been doing our work, providing
the leadership that is necessary, promoting our cause in Washington and across
the United States. We had gone through legal action to the WTO before the
actual cases that the Americans have put as pre-emptive strikes in order to
gain some enlightenment from the WTO and to gain some time. We had gone there
months before the end of the softwood lumber agreement, precisely in order to
gain some time.
What we have been doing is with respect to an
extraordinary team Canada that has been really working hard on this front. I am
very pleased that the industry from British Columbia and Quebec and the
provincial governments are participating very well and very strongly in the
discussions in which we are involved. Yes, we are pursuing the WTO and we will
pursue every legal venue that we can to challenge the American allegations.
This is our duty, this is our right and we will win. We know it will take some
time and that is where I fail to understand where the Alliance is on
that.
The Alliance says the only thing they want me as
minister to negotiate is free trade. This is precisely what we want, this is
precisely what we are engaged in and this is precisely why we are having all
these legal challenges. At the same time Alliance members say it is urgent
because people are losing their employment, so they want us do something other
than the legal challenges. That is what I think the position of the Alliance is
although it was pretty vague and I am not sure I understood.
(1535)
We are having sets of parallel discussions, some that
just finished at 2.30 today. For three days we have been meeting in Washington.
Provincial governments are there. Our international trade experts are there. It
is the third such three day meeting we have had and we are finding common
ground, comparing forestry management practices on both sides, finding common
ground to make sure that we can have a better dialogue and hopefully find an
alternative to litigation. However, that has to be done on solid grounds. That
has to be done on grounds that will help our industry.
A member suggested an export tax. He says Americans
want to slash the 19% tax and asks why do we not do so. It would be as bad for
our industry whether I do it or the Americans do it. We want to access the
American market at the level where we should be accessing it. We won in 1994.
They had to give back $1 billion in tax they had collected. Since then all the
provinces have increased their stumpage fees. Therefore, how could we win in
1994, then increase the stumpage fees and not win this time? It is so clear.
The Americans know very well that their case is a bad one and that they will
lose before the WTO.
In order to gain time, because we know that for many
enterprises and many businesses time is of the essence, and unfortunately legal
courses and challenges take time, we have set up these discussions with the
Americans. I want the thank the provincial governments for participating so
well in them. We are really making progress on that front.
The Prime Minister has raised it with President Bush
and we are pursuing every venue possible to find more allies in the United
States. I do believe that our team Canada approach has provided the right and
the best possible eventual outcome for us. However, it is not the time to cave
in. It is not the time to move to any quick fix that some U.S. senators might
be trying to push us into because they realize that they have a bad case. I ask
members to please let us resist their request for a quick fix, thus harming
ourselves, rather than having them harm us for a while but losing
eventually.
(1540)
[Translation]
With respect to softwood lumber, enormous progress has
been made in the past five, six or eight years. We have built Team Canada, in
which Quebec's industry works closely B.C.'s industry and provincial
governments have had long discussions to compare forestry practices.
We know that we do not subsidize our wood. We won in
1994, and since then we have increased our stumpage fees in Quebec and
elsewhere. If we won in 1994, and increased our stumpage fees since, how could
we lose our case this time? Except that, as we know, time is of the essence,
and the courts often take time to decide.
At the moment, we are making considerable progress in
our discussions. I think we could eventually open a dialogue with the Americans
on a basis much more constructive and solid than the previous U.S. bias with
respect to the situation in the Canadian softwood industry.
[English]
The Chairman:
The Chair takes note of the interest in asking the
minister questions. I would hope that with your co-operation I will be able to
accommodate as many of you as possible and also that the minister will respond
as succinctly as possible.
I will begin with the sponsor of the motion, the hon.
member for
Vancouver Island
North.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of quick comments. First,
the official opposition is very aware of the events of September 11. Although
we did not ask questions on this file we certainly made statements in the
House.
I would also like to point out that the minister is
accepting into his rhetoric some revisionist history in terms of the consumer
groups in the U.S. and how they were actually the main architects, long before
the minister even started working with them on some of the congressional
support we got in the U.S.
I would also like to point out that Indonesia seems to
have more leverage than Canada when it comes to forest products. That should be
of some concern to all of us.
My question is, have there been some specific
developments from the three days of talks in Washington which the minister
could announce today? Is that yet to come or is it just that the talks have
concluded and there is nothing of note for us to take home?
(1545)
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew:
Mr. Chairman, this was the third such meeting we have
had. I understand that some common ground has been further developed in the set
of meetings that finished this afternoon, so much so that the participants on
both sides, including the provinces, have agreed to a further set of meetings
in two weeks' time precisely to continue the solid work done so far. The
discussions are continuing, which I think is a very healthy outcome of the
parallel track in which we have engaged.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Chairman, I have just one simple question. I have
received information to the effect that during the discussions over the last
three days, there was talk of temporary measures before a return to full free
trade.
I would like a very clear answer. Is the government in
the process of negotiating temporary measures to reach a settlement with the
United States, which would have the effect of restricting access to the
American market, as was the case in 1996?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew:
Mr. Chairman, my answer is very direct and very simple:
no, our government is not in the process of negotiating with the U.S.
government.
[English]
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Chairman, I have two questions for the minister.
The first is with respect to the issue of enforcement of the Fisheries Act,
which is federal legislation. As the minister will know, under NAFTA there is a
joint independent environmental panel which has come to the conclusion that
there are serious problems in the enforcement by the Government of Canada of
the Fisheries Act, problems that have resulted from some of the forestry
practices and their impact on salmon bearing streams. That is a preliminary
finding by the environmental tribunal under NAFTA. I will ask the minister what
action the federal government is taking to respond to this very serious
concern.
Second, I will ask the minister the same question that
I asked the member for Vancouver Island North. That is with respect to an
assurance from the government that whatever agreement is ultimately signed, it
will not involve any increased export of raw logs from crown lands or undermine
Canada's ability to manage its forests or wood industry in the interests of
Canadians.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew:
Mr. Chairman, I will have to look into the answer to
the first question. I do not know exactly what the member is referring to and I
would not want to speculate on something which I have not been focusing on
seriously. The member deserves a better answer than I could volunteer this
afternoon so I will get back to him on that issue.
On the issue of log exports, I heard the question to
the member for Vancouver Island North. As we know, British Columbia has a
policy of log export controls. That policy is actually implemented by my
department. We have gone to the WTO to find out its answer on whether U.S.
legislation which sees that log export control as a subsidy in a sense is
right. The member will know that the WTO panel has given Canada the answer that
we already knew was right, which is that our log export controls are not a
subsidy. This has undermined a key element of the United States case against
Canada. This was a pre-emptive strike that we took some time ago.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC):
Mr. Chairman, my question is for the minister. We are
all well aware that the U.S. commerce department brought in a countervail of
19.3% on August 10. What we should remember is that it originally asked for
39.9%, which would have completely crippled the industry, not just cost us
30,000 jobs in B.C. and more jobs in Alberta, Quebec and Ontario.
The issue for me is that we were willing to pay the
countervail and we are there now. Did the minister consider at the time
pre-empting the countervail with an export tax? If not, why not?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew:
Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no consensus in our
country to go to an export tax. Not one provincial government supports it. It
is not the proper thing to do, I think, because we are challenging the American
countervailing duties. Doing harm to our own industry is not in my view at all
the sort of leadership we like to offer.
(1550)
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien
(Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, this is the first time in my political
career that I have witnessed a federal minister stand up and defend the rights
of forestry workers in all of the provinces and in Quebec. I am not afraid of
saying it.
There are nonetheless causes for concern. The question
I am asking is not my own but comes from Ms. France Gagnon, of Barraute, chief
executive officer of Précibois. Here is what she said:
As with previous softwood lumber
disputes, it was critical that countervailing duties be applied to the primary
mill rate. The American decision to impose countervailing duties on the final
mill rate means that the non-subsidized primary sector is hit first, and hit
hardest. It is a duty that could decimate an entire industry. |
We are talking about an entire industry in the Abitibi
and in Quebec.
Will the minister be able to exclude the value-added
sector from the trade war immediately?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew:
Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely in agreement with the
hon. member for
Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik and I greatly appreciate
the question from France Gagnon. She is absolutely right.
I have had the opportunity to tell that directly to
U.S. secretary of commerce Donald Evans in Washington on September 10. I found
it unacceptable to include, along with all the rest of the softwood lumber
industry, the lumber remanufacturers, who are adding value to this commodity.
They are not part of the case and ought to have been exempted.
This has been stated very clearly and I trust that
Statistics Canada will be able to provide them with figures that demonstrate
very clearly just how much they ought never to have been included in the
American petition.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe we have been able to
discuss the softwood industry much in recent weeks. It is understandable that
all hon. members were reeling from the shock of the events of September
11.
I believe it is worthwhile holding an emergency debate,
as suggested by the Canadian Alliance, on the softwood lumber industry, since
this week there have been three days of meetings held in Washington between
American officials and Canadian federal and provincial officials.
What is also interesting to note is that the consensus
that gradually developed this past winter and spring to demand for compliance
to the free trade agreement immediately seems to have held up over the
intervening weeks and months.
That consensus was not built up overnight. Discussions
are still being held within the industry in Quebec and at the Canadian
Manufacturers Association. The choice offered to us was either to follow the
legal approach to the end, something that had never been attempted, or to enter
into negotiations with the Americans, and in that context to repeat what
happened in 1986 and 1996.
The wise choice that the Quebec industry made, as did
the other industries and the governments across Canada apparently, was to use
the legal approach all the way. There are very good reasons for this. First, in
the United States—this has already been mentioned, but we do not insist enough
on this in Canada and in Quebec—we have allies among American consumers and
builders. We have a broad range of allies.
I had the opportunity, along with the hon. member for
Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques and the hon. member for
Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis to travel to Washington as part of a
non-partisan delegation of parliamentarians. I was surprised to see that the
U.S. black people's chamber of commerce supports the Canadian position, as do a
number of other consumers associations.
We do have allies, even among U.S. parliamentarians.
The Minister for International Trade mentioned it. This summer, about 100
parliamentarians from both the Senate and the Congress wrote President Bush to
ask him to maintain free trade in the lumber sector, because it was in the best
interests of consumers in the various states that they represent.
It is also important to recall that we are now engaged
in a negotiation process on a free trade area of the Americas. There is
something contradictory in the Americans asking for protectionist measures in
the lumber industry when all the nations of the Americas are talking about
greater trade liberalization. In this regard, I think that President Bush does
have—as the Canadian Alliance member pointed out—a responsibility.
We certainly realize that, following the September 11
events, this may not be at the top of his priorities. However, at some point in
time, if he is the free trader he claims to be, he will have to take steps to
put a stop to the procedures and harassment by the American lumber industry,
particularly since we are now trying to further develop harmonious relations
between all the countries. In my opinion, a prerequisite to such relations is
to settle trade wars that have no real basis.
Another element, which strikes me as important and
enters into the arguments relating to pursuing the legal battle, is the
existence of the World Trade Organization. The rules it is in the process of
developing—a process not yet complete—did not exist at the time of the last
problems, which occurred around 1995-96. Now, with the WTO in place, and
involved in this matter, U.S. legislation is now being challenged by the
Canadian government, and rightly so, moreover.
From the political point of view, the situation is
completely different from what it was in 1996. On the economic level—as the
minister has said—the stumpage fees in Quebec have increased substantially in
recent years. I also want to point out that a study commissioned by the
government of Quebec on stumpage fees in private woodlots reached a very
interesting conclusion.
(1555)
As we know, Quebec has a price setting mechanism. I
believe it is along the same lines as the one applied in the other
provinces--Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia in particular--which take into
consideration the stumpage fees for private woodlots to set the ones for crown
lands.
We are often told that since 90% of forests are under
public administration in Quebec, the private sector could not be taken into
account because it was too heavily influenced by the strong presence of public
forest management.
What is interesting is that the study in question
reaches the same conclusion, from which I shall read an excerpt, because it
seems to me to offer additional proof that there is no subsidy involved in
setting softwood lumber prices in Quebec:
Empirical data indicate that there is
a single price for wood originating in Quebec, New Brunswick or northeastern
U.S., once adjustments are made for the quality and for shipping costs.
|
What we see is that the price of wood in Quebec is the
same as throughout eastern North America. The paradox is that the Atlantic
provinces, including New Brunswick, were excluded from the American process,
more so because their forests are managed privately rather than publicly. But
we can see that price setting comes down to the same thing.
This study clearly shows that prices based on stumpage
fees accurately reflect market prices. This is further proof that there are no
subsidies.
We are right in economic terms. Our environment, in
political terms, is favourable. And yet we face a whole series of legal
proceedings and harassment from part of the industry in the United
States.
The Minister for International Trade and the federal
government will have to take steps to help the industry and those working in
it. They will have to ensure the consensus remains, because, obviously, with
the latest layoffs in British Columbia, among others, the pressure is
tremendous, as we can understand.
The Minister for International Trade and the federal
government will have to use their imagination in coming to the aid of the
industry to help it get through these turbulent times and through the legal
process and come out a winner.
I think the minister mentioned the possibility of the
EDC's providing guarantee for the exporters, which corresponds to the interim
countervailing duties of 19.3%.
Since the minister spoke of it around the end of
August, I think it was August 24, we have heard nothing more. I think this
avenue should be explored, and it seems to me it could help the industry get
through the period better.
There is also the whole issue of employment insurance.
I know that my colleague, the member for
Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, will elaborate on that.
We also have a situation, with the economic downturn, that would allow the
federal government to implement measures, particularly with regard to
employment insurance, that would help industry as a whole, including the lumber
industry, which is suffering the consequences of countervailing duties, and it
will only get worse.
Last, and this is very important, the federal
government and the Minister for International Trade must play a leadership
role. They have done that. I humbly submit that the Bloc Quebecois has
supported the government in its initiatives and has even guided it in some
instances to ensure that it was headed in the right direction. This must
continue.
In this context, it seems important that, following the
meetings between the provinces, there be a summit where the provinces, the
industry and the federal government get together to assess the situation before
the end of October.
I hope we will get through this dispute and that our
interests, which are totally legitimate, will be defended in a context where we
cannot let the might makes right principle prevail, because that would be
contrary to all the work that has been accomplished by Canadians and Quebecers
over the last 60 years.
(1600)
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore,
PC):
Mr. Chairman, I listened intently to the hon. member's
comments and I have a couple of comments and a question.
I think this is an extremely important issue for Quebec
because it supplies 25% of all of Canada's lumber exports. Certainly my
province of Nova Scotia supplies 7%. Timber is an extremely important industry
in Atlantic Canada but at the same time, on a national scale, our part of the
pie is not quite as large as Quebec's.
What has always amazed me is our local Maritime Lumber
Bureau has always done its homework. We have sent delegations to Washington on
an annual basis for many years. We were largely responsible for having Atlantic
Canada excluded from the original softwood lumber deal based on our traditions
with U.S. trade practices and on our stumpage practices.
The issue I am most afraid of at this time is the
anti-dumping legislation that has been imposed. We know we are having a hearing
on that on October 15, but how does the member feel the government has reacted
to that? I think the government has simply allowed this to proceed almost like
a runaway railroad car that is just on the track and moving forward. We have
done nothing to counteract the anti-dumping charges, which are much more
significant than the countervailing ones.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette:
Mr. Chairman, I definitely do not want to criticize the
Atlantic provinces for having done their homework, so as to be excluded from
procedures undertaken by the U.S.
In my opinion, what the Americans should be criticized
for is the main reason that made them go after Quebec and British Columbia in
particular, namely the fact that our forests are managed differently than U.S.
forests and that, in their eyes, public management, which incidentally gives
excellent results, is tantamount to subsidies.
I was able to see this for myself when we met U.S.
officials in Washington. In their mind, it was a simple equation: private
forests means subsidies. To which Canada and Quebec reply that managing our
forests differently does not mean that we do so in an unfair way. I think we
must be clear on this.
As for the anti-dumping issue, we know that it is
businesses themselves that are directly involved. But I think that the federal
and provincial governments have a responsibility to support businesses at a
political and technical level.
I know that a lot has been done. I met with Tembec
officials, among others, who are targeted by this anti-dumping procedure and
they told me that they received very substantial technical support from both
the Quebec and federal governments. I think that we should continue in that
direction.
In my opinion, the whole anti-dumping process is a
measure to increase pressure on the Canadian industry. A settlement based on a
return to free trade would put an end to all these procedures.
I am not psychic, but I hope this is what will happen,
because it is an extremely dangerous and arbitrary process. The investigation
is focused on a few companies but the rights will be imposed on the whole
industry.
We will have to keep a very close eye on this
situation.
(1605)
Mr. Guy St-Julien
(Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier about the Liberal
minister responsible for 2 x 4s, who is here today, I appreciate the efforts of
the hon. member for Joliette. I want to emphasize that. We are here to protect
workers and producers in the forest industry, which is a major part of the
economic base of Abitibi-Témiscamingue. I would like to ask this
question.
Is the study he referred to earlier the one made by Del
Degan, Massé et Associés, in co-operation with the Groupe de recherche en
économique et politique agricole of Laval University?
This study has proven beyond any doubt that the timber
royalties system in Quebec is in line with all the rules on trade between
Canada and the United States and that it cannot be considered an indirect
subsidy for our forest workers and producers.
Is that the study the hon. member was talking
about?
The Deputy Chairman:
I will not ask the hon. member to answer by yes or no,
but would he please keep his answer very short.
Mr. Pierre Paquette:
It is the same study, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill,
NDP):
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to rise today in the
House of Commons to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party in today's
debate on the softwood lumber industry. It is about time we had this debate
because this issue has been dragging for far too long and I am sure my
colleagues here in the opposition feel the same way.
I recognize that since our return on September 17 the
House has been charged with a number of issues related to the terrorist
attacks. I would like to acknowledge the co-operation of all parties to ensure
that this debate took place before we take our Thanksgiving week
break.
My NDP colleagues and I began raising this issue in the
House of Commons last March when it became clear that we were heading into yet
another softwood lumber dispute with the United States. At that time I was
thinking, here we go again. Why do we always end up in these situations
vis-à-vis the United States?
Having recently been appointed the NDP industry critic,
I started looking into the matter back in March. Since then I have had the
opportunity to meet with many people involved in the industry, from the unions
that represent the workers in the industry to the representatives of the lumber
companies that operate in the different regions of our country. That is an
important thing to note. The softwood lumber industry is a national industry,
but the way it is managed and runs differs from region to region. That is why
it is important to listen to people from all the regions to get the proper
national perspective.
In addition to my one on one meetings, I also had the
opportunity to take part in some very good committee meetings on the subject. I
have learned a lot about the softwood lumber industry over the past months. I
have come a long way toward answering that question I was asking myself back in
March, why do we keep ending up in these lumber wars with the U.S.?
The bottom line is that the U.S. is prepared to do
almost anything to keep Canadian lumber from capturing more than 30% of the
U.S. market. Anytime we do that, and it happens because we have a stronger,
more competitive industry than it does, the powerful American lumber companies
and U.S. lumber unions take their clout to Washington and the U.S. government
starts these trade wars.
Each time the Americans start one of these wars, it
ends up getting resolved by a temporary agreement or treaty. The last time was
in 1996 when Canada and the U.S. signed a five year softwood lumber agreement,
a five year ceasefire. The treaty expired in March 2001 and the U.S. went into
its protectionist mode by imposing the 19% tariff on most Canadian lumber.
Because of these tariffs, 15,000 lumber workers have lost their jobs since
April. We have to stop this situation now.
A lot of people wonder how the U.S. can get away with
putting these tariffs on Canadian lumber when we are supposed to have free
trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement is supposed to guarantee the
free movement of goods and trade between our two countries. This shows how weak
and ineffective the NAFTA regime is. Whenever we in the NDP criticize NAFTA for
these kinds of shortcomings our political opponents put on their smokescreens
and say “You New Democrats just oppose open trade”. Well it is not true. We
want open trade with our friends and neighbours in the United States.
The problem is that NAFTA is not good enough. It is
supposed to protect us from unilateral protectionist actions by the U.S. and it
does not. To prove it, look no further than the softwood lumber industry and
the 19% tariff that the U.S. is now putting on Canadian softwood
lumber.
I am not the only one who thinks this way. Allow me to
quote the president and chief executive officer of the Maritime Lumber Bureau,
Ms. Diana Blenkhorn, who told the House of Commons Sub-committee on
International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment that, “The history of NAFTA
to date, relative to softwood lumber, shows it has not done the job, quite
frankly”.
Here is a quote from the same meeting with Mr. David
Emerson, co-chair of the Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance. Mr. Emerson told the
committee: “We do not have any faith in the trade litigation framework that
exists today because it has been designed by the Americans, for American
producers, to be as punitive as it possibly can be”.
NAFTA has not done the job. That is why we have never
reached a final, permanent resolution to this issue. Instead we have gone from
short term agreement to short term agreement with periods of trade wars and
tariffs in between. The last thing we need now is another short term band-aid
solution. What we need is a long term solution to provide stability for the
industry and the people who rely on forestry for their employment.
Again, I am not the only one who thinks we need a long
term solution to break out of this cycle of trade wars. All the business
leaders and unions representing forest workers that I have heard from are
saying the same thing. I would like to quote Mr. Haggard, president of the
Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada Union. This is Canada's largest
forest union.
(1610)
Mr. Haggard told the committee that his union and the
forest workers he represents were prepared to live with the short term pain of
the current tariffs for up to two years if the federal government used the time
to craft a real long term solution so that this would be the last time we have
to go through this process.
The unions and business agreed that the solution was
open trade with the U.S. The forest industry and unions told us they were
prepared to ride out the storm a little longer if we could secure a permanent
end to the bullying U.S. protectionist measures rather than another short term
band-aid solution.
However the problem is that the Liberal government is
not doing that. It should be standing up for Canadian jobs and industry, and
instead it knuckles under to the U.S. There is so much it could be doing to
help Canadian forest workers and to protect jobs but it is not doing any of
it.
Where is the income assistance plan for the 15,000
people who have been laid off? We in the NDP called for that two months ago and
we have not heard a peep from the Liberal government. Where are the measures to
stop the export of raw logs to the U.S.? Exporting raw logs rather than
processing them in Canada is like the export of jobs. We have been calling on
the Liberal government for years to help keep these jobs in Canada.
It should be working with industry to develop our
processing capacity so that we could export more finished wood products instead
of raw logs and keep the processing jobs in Canada where they
belong.
We need the federal government to stand up for Canada's
right to manage our forests in an environmentally sustainable way. In our
federal system conserving and managing forests is a provincial responsibility.
In Manitoba most forestry takes place on provincial crown land and each year
the province sets quotas for the lumber companies. In that way the provincial
government is able to balance the needs of industry with the imperative that we
sustain our forests and our environment.
However the maritime provinces manage their forests
differently than Manitoba. In New Brunswick, for example, most of the forests
are privately owned and not on crown land.
I prefer Manitoba's way of doing it because it is more
environmentally friendly, but I recognize this is a decentralized federation.
Each province is different and has the right to chart its own course in areas
of provincial jurisdiction.
The U.S. has been saying that it likes the way some
provinces manage their forests but not others. It wants to force us to change
the way we manage our forests to the least environmentally sustainable model.
It calls the crown land model used by Manitoba and other provinces to protect
the environment an unfair subsidy.
This is unacceptable and the federal government needs
to stand up to the U.S. and say that it is not a subsidy. It is environmental
management and the U.S. has no business interfering in our federal-provincial
division of powers.
The NDP wants to see open trade with the U.S. without
compromising our right to manage and preserve our forests for future
generations. We need sustainable forest management to maintain jobs now and in
the future so that there will always be enough trees for future generations to
harvest. We need fair and open access to the U.S. market through effective and
balanced trade deals, not unbalanced trade deals like the one we have
now.
(1615)
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain,
BQ):
Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to my colleague from
Churchill who said that she has no confidence in the present system with the
Americans to solve the problem. I would tend to agree with her because it is
not the first time that we have a situation where we are forced to go to court
to see justice done.
This is, however, the system we are dealing with now.
Even though we are looking forward to a sustainable solution, as the member
said earlier, in the meantime, we have an industry that is being penalized at a
time when there is high unemployment and when we know that the immediate future
is quite gloomy.
I would have liked to ask the question either to the
minister or to my colleague, but I will ask the member for Churchill. Until we
solve the problem for good, in my riding of Champlain--as in the Abitibi, which
my colleague mentioned, and I know the situation is the same everywhere in
Quebec--we are especially penalized since the forest industry is a base
industry in our area.
Until the problem is solved, people will be unemployed.
Would tit not be possible, for instance, to use the unemployment insurance
program or some other program to compensate the industry, to help it survive
and to reduce the pressure on the unemployed? It is actually the workers who
are paying for a problem that has cropped up between two governments. Does the
member think that the government should take temporary measures to help the
workers now?
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais:
Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, without question. We have
been calling on the government for some time to utilize the EI program. It was
intended to be there for drops in employment and when there are massive layoffs
so that we can keep our economy stabilized and provide support for
workers.
The EI was not intended as a cash cow for the finance
minister but that is what it has been used for. We must make sure the EI
program is there to provide support for unemployed workers including forestry
workers
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Churchill for
her very thoughtful comments. As members know I am from the province of British
Columbia. British Columbia was particularly hard hit by the punitive tariffs of
19.3%. It has been estimated that as many as 15,000 jobs may have been lost
since the tariffs were imposed. We want to voice our very strong solidarity
with the workers and communities that were affected.
I note that IWA-Canada has launched a national
campaign, which we strongly support, to protect Canadian jobs and communities
in the face of these bullying U.S. protectionist tactics.
On Wednesday this week the Interfor mill in Squamish
announced that it was shutting down. That is another 170 workers out of a job.
There are no transitional measures whatsoever for these folks.
The Minister of Human Resources Development indicated
today that the employment insurance system was working just fine. It is not
working for the airline industry and it is not working for these workers
either.
Does my colleague agree it is critically important we
make it clear to the U.S. government that access for Canadian manufactured wood
products entering the U.S. market has to be a prerequisite to any future trade
agreements between our two countries?
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais:
I certainly agree with my colleague, Mr. Chairman. I
will touch on the unemployment issue just to reinforce again the need for the
EI fund to be used for what it was intended. Only one in five unemployed
workers in Canada is able to access employment insurance in spite of this
year's $17 billion surplus in the EI fund. It is irresponsible of the
government for not using that money for what it was intended.
With regard to future trade agreements, it is without
question that those are the types of issues that the New Democratic Party feels
are missing from these trade agreements. Those types of rules must be put in
place to benefit our workers, industry and environment. It is better overall
for sustainability when we have an enhanced use of our resources. I agree with
the hon. member that we must do that.
(1620)
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR):
Mr. Chairman, I commend the member for Vancouver Island
North for bringing forward this emergency debate. The issue has taken a human
toll. It truly is an emergency that needs to be dealt with and that is why it
was appropriate for him to bring this debate forward.
The Canadian softwood lumber industry exports about $11
billion a year to the United States. Almost half of that comes from British
Columbia. The current countervail duty of 20% imposed by the United States
amounts to $1 billion a year out of the British Columbia economy and $2 billion
a year out of the Canadian economy.
Those are pretty big numbers for people to comprehend,
but let us talk about the human toll. We have lost well over 15,000 jobs in
British Columbia. The potential job loss across Canada is 25,000 and that
number is expected to double by the end of the year. That will be 50,000 jobs
in Canada alone.
It is critical that we have this discussion and move
the ball forward to find a solution. Throughout the interior of British
Columbia and on Vancouver Island we have many single industry communities that
rely solely on the forest industry. These communities cannot survive and will
become ghost towns if the issue is not resolved quickly.
The human toll will be enormous. It goes much deeper
than just people losing their jobs. The 50,000 lost jobs can be exponentially
increased to hundreds of thousands of Canadians that would be affected:
workers, families and their children. Economic hardship is incredibly difficult
for families.
The situation is in crisis proportion and it is an
emergency that needs to be dealt with. We have been to the WTO and various
international tribunals on three separate occasions. We have won every time but
we need to do more.
Canada has a strong case. We are fighting this through
every process. I applaud the minister for the pre-emptive strikes in regard to
the raw log exports. That argument has been successfully taken away from the
Americans. However the issue is so serious that our Prime Minister has to
become directly involved with the president of the United States.
The current United States administration claims that it
is a free trader: Robert Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative, Secretary of
Commerce Donald Evans and President Bush.
Now is the time when our Prime Minister should be
holding their feet to the fire. We have every right to be going at them quite
aggressively on this issue. Our Minister for International Trade and our Prime
Minister had conversations with U.S. representatives. Our Prime Minister spoke
with President Bush. He has even raised other issues such as energy, which was
probably the appropriate place.
It is bad economic policy to start linking various
commodities. We would go down a slippery slope if we were to look at the kind
of overall trade we have with the United States.
(1625)
Definitely we need to do more. The human toll is
enormous, absolutely phenomenal. We have to be more aggressive on this issue
and look for solutions.
The events that happened on September 11 have shaken
all of us. They have affected our lives, how we feel and what we do. They have
affected this dispute as well. It was not appropriate to discuss this issue in
the weeks following the attacks. We needed to deal with the aftermath. We
needed to support our friends to the south, to be there shoulder to shoulder.
However I think this issue should be brought back to the table.
I thank the Minister for International Trade for being
present for this debate. I also commend the member for Vancouver Island North
who brought the debate forward. It was questioned earlier whether it should
have been an emergency debate. It is an emergency. This is a crisis. Look at
the job losses and the communities that are affected. Throughout British
Columbia it is enormous.
There are a few hurdles in front of us as well. The
protectionist forces in the United States will go to great lengths to lobby
their government. We need to take them on.
The anti-dumping issue is coming up on October 15. We
are expecting some kind of decision on the anti-dumping issue and if they come
forward with that, it will be catastrophic against our industry.
Some $2 billion has been sucked out of our economy, but
more important than the money, it has affected thousands of jobs, some 50,000
jobs. That is what hits home. It is creating a turmoil for hundreds of
thousands of Canadians and their families.
I encourage the minister to do more at the head of
state level and the ministerial level. The Prime Minister and the president,
and the minister and his counterpart must be creative in finding solutions. We
cannot back down. We know we are right, as he has stated before. We have been
to the international tribunals.
If it takes a year or 18 months for the issue to wind
its way through the international tribunals, I am afraid there will be nothing
left to recover in some of our industries and the remote communities in Quebec,
Atlantic Canada and British Columbia. That simply will not be good enough. Our
government will be faced with a much greater crisis.
There are things we can do in getting involved at that
level. The Americans are looking for help in oil and gas. I emphasize that it
is not good public economic policy to make these direct links, but they are
desperately looking for help in those areas. We should give it to them, but at
the same time we should expect them to honour free trade and be the free
traders they claim to be.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments by my colleague
who also is from Vancouver Island.
I want to pick up on something the minister said
earlier. Perhaps the member would have a comment on it. It had to do with 1994.
We heard the minister talking about how we went to dispute resolution at that
time and we won. The Americans were obliged to pay us back $1 billion. That was
great.
This is not 1994. British Columbia has been through a
terrible economic turmoil since that time, particularly in the forest industry.
We still had a very substantial Asian market in the early 1990s but when the
Asian flu hit and knocked the socks out of our western forestry exports to the
Asian market, suddenly the American market became much more important.
In my riding mills have gone down. A lot of the mills
that were there in 1994 have not made the cut. There has been a devastating
effect. It has created a new sense of urgency. There are hundreds of mill
workers in my riding.
Would my colleague comment on the effects of the Asian
flu and what it has done to the B.C. economy?
(1630)
Mr. Gary Lunn:
Mr. Chairman, the member talked about the decision of
an international tribunal in 1994.
The real challenge that faces this dispute is that we
are fighting U.S. domestic law. That is the problem.
As the minister of course will know, with the Byrd
amendment, basically all the countervail duties being collected under this new
U.S. domestic law is paid to the U.S. forestry industry. Talking about
subsidies, the Canadian industry which is in tough shape is directly
subsidizing the U.S. industry.That is why we have to be aggressive and stop
this.
Our industry cannot survive a year, two years. We have
to get aggressive on this and find solutions. I sense there is a willingness by
some of our counterparts in the U.S., but it is time for us to get tough on
this issue. We have to move forward and find a solution.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague has made a good
point but I would note that fortunately, President Bush has suspended the Byrd
amendment. It is very important that we clarify that.
The member mentioned head of state consultations. Maybe
he is not aware that when the Prime Minister met President Bush on September 24
on the terrible attacks that took place, even then he had an opportunity when
it was appropriate to raise softwood lumber.
What more does the member think the Prime Minister and
the Minister for International Trade could possibly do? They continue to raise
the issue at their appropriate high levels, given the reality that the tone has
changed somewhat in light of the atrocious attacks on the United
States.
Mr. Gary Lunn:
Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that it was absolutely
appropriate to change the tone.
I know that the minister had discussions in recent days
with his counterparts in the U.S. I know that the Prime Minister has met the
president of the United States on numerous occasions. I am also aware that the
Minister for International Trade within the next two weeks will be meeting face
to face with the U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick. I am sure this will
be the first issue that comes out of his mouth.
Why is this an emergency debate? I want to bring it
back to the human element. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians and their
families are affected. This is tearing them apart. It is going to devastate
communities. That is why this is an emergency debate. That is why it is
appropriate. The situation is critical.
The minister knows that the Prime Minister is talking
to President Bush. The parliamentary secretary knows. We have read about it in
the papers. But all that the people in these industries know is that they got
their pink slips and they have no jobs. Their lunch pails are empty. They are
not bringing anything home to their families. They want a solution. That is all
they care about. They want to see something happen.
I know we have a tough road ahead of us, but we sense
there is a willingness by some of the people in the United States to resolve
the issue. If ever there were a time for our government to ratchet it up, that
time is now. I do not think we should concede anything. This is about the
families. It is about the jobs. It is time that we put the pressure on again. I
look forward to the government doing that.
The Chairman:
I want to remind everyone that the conclusion of this
first round also concludes the question and comment period following the
speeches.
(1635)
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Chairman, as has already been alluded to, much of
our attention over the last few weeks quite rightly has been absorbed by the
tragic events of September 11. That goes without saying. The aftershocks that
have followed those events have impacted our economy in a very serious way.
They have contributed to large scale layoffs in the airline industry, just as
one example.
[Translation]
These last weeks, there has been more and more bad
news. Thousands of job cuts have been announced, particularly in the Montreal
area, with the closing of the GM plant, massive layoffs at Air Canada, many job
losses in British Columbia, bad news for the aviation industry, and so on.
[English]
It is important to recall that before September 11 the
Canadian economy was already facing a huge and looming crisis due to the
government's inaction in settling the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber
dispute.
There has been a great deal of concern expressed in the
House, and quite rightly, about the loss of some 5,000 jobs at Air Canada. We
should be concerned about that. However, we have seen far less concern from the
government on the loss of jobs for some 30,000 people who have been laid off
due to the United States' imposition of the 19.3% softwood lumber tariff. The
effect of this has been huge.
On October 15 we expect another ruling on the alleged
dumping of Canadian softwood. That could impose even more devastating tariffs
and devastating results on the industry. Some people have said that in the
minds of many Canadians, the lumber industry seems to be treated as an
afterthought by the government. They wonder if it is because it is not located
in the industrial heartland of central Canada. Many people are asking what the
problem is.
It is a great opportunity for the government to show
with action and not just words that it really does care about this industry.
These kinds of questions are being asked by Canadians. It is a great
opportunity for the government to show its concern with action.
Lumber is Canada's largest industrial sector. It is
bigger than automobiles. Canadians especially in rural communities rely heavily
on the lumber industry. They expect the federal government to give this number
one industry a number one priority when it comes to trading relationships.
Frankly one of the reasons we are in this crisis is
that the government was asleep at the switch on this file. Members of the
Canadian Alliance and before that the Reform Party stood right here in the
House literally for years warning that something had to be done before the
agreement expired last April 1. Nothing was done. We can check Hansard.
Time and time again the warnings went out. We knew that the softwood lumber
agreement was temporary. The federal government knew it was a temporary
agreement. The government had five years to lay the groundwork for when the
agreement would come to an end and it did not happen.
The groundwork needed to be laid so that based on the
principles of free and fair trade, this issue could be settled as the agreement
ended. The government delayed taking any position on the agreement until it was
too late. While we were calling for the government to openly push for free
trade in lumber, it was not focused on the issue at all. That is a matter of
history and it is a matter of fact.
Rather than spending four or five years building a
coalition for free trade with the United States by getting down there and
talking to consumer groups and home builders and senators, the government in
the time before April 1 did nothing to explain the Canadian case in great
detail especially to elected representatives on the U.S. side.
Last spring I was in the United States and met with
Vice-President Cheney on this issue. Later the same day I met with U.S. Senator
Larry Craig of Idaho. He was one of the leaders in petitioning the president of
the United States to go along with this countervail, this tariff against
Canadian lumber. Vice-President Cheney has a reputation for being up on all the
issues and I believe he is. To my amazement, he and Senator Craig seemed to
lack an understanding of many of the pertinent details relating to Canadian
lumber.
When I explained to them the details of our having won
this case three times before, by the types of questions they were asking they
seemed to be interested. Obviously Senator Craig, being a senator, listens to
his constituents who are appealing to him to impose some kind of tariff.
The lack of preparation by the federal government was
evident. It simply was not done. I would have expected the government and our
embassy to have been down there not just days and weeks but months and years
before the agreement came to an end preparing and putting in place rules based
on free and fair trade for the future. It appears they have been sitting on
their hands. Some industry groups have come together to try to deal with this
issue.
What should we be doing as MPs? Certainly constantly
raising the issue here is important, but we could do more. Members of
parliament in a non-partisan way should put together a group and go to the
United States. They should talk to those key senators, talk to the
representatives and make sure they understand the issue. They should talk to
the consumer groups down there.
(1640)
It is never too late for us to pursue the work that
should have been done beforehand and push this issue on a parallel side, in a
non-partisan way, with members of parliament from all sides of the House. We
have to.
Obviously, this issue could go all the way to the World
Trade Organization. However, it would be far better if we could convince the
United States administration and the U.S. congress to drop this case, not by
cutting some kind of a side deal that will lead to ongoing export tax but in
fact by dealing with it. It can be done. It is possible. I would suggest that
this post-September 11 environment in which we now live may actually give us a
new opportunity to pursue this.
In a meeting I had with the U.S. ambassador a few days
after the awful events of September 11, we talked about this particular issue.
I said that we would in very appropriately and dignified way handle the issue,
that we would not let it go. Obviously while our American friends were going
through this terrible time, we would not politically pound away at something. I
shared with him the issue of jobs and livelihood for 30,000 people, and it will
be in the tens of thousands more, being absolutely critical. We talked about
that.
The minister is saying that we will plod on, work our
way toward WTO and hope to win that one, and believes we will. However, the
devastation in the industry and among families will be huge. We recently saw
the Bush administration, virtually with the stroke of a pen, remove a tariff on
some products from other trading partners to build coalitions.
In that context of debate, Indonesia had duties removed
from plywood exports to the tune of something like $200 million a year. I am
sincerely glad for the people of Indonesia and their industry. What about
Canada? Where are we on this particular file? We need to be there.
The government is not prepared to go to the United
States, and I do not mean through the meetings that are being set up now with
the industry groups, and take the initiative in a way that is visible and
dignified but forceful, even at this particular time. It is not prepared to put
together a non-partisan team so that the United States will know that this is
not political, that we are concerned about our constituents and that believe we
are standing on the principles of free and fair trade.
A non-partisan delegation recently went to New York
City to send a message of sharing grief and condolences, not just for the
Americans but also for Canadians. We need to and we can put together a
non-partisan delegation the same way.
[Translation]
This non-partisan delegation of representatives of the
people in Washington will allow us to clearly establish our country's
commitment to free trade, particularly in the softwood lumber industry. Quebec
and British Columbia are the two provinces most affected by losses in the
softwood lumber industry. Thousands of families are waiting for us to act
quickly to defend their interests with our American friends and
allies.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, I badly wish there were questions and
comments because I have two or three very serious questions for the leader of
the official opposition. I hope I will have an opportunity to take them up with
him. Perhaps he will attend the trade subcommittee which will deal with these
issues and we will have a chance for a fuller exchange there.
I am disappointed to hear the Leader of the Opposition
reach into his bag of tricks and pull out the old regional fears of playing
B.C. against Ontario and against the other provinces. The country deserves
better at this time. The federal government cares about all regions of this
country.
I would like to invite the Leader of the Opposition to
come to Northern Ontario, to those communities which are very dependent on
softwood lumber. I would like him to come with us to Quebec where he will
realize that 25% of the softwood lumber exports come from the province of
Quebec. B.C. is critical in this issue, but this is not just important to B.C.
This is a national issue. It is important to all regions of Canada.
I hear hon. members opposite say of course, but they
would not have drawn that conclusion from the partisan regionally divisive
comments that we just sadly heard from the Leader of the Opposition. It really
was regrettable.
The Leader of the Opposition is somehow very badly
misinformed. He talks about non-partisan groups going to the United States. I
participated in a non-partisan effort to go to the United States, Washington
specifically, in June with colleagues from all parties of the House of Commons.
I believe his party participated. It was certainly invited to participate. I
understand the critic could not attend.
A second group went in July. I heard the critic say
that he participated in that. I am glad he was there. Would he then inform his
leader that the government has encouraged several non-partisan visits to the
United States, efforts to build consensus and to look at the root causes.
The leader spoke about consumer groups that have
appeared somehow magically in the U.S. and the business groups that support our
position.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, for a little indulgence from
the other side. I did not once interrupt the leader of the
opposition.
(1645)
The Chairman:
Order, please. Let us take a pause for a moment. I know
sometimes when we get into a round of debate where we no longer have questions
and comments we are not able to get some of that steam out of the air. Given
the importance of the subject matter, with so many members here from both sides
of the House to participate, and given the very limited time, I do not want to
interrupt any more than absolutely necessary.
Mr. Pat O'Brien:
Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition says I
incite them. They are easily incited.
I listened very carefully to the hon. member's
comments. With all due respect, I just do not think he is correct in the
statements that he made. Those statements need to be challenged by the
government and they will be challenged.
This is the most serious trade dispute that exists
bilaterally between our two nations. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are directly
at stake. Some 300 Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast, including
B.C., but not just in B.C., have 50% at least of their livelihood depending on
the softwood lumber industry.
Of some 100 million jobs in all regions of Canada,
including central Canada and B.C. and the Atlantic, one is six jobs of them
indirectly or directly related to the softwood lumber industry.
What has the government done? It has repeatedly and
consistently challenged the false accusations of the American industry and the
American government that have been made about our softwood lumber industry.
This is the fourth time that we face this challenge now from the United States.
In the three previous cases these allegations were not
substantiated.
The reality is this. This is an issue of U.S.
protectionism and the fact that the Americans are very unhappy with the
Canadian industry having gained a 34% market share in the United States. That
is really what this is all about.
Through the efforts of the Canadian government, led by
the Minister for International Trade, with the close co-operation of the
Canadian embassy in Washington, we have for many months now been building
alliances in the United States, exactly as the Leader of the Opposition
suggests, belatedly. Action has been going on for a long time to recruit some
150 members of the U.S. congress who support our position to inform and work
with major companies like Home Depot . They support our position to recruit
consumer groups that understand that they could be paying up to $4,000 more on
a new home. Why? To simply protect less competitive U.S. lumber
operations.
Those efforts did not just come out of thin air. The
Government of Canada has taken the lead in helping make sure that groundwork
was done. The Leader of the Opposition put forward some good suggestions. It is
just that they are late and they have already been going on for some
time.
We have a good consensus of the industry in Canada, the
provinces and territories, that what we want is free trade in softwood
lumber.
As the minister pointed out, there was no sort of a
willy-nilly decision that we just woke up and the softwood lumber agreement is
over. There was a conscious decision after very wide consultations that this
agreement would be allowed to run out. Why? Because what we desire is free
trade in softwood lumber.
If the United States had not taken the action that it
has taken, we would be in a situation where softwood lumber prevails.
Unfortunately, the Americans again for the fourth time in 20 years have taken
this protectionist action. Of course we have been and will continue to
challenge that at every opportunity.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly raised this issue
with President Bush, as I said. The Minister for International Trade has
repeatedly raised the issue with Secretary Evans and with trade representative
Zoellick. We are challenging these allegations of the United States at the WTO.
We have requested a panel where five specific challenges will be launched about
the American allegations.
We know that the United States congress is split on the
issue. There are a few protectionist senators who are leading the charge
against this and are now being mischievous, some sending letters to Canadian
parliamentarians suggesting that we now self-impose a tax that will help them
out of a situation that they know they will lose. They will lose this trade
action again.
What is the unfortunate reality in this? My colleague,
the Minister for International Trade, I and our government knows this very
well. Unfortunately, this kind of a decision does not come really quickly.
Unfortunately, there is pain to be borne unfairly by Canadian companies,
producers and workers because the United States is not living up to what it
claims to be, which is free traders.
(1650)
Discussions went on in Toronto last week and are going
on in Washington this week. Progress is being made to find the root causes of
this so we can come to a solution outside of litigation. As long as those
efforts are bearing fruit then they ought to proceed.
At the same time we are moving on several other fronts,
whether it be ministers and government leaders talking to American leaders or
whether it be Canadian officials taking the necessary steps for the WTO
challenges.
The reality is that Canada is right in this issue. Our
case has stood up every time it has been challenged and it will stand up
again.
I applaud the Minister for International Trade for the
wide consultation. A number of members on the other side of the House have
indicated that there has been very wide consultation. That has continued and
will continue. As long as there is a consensus in the industry for us to
continue down this path then the government will continue to vigorously defend
our interests in softwood lumber.
The solution really is free trade. It is not
regionalism. It is not the unfortunate comments that I heard from the Leader of
the Opposition to play B.C. against Ontario or Quebec. Those are not the
sentiments that we need at this time. We need a united effort. The Canadian
people will accept nothing else.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien
(Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.):
Mr. Chairman, I rise today because it is not just that.
All the political parties and provincial governments are getting
involved.
I am first and foremost a former forestry worker in the
Abitibi and the economy of the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region is largely based on
lumber and mining.
As I said earlier, we too make the rounds of our vast
regions. In Quebec's great Abitibi--Témiscamingue region, resolutions are being
passed all over the place. People are getting involved.
On September 12, for instance, the Témiscamingue RCM
proposed a resolution at a meeting where county councillors and mayors were
present. The meeting was chaired by Philippe Barette, the mayor of
Témiscamingue and reeve of the RCM.
These people say in their resolution, which they sent
directly to the minister and to the federal government, that they are opposed
to the imposition by the United States of countervailing duties on Canadian
lumber. They ask that the government:
|
--energetically oppose the imposition of countervailing duties
by the United States on Canadian lumber and ensure that resource regions are
treated justly and fairly. |
It is the same thing with the town of Senneterre. We
see what is happening in resource and northern regions. It is important to say
it and not just make fine speeches about what we do in the House of Commons.
There are small municipalities that take the time to pass resolutions. I have
one here from the town of Senneterre, a municipality administered by mayor
Gérard Lafontaine and the councillors. They say:
Whereas the United States is unfairly
invoking a sudden and massive increase in Canadian exports, and also subsidies
to the industry to justify their action— |
This an excerpt from a resolution passed on September
14. These are all resolutions that were adopted recently.
I want to go back to the case of Précibois in Barraute,
a company that employs forestry workers. France Gagnon clearly indicated to the
Quebec and Canadian governments that the value added sector must immediately be
excluded from this trade war because it affects our forestry workers, either at
the plant or in the bush.
Processing industries operate under unique conditions
that were not taken into account by the United States. The decision made on
September 4 by the United States trade department to impose countervailing
duties of 19.3% on softwood lumber, based on our declared value rather than on
first processing value, is contrary to American practice in previous disputes
and will have serious consequences for our secondary producers and wholesalers
in Canada. The Canadian government believes this decision is not based on any
law nor any fact, and is urging the United States to cancel it.
One must read the papers. At present, people are afraid
of retroactive measures. If, in the coming weeks or the coming months, a long
term fixed rule is adopted, with one time countervailing duties applied
retroactively for several months, during the summer, that will hurt, in the
Abitibi and Quebec especially.
Nobody cuts wood on Wellington Street in Ottawa, or on
Sainte-Catherine Street, in Montreal, or on Grande-Allée in Quebec City. That
activity goes on in resource regions, especially if it is permanent. The
Abitibi--Témiscamingue will be out of breath. I believe in Liberal minister's
competence, I know he is working hard to get a victory for us and we will have
that victory with the governments.
The government of Quebec decided to do everything it
could to demonstrate, as it successfully did in 1991, that the forestry regime
in Quebec does not in any way subsidize the softwood lumber industry. That is
why Quebec is doing so well in its battle, with the help of every political
party at the provincial and federal levels. However let me be clear on one
thing. According to a study, referred to earlier, which was carried out in
Quebec:
In Quebec, the price of timber stands
on private lands is used as a benchmark to estimate the stumpage fees paid to
the crown for trees taken out of a timber berth. The purpose of the study was
to confirm the suitability and the legitimacy of this estimate in the context
of free trade. |
(1655)
Consultants were asked to answer three basic questions:
Are timber stands on Quebec private forests competitive? Are they
representative of the world market for timber stands? And finally, are they
properly assessed?
According to the study, the answer to all three
questions was an unqualified yes. Therefore, the study confirms our claims and
supports the answers we provided to the United States department of commerce
last June.
I think it is important to stress that this recent
study, which was very well done, confirms, clarifies and reinforces Quebec's
position on this issue.
Under the current as well as the previous governments,
Quebec has always been in favour of free trade, and we believe that we can
benefit from easier access to the America market and still fully comply with
the NAFTA and international trade rules.
The position, which is now supported by this study, is
very clear: our timber market from private lands is competitive and
representative. It is that market that determines fairly the level of stumpage
fees for timber from public lands.
That means that free market rules are fully respected.
We disagree with any measure that would limit trade, such as the introduction
of quotas and countervailing duties, which would hurt Quebec's forest
industry.
That is the most important thing. We must think about
the industry, about workers, about families. Our forests are located mostly in
our resource regions. I understand that there are certain disputes. I have to
mention the James Bay situation. The James Bay Cree have vested rights in that
area under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and they defend those
rights.
I hope that, one day, the Cree from James Bay will be
able to sit with people from the forest industry to try to find a solution to
the logging issue in the northern part of the James Bay area.
In closing, I must say that I trust the minister, to
whom I referred earlier as the Liberal minister responsible for 2 x 4s. We will
win this battle together, with the opposition parties and the government, and
one day we will be able to refer to this Liberal minister as the minister
responsible for 4 x 4s.
(1700)
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member of the Canadian
Alliance for calling for this debate, and the Chair for allowing it this
evening.
Softwood lumber is something we have been following
closely for some months, because it requires constant attention.
For those in our audience who might not necessarily be
very familiar with the issue, the American market for Canadian and Quebec
softwood lumber is a very vital one for us.
The Americans have imposed a countervailing duty of
19.3% as the result of a preliminary decision by the American department of
industry; this would be somewhat retroactive if maintained. The Bloc Quebecois
has intervened on several occasions in order to seek massive support in the
House for the return to free trade in softwood lumber. Why? Because softwood
lumber producers in Quebec and in Canada have developed a highly competitive
product capable of going for a better price in the U.S. market than many U.S.
products. This is, moreover, acknowledged by U.S. consumers, who want to see
quality lumber from Canada available in their country, because it would bring
their house prices down.
We are fighting a major battle. It is vital we convince
the Americans, at all levels, of the relevance of our position. I think that,
in this regard, we must as members of the opposition serve as watchdog to
ensure the government is not transforming the information and discussion
sessions into negotiation sessions.
The Minister for International Trade has confirmed this
was not the case. We accept his word and hope things continue this way. A lot
of effort was put into winning the battle in the preceding months.
I myself went to Washington with a non-partisan
delegation of members, including the member for Joliette and the member for
Rimouski--Neigette-et-la
Mitis. We went to meet American representatives. I met someone
from Louisiana who thought Canadian softwood lumber competed with his softwood
lumber production in Louisiana. We had a discussion and in the end he
understood that the softwood lumber produced in Louisiana did not compete with
that produced in Canada.
This sort of intervention, on a small scale, between
individuals, means that today the Americans have a better understanding of the
facts. There is still a way to go and we must make sure we carry on.
In that sense, the visit of the Bloc Quebecois leader
in my riding in late August has shown that both producers and workers want to
keep fighting until we reach our ultimate goal, to restore free
trade.
Obviously there is a short term negative impact. For
example, the price of lumber tends to drop in Canada. With a 19% tariff, we
have oversupply on the Canadian market and that tends to put pressure on the
price. Our producers will have to live with that. Also their benefits have
dropped and ultimately jobs are lost.
Speaking of which, we will need to show solidarity if
we are to stand fast to the end, until we get a final decision. One of the
things we should do, and I urge the government to do it, is make sure that
during that difficult period there is a special effort to diversify regional
economies and to adjust the employment insurance plan.
The people who will be laid off a little sooner because
there are fewer jobs in Quebec cutting, processing and shipping wood to the
United States because of countervailing duties deserve a chance at EI benefits
for a reasonable number of weeks.
For example, in all regions where forestry is a major
industry, people could be allowed to qualify with 420 hours of work, rather
than something higher if the rate of unemployment is not very high. There is
therefore work to be done with respect to the EI plan.
Efforts could also be made to diversify forestry
products. A particular effort is required in the next few years because, every
time we export softwood lumber which has been processed, it is not affected by
countervailing duties. This takes the pressure off and would give us an
argument in our discussions with the Americans.
(1705)
It is important that there be this kind of debate. It
is important that we make it clear that we are behind the position Canada is
now defending, provided that it defends it all the way.
The worst thing would be to return to an agreement like
the one we had before, which expired on March 31.
We have come too far to go back to a position like
that. Let us hope that there will be an outcome which sees the end of
countervailing duties and that the Americans will also recognize that free
trade is the way of the future.
The free trade agreement signed with the Americans
concerned a number of areas. Why not respect it? It would be to everyone's
benefit.
Talks are now underway. They are not negotiations but
if they lead to a long term free trade solution, so much the better. That is
what we must hope for.
Many people showed maturity in this area. The Quebec
government mandated Pierre-Marc Johnson, a former Quebec premier, to ensure
that the Quebec position was well championed. We also contributed to the study
that my colleague from Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik referred to earlier, a very
serious study, which showed that in fact Quebec was not giving any hidden
subsidy to the softwood lumber industry, that we can compete on the North
American market and that we are looking forward to an open market.
I hope that all of these positions, those adopted by
Quebec, the other provinces and the federal government, bring us closer to a
sustainable solution, a solution that will ensure that we will not have to deal
with the present situation again in five or ten years.
Let us not forget that the five year agreement that
came to an end on March 31 had a somewhat negative impact on productivity.
American businesses took advantage of this period to catch up somewhat in terms
of productivity, while the best would have won had the market remained fully
open.
This is what we are prepared to live with on the
competition level. We are ready to live with the Americans and the producers of
North America. We believe we are able to take on the challenge and take our
share of the market.
This is evidenced by the fact that, during the five
years of the agreement allowing countervailing duties, those Canadian provinces
that were not included had an advantage that I would describe as unfair in some
respects.
If we could come back to full free trade, then there
would be a level playing field. My riding is adjacent to the maritimes. In the
last five or six years, exports have increased considerably throughout Canada,
but particularly in the maritimes. Indeed, we had to predict the part of the
duty that we had to make up for.
We must follow the situation very closely. Now that the
international situation is stabilizing somewhat, that the terrible events of
September 11, which we will never be able to put right, are behind us, we are
trying to see if we can make up for the negative effects they have had on the
economy.
In a region like mine, entire villages are economically
dependent on the lumber industry. I am talking about villages that members do
not necessarily know, small communities of 500, 1,000 or 1,500 in the
Témiscouata region. I am also talking about small towns. All these communities
depend on the lumber industry and we must find a satisfactory solution for
their sake.
The workers who live in these communities that have
achieved a good productivity level in co-operation with local industries
deserve that we go to the end of the negotiation process. That is what I want.
I want us to continue to apply pressure and to make compromises. Some
interesting and promising meetings are going on right now and we want them to
continue.
I was told that there was going to be other meetings in
Vancouver and in Montreal. Let us give those meetings a chance to produce some
interesting results. But let us not change our fundamental position. We want
free trade again, not a compromise that would repeat the agreement that expired
on March 31 of this year.
Right now, any tendency to soften our position would
amount to recognizing our weakness and that would be unacceptable.
Let us continue to pursue this issue with the Americans
and to argue our point, and we will find a solution. That solution will benefit
both the lumber producers and the consumers who need that lumber to build
houses and buildings throughout North America.
(1710)
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Madam Chairman, I am delighted to participate in the
debate this afternoon. I am sure some of my colleagues will be wondering why a
member of parliament from Parkdale--High Park, a Toronto urban riding, is
interested in these issues because obviously I do not have any softwood lumber
industries in my riding.
However I would like to advise my colleagues that as a
lawyer who practised law for 18 years I have a very special interest in
international trade law issues. I also had the opportunity to be a chair of the
House Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investments. I
was a member of the committee that travelled across Canada a few years ago
consulting Canadians from coast to coast on our position with respect to the
WTO and where we should go from there. I must say that at that time, certainly
in British Columbia but all across Canada, the issue of the softwood lumber
agreement was prominent well before its expiry came up.
I would like to use my time to actually talk about the
concrete steps that the Government of Canada is taking before the World Trade
Organization to defend the rights of our softwood lumber industry and to
guarantee the protection under law that it deserves.
While this is the fourth round of trade action taken by
the U.S. industry in 20 years, the U.S. industry allegations do not merit a
worthy response since they have not been sustained time and time
again.
I would like to outline Canada's challenge to the five
U.S. measures before the WTO in defence of our softwood industry and of one
related measure that directly impacts on our lumber producers.
On August 9, 2001, the United States department of
commerce made a preliminary determination that Canada's softwood lumber
industry was subsidized by federal and provincial programs and furthermore,
that our exports to the U.S. exceeded a 15% increase in exports to warrant a
“massive importations” or critical circumstances determination.
Although these findings by the U.S. were only
preliminary, they were made in a politically charged environment due to
intensive lobbying by protectionist U.S. lumber interests. As a result, the
U.S. department of commerce will impose a 19.3% duty on Canadian lumber exports
to the United States.
To add insult to injury, as the Minister for
International Trade stated earlier, the U.S. department of commerce will impose
duties on our lumber, not only on what is first milled but also on its
increased value when it enters the United States. In essence, the United States
will reap duties on the higher remanufactured lumber rather than the so-called
mill rate value. This is contrary to any previous decision we have ever seen
before.
This decision follows an earlier preliminary
determination by another United States body. The United States international
trade commission found that although our industry is not injuring United States
producers,our industry “may” injure U.S. producers in the future.
Although the U.S. allegations of subsidy have never
been sustained in previous cases and our export monitoring data from Statistics
Canada found that our exports from this year compared to a similar period last
year increased by only 11.3% and not the 15% increase as the U.S. alleges,
regrettably, the U.S. department of commerce is intent on finding against our
industry, whatever the circumstances may be.
While these rulings have no basis in fact or law, we
nonetheless must respond accordingly.
In response to the U.S. trade action, the Government of
Canada has taken the following steps before the World Trade Organization.
Under the first measure, Canada requested that a WTO
panel be established to hear our complaint that the U.S. treatment of our log
exports restraints or controls is contrary to U.S. obligations under the
subsidies and countervailing measures agreement, which is also known as the
SCM.
As the Minister for International Trade noted at the
beginning of this debate, the WTO panel in its final report on June 29 found
that our export restraints do not provide a financial contribution and thus do
not confer countervailable subsidies. This ruling is very positive for Canada
and actually undermines the U.S. claims that log export controls confer
subsidies in the current countervailing duty investigation.
(1715)
Under the second measure before the WTO, Canada also
requested a WTO panel to hear Canada's complaint that when the dispute
settlement body has ruled that the U.S. anti-dumping or countervailing duty
order is inconsistent with United States international obligations the U.S.
must refund all duties collected. Those members who were in the House earlier
will have heard that the Minister for International Trade said that in 1996 in
fact the Americans had to pay back over $1 billion to our producers.
Our third action follows the U.S. department of
commerce preliminary determination of subsidy in its countervailing duty
investigation and the imposition of a 19.31% duty for Canadian softwood lumber
imports entering the United States. Canada finds this ruling inconsistent with
United States WTO obligations on a number of grounds.
First, the United States treated stumpage as a
financial contribution on the basis that it is a provision of a so-called good.
Rather, stumpage is a licence or right of access to cut timber, which is not
covered by the financial contribution definition found within the subsidies and
countervailing measures agreement. Second, the United States also wrongly
determined that stumpage is a benefit and it based its findings on U.S. prices
rather than on the prevailing market conditions in Canada. All of these actions
are inconsistent with the subsidies and countervailing measures agreement and
accordingly we will challenge these findings.
Our fourth action before the WTO concerns the U.S.
department of commerce critical circumstances decision that resulted in the
19.31% duty now being applied retroactively to Canadian shipments made on or
after May 19, 2001. This determination was based upon an alleged subsidy that
was found to be de minimis, or less than 1% subsidy rate. This application of
an alleged subsidy of less than 1% to justify the retroactive application of a
preliminary duty rate of 19.31% is also inconsistent with the subsidies and
countervailing measures agreement.
The fifth action we are taking before the WTO concerns
the entitlement of Canadian exporters to seek a review of their circumstances
when trade action is taken before them. Exporters subject to countervailing
duty action are entitled to individual expedited reviews following an
investigation in order to calculate company specific duty rates.
However, once again the U.S. regulations do not provide
for individual expedited company reviews where subsidy rates are determined on
a countrywide basis. Once again, this practice is inconsistent with the
subsidies and countervailing measures agreement in that it denies exporters to
such a review and the determination of an individual duty rate.
Canada is challenging these measures as WTO
inconsistent and has requested accelerated consultations to discuss this
matter. Those of my colleagues who were here earlier would have heard the
Minister for International Trade talk about those consultations that are going
on, up to today until 2.30, I believe, and they will continue to go
on.
Canada is also challenging the United States on another
measure. The sixth measure relates to softwood lumber and it includes a review
of a certain piece of U.S. legislation known as the Byrd amendment. This
amendment requires U.S. customs to distribute Canadian duties assessed to
affected U.S. producers directly. This amendment creates a clear incentive for
U.S. industry to file and support cases against Canadian firms exporting to the
United States. In challenging this measure, Canada is joined by over a dozen
other countries that also find the U.S. actions WTO inconsistent.
To conclude, I think it is important to remember that
this is the fourth time that the United States industry has taken action
against our softwood lumber industry in the last 20 years. Our actions and
indeed, we are saying, U.S. actions must be based on a rules based system
whereby everyone is treated fairly, impartially and without the ability to pick
and choose which rules they want to abide by.
I want to assure members of the House that we will
continue to take action that best defends our industry and that best supports
the international agreements that we are all party to.
(1720)
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo--Cowichan,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Chairman, I am somewhat pleased to rise on debate
today. I wish I did not have to. I come from a riding that has been hit very
hard by this. Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary and the minister
have inferred, we know that this is a far bigger issue than just British
Columbia. We know it affects many people across the country.
However, after all, I am a member of parliament from
British Columbia and I have been elected to represent my constituents. I think
my hon. colleagues in the House need to know that people are phoning me to tell
me about the hardships they are now enduring because they have been laid
off.
We had nine major mills in my riding. We now have
eight. One has closed completely, four are in a stage of lay off and are not
producing at the moment. The other four are not by any means at capacity in
terms of production. The people calling me are feeling, and I have to say this,
that their government has failed them on this issue. That is about as blunt as
I can be about it. They are the people who are directly affected by this. They
are the people having to go on social assistance or EI and who may not have a
job when this thing is settled. Their mills may not re-open. They are the
people who are having to turn to help from family, churches, food banks and
every other kind of support system that we have in the country when a major
industry like the softwood lumber industry goes into such a serious
position.
It is not unusual, then, for us to be standing and
fighting on behalf of our constituents who find themselves in such a terrible
state. I make no apologies for it at all.
It is on this basis that we believe the government has
failed Canadians on this issue. This is a huge part of our economy, as has
already been stated in the House during this debate. In 1995 it employed
100,000 people. It contributed $14.5 billion to our economy. Those are big
statistics and mean that this industry has a significant contribution to make
to the total economic well-being of the country.
I live in a riding that is a major producer of softwood
lumber. It covers approximately 3,837 square kilometres. Any people going to my
riding would agree, I am sure, that there they would be able to see some of the
most beautiful tree covered mountain scenery to be found in the world. Anyone
standing at the top of the mountains to look out over the riding would get an
understanding of how dependent we are upon this industry.
There are approximately 115,000 people in my riding. Of
those people, over 20%, or almost 23,000 of them, depend upon forestry as their
primary income. That is 23,000 individuals plus their families. By the time the
economists extrapolate the family members, the circulation of the dollars
through the local community and so on, it is certainly crystal clear that
forestry is a major industry in my riding. Until recently it has been the
number one economic stimulator in the riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan.
Therefore I cannot just stand idly by and watch in
silence as the government allows our forestry sector to be stalled due to the
whims of a few American lumber barons, primarily in the American
southeast.
The minister accused us of not having said anything
about this in the House during the last three weeks. It is quite clear that
international events have overtaken us in the House. It is still appalling for
us to even think of the terrorist acts that took place and the loss of life.
What we have done today is simply make sure that this issue does not go off the
radar screen. It is at this point that we felt it was timely to bring it up. It
ought not to slide.
The U.S. trade representative, Mr. Zoellick, stated
that U.S. needs to join in with more free trade agreements around the world,
that the U.S. needs to "advance the causes of openness, development and
growth". He acknowledges that NAFTA has led to gains for the average American
family of approximately $1,300 to $2,000 annually in income.
I believe that it is time, then, for our government to
stand up to the American tactics and clearly say to them that it is time for
them to act on their own words, if that is what they believe. Simply put,
softwood lumber should be a freely traded commodity.
(1725)
The devastating effect of the recently imposed 19.3%
tariff on our softwood lumber exports has really negative consequences. In B.C.
alone there are already an estimated 15,000 forest workers laid off. Without
any changes it is estimated that this number will double to 30,000 by the end
of the year. This, then, is a very serious issue and I hope the minister can
see beyond the rhetoric, beyond all of the meetings and everything else that he
has done and see that these are real people who are in a really desperate
situation.
What can we do? I have several thoughts. Some of them
have already been shared in the House. The first thing that must be done is to
send a clear and consistent message. So many times Canadians have watched the
evening news and have heard different government representatives make wildly
diverse statements around this issue. That simply cannot continue. We need to
hear clearly and unequivocally from our government what it is doing.
Part of the problem and the reason why we are having
this debate today is that the government has failed to communicate to us as
legislators and certainly to the ordinary British Columbians who are losing
their jobs exactly what it is doing.
Therefore I would ask the minister and his department
to make sure that he clearly shares with Canadians what he is doing. Somehow he
has to get those communication tools working better so that Canadians
understand that the government, the party in power, is doing something about
this.
The second point is to negotiate from a position of
strength. A weak bargaining position is tantamount to a losing position. Simply
put, the Americans not only want our natural gas and other energy sectors, they
need them. If we have something that the Americans want, let us make sure that
we get something that we want, namely free trade in the softwood lumber sector.
There should be no shame or any kind of hesitation for us to bargain hard with
the Americans in terms of energy. In spite of three senior cabinet ministers at
some point offering their support to the linking of free trade and softwood
lumber to the energy sector, the Prime Minister has flip-flopped on this issue
several times. He did it not too long ago on a trip to Alberta. Simply put, if
the Americans want our energy they must allow free trade for our softwood
lumber.
Third, the government must make a strong representation
to the U.S. trade representative on behalf of all Canadian companies, stating
our concerns and our position unequivocally. To date we have not seen the
government helping this to take place in Canada. I urge the government to stand
up and act in the interests of all Canadians whether they be in British
Columbia, Quebec or any other place in the country.
Fourth, the government must work quickly to remove
those parts of the forestry industry that should not be included in the U.S.
19.3% tariff, specifically in the case of a number of producers in British
Columbia, from where I come, in the cedar industry. The stakes are high and
more jobs are at risk if those things do not happen.
This is a very serious issue for us. We want to have
the government continue to act boldly and decisively on our behalf. We want it
to communicate with Canadians clearly what its position is. We want the
government to get tough with our American friends. They can be nice, but they
can be tough. We need to be able to say that at the end of day we truly have
free trade in this commodity as well as any other.
(1730)
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.):
Madam Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
rise once more to address the immensely important issue of our softwood lumber
trade with the United States.
The restrictions in the United States creates an
immense impact on the industry and on all Canadians. They are of particular
interest and concern to British Columbia. Softwood lumber is more than a $10
billion export industry and almost half of that lumber comes from British
Columbia. As we have heard, 15,000 jobs have already been compromised in
British Columbia and many more across the country. One million jobs across
Canada are related to the forest products industry in some way. These
countervailing duties are also having an impact on federal and provincial
revenues.
We have to look at the motivation for the countervail
action in the United States. The motivation by the American industry is simply
protectionism. It wants protection for its industries. What is our motivation?
Our motivation is free trade which has been our motivation all along. It is why
we did not seek to renegotiate the softwood lumber agreement when it expired at
the end of April. We have been working toward free trade.
In addition to the many important aspects that have
been raised in this special debate this afternoon, let me briefly mention what
I would see as the four key approaches of the government together with other
governments and industry in Canada.
The first approach would be strength in unity. Since I
have been in the House, the Minister for International Trade has been speaking
publicly on a weekly basis and working across the country to ensure that we do
not separate interests across Canada by province or by industry against
industry. Unity and the strength that comes from unity has been the byword and
the underlying fundamental strength of this approach, and it is holding and it
is working. In fact if it does not work and we do not hold together then we
will fail against this challenge. This unity is provincial governments to
provincial governments, all provinces to the federal government and governments
with industry. That is immensely important.
Industry has not had a difficult time. It is facing
different circumstances across the country but also within any one province it
has differences but it is holding together and it is supporting this strength
in unity toward free trade.
Our second approach is to pursue every legal avenue and
every available forum to challenge these countervail duties and these false
allegations.
The first issue is around subsidy. As we have heard
over and over again, Canada has won this challenge many times over the last 20
years in independent international tribunals. There is no subsidy.
In 1994, after winning this issue again, $1 billion in
improperly collected countervail duties was returned to Canada and Canadian
industries. Here we go again. There is no subsidy. Our differences in forest
practices and the way we manage our forests in the two countries has led to
some confusion perhaps but the rulings are absolutely clear. Our stumpage
system and crown management system on public lands and public forests is based
on sound forest management practices that protect the environment and create a
sustainable flow in managed forests so that this is a sustainable industry into
the future.
Subsidies, no way. It has been proven over and over
again. What is the 19.3% interim countervailing duty based on? In this same
time the price of lumber in the U.S. market has gone up 15%. How could there be
a 19.3% entry. Moreover, it is calculated on a quarter to quarter basis rather
than on an annual basis against the same quarter for the previous year which
would have been the accurate calculation. The calculation is done by using the
first milled price, which the calculation should be based on, yet the 19.3%
countervailing duty is being imposed against the entry price which includes the
added value from Canadian manufacturers crossing the border.
(1735)
This is patently unreasonable, unfair and contrary to
international trade rules.
We have looked at U.S. laws but U.S. laws keep
changing. However time and again we have been told that this is clearly against
international trade rules. The Byrd amendment that people have talked about
has, thank goodness, been suspended by the president in response to the
concerns expressed by Canadians, by our minister, by our Prime Minister, by our
interparliamentary engagements, including members of the opposition to the
president. We are being listened to.
What about the claim that Canada's log export
restrictions are subsidies? The WTO has already ruled that those restrictions
are not subsidies.
The U.S. law changed since the last ruling to prohibit
the reimbursement of Canadian companies for improperly claimed subsidies. As we
have heard, this is being challenged by Canada at the WTO and we will fight
that to the end.
We will also fight in the U.S. courts. When the
department of commerce makes its final conclusions on this matter, if it
continues to support this false claim of subsidy and harm, then we will
challenge it in the U.S. courts. We have judicial review there. The prime
allegations in a judicial review are patently unreasonable decisions by public
authorities, and that is clear from all of the evidence that has come together.
We have submitted hundreds of thousands of pages of documents showing this
patently unreasonable action. We will win the day in the end but what does it
do in the interim?
The third approach is to have discussion with the U.S.
involving federal and provincial governments. The third series of these
promising discussions wound up in New York this afternoon. They were held in
Toronto two weeks ago and they have been held in Washington over the last three
days. They have been promising enough that all parties are being advised by
Canadian industry to continue in Vancouver in the next short while and later in
Montreal. These discussions are going somewhere. They are working on common
ground and leading to a better understanding of the differences in forest
practices and market conditions in both countries.
That leads to our final approach, which is building
relationships with our natural allies in the United States. It involves
parliamentarians. We have heard from over 115 congressmen, member
representatives as well as senators, who have come behind the Canadian position
to support our just claims for free trade. We are making progress with home
suppliers and homebuilders who are seeing their costs rise simply because a few
lumber companies in the U.S. are looking for protectionism in the trade of
lumber products.
We are also speaking to the American consumer more and
more effectively. We are strengthening unity and litigating on every point to
win our just claims of free trade at the end of the day. In the interim we are
working on discussions between all levels of government, with parliamentarians
and government officials in the U.S., and with the solid support of Canadian
industry.
Finally, in our communications and dialogue, we are
speaking directly to a whole range of allies, the most important of which is
the American consumer and voter in the United States, to ensure their
government lives up to its obligations to all Canadians to ensure free trade in
softwood lumber.
(1740)
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
(Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Chairman, I thank the member for Vancouver Island
North for the leadership he has provided on the issue of softwood lumber. It is
clear that on this side of the House we have consistently urged the government
to be proactive as we have been urging this government to take action.
I am very pleased to represent the softwood lumber
producers of not only my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke and eastern
Ontario but of all Ontario in this debate. Rural Ontario has been without a
voice in Ottawa since 1993. In fact, rural Canada has been under assault by
this government since it was elected.
Jobs have been disappearing at an alarming rate in
rural Ontario. The need to keep jobs in the lumber industry to maintain our way
of life is paramount.
The government needs to re-orient its priorities and
jump at the first sign of trouble in the same way that it jumps when the
presidents of large corporations, like Canada Steamship Lines and Bombardier,
call when looking for government assistance. The big difference is that, unlike
the friends of the government who are big multinational corporations looking
for handouts, the softwood lumber industry in my riding is characterized by
small operations, many family owned, and by people who are not looking for
handouts, just fair treatment.
The Liberal government's softwood lumber policy is
causing significant unemployment in my riding. Worried softwood lumber
producers call my office on a regular basis with the hope that a resolution
regarding this crisis can be found. Families with their principal breadwinner
unemployed wonder how they are going to survive the winter.
In rural areas jobs are hard to come by. Ben Hokum and
Son Ltd. in Killaloe, Murray Brothers in Madawaska, Gulick Forest Products Ltd.
and Thomas J. Newman Ltd. in Palmer Rapids, and Bell Lumber in Renfrew are just
a few of the businesses in my riding affected by this softwood lumber dispute.
It is clear this softwood lumber crisis could have been
avoided. We all knew the softwood lumber agreement would expire when it did
last March. If the minister had been paying the slightest attention he would
have known that the American lumber industry was pushing for countervailing
duties. The government talks now of building alliances with American consumers
and other interested groups to fight the countervailing duty imposed on the
industry. This should have been done long before we hit this crisis.
The government has a lousy record when dealing with a
crisis. Whether it be Canada's response to the terrorist attack of September 11
or the current crisis with softwood lumber, the government lunges leaderless in
every direction and the people pay the price with unemployment
lines.
Softwood lumber is big business in Ontario, exporting
$2 billion worth of goods annually and employing 20,000 people directly, many
of whom work in eastern Ontario. The gross regional income of the central and
eastern Ontario economy is $5 billion annually in the forestry industry alone.
The region employs 133,000 people. In the Ottawa valley the forest industry
supports nearly 4,500 jobs. That translates into 2,055 direct jobs, which is
19.3% of regional goods producing sector employment, over 1,000 indirect
regional jobs and another 1,295 indirect provincial jobs.
Primary wood manufacturing is over 10 times the
provincial average. In actual dollars and cents our forest industry output is
$294 million annually. I can identify over 100 forest product companies that
make their home in Renfrew county.
What is even more important in this debate over
softwood lumber is how it is affecting our trading relationship with the United
States. For value added products, the United States market is number one in
Ontario.
(1745)
More than half of all forest products in Ontario is
exported. Members will understand why we on this side of the House use the term
crisis when we refer to the state of the Canadian softwood lumber industry.
Those products have the largest export market in the United States. Exports
from Ontario have increased by more than 100% since 1991.
The United States construction industry is worth nearly
$700 billion U.S. every year. It will continue to be the focus of Canadian wood
product shipments. It is imperative that the government respect the special
trading relationship we have had in the past and priorize the need to resolve
this trade dispute.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Chairman, I am pleased to speak to this emergency
debate on softwood lumber and the trade dispute between Canada and the United
States. This is an issue that is very near and dear to my heart and to my
riding of Skeena in northwestern British Columbia.
My riding is heavily dependent on the forest industry.
This is not a partisan or regional issue. British Columbia accounts for 50% of
Canada's annual export of softwood lumber to the U.S. at an approximate value
of $5 billion. One would imagine an industry that generates this much income
would be the top priority of any government to look after and to fight
for.
The Liberal government has shunted the issue year after
year. We are standing in the House of Commons once again pleading for some
action on the part of the government to help the logging and sawmilling
industries. Tens of thousands of employees across Canada go to work every day
uncertain if it will be their last day of employment at a particular
manufacturing plant or sawmill.
On August 10 the U.S. commerce department announced a
19.3% penalty on Canadian lumber to counter what was ruled as subsidies given
to the Canadian lumber producers by the government. This is a ridiculous and
unconscionable level. This has been challenged three times in the past and
Canada has won every time. It is unfortunate that it was allowed to get to this
level before the government reacted in an attempt to try to resolve
it.
The government's minister of fisheries quite rightly
urged the government to step in and help B.C. He suggested that the federal
government should assist the industry by posting a customs bond to cover the
new tariff. He was shot down by his own government. I find that very
unfortunate.
This is not just an opposition issue; it goes right
across Canada. How many government members are from ridings that depend on
lumber export? Tens of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs are
involved. It is a huge issue for people across the country.
On April 5 Liberal members from the Atlantic provinces
stood in the House and asked their minister for continued free trade of
softwood lumber to the U.S. They were given the same no answer that was given
to opposition members. The parliamentary secretary to the minister as reported
in Hansard said:
We will continue to fight for free
access for Atlantic softwood lumber, but in the context of free access for all
Canadian softwood lumber because that is supposed to be the agreement. Alan
Greenspan, chair of the federal reserve, yesterday cautioned against
protectionism on softwood lumber and everything else. |
We totally agree with that but that was six months ago.
We are now into October and we still have no resolution of the issue. Free
access is required, demanded and needed. We urge the government to achieve that
immediately.
The government had no problem stepping into the trade
dispute with Brazil over aircraft. If the lumber industry had closer ties to
the Prime Minister's Office it may have been afforded the same consideration as
Bombardier. I do not know but possibly.
The U.S. Byrd amendment has been suspended. It was a
ridiculous amendment that put our lumber producers in the position of
subsidizing their competition. It was absolutely ludicrous. It should never
have been in place, but that is out of our control.
Canada is not the only country that is challenging the
legislation. We have challenged it in the past and we will win. However time
goes on. In the meantime the industry and families are suffering. People are
losing their homes. It is a very difficult situation.
A growing number of Canadian lumber producers are being
bought or have been bought out by companies owned and operated in the U.S. The
countervail issue has depressed Canadian forest company stocks while U.S.
companies grow and possibly are in a better position to take over these
Canadian companies with 50 cent dollars.
Who knows what the ultimate result of that will be in
the future? That trend is out there. U.S. consumer groups such as Home Depot
and the coalition for affordable housing are on side with Canadian producers as
they see the cost of lumber rising. There is a great deal of support out there
for our industry. We need to continue to build on that support. The government
needs to continue working on it and push as hard as it possibly can.
(1750)
Senator Baucus has asked for an anti-dumping case that
would put an export tax on top of the CVD. It would mean a double tax when
markets are soft. This is not acceptable or sustainable by the industry. We
need to work toward more open borders to be able to trade our goods back and
forth.
This also raises the issue of the perimeter safety
network that has been talked about and pushes the issue a bit harder. We need
to consider that in terms of free trade to make sure our borders remain open to
our goods without undue delays.
There is also the option for stumpage changes. This
would mean that Canadian provinces would have to change the way they sell their
standing timber. This could be impractical or even impossible. It is hard to
say. However these things are being worked on.
British Columbia is looking at putting in a market
based stumpage system down the road that may possibly help the
situation.
There is a company in my riding called Skeena Cellulose
that was in serious trouble prior to the softwood lumber tariff. The wood
profile in that part of British Columbia is 70% to 80% pulpwood. The small
volume of saw logs and lumber that is produced has to be produced economically
to subsidize the cost of logging the pulp logs which have to be removed as
well. This countervail duty makes it that much more difficult.
I sent a letter to the Prime Minister and the minister
in August requesting some responses as to where the situation might be. I have
yet to receive a reply. I would appreciate a reply, as would people in my
riding in northern British Columbia, as to the status of the ongoing talks as
soon as possible.
I go back to a statement I made in the House on April
3. The government was about to host the summit of the Americas where the topic
of discussion was the free trade area of the Americas. Today there is talk
about a free trade agreement between Costa Rica and Canada.
I worry as to what will come of it when we have not
even sorted out a dispute that is hanging over our heads with our closest
trading partner and friends in the United States. I look forward to a quick
resolution of this terrible situation on behalf of not only the people of
Skeena but the people of Canada.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the
Environment, Lib.):
Madam Chairman, I take my place in the debate as senior
federal minister responsible for the province of British Columbia because of
the importance of the forestry industry to the economy of my home province. The
forestry sector's contribution to provincial tax revenues is nearly equivalent
to the provincial government's entire expenditure on all education costs from
kindergarten to grade 12.
Forestry activity affects 14% of the workforce in
British Columbia. Fourteen per cent of British Columbians are employed directly
or indirectly in the forest industry. The industry is worth some $17 billion to
British Columbia's gross domestic product.
Excluding the GVRD, the forestry industry dominates the
economies of more than half the communities of British Columbia, possibly even
two-thirds. In many such communities forestry accounts for 50% of the economy.
In the greater Vancouver area alone forestry makes a substantial contribution
in terms of 120,000 direct and indirect jobs. It is a critical issue throughout
the province.
In British Columbia we have 850 mills, many of which
are closed. We have 47% of the total Canadian exports of softwood lumber. Some
16,000 people have been directly laid off since the United States imposed a
19.31% duty on softwood lumber on August 9. The importance of softwood lumber
to British Columbia cannot be exaggerated.
I will deal briefly with the previous speeches and move
on to what has been done. I was deeply disappointed by the speech of the Leader
of the Opposition. He represents a British Columbia constituency. If he wishes
to come from Alberta to British Columbia and represent the people of the
province he should take his responsibilities as a British Columbia elected
official seriously. I was deeply offended by statements which set one region
against another by suggesting if this had happened in the heartland of Canada
the government would have acted instead of doing nothing.
The comments of the hon. member who preceded the last
member were similar. Indeed the previous speaker made the comment that if there
were closer ties with the Prime Minister's Office something would have been
done. The effort to smear hon. members of the House and suggest the issue is
being ignored because of its regional importance in British Columbia is
despicable.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition has not asked a
question in the House on softwood lumber since April 23 of this year. Yet he
spent the entire time since we returned to the House in September on a wild spy
chase. He has gone into every part of the country desperately trying to find a
connection between security in the United States and possible errors of
Canadian officials. He spends his time doing that while the softwood lumber
problem has become worse because of the actions of the United States.
He should be ashamed of that type of approach. As a
British Columbia member he should be ashamed. It is clear why so many of his
members have decided his leadership is something they can no longer
tolerate.
Canada should take a united front on the softwood
lumber issue. I congratulate the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell.
I congratulate the minister of forestry for British Columbia, Mike de Jong. I
congratulate the industry in British Columbia. I congratulate the Minister for
International Trade who has done a splendid job representing Canada on this
file.
(1755)
The type of performance we have had from the official
opposition is simply not good enough. It has been pounced on with glee by our
opponents in the American softwood lumber industry as an example of how we in
Canada do not have a united front and how we can continue to be horsed around
by the types of actions that have taken place over the last few months.
I believe the hon. member for Vancouver Island North
who proposed the motion is sincere in his concern for the industry, unlike the
hon. Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at the opposition leader's
performance on the issue. He has not asked a question about it in the House
since April. Yet he comes in here and criticizes my colleague the hon. Minister
for International Trade.
The minister has been working on this file day after
day, week after week and weekend after weekend in contrast to the absolute
absence of activity by the Leader of the Opposition. The opposition leader's
critical remarks suggesting this is somehow a regional issue are thoroughly
improper.
That is my view of the approach taken by the hon.
Leader of the Opposition. I do not know how long he will remain here or how
long the members who have spoken will continue supporting him. However if he
keeps this up the people of British Columbia will reject him firmly and
clearly.
As to the approach taken by the Canadian government, we
will continue to fight this U.S. trade action wherever we can. We are willing
to discuss with the United States, not negotiate but discuss, any aspect of the
issue it wishes to discuss with us. We want a long term and durable solution
that avoids litigation.
We will continue to mobilize U.S. consumer groups to
increase advocacy efforts in the United States. We will continue to defend our
industry wherever we can. We will fight in every legal venue available although
our preference is not to get involved in litigation.
The Prime Minister has kept on this file time after
time not just with President Bush but with his predecessor President Clinton.
The Minister for International Trade has done exactly the same thing with his
counterparts in both the Bush and Clinton administrations. Thanks to their
efforts the U.S. is fully aware of our concerns.
We have every reason to believe the imposition of the
19.3% duty on Canadian softwood lumber is unfair, punitive and wrong.
Furthermore, it fails to meet the standards of the World Trade Organization the
United States alleges it adheres to.
The decision to impose duties on the entered value and
not the first mill value is contrary to longstanding U.S. practices and adds
yet another unfair burden on our Canadian producers. We will continue to press
on behalf of our remanufacturers at every forum and in every way to get back to
the first mill value.
We categorically reject as having no basis in fact or
law the decisions of the U.S. department of commerce that Canadian softwood
lumber exports to the United States are subsidized by provincial and federal
programs. We have gone into the issue time after time. We have won every time,
but the United States in a protectionist move has changed or varied the rules
so it could come back at us yet again.
We will be challenging the United States contention
regarding stumpage and every other practice of our provincial governments. We
will be doing so in the United States and before the WTO.
Some have suggested there should be short term bridging
solutions such as an export charge. There is no consensus for such a measure
among provinces and industry because it would not get to the root of the
problem.
(1800)
Canada and the United States need a long term solution.
That is exactly what my colleague, the Minister for International Trade,
supported by me at every turn as the minister responsible for British Columbia,
will work to get.
(1805)
Mr. John Duncan:
Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do
believe that the minister used a profanity in describing my request for a
debate tonight. I may stand corrected, but I do believe he used a profanity.
Others may not think that he did. I will take his word that he did not use a
profanity.
Hon. David Anderson:
Madam Chairman, it is strange that this member should
rise, as I recollect he is the only one of his party that I praised in what I
said and with some reason. I appreciate the fact he has brought forward the
motion.
I am happy to have the record checked, but certainly
nobody I have spoken to in this room has heard profanity. Maybe this is the
type of problem the Alliance has: they keep seeing these imaginary conspiracies
in central Canada and hearing imaginary words.
The Assistant Deputy
Chairman:
Time has run out for the minister for debate. To put
this on the record, I cannot look at the blues and we cannot check what the
hon. member said before 6.15. As he said to the hon. member, and while I as the
Chair did not hear profanity, nor did the clerks, if tomorrow we check the
record of the debate and if that is the case, I am sure the hon. minister would
come back.
We will resume debate because we have to end debate at
6.15.
Hon. David Anderson:
Madam Chairman, perhaps the words were the sincerity of
the hon. member. If that is the phrase in question, I am happy to say I stand
by it. I think he is a sincere member. I do not know of any other words, nor
has anybody I have spoken with or seen in the room suggested that any other
word was used, but if there were any words used that were inappropriate, I of
course would immediately retract them.
Mr. John Duncan:
Just to clarify, Madam Chairman, I will talk to the
member privately. I do not want to say the word that several of us thought the
hon. member may have said in case he did not say it. It would be inappropriate
for me to say it. I will talk to the hon. member privately.
Hon. David Anderson:
Madam Chairman, there was only one member from that
party in the room other than the hon. member. I wonder where these several
are.
The Assistant Deputy
Chairman:
I would like to remind the hon. minister that we are
televised. We will resume debate.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Chairman, the umbrage and bombast from the
minister on the other side is certainly inappropriate and highly offensive. For
him to use this occasion on a very serious debate to attack the Leader of the
Opposition is rather outrageous. In fact the patronage of his party has been
well known.
He might stay for just a minute to hear that in my
riding in British Columbia, we had arts and culture week in March. People
wanted to know why, when $76 per head is the national per capita given for arts
and culture, Quebec got 147%, Ontario got 107% and British Columbia received
34% of those dollars. The comments made earlier do in fact have a basis. It is
a pity that the minister tried to cover for this with umbrage and
accusation.
On behalf of my constituents, mill workers and industry
workers who are suffering in British Columbia, I am pleased to enter this
softwood lumber debate. I will say right off the bat that this is hurting
people in my riding. Since we have been here the past few weeks, hundreds of
workers have been idle in my riding of Nanaimo--Alberni. We have saw eight
mills close in Port Alberni over the last number of years. Of 1,025 mill
workers employed just a few months ago, there are now only 200
working.
In Port Alberni there were 950 loggers gainfully
employed and now there are 185. Right now communities in my riding are hurting.
They are sitting idle wondering when or if they will get back to work because
of the situation that has arisen.
The problem has roots stretching back many years and
the government has been inactive on this file. It should not have been
surprised by it. We have had five years to prepare for this.
I noticed earlier the minister said that the government
was waiting to see what the U.S. would do. Of course we know that the old
softwood lumber agreement expired in March and we saw what the U.S. did. It
immediately responded with a 19.2% tariff.
Having seen that, mill workers in my riding want to
know why Canada did not do anything. Why did it not have a plan ready to take
action? Many people in my riding would like to know why the government does not
step up to the plate and take action to get our mill workers back to work. It
is time to offer some leadership and it is time to get behind the
industry.
One of the suggestions put forward was the issue of
bonding. If our mills are going to be allowed to export into the United States,
the regulation by the department of commerce and customs requires that they
have to put up a bond immediately. People in my riding want to know why the
government has not stepped up to at least help the companies put those bonds in
place.
The bonding issue for the big companies is perhaps
something that can be negotiated with banks regarding loans, but many of the
smaller companies are simply not in the position to deal with that. They do not
have the capital base and many of the marginally profitable smaller producers
may be pushed over the edge. Jobs will be lost and families will
suffer.
I will quote Rick Doman, the CEO of Doman Forest
Products, one of the largest employers in my riding. He said the bonding
guarantee is an important issue. This was stated in the Victoria Times
Colonist August 25. Mr. Doman stated:
As a short term fix for companies
struggling to post a bond, pending a final resolution on the duty, federal aid
is being considered in the form of the Export Development Corporation.
|
That corporation gives bonding at
commercial rates but it isn't specific to any one company or industry and it
would be optional whether companies took advantage. |
That's great news, according to Rick
Doman, chief executive of Doman Industries, Vancouver Island's largest lumber
producer. |
Doman said he's been pushing the
B.C. and federal MPs to consider this route as a way of delivering foreign aid
without aggravating the Americans. |
We would like to know why the government has not
stepped up to the plate to help our industry in this manner is an
issue?
Canadians have suffered because of the inaction of the
government on other issues: the farm crisis; leaky condos in British Columbia;
continued high debt and high taxes; the immigration crisis; the low dollar; and
the decaying military response and ability. It is time to demonstrate some
leadership in this area.
(1810)
On the bonding issue, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans was quick to come to the plate in Vancouver shortly after the tariff was
announced. I will quote him from the Vancouver Sun. He said:
A loan guarantee financed by the
federal and provincial governments could help firms avoid insolvency while
Canada fights the duty before international tribunals. |
Our mill workers and mills cannot afford to wait one
and a half years or two years for the WTO process to work its way
through.
We heard the umbrage expressed by the minister over
allegations that the government is much quicker to step up to the plate on
behalf of industries in other parts of the country. People in my riding watched
the Bombardier-Embraer events unfold. The government stepped up to the plate to
support an industry in another province. It even offered low interest loans to
American firms to secure purchase of regional aircraft. Those people want to
know why the government cannot step up to the plate to offer some temporary
support to keep our mills open and our workers working while we work through
the dispute resolution process.
Unfortunately, we have not seen action that has been
helpful to our members at the present time. Believe me, people are hurting,
families are suffering and many people are wondering whether they will have a
job to go back to.
Members of the House recently received a letter from
a U.S. senator suggesting that we sit down and negotiate a settlement. Reaching
compromises is appropriate at times but in this case we do not need to
compromise. We have a binding agreement but we need some support to get through
this dispute mechanism which is already in place with the World Trade
Organization.
We will win the argument with the WTO but what will
our mill workers do?
[Translation]
The Assistant Deputy
Chairman:
It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier
today, the committee is adjourned and I now leave the chair.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Debate]
* * *
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
* * *
(1815)
[English]
National
Defence
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, I questioned the Minister of National
Defence on May 8 with respect to the position that the Government of Canada
speaking on behalf of the people of Canada would take on the proposed national
missile defence scheme being advocated by President George Bush.
I urged the Canadian government to get off the fence,
to take a clear stand and to join with the majority of Canadians who strongly
opposed this missile defence scheme. This is a dangerous new escalation of the
arms race.
In the most recent poll 58% of Canadians opposed the
proposed anti-ballistic missile system that is presently before the United
States congress. That was in May and we are now in October and still waiting
for the Canadian government to take a stand on the issue.
We all look at the impact of the terrorist attack
of September 11 and ask ourselves whether this has had an impact on the
American proposals for missile defence. Tragically it would appear that it
has.
Among the casualties of September 11 was the
democratic senators' resistance to missile defence. Prior to September 11
democrats on Capitol Hill indicated that they were prepared to trim back the
$8.3 billion first year missile shield program and place tight restrictions on
testing and development.
Unfortunately that opposition appears to have
collapsed and the scheme is now proceeding. Those who would benefit are the
global arms merchants like Boeing, Lougheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW. They are
eagerly anticipating the possibility that they might get their hands on some of
the $60 billion that the U.S. government intends to spend on this dangerous
escalation of the arms race.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated that he
was opposed to the creation of weapons in space. Canadians also share that
opposition. Yet it is very clear that the U.S. missile defence scheme would
lead to the creation of weapons in space. United States senior air force
officials have made very clear that is their intent.
I call on the Canadian government to speak out
on behalf of Canadians against this escalation of the arms race that would lead
to the creation of weapons in space and lead to the possible abrogation of
Start I and Start II treaties. Russian President Putin has made that very
clear.
The sanctions on Pakistan have been lifted in
the aftermath of September 11. That is a matter of deep concern. Prior to
September 11 the United States government indicated that it was prepared to
accept an escalation of China's nuclear missile program.
It is not acceptable that Canadians, along with
people from around the world, should be charged with peaceful and non-violent
protests. Guy Levacher from Montreal was charged in July when he protested this
action peacefully and non-violently.
I appeal to the government to speak out on
behalf of Canadians and tell our friends in the United States to stop this
madness and instead work toward the abolition of all nuclear weapons on the
planet.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the Canadian government has not been
asked by the United States to participate in a BMD system. What is more, we
cannot very well make a decision for or against BMD without first knowing what
the system will look like, how much it will cost, where it will fit into and
how it will affect the global security framework. The Government of Canada is
keeping an open mind about the proposed U.S. ballistic missile defence system
and has not taken a position for or against it.
Ballistic missile defence has the potential to play a
positive role in global security without jeopardizing arms control and
disarmament. However, the outcome will depend largely on how missile defence is
pursued. We are continuing to assess the U.S. plans for a missile defence
system as they emerge and to consult closely with our allies.
A Canadian decision will be taken only after an
analysis of the new global security framework into which the U.S. would fit a
BMD system and a comprehensive review of the implications for Canada. In line
with Canada's defence policy, and without prejudicing any future decisions on
BMD, the government continues to examine the issue of ballistic missile defence
and the details of the U.S. system as they develop. The American proposal does
not yet include a timetable for deployment or specific details about the
architecture of the system. U.S. officials have made it very clear that Canada
will be consulted on the issues affecting our longstanding defence partnership,
including NORAD.
We are pleased with the U.S. intent to reduce its
nuclear arsenal and welcome the American commitment to consult with China and
Russia on ballistic missile defence. The government has a longstanding
tradition of consulting parliamentarians on major foreign and defence policy
issues. At the moment, and in line with the 1994 defence white paper, Canadian
participation in ballistic missile defence is limited to research and
consultation.
I know I am out of time, but let me say that there
has been no Canadian decision made with regard to BMD and our efforts remain
within the perimeters of current Canadian policy.
(1820)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.)