37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 018
CONTENTS
Wednesday February 21, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| OXFORD
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| AIR CANADA
|
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| CANDLELIGHT VIGIL
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1405
| COMMUNITY TELEVISION
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| SARO PANUCCIO
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1410
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1435
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1440
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| WATER QUALITY
|
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| PHARMACEUTICALS
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1445
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1450
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PUBLIC SERVICE
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1455
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
1500
| U.S. MISSILE DEFENCE SHIELD
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| The Speaker |
1505
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Statements by Members
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| The Speaker |
1510
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| JUDGES ACT
|
| Bill C-12. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-273. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1515
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-274. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-275. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-276. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Human Resources Development and Status of Persons with Disabilities
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Motion
|
1520
1525
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1530
1535
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1620
(Division 11)
| Motion agreed to
|
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second Reading
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1650
1655
1700
1705
1710
1715
1720
1725
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
| FUEL PRICE POSTING ACT
|
| Bill C-220. Second reading
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1750
1755
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1800
1805
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1810
1815
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1820
1825
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
1835
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 018
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday February 21, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[Translation]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O
Canada, led by the hon. member for St. John's East.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government is keeping its promises. With respect to the
environment, this week we announced a $120.2 million investment
to accelerate action on clean air.
Among other things, the measures announced will regulate vehicle
production to provide cleaner transportation, will make a 90%
reduction in the emission of smog-causing emissions from
industry and will improve the network of pollutant monitoring
stations.
As well, the federal government has signed the ozone annex with
the United States.
Under this agreement, we will be working in collaboration with
our neighbours to the south in reducing pollution from vehicle
emissions.
We know that air pollution is responsible for many heart and
lung diseases. The problem concerns us all. I am proud that
the federal government has made a commitment to improving our
living conditions.
This clearly shows its concern for the health of its population.
* * *
[English]
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, with these words, “I am just an ordinary MP looking
after the interests of my constituents”, the Prime Minister
dismisses his intervention in the application of a $600,000 loan
for a friend.
The Prime Minister is no ordinary MP. He appoints the members
of the Senate, supreme court judges and ministers of the crown.
No one can appeal his decisions. He declares government bills
and motions to be votes of confidence and does not permit members
of his Liberal Party to vote the wishes of their constituents.
When the leader of the country engages in activities that are—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is aware
that Standing Order 31 statements may not be used as an attack on
another hon. member. It is out of order.
* * *
OXFORD
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 7,
2001, a tug of war team from my riding of Oxford will travel to
Taiwan to participate in the second annual MacKay Memorial Tug of
War Championship.
The Oxford-Zorra girls tug of war team has been invited to
compete in this tournament because Oxford county is the
birthplace of the Reverend George Leslie MacKay, a Presbyterian
missionary highly revered for his work in Taiwan.
This trip will help to advance the twinning relationship between
Oxford and the Tan-shui region of Taiwan by providing the
participants with an exciting opportunity to participate in and
experience a different culture.
The Oxford-Zorra girls, accompanied by the Ingersoll pipe band,
look to carry on the tradition of another successful tug of war
team from Oxford, the Mighty Men of Zorra. That legendary team
became world champions at the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago.
* * *
AIR CANADA
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to bring from a constituent a non-partisan issue that every
member in the House should find very distressing.
Air Canada has just increased the change fee for transborder
fares from $100 to $145, a 45% increase. It appears that on
March 1 it will burden all Canadians with this increase by also
applying it to domestic fares. This is unacceptable.
To stabilize our economy, this nation has inflation targets of
less than 3%. This quasi-monopoly has the nerve to impose a 45%
increase in the fee. Quarante-cinq pour cent, c'est incroyable.
Canadians are turning increasingly to the competition because of
such audacity. Canadians do not want it, businesses do not want
it, Yukoners do not want it and I do not believe the constituents
of any member here want an Air Canada increase.
I urge all members to stand up and be counted and say to Air
Canada that enough is enough.
* * *
CANDLELIGHT VIGIL
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today on Parliament Hill the
Indo-Canadian community will be joined by the Prime Minister for
a candlelight vigil in memory of the victims of the recent
earthquake in Gujarat, India.
Reports have confirmed over 30,000 dead and hundreds of
thousands left homeless and forced to live in tent cities,
dependent on the aid of humanitarian organizations.
I encourage my follow colleagues to pay their respects to the
victims of this terrible tragedy and join the candlelight vigil
in the Centre Block, Room 237-C, after question period.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the environment was the big winner last Friday when a
Washington state regulatory body recommended against the Sumas
Energy 2 power plant proposal.
Thanks to the hard work of Canadians and Americans alike, the
message came through loud and clear that the public does not want
a power plant built on the edge of the Fraser Valley, Canada's
second most polluted air shed.
The regulator's recommendation, however, is only a roadblock and
not the end of the road for the SE2 project. The Washington
governor now has the final say on whether the proposal can go
ahead. It is no longer an environmental decision. That has been
resolved. It is now a political decision.
The situation boils down to this. There are no further
environmental hearings planned in the United States. There are
no National Energy Board meetings planned because they have now
been suspended in Canada. The studies are over. The hearings
are finished. It is now a political decision and the governor of
Washington will make that decision soon.
The question is, will the Minister of the Environment finally
stop talking about process and reports and now tell Governor
Locke, in the strongest terms possible, that Canada opposes the
SE2 project?
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the team Canada trade mission to China was a unique opportunity
for me to join the Prime Minister and eight provincial premiers
on the largest trade mission in Canadian history.
The Prime Minister, as captain of the team, delivered a strong
message for human rights to Chinese officials, students and the
general public. He stated that human rights not only protect
individuals from abuse but also empower people to contribute
fully and creatively to building a stronger society.
With $5.7 billion in new deals for Canadian companies, team
Canada was a success for commerce and for advancing Canadian
concerns about human rights in China.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
COMMUNITY TELEVISION
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government
of Quebec has decided to intervene with the CRTC in support of
community television. As we know, this has undergone unique
development in Quebec.
In 1997 the CRTC decided to make the existence of community
television a precarious one by no longer requiring the cable
companies to fund it, thus forcing the majority of these
stations to close down.
At that time, the Bloc Quebecois intervened to support community
television against the diktat of the CRTC, which was thumbing
its nose at Quebec's cultural specificity. We also intervened
with the CRTC, requesting that it hold public hearings.
When these do take place, the Bloc Quebecois intends to continue
to pressure the CRTC to ensure the continuation of community
television so that regional voices will not be silenced.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
week ago the House witnessed a powerful and moving debate on the
crisis facing our family farms.
I want to thank all the farmers I have met with over the past
few months, especially the Chapmans, the Donors, the Holtrops and
the Oldhams. They gave me the words I needed to share with the
members of this House and with Canadians who watched the debate.
Last night our nation's farmers were here in Ottawa sharing the
tasty fruits of their labour at a family farm food and wine
celebration. This was an unprecedented event that brought
members and senators from rural ridings and urban ridings
together to meet with our country's agrifood producers.
Together we must continue this very important dialogue and work
toward solutions that solve the problems faced on the family
farm.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are needlessly suffering
because federal health bureaucrats in the Surveillance Management
Program are dragging their feet on new pharmaceutical drug
approvals. In fact, Canada's drug approval process is slower
than most other developed nations and the problem is getting
worse, not better.
Dr. Russell, a researcher from the University of Alberta, was
providing his patients with an exciting new drug to treat
arthritis on a trial basis. However, after the trial was over
his patients were no longer able to get access to this medicine
even though every other country in the developed world has the
approved the drug.
Dr. Russell is now doing the only thing his conscience will
allow: he is providing his patients with a safe and effective
but still unapproved drug.
The Minister of Health has to make a decision. Does he want Dr.
Russell to continue to provide his patients with an unapproved
drug or would he prefer to force these sick people to wait in
pain until Health Canada bureaucrats catch up to the rest of the
world?
* * *
SARO PANUCCIO
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour for me to acknowledge Mr. Saro Panuccio on his 50 years as
a Canadian citizen in my constituency of Ottawa Centre.
On February 21, 1951, Mr. Panuccio arrived in Halifax, Nova
Scotia with little more than the clothes on his back and a
determination to make a better life for himself and others in
Canada.
Since then, Saro has received numerous awards for his
outstanding volunteer service, especially for making sure that
countless new Canadians feel at home in this country and in
Ottawa in particular.
In recognition of his tireless efforts, Saro is a recipient of
the Governor General's prestigious Caring Canadians Award, the
Canada 125 Commemorative Medal and a certificate of merit for
citizenship and immigration.
I am proud to acknowledge Saro Panuccio's 50 years in Canada. I
ask all members of the House to please join me in congratulating
him for making our country a better place for everyone.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the recent bombing by the U.S. and the U.K. of the Baghdad area
of Iraq is another gross violation of international law that has
led to more injury and deaths of innocent Iraqis.
While this illegal bombing is being condemned by many countries,
including France and Germany, shamefully Canada's Liberal
government makes us one of the only countries to support this
outrageous attack.
Tony Blair is coming to town today. On behalf of our New
Democratic caucus, I would urge the Prime Minister to let both
Tony Blair and George Bush know very clearly that Canadians are
appalled by these latest bombings, the ongoing bombings in the
north and south, and the impact of depleted uranium.
Tell Tony Blair and George Bush that Canadians support the
immediate lifting of the genocidal economic sanctions on Iraq
that have killed so many innocent civilians. Act on the
unanimous recommendations of the foreign affairs committee on
Iraq. Let us send a clear and strong message to Tony Blair and
George Bush. Let us stop bombing Iraq and lift the economic
sanctions now.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
I may, I will read a statement that comes directly from the
students of Alma college and the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. It is
directed to the Minister for International Trade representing
the public at the summit of the Americas:
That the summit of the Americas and Canada's participation in it
be conditional on human rights and the environment being given
priority over trade interests in the negotiations. In addition,
public participation must be given greater importance.
For this to happen, the students want all negotiations to be
governed by a code of ethics and subject to the universal
declaration of human rights and to environmental protection in
the case of all countries concerned. This will mean human,
including workers' rights must be respected.
Finally, the students want the texts of the negotiations to be
made public immediately.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
every dollar that Canadians spend on agriculture Americans spend
$2.06, Europeans spend $2.14 and the Japanese $3.47. The United
States subsidizes farmers four times more than we do and the
Europeans six times more.
A good result of this is that all Canadians spend less than 10%
of their incomes on food. All other developed nations spend much
more. However, a bad result is that our farmers' share of food
costs is very small.
While we can be proud that we eat the healthiest food in the
world at the least cost, we must think of the long term. Our
wonderfully efficient farming system will be maintained only if
farmers and their families receive a fair income for their
efforts and ingenuity.
If today's food is too cheap we will pay the cost tomorrow. Let
us be sure that our farmers receive their fair share.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth
for the fine work done in organizing the Canadian family farm
food and wine celebration in the Hall of Honour last night.
The reception was attended by representatives from all political
parties in an effort to further advance the concerns of our farm
communities across Canada here on Parliament Hill.
The reception demonstrated that the message is starting to get
through to members of the government side. The overwhelming
concern for the plight of our farmers has crossed party lines and
at last week's emergency debate was clearly shown. The federal
government should seize the opportunity to extend a helping hand
to this industry in a demonstration of goodwill.
The message from last night's reception was clear: whether
members represent an urban or rural centre in Canada, we can all
learn about, understand and recognize the problems the
agricultural industry has faced over the past few years.
The only question that has to be asked is when will the minister
of agriculture act and when will he put his words into action?
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of our government's aims in international politics
is to lighten the debt load of the poorest countries.
In many of the countries considered the poorest, the debt is
borne by the people. At the moment, 17 of the world's most
indebted countries owe Canada some $1.1 billion. We recently
declared a moratorium on the repayment of $700 million in debt
for 11 of them.
This specific action is helping make Canada one of countries
most committed to reducing human suffering in the world on
behalf of Canadians everywhere.
* * *
[English]
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of the
official opposition in recognition of Black History Month.
Ancestors of Canada's black community have been present in
Canada for more than 300 years and have made tremendous
contributions to the building of our nation, both as slaves and
free men and women.
Thankfully slavery in the British Commonwealth ended on August
1, 1834. Abolitionists and others who fought against slavery,
including those who arrived in Canada by the underground
railroad, have recognized August 1 as Emancipation Day. I will
be debating a motion on Thursday, March 1 that would proclaim
August 1 as Emancipation Day in tribute to those who struggled
against slavery and continue the ongoing international struggle
for human rights.
I welcome the support of my colleagues for this non-partisan
initiative.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, along with the official opposition
others are also expressing concern about the government's
financial plan no longer being in touch with the changing
economy.
I would like to quote from the chief economist at the TD Bank.
He is also the former assistant deputy minister of finance. He
said of the finance minister's economic update that “the October
2000 economic statement and budget update is now outdated”.
A vague commitment from the finance minister about some update
some time in the spring just will not cut it. If the finance
minister is not prepared to listen to concerned Canadians, to the
markets, to people in business or to the official opposition,
will he at least listen to his former top adviser and now a chief
economist and table a budget and do it soon?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to listen to the people that he is
quoting. Neither Mr. Drummond nor the vast majority of other
economists have said that we should be producing a budget.
They have asked for us to do an economic update to update the
projections. Of course we have said on a multitude of occasions
that when the consensus of private sector forecasters is ready,
of which Mr. Drummond is one, it will obviously be the time to
consider an update, as indeed we did last spring.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to give him that
consensus for days and days now, and he is not listening.
Here is another quote from Mr. Drummond, his former senior
adviser: “The economic assumptions underpinning the October
update now seem decidedly optimistic”. He is saying these are
not realistic plans.
I want to assure the finance minister that we are not blaming
the downturn on him. We are not doing that. He had nothing to
do with it, just like he had nothing to do with the upturn.
I am trying to impress upon him that this is an important issue.
Canadians want a financial plan to know how to lessen the impact
of an economic downturn. When will he table it, not some vague
promise of spring?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would really like to welcome the Leader of the
Opposition to the real world if he has only now discovered that
there has been a revision by most private sector forecasters that
there is a slowdown going on in the United States. Well, then,
welcome to reality.
The government has been saying that for quite some time. What
the government has also said in terms of its own forecasts is
that in the October statement we put in a contingency reserve and
the prudence to cover this very kind of eventuality. In short,
we have shown foresight and that Canada is the stronger for it.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it was only last Friday that the
government finally admitted we are into an economic downturn.
Let us talk about that contingency reserve. In the red book
there is a reflection about revenues, with 50% going to increased
spending and 50% going to taxes and debt reduction.
Since the Prime Minister wrote the red book we will not blame
the finance minister. Will the Prime Minister tell us, then,
what is his plan? How can we know? With revenues being reduced
as they will because we are in a downturn, is he planning to
reduce spending, or will he back off on debt reduction which will
weaken the dollar? How can we know what he will do without a
budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everyone around who knows the situation is praising the
government because we reduced the taxes on January 1. Everyone
said that we had perfect timing in doing it at the same time as
the downturn in the United States.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I guess the finance minister still has not sent a
memo to the Prime Minister pointing out that taxes are going up
this year with the CPP increases.
Mr. Drummond said in the same report that the October statement
“does not reflect the tax changes promised in the statement or
spending commitments in red book three or the throne speech”.
He also said that economic assumptions in the October statement
were “decidedly optimistic”.
Does the finance minister agree with his comment that the
assumptions are not realistic? If he does agree, what does he
believe are realistic assumptions for the future of our economy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we have every year, and opposition members have had a
lot of difficulty with it because they said we were being too
prudent, the assumptions that were made in the October statement
were then offset by the contingency reserve and the prudence for
just this kind of eventuality.
That is why we do not have to rush into an economic update. It
is certainly why we do not have to rush into a budget, because in
fact we have shown the foresight. I have said that when the
consensus of private sector forecasters is ready we will indeed
do an economic update.
We did it last spring and we will do it this spring. We did it
last fall and we will do another one next fall. Welcome to the
real world. That is the way the government operates.
1420
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. A statement which did not
incorporate its own tax changes or consider new spending
increases in the red book showed foresight; I think not.
On Monday we learned that manufacturing was down for the second
straight month. Yesterday we learned that the key composite
index was down for two straight months. Today we learn that
investment in machinery and equipment is down for three straight
months.
With these growing clouds on the economic horizon, what plans
does this finance minister have to protect Canadians and their
economy from the very real prospect of a downturn?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again all I can say is: Take a look at what we have
done compared to other countries.
The tax stimulus that we provided the economy in our October
update, which took effect on January 1, was four times greater
than that of the United Kingdom and eight times greater than
those planned in the United States.
The fact is what other people are talking about doing we have
already done. The fact is that we have provided for the
spending.
Some hon. members: More, more.
The Speaker: Not on this answer; there is no more. If
the minister is going to pause for the applause, he gives up the
time.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister denied in the House that Jean Carle was involved
in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair.
However, a memo made public yesterday proves exactly the
opposite.
Is the Prime Minister going to stick to his version and keep
denying verifiable facts?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat, when Mr. Carle worked for me, he had nothing to do with
this loan.
When the loan was made in 1997, Mr. Carle worked for my office.
He joined the bank in 1998.
So there was absolutely no involvement by Mr. Carle in this
business either before or after, because the loan was made
before he joined the bank in 1998.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are not saying that Mr. Carle received a commission on the loan.
What we are saying is that a memo from Jean Carle suggests
answers that could be given to journalists in order to defend
the Prime Minister, who maintains that Mr. Carle was never
involved in this business. This proves the contrary. The
Liberals have refused that the memo be tabled.
Why is the Prime Minister maintaining the opposite of what is
confirmed by verifiable facts contained in a memo he does not
want to look at?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this occurred in 1997, and Mr. Carle joined the bank in 1998.
Relations between departments and crown corporations are
established by the employees working in these corporations.
Mr. Carle's job was to maintain relations between the Business
Development Bank of Canada and the department. Mr. Carle has
absolutely nothing to do with loans, or with this loan, which
was made before he joined the bank.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to make my question more specific.
We are told that he has nothing to do with loans. But we are
talking about the entire Auberge Grand-Mère affair. There were
negotiations, there was a loan, and there was a subsequent
attempt to cover up.
My question for the Prime Minister has to do with the cover-up
attempt. Will he admit the verifiable facts or is he going to
keep denying the evidence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
they have been talking about this for two years. We have
answered in the House time and again. I repeat that, when Mr.
Carle worked for me, he had nothing to do with this loan.
When the loan was made in 1997, he worked for me. In 1998 he
left my office and was hired by the Business Development Bank of
Canada. The loan had already been running for a year, and it
was also held by the caisse populaire and the Fonds de
solidarité. There is nothing to hide. All these lenders have
continued the loan for four years and the enterprise is still in
operation.
1425
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is ducking the questions.
We are told that parliamentarians are behaving like Joe
McCarthy. I think that the Prime Minister is starting to look
more and more like Richard Nixon, and that is the truth.
Perhaps that is why he called an early election, to keep the truth
from coming out. I call on him to have some respect for the
House. Is he able to behave like an honourable person and admit
that he is denying the facts?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. All members of the House are
honourable.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member must have very few arguments if these are the ones to
which he is resorting.
I gave the House all the details. I have nothing to hide. I
have been saying the same thing for two years now and it is what
I will be saying for the next two years.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
British Prime Minister will be in Ottawa tomorrow on his way to
Washington to meet with President Bush.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When he sits down with
Mr. Blair, will he condemn the national missile defence system?
Will he make it clear that Canadians reject this proposal that
would not have been acceptable even during the cold war? Will
the Prime Minister tell Mr. Blair what he failed to tell Mr.
Bush: do not count Canada in?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will tell Mr. Blair that it is better for him not to
follow the advice of the socialists of Canada because he will be
in deep trouble.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
trying to get a serious answer to serious Canadian foreign policy
questions.
Germany, France and other European nations have expressed severe
reservations about this nuclear missile madness. Lloyd Axworthy
rejects it outright. Why can Canada not just say no to more
military build up?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have discussed that with the president and I will
discuss that with Mr. Blair. I want to know what the facts are
first. I will have discussions with the Americans, who have
decided they will not proceed if it will cause a lot of problems
for NATO and if they cannot find an arrangement with the Chinese
and the Russians.
It is our position that there have to be discussions with
everyone and if they want to have discussions with everyone, we
will not say no before the discussions take place. In
discussions we have to listen first.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on February 7 I asked the Prime Minister the following:
—whether Mr. Jean Carle was involved in any way in the Auberge
Grand-Mère file, either during his tenure in the Prime Minister's
Office or in his work with the Business Development Bank.
The Prime Minister replied “The answer is no”. Was the Prime
Minister's statement to the House of Commons on February 7 the
truth?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre may
repeat the question he asked before, but asking it in the way he
has asked it is marginally in order at best. I suspect it is out
of order. I am going to allow the Prime Minister to answer and I
will treat it as a repeat of the previous question.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I said in the House of Commons was the truth and I
will repeat what I said to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
The loan was made in 1997. Mr. Carle was working with me and
was not involved in the file. He joined the bank in 1998, so he
had absolutely nothing to do with this loan to Auberge
Grand-Mère. That was a loan not only from the bank, but from the
caisse populaire and from Le Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs
du Québec. This loan was made in 1997 and the loan is still in
operation after four years.
1430
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the question was not about the loan. The question was about
whether Mr. Jean Carle was involved in any way in this file. The
Prime Minister cannot pass this off to Pinocchio. He has to
answer this himself.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The House will hear the
question of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, was Mr. Jean Carle involved in any
way in any of the transactions related to Auberge Grand-Mère? Is
the answer to the question asked on February 7 the same, or is
the Prime Minister changing his position?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Jean Carle was never involved in the loan by the
Business Development Bank. The leader of the opposition has just
said that he has nothing against the loan.
The problem the leader of not the opposition has, who will never
come back as leader of the opposition, is that it is pure
jealousy. This government, for almost eight years, had no
scandals while he was in an administration that had one every
month.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in fact there are a couple of questions that arise from
the loan itself, and I would like to bring them up.
We have obtained an internal memo from the Business Development
Bank that details the very loan to the Auberge Grand-Mère. I
will quote from that document. It states:
—the global risk for BDC is very high. We are aware that the
financing structure recommended does not meet the normal policy
and criteria of the bank.
Is that why the Prime Minister has not been entirely, shall we
say, forthcoming with the House? That is the memo.
The Speaker: Once again, I am concerned about the tone of
the questions. Hon. members know there are rules in the House
concerning these questions. I urge all hon. members to show
proper and judicious use of their words in asking questions.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is not forthcoming is the posing with four-legged
animals outside parliament complaining about parliamentary
pensions and then grabbing one right after the election is over.
That is not professional.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the BDC memo which says very
clearly—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I know it is Wednesday.
Hon. members, we are losing a lot of time. The hon. member for
Edmonton North has the floor.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty sad over
there no matter what day of the week it is.
The BDC memo concerns loans to the Grand-Mère of $415,000. What
did it end up getting? It got $600,000.
Let us look at this. A bank is very worried about lending a
large sum of money so it first ignores its normal procedures, it
increases the loan by 50% extra and then it hands over the cash.
I would love the Prime Minister to call my bank when it is time
to renew my mortgage.
I want to ask, is this a shady loan or is it the fact that he
arranged it?
The Speaker: I am not sure I heard a question but I think
the right hon. Prime Minister will reply.
The hon. member for Edmonton North will pose her question
directly.
Miss Deborah Grey: She surely will, Mr. Speaker. Is it
the shady nature of that bank loan or is it the fact that he
arranged it that prevents the Prime Minister from answering?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the facts are pretty clear. The facts are that we have
had a request by the Leader of the Opposition directly to the
ethics counsellor for an investigation. That has now occurred
and a definitive answer has been given saying that the Prime
Minister of Canada was in no conflict and has complied with the
ethics rules.
Then we had two letters from the leader of the Conservative
Party to the RCMP. Surely all Canadians can agree that the RCMP
are objective and professional. It did an investigation that
said there was no need for a further investigation. Then the
leader of the Conservative Party wants to coach the RCMP on how
to be policemen.
This matter is ridiculous and—
1435
The Speaker: The hon. member for Joliette.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
for International Trade has said time and again that Canada's
position was that culture, health and education would never be
included in the negotiations on the free trade area of the
Americas.
Could the minister confirm today that Canada's position is still
the same and that our country will never accept that these
issues be negotiated under the free trade area of the Americas?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as regards culture, we have done some very
important work, along with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to
develop a different way of treating cultural products. We feel
it is important that these products not be subjected to standard
trade legislation.
As for the other issues, namely health and education, I have
always made it very clear that Canada would never allow negotiations
on its right to have its own systems and its own way of doing
things in these most important areas.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since we do
not have access to the basic texts to be used in the
negotiations, could the minister give us today the assurance
that none of these issues are on the agenda of the negotiations
on the free trade area of the Americas?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is what I just did in a very clear
manner.
We intend to keep working with our colleagues from the
hemisphere and to conclude, through negotiations other than
those on the FTAA, agreements on the environment. Environment
ministers will meet in preparation for the summit in Quebec
City. We will also have meetings with labour ministers, who are
holding their own talks. In early April international trade
ministers will negotiate in Buenos Aires the extensions and the
integration of the free trade area of the Americas.
* * *
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last April, when we enquired about
grants to the Strathroy Community Resource Centre, the
parliamentary secretary not only defended the grants but attacked
us for even questioning them.
As it turns out, we had every reason to be concerned. Last
Thursday the police announced that fraud charges were going to be
laid against three members of the board.
I ask the minister: Why was the government defending these
grants instead of protecting taxpayer money from criminal misuse?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, whenever there
were allegations of wrongdoing in circumstances involving
government money we took them seriously. The department did ask
the police to investigate. The hon. member is correct, the OPP
have laid charges against three individuals. This is before the
courts and, as such, I will say no more on the case.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the
minister really does not know what is going on in her department.
The HRDC performance report states that last year's audit of
grants and contributions found “that no money was found to be
missing”.
This is quite interesting given that there are at least 20
police investigations into the grants and contributions program.
If no money is missing, as the minister claims, can she then
explain to the House why there are these police investigations
and why they are laying fraud charges on the files?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is absolutely clear is that the vast
majority of investments made by the government in communities
right across the country, including investments in the hon.
member's own riding, have made a difference in the lives of
Canadians.
I respect, from time to time, that there are allegations made
about wrongdoings. We always take them seriously. If
investigations are required, they are undertaken and action is
followed.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a United
Nations agency has criticized Canada's lack of action against
the illegal cultivation of cannabis and its inability to
properly control the production of synthetic drugs. I too have
called upon the solicitor general here in this House to take
action on the gangs terrorizing farmers, but with no
satisfactory response.
Could the solicitor general tell us why he has turned a deaf ear
to my entreaties for the past two years and could he tell us, in
light of such a damning report, what action he intends to take
so that farm families will no longer fall victim to gang
threats?
1440
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is personally well
aware, the RCMP supports the SQ, which leads the investigations
in Quebec.
We support federal, provincial and municipal police forces
across the country and we will continue to do so to fight
organized crime.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
not a matter of support, but one of resources. Resources are
insufficient, as he well knows. We are not the ones saying it
this time, the UN is.
Now that the laxity of the government is being criticized on the
international level, is the solicitor general going to finally
tell us what action he intends to take against drug traffickers
and what protection he intends to provide to these farm
families, who have had enough of his promises?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is well aware
that in the last budget the government committed $1.5 billion to
the public safety envelope, which is something that is very
important.
We give the RCMP and other police organizations across this
country the tools to do the job, like CPIC and many other tools.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian Tamils are law-abiding good people but in any
group there are a few bad apples.
Right now the Department of Citizenship and Immigration lawyers
are arguing at the supreme court to have a man deported because
of his association with FACT, a group they say is a fundraising
front for the Tamil Tigers.
Last year the finance minister and the CIDA ministers argued
there was nothing wrong with attending a FACT fundraiser.
Will the immigration minister confirm that FACT is indeed a
terrorist front and that her cabinet colleagues should not be out
raising money for them?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that it is
completely inappropriate to discuss matters that are before the
Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Especially, Mr. Speaker, when her neck is on the line.
In their case before the supreme court, the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration lawyers flat out say that FACT is a
fundraising front for the Tamil Tigers. They go on to say that
the Tigers “raise money through drug trafficking and by relying
upon the willing or unwilling expatriate communities abroad, such
as the large number of Tamil refugees in Canada”.
That is what her own lawyers have said.
How can the minister deny that her cabinet colleagues were in
fact raising funds for a terrorist front?
The Speaker: Before the minister answers, the question
had to do with whether ministers were raising money for other
purposes. It has nothing to do with the responsibilities of the
government and I am inclined to rule the question out of order.
* * *
[Translation]
WATER QUALITY
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect
to the problem facing the people of Shannon and contrary to the
allegations of certain Bloc Quebecois members, we have been
working together with the various parties since this matter was
raised.
I would direct my question to the Minister of National Defence.
In the light of recent press releases by the Quebec minister of
the environment on the quality of the water in Shannon, could
the minister tell us what role his department is playing in this
matter and how he intends to reassure the people of Shannon?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my top concern and the top concern of the government
is the health and welfare of the people in this community, the
people on our base and the people in the surrounding communities.
I hope the Quebec government will make that its priority as well.
Since discovering this matter and since bringing it to the
attention of the provincial government back in April 1998, we
have spent over $2 million in terms of doing studies, doing
research as to the source of the problems and taking remedial
action. We will continue to do that. We want to continue to
co-operate with all officials, provincial and local, to make sure
that the health of the people in this area is looked after.
* * *
PHARMACEUTICALS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the government introduced significant and
far-reaching legislation extending patent protection for many
brand name drugs, which will add enormously to the cost of drugs
already going through the roof.
Interestingly, the government chose not to introduce this bill
in this House but chose the other place.
The question today is really why this cave in to the WTO and why
in fact the Senate? Are the Liberals ashamed of the fact that
they are bringing in legislation to conform to an idea which they
had previously condemned?
1445
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the legislation which I sponsored is being dealt with in
the other place because of its ability to deal efficiently with
legislation. It will move over here at the appropriate time.
With respect to the package of amendments, they are in
compliance with the ruling of the WTO. Canada always seeks to be
in compliance with WTO rulings.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the fact of the matter is that just before the federal
election, in response to the WTO ruling, the government said all
options were on the table, including non-compliance.
Today the government is prepared to roll over and play dead. The
patients, the seniors and the provincial health systems will pay
the price.
Since the government has obviously decided to cave in to the
WTO, we want to know what the government is prepared to do to
address the high price of drugs. Is it at least prepared to
eliminate the automatic injunction against generic competition?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion
that the cost of drugs in Canada will increase dramatically in
the fashion being proposed by the member as a result of complying
with the WTO. We will continue to still see many people from
south of the border taking buses across the border to try and
access cheaper drugs in this country.
The hon. member and the NDP cannot be serious in suggesting that
Canada alone in the world should decide to create some kind of
survivor society completely outside international trade rules. We
intend to respect those rules because we have done very well in
the world of trade.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister is dodging on Jean Carle. Let me ask him
whether he stands by his assertion in his letter to The
National Post on April 10, 1999, in which he said “I
therefore had no direct or indirect personal connection with the
hotel in question or with the adjacent golf course”.
If the Prime Minister stands by that statement, will he agree to
table all relevant documents respecting his attempt to sell
shares in the Grand-Mère golf course to Akimbo Development
Corporation?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the facts are these. In 1997 when this loan was
approved, the gentleman in question, Mr. Jean Carle, was employed
on Parliament Hill in the Prime Minister's Office. He was not
anywhere near BDC at the time. In 1998 he was employed at BDC.
Yesterday the leader of that opposition party said that he was
quoting from a document from the Prime Minister's Office. I have
actually examined it. It is not a document from the Prime
Minister's Office. It is a document prepared by the BDC. Insofar
as Mr. Carle is concerned, he is the vice-president—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but we
do have time limits in the House.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I just sent a letter over to the Prime Minister from the four
Atlantic premiers requesting renewal of the softwood lumber
agreement and specifically the maritime accord. In the letter
they said “Failure to continue the current agreement and
arrangements would have a devastating impact on our region's
softwood lumber industry”.
I was surprised a week ago when the parliamentary secretary rose
in the House and said “the government is very clear that nobody
in Canada wants to see the current deal extended”. I would say
that was little disrespectful of the premiers.
Would the Prime Minister confirm that he understands the request
of the four premiers? Would he commit to act on this request by
the four premiers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very important file for all provinces because
softwood lumber is an extremely important commodity which Canada
exports to the United States. It was one of the first items I
mentioned to the president when I met him two weeks ago.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last night farmers continued their
efforts to get the government to finally pay attention to the
farm income crisis through a banquet in the Hall of Honour. The
purpose of this banquet was to demand an all day debate on the
issue of farmers receiving adequate returns for their investment
and labour.
The Liberal rural caucus seems to support this debate. We have
heard nothing from cabinet. Will the government hold this debate
as demanded by farmers? If so, when will it be done?
1450
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the farmers across Canada
and everyone in the House I thank the hon. member for
Toronto—Danforth for organizing the event last night.
It continues to point out the need for support from the
government to Canadian farmers. The government has been there
for farmers in the past and will continue to be there for them.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the farmers up there in the stands do
not want platitudes. They do not want banquets. They want
action, and they want it today.
The government has had three years to take care of the farm
crisis in the country, and I guarantee it is a crisis. What has
the minister done? We have farmers coming here with combines and
machinery. They are protesting on the Hill and inside the House.
When will he do something to get some money to farmers now?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the event took place last night
because it is the first question on this issue from the
opposition for two weeks.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair wants to hear the
answer of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, while opposition members have been
asking questions on other issues, the government has been working
on this issue. We have in the past and will continue to do so in
the future. We will be there for farmers with all the resources
we can possibly muster.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
entitlement under the parental leave program of the federal
government for women eligible for employment insurance
discriminates against women who give birth prematurely.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Is the minister prepared to amend Bill C-2 to treat these women
fairly and enable them to enjoy extended parental leave?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very
proud of our undertaking to double parental benefits. The new
program came into place at the end of the year 2000 as we
promised.
As is the question whenever changes are made, there has to be a
date of commencement. We undertook discussions with Canadians.
We had to talk with the provinces and territories. We had to
create legislation. We set the date for the end of the year 2000
as we promised. We are very glad that on a go forward basis all
parents will have access to the program.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the minister realize that, if she agreed finally to
negotiate with the government of Quebec to enable it to
establish its own parental leave program, the program would be
far less prejudicial to women?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, as we have always said, we have
expanded the parental benefit by doubling it in a very
significant way. If the province of Quebec wishes to add to that
program, we would encourage it to do so.
* * *
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today brings more troubling evidence
of the lengths to which the government will go to sacrifice
Canada's impartial public service if it does not willingly go
along with the Liberal self-serving political agenda.
A Health Canada scientist has been punished and her paycheque
taken away for two weeks. Her crime was being honest enough to
confirm the Brazilian beef ban was not based on scientific
evidence but was a pretext to escalate a trade war.
Why is there this blatant intimidation of a public servant who
dares to step out of the official line?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I should remind the House that the individual in
question was not working on this file. This was not within her
area of responsibility in the health department.
She was not an employee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
1455
This individual has available to her a full grievance procedure
and eventually, if she wants, recourse through the courts. She is
represented by her union. Under the circumstances I think it is
appropriate to confirm that ordinarily ministers and members are
not involved in these types of public service decisions.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this scientist has just fought a
Health Canada gag order and won, but the government continues its
efforts to shut her down from telling Canadians the truth.
Canadians are unable to feel secure when examples pile up of our
public servants being prevented from telling the truth and being
made political pawns of the government. Why does the government
have to go to such extreme lengths to keep citizens from knowing
what is really going on?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, senior
officials who are directly connected with the file, veterinary
scientists and officials of the health department linked with the
file are giving full information.
She mentioned a court case. I understand the fact situation is
different. I also remind her that these types of matters which
involve employees are not matters where ministers of the
government are directly involved. However, the official in
question has recourse to a full grievance procedure. I am sure
she is aware of her rights in that regard.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade. It has now
been 119 days since the United States took unwarranted and
illegal trade action by closing the border to P.E.I. potatoes. We
have proven scientifically that this product is safe to export,
yet the border remains closed and our warehouses are full.
It is time to be aggressive. What action is the minister
prepared to pursue with the Americans to have them open the
border so our products can get back in the marketplace?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first thank all my colleagues from
P.E.I. who have been very active on this file on behalf of potato
growing constituents.
The Prime Minister raised the issue with President Bush. When
my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, was in
Washington yesterday he raised it with his colleague from the
United States. I will be raising the P.E.I. potato issue with
Bob Zoellick, the United States trade representative, when I meet
with him on Monday.
Our government is taking this issue to the highest level. Canada
will not stand for protectionism by the back door.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the minister supported the reduced flying
hours for Aurora aircraft pilots by claiming that simulators
would make up for the lost time.
He was dead wrong on that assessment. A phone call this morning
from Canadian Forces Base Greenwood to my office revealed that
the simulators there are more than 30 years old and do not even
reflect an Aurora cockpit. Moreover, simulation training is not
as effective as flying. In what way does using an outdated
simulator protect Canada's borders?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as usual the Canadian Alliance is out of date on its
research. Yesterday it talked about a letter which is almost two
years old. Today it is talking about old equipment. The
government is investing in new equipment, new simulators, new
sensors, new upgrading and technologically advanced equipment.
Within the last hour I talked with the chief of the air staff.
He fully supports the recommendation that is being made. He
assures me that we will not compromise the security of Canada's
coastline.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the chief of the air force would probably be fired
if he did not agree with the minister.
The minister said that the reduced Aurora flying hours were
justified because it was a case of quality versus quantity.
Thanks to the Liberal government, when it comes to equipment we
do not have either. Would the minister tell the House how
sitting in a simulator is quality border patrol?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there will not be any reduction in terms of the
operations on the coastline.
This comes from the chief of the air staff. It is bottom up, not
top down. We in fact will maintain the kind of service that we
have provided. The integrity of the service will be maintained.
We are investing in new equipment. We are investing almost $1
billion in the upgrading of the Aurora equipment to act in a
proper fashion in terms of our surveillance capability.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
U.S. MISSILE DEFENCE SHIELD
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
important issue of the U.S. missile defence shield, the Prime
Minister recently said in China that “It could cause all sorts
of disruptions, but that then again it could lead to a solution.
We will see”.
My question is for the Prime Minister, and I hope he will
elaborate further than he did earlier.
If it turns out that the U.S. missile defence shield causes all
sorts of disruptions, to use the Prime Minister's words,
including a renewed international arms race, will the Prime
Minister strongly oppose this project?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a hypothetical question, because so far the
United States has said that it would discuss the issue with
its allies and also with the Russians and the Chinese. This is
only normal. However, there is no specific plan at this point.
So, it may be that the hon. member is speculating on something
that may never occur.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of hon. members
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Khaled Toukan,
Minister of Education, and His Excellency Dr. Fawaz Zu'bi,
Minister of Post and Communications of the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during question period the member for
Medicine Hat referred to both myself and the Minister of Finance
and said that we had attended a terrorist dinner or function and
that we support terrorists.
We attended a community event.
When he says things like that, he is painting members of the
Tamil community as a whole as terrorists.
I attended a community event that was made up of respectable
Canadian citizens. I did not attend or have dinner with a group
of terrorists.
I take this as an offence and I ask for an apology. I do not
support terrorism and neither does my colleague. That is
absolutely unacceptable.
The Speaker: From time to time some hon. members of
the House say things that may cause some offence to some other
hon. members. I think the member has made a point here that
has clarified the situation, insofar as she is concerned, under
the guise of a question of privilege.
It is more in the nature of a grievance than a question of
privilege. While the Chair is sympathetic and has allowed the
hon. member to perhaps make her point, and she has made it, as I
say, I do not believe that her privileges as a member have been
infringed as a result of what the hon. member for Medicine Hat
may have said. I do not think that what he has said is contrary
to the rules of the House.
We have a disagreement here on an interpretation of what the
nature of this meeting was. The hon. member has expressed his
view. The hon. minister has disagreed with that point of view. I
think we will leave it at that. I do not think there is anything
the Chair can say that will change that situation. Accordingly,
I am declining to deal with it.
1505
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is difficult to understand how there can be a valid
difference of opinion as to the nature of the meeting given the
fact that the minister and I were there and the hon. member was
not.
That is not the issue. The other part of the issue is that it
is alleged that we support terrorism and fundraising activities
for terrorism. That is clearly not the fact. It not only
besmirches us, it besmirches the entire Tamil community, but it
is our own privileges that we are raising this.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I simply have to bring some clarity to this situation.
During question period I certainly did not suggest in any way
that the Minister of Finance and the minister for CIDA knowingly
supported this group.
What I am alleging is simply that the department of immigration,
CSIS and other government organizations have pointed to the fact
that FACT is a front for a terrorist organization. I argue that
both ministers should have known that as they are cabinet members
and that they should renounce that group that they in fact
unknowingly supported.
The Speaker: It seems to me that we have cleared the
air on what was alleged and what was understood. Again I have
trouble relating this to a strict question in terms of privileges
of members, which hon. members can read about in our wonderful
book on procedure that is available at the table, Marleau and
Montpetit. There is an excellent chapter in there on privilege.
In fact, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader himself has published a book dealing with issues
relating to parliamentary privilege, which is of course a
masterpiece. We could all benefit from looking at those.
However, I have not heard anything in the exchanges today that
has assisted the Chair in finding that there is in fact a
question of privilege. There is a grievance and the grievance
has been aired. There has been some clarification. Perhaps we
ought to leave it.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask you to please clarify the reasons why you
would not allow my S. O. 31 statement.
I would respectfully submit that I did not in any way intend it
to be a personal attack on any member in the House but rather to
take the very words that the ethics counsellor himself used about
the Prime Minister, saying that he was no ordinary MP. It was
within that context that these particular words were put
together.
I did provide you, Mr. Speaker, with the text of what I was
about to submit to the House. I would ask if you would please
clarify what it is about that statement that you considered to be
a personal attack on a member of the House.
The Speaker: I will not read the hon. member's
statement to the House. What I will read to him are the
guidelines that are set out on page 363 of Marleau and Montpetit:
In presiding over the conduct of this daily activity,—
This is the daily activity of Standing Order 31 statements.
—Speakers have been guided by a number of well-defined
prohibitions. In 1983, when the procedure for “Statements by
Members” was first put in place, Speaker Sauvé stated that
Members may speak on any matter of concern and not necessarily
on urgent matters only;
Personal attacks are not permitted;
Congratulatory messages, recitations of poetry and frivolous
matters are out of order.
These guidelines are still in place today, although Speakers
tend to turn a blind eye to the latter restriction.
I'll say.
In a ruling in 1996, Mr. Speaker Parent further cautioned that
“once they”, the words, “have been uttered, it is very
difficult to retract them and the impression they leave is not
always easily erased”. Accordingly, the Chair errs on the side
of caution in making rulings in respect of statements by members.
In this particular case, the hon. member for Kelowna has
provided me with a copy of his statement that he was in the
process of reading. I have to say that when I read the whole
statement I have no doubt that my decision was correct.
1510
It appears to me that it was in my view a personal attack.
Statements by members are not ones that can be responded to. If
members are going to attack one another in statements by members,
there is no opportunity for anyone else to comment. Question
period is a different kettle of fish. There is question and
answer, there is give and take, but in a statement by members
there is not.
The Chair is not prepared to countenance members rising on the
guise of those statements and attacking one another in the House.
There is enough opportunity to do that at other times. It is not
going to happen under statements by members.
In my view the hon. member for Kelowna stepped over the line in
his statement. Having read the entire statement, I have no doubt
I was correct.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in question period today in answer to
my question in regard to agriculture, the agriculture minister
saw fit to cast aspersions on the Canadian Alliance and me with
the idea of our not having asked any questions or participated in
any activity in agriculture in the House. That is not true. We
have had over eight questions and dozens of statements and
speeches. I believe the agriculture minister should retract that.
The Speaker: Once again we are in a situation where
members say things on which there is disagreement. I do not know
how this could be a point of order.
The hon. member and the minister clearly have a disagreement. I
know that the minister seemed, in his answer, to disagree with
the member's statement that nothing had been done. These
disagreements are commonplace on issues of policy in the House.
While the hon. member may not like the answer the minister gave,
I sense the minister was not entirely happy with the question
either. That is sometimes the way things are and we all have to
live with it. I do not think there is a point of order here.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) they are
deemed to be referred to the appropriate standing committee, a
list of which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to two petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.) Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present, in
both official languages, the report of the delegation of the
Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group to the ninth annual meeting
of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Valparaiso, Chile,
January 14 to January 19, 2001.
* * *
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-11, an act
respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
JUDGES ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-12, an act to
amend the Judges Act and to amend another Act in consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-273, an act to amend the
Parliament of Canada Act (recognized political parties).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would provide that in order to
receive official party status a political party would need at
least 10% of the seats in the House of Commons and members of
parliament from at least three provinces or territories.
1515
The bill would therefore prevent fringe parties such as the
Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP, with only 4% of the
seats in the House of Commons, from receiving the benefit of
financial resources that come with the distinction of official
party status.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-274, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (Order of prohibition).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a bill that I think has a little
more substance than the last one.
It refers to a section of the criminal code, currently section
161, which deals with an offender convicted of a sexual offence.
The enactment would permit the court to make a prohibition for
the offender from being in a dwelling house where the offender
knows or ought to know that a person under the age of 14 is
present without being in the custody or control of a person also
of that age.
In essence what the bill will do is allow judges to currently
expand the umbrella of protection when putting in place
prohibition orders for those who have been convicted of a sexual
offence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-275, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (recruitment of children and swarming).
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again, this bill pertains to the
criminal code in its current form. I introduced the bill in the
last parliament.
It would essentially amend the criminal code to include a
provision that would make it illegal to elicit or recruit
children to commit criminal offences.
It would also put in place a new provision of the criminal code
which would prohibit the offence of swarming, which is an offence
that is sadly becoming increasingly prevalent in a number of
communities around the country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-276, an act to amend the
Competition Act (abuse of dominant position).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am please to reintroduce a bill dealing
with changes to the Competition Act, most specifically section 78
dealing with abuse of dominance.
Recently growing consolidation and concentration throughout a
variety of industries, most specifically in the retail sector,
have led to a number of abuses, particularly of suppliers.
Currently the Competition Act deals with the notion and the
concept of monopoly and oligopoly but does not deal with the more
technical question of oligopsony or monopsony.
As a result the bill would provide more teeth to the Competition
Act to ensure that items such as high listing fees, trade
allowances, et cetera, would be prohibited and would have, at
least in their purpose, result or the intent, a competitive and a
less harmful outcome for consumers and Canadians as a whole.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ) moved:
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development that it have the power to divide Bill C-2,
An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment
Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, in order that all questions
related to the establishment of the premium rate and to
Employment Insurance surplus management be in a separate piece
of legislation.
1520
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak
to my motion that is supported by all the opposition parties. At
committee stage, this motion would divide Bill C-2, an act to
amend the Employment Insurance Act, into two separate bills.
There have previously been two precedents in the House for this
type of motion. In fact, the House of Commons Procedure and
Practice stipulates the following:
That is the case.
—the House may give the committee an instruction which
authorizes it to do what it otherwise could not do, such as, for
example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it
separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a
bill into more than one bill—
Our motion does exactly that.
Bill C-2 brings to our EI plan some of the improvements the Bloc
Quebecois has been demanding for several years now. However,
these changes are minor compared to the EI surplus, which could
have been used to improve the plan.
Under Bill C-2, only about 8% of annual surpluses will be given
back to workers, to the unemployed, while 92% of these surpluses
will continue to be used to cover other government expenditures,
including the debt. The money used for all that will come from
the contributions paid by employers and workers, but
particularly from the benefits that the unemployed will not
receive.
This part of the bill is aimed at legalizing the fact that EI
contributions are no longer insurance premiums but rather a new
payroll tax. This should be the subject of a separate debate,
different from the one on improvements to the plan.
The proposal I brought forward is supported by the three
opposition parties.
Indeed, those parties made very eloquent presentations at a
press conference, the purpose of which was to show that, even
though all parties do not share the same views on ways of
improving the plan, it is possible to have similar objectives.
The Canadian Alliance's views on ways of improving the plan may
be very different from ours or from those of the New Democratic
Party or the Progressive Conservative Party, but we share the
same position with regard to the fact that, by hiding a
provision in a bill, the government will legalize the
misappropriation of surpluses in the EI fund, something it has
been doing for several years. This issue cannot be dealt with at
the same time as improvements to the plan.
This is why we are asking the House to mandate the committee to
study both issues separately. This afternoon, the committee will
hear the human resources development minister, who will have to
justify her bill, especially since, during the whole electoral
campaign, liberal members have said that the system could be
improved some more at the committee stage. I think of the
members for Bourassa and for
Gaspé—Bonaventure—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok in particular.
They were saying that, in committee, improvements other than the
ones included in the former Bill C-44, and which are still not found
in Bill C-2, could be made.
If we want the committee to give appropriate time to the
priority consideration of improvements to the system, I propose
this motion which involves the study by the committee of the
issue of improvements so that more improvements can be made
since Bill C-2 only contains a few.
I am sure that those who will appear before this committee will
tell us that these improvements are far from being enough and
that many others will have to be added to the government's
propositions to broaden eligibility for EI benefits, to
eliminate the qualifying period and to ensure that seasonal
workers' status is not dependant upon the economic situation in
their region and that they are guaranteed a decent income
between jobs.
Therefore, all issues concerning the transformation of EI
premiums into a payroll tax scheme should be the subject of
another debate at a later date.
At that time, the whole issue of tax reform could be raised. We
should not forget that the way EI premiums are currently taxed
represents a very regressive tax because anyone who earns up to
$39,000 has to contribute.
That means that someone earning $43,000, $44,000 or $50,000 a
year does not contribute on income over that limit. EI
contributors are the ones contributing to the elimination of the
deficit and to the reduction of Canada's debt, not those earning
over $39,000 or, even worse, those who do not contribute to the
EI scheme at all, including members of parliament.
1525
A broad public debate is going on about the whole issue of tax
reform, an issue that ought to be discussed elsewhere, for
example in a joint committee bringing together members of the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and members of
the Standing Committee on Finance. It is a much broader issue
that is changing the balance between income tax, taxes and
payroll tax and their impact on productivity. Those are very
distinct elements.
Therefore, I call on the members of the House to debate that
issue and to pass this motion. I hope that the Liberal majority
will show an open mind and let us debate that matter today.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from
time to time the House has to deal with complex bills. Often
they have issues that deal with separate items in a policy
envelope. I really do not understand why the member opposite and
his party want to split the bill when, from the point of view of
this member anyway, the bill seems to be so positive and so
directed at remedying apparent defects in the employment
insurance system.
I do not understand why they would not wish to pursue the bill
as a package. I would ask the hon. member to explain why there
are not enough good things in the bill and why he and his party
feel it necessary to split the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of the
parliamentary secretary is very relevant. The answer was given
in the newspapers the very evening of the debate on our
proposal, which was supported by all opposition parties.
The Conseil du patronat du Québec, which is not comprised of
unionized people, would like a separate debate on the whole issue
of payroll taxes, because employers have been contributing to
the employment insurance program for a long time and in a
disproportionate way, considering the program that we have.
In a private insurance program, whatever it may be, there is a
balance between premiums and the benefits paid out. If there is
a major surplus, premiums are usually reduced or the terms of
the program are improved for the employees, in the case of
employment insurance, among other things.
In this case, why should we divide this bill in two and examine
each part separately? Because, through this bill, the government
is appropriating a right. It is legalizing the fact that it has
been misappropriating the employment insurance surpluses. This is
not insignificant, we are talking about $30 billion. This is
money that was paid by employers and employees to fund the
employment insurance program but was used to fund other types of
government spending, including Canada's debt payment.
Certainly, Canada's debt has to be reduced, but this battle must
not be fought only at the expense of people who contribute to
the employment insurance program, because that would reinforce
the regressive nature of the legislation.
This is the main reason why the bill must be split in two for
consideration.
The motion calls for the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development to examine the improvements to the plan first, and
to report to the House on that part of the bill first. The standing
committee could also choose to report on the second part, which
could be the subject matter of another bill, but it is
unacceptable that the government should try to pull the wool
over our eyes with a nice little package.
The government is playing the game of saying, on the one hand,
that it is going to abolish the intensity rule, something the
Bloc has advocated for several years. This represents about
$300 million. On the other hand, it will legalize the
misappropriation of funds by a vote that will enable it to dig
out of our pockets $6 billion a year and use that money for
all sorts of expenses, including paying down the debt.
Those who contribute to the plan are people who earn $39,000 a
year or less.
Why should we not ask that those who contributed to the
elimination of the deficit by being unemployed now reap the
benefits, just like the taxpayers are being rewarded by tax cuts
for their contribution to the elimination of the deficit?
1530
Some workers, more particularly seasonal workers, whose status
is precarious, do not pay huge amounts in taxes. What they need
is decent employment insurance benefits.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like my colleague from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, which, by the
way, is the riding with the longest name in Canada, to reassure
the House and to inform our listeners that the Bloc Quebecois is
not against improvements to the intensity rule. He said very
clearly that this is something the Bloc has been calling for,
for several years now.
I would like him to give more details on why he is asking that
the bill be divided because, if the bill is passed without
amendment, it will open the door to ill intentioned persons,
particularly on the government side.
The government could say “You from the Bloc were opposed to
improvements to EI. You were against them”.
It would be too easy later on to use a bill with clauses on
such a wide variety of subjects as an excuse to indulge in
demagogy. For that reason, I would like my colleague to repeat
that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of increasing benefits for
workers who have had to take large cuts since the government's
first reforms in 1994.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, even before Bill C-2 was
introduced, we had submitted a proposal to the government to have
two separate bills.
We said we were willing to dispose very quickly of the issue of
improvements to the plan. Even before an election was called,
when this bill was known as Bill C-44, I remember asking the
Prime Minister in the House if we could vote right away on
improvements to the plan, excluding the provision enabling the
government to divert for its own purposes the employment
insurance fund surplus.
Our attitude has not changed. This afternoon in committee we
will hear from the minister. We will ask her questions, but we
hope that this bill can be passed as soon as possible, as far
as improvements to the plan are concerned.
Yesterday in committee we decided to make a list of witnesses
who could be invited to appear. Within 24 hours, we came up with
a list of 30 or so groups and organizations that wanted to be
heard. The committee will begin its deliberations immediately
after the visit of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, on
Thursday, and next week hearings will begin.
We are willing to proceed very rapidly. However, we are hearing
from people with very different opinions, including not only the
Conseil du patronat du Québec, but also unemployed workers
advocacy groups, which know full well that seasonal workers need
the money they will get from the elimination of the intensity rule
and they need it quickly.
However, they also agree with the Mouvement autonome et
solidaire des sans-emploi that this bill, if passed as is, will
not really deal with the fact that we have a surplus of billions
of dollars.
At the same time, we have young people, women and seasonal
workers who are not eligible to EI because of the government's
greed. The government wants to use the money to fill up the
coffers, pay down the debt and pay its expenses, but not give
adequate EI benefits.
Yes, we do want the improvements to be passed as soon as
possible, because we have been asking for them for several years
now. In the last few years, we have introduced about a dozen bills to
improve the EI plan. The Liberals have picked two or three of
our ideas, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. Let
us put our time, our energy, the work of our committee and the
ability of all members to good use.
I especially ask for the support of the Liberal members who,
throughout the election campaign, kept saying that the plan
would be changed after the election and that it would greatly
benefit all Canadians because it would be made fairer. So far,
these commitments have not been added to old Bill C-44.
So, to answer my colleague, I say that yes, it is true, we have
to focus all our energy, and as soon as possible, on restoring
some value to the plan, but we must not legalize any
misappropriation of the EI surplus, as employers, employees and
the unemployed would never forgive us.
1535
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I only want
to make a comment and ask a question.
Could the member explain what happened during the election
campaign when there were demonstrations in the Prime Minister's
riding?
The Liberals had made some promises. One of the ministers, the
public works minister, and another one whose name and title I
cannot remember, promised people in Quebec that there were going
to be further changes to employment insurance over and above
what was in Bill C-44.
Could the member explain it to us in order to shed some light on
the issue?
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, indeed, during the election
campaign the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport and the
Minister of Public Works promised a parliamentary committee to
people, particularly union leaders, who came to meet with them,
and told them “You are going to be able to propose your
amendments”.
There was some openness in this regard. It was said that they were
open to changes. I hope this openness to changes did not
mean that they would be able to put even more money in their
pockets instead of handing it back to those who contributed to
the plan.
In view of this position and the Prime Minister's statement, and I
will end on this note, in the maritime provinces, acknowledging
that there were several major flaws in the employment insurance
reform, we are still waiting for this same Prime Minister to
specifically acknowledge these flaws through amendments to Bill
C-2, in order to bring about a true reform of the employment
insurance plan instead of trying to hide the hijacking, by the
Liberal government, of the surpluses in the EI fund.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The parliamentary secretary knows full well he is
operating outside the rules of the House in wanting debate of
this very important issue shut down. We are, as members have
indicated, meeting at committee stage in the next few minutes.
Let us continue the debate and air some of our grievances.
The Speaker: I have not heard anything that would
indicate the motion to adjourn the debate is out of order. It is
my duty to put the question to the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1620
[Translation]
(The House, divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Godfrey
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Myers
| Neville
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 137
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
|
Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Chatters
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Day
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Elley
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Mark
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 99
|
PAIRED
Members
Barnes
| Carroll
| Fournier
| Gauthier
|
Rock
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr.
Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak once more about the species at risk bill.
The last time I spoke on this, I had mentioned a number of
aspects which satisfied us in principle.
1625
I mentioned that inevitably a number of international
agreements had been signed. However, the most important agreement,
the one which requires species at risk laws, is the 1992
agreement called the Convention on Biodiversity, which clearly
states that every country has to establish and apply legislation
aimed at protecting species at risk. Canada is one of the
signatories of this convention, and we are proud of this fact,
because we must immediately pass laws aimed at protecting
species at risk in Canada.
This explains why, as early as 1989, the government of Quebec
and the national assembly passed a law for the protection of
species at risk.
I have already spoken about the importance of Canada's
international commitments. I have also dealt with the importance
of and reasons for introducing such legislation. I am not
necessarily referring to this specific bill.
Today, I will compare some aspects of this bill with the act
passed by Quebec.
I said that it was somehow paradoxical for the federal
government to introduce a bill because we, on this side of the
House, believe that it would duplicate the efforts made by
Quebec in the area of identification.
I will remind the House of the principles of the act introduced
by Quebec in 1989. They are the identification of species at
risk, the legal designation of those species and the protection
of aquatic environment. All this is inevitably linked to
recovery plans which must be implemented in collaboration with
industry, landowners and non-profit organizations working on a
daily basis to preserve the heritage of Quebec. So there are a
certain number of elements and measures incorporated in this
act.
For example, on the whole issue of identification of species,
the bill will give legal status to the Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, which has so far
identified more than 340 plant and animal species.
Do we have the same type of tool in Quebec? Was it necessary to
create a committee on species at risk for the sake of having a
double security net? The answer is no. If members look at
Quebec's act, they will soon see that the province created, back
in 1989, an advisory committee composed of scientists who are
knowledgeable about species at risk in Quebec and who have
identified more than 19 plant and animal species.
This advisory committee already exists. It is working in
co-operation with the Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC. However, we are disappointed by
this government which has committed itself toward the government
of Quebec and the provinces, through the harmonisation agreement
on species at risk in Canada.
1630
We must remember that the federal government promised the
government of Quebec (The environment minister at the time was
David Cliche) that it would co-operate with the provinces to ensure
that it would not infringe upon provincial areas of jurisdiction
nor duplicate provincial legislation.
Obviously, the federal government did not keep its promise. We
believe that habitat protection comes under provincial
jurisdiction. We believe that the federal government should not
interfere in this area. Under several of the clauses in the bill
now before the House, the federal government would be able to
get involved in wildlife habitat management in Quebec.
The government talks about protecting critical habitat, and if
that is not a direct infringement upon one of Quebec's areas of
jurisdiction, I do not know what it is. In clauses 37 through
73, that notion of critical habitat is directly applied. This is
totally unacceptable.
It is unacceptable, because in Quebec we have species at risk
legislation which sets out what we call recovery measures to
protect the habitats.
Does the federal bill contain the same provisions? Again, the
answer is yes. Why do we need federal legislation that sets out
recovery plans when we already have some under Quebec
legislation?
There is also the issue of compensation. The
government is clearly improvising on the issue of compensation.
During a briefing given by Environment Canada officials, we
tried to ask them a few questions about the kind of compensation
that would be provided to private landowners, but they were
unable to give us a definite answer.
What we do know, in that regard, is that such compensation will
be limited, because it says so in the bill. However, we would
have liked to see a number of other provisions included in the
bill. I am thinking, among other things, of the Pearse report,
which said clearly that landowners who believed that they would
suffer losses as a result of the application of the act would
receive compensation equivalent to 50% of these losses.
If the bill before us today were clear on that, at least we
would know what to expect. However, what we can expect from this
government, and we see it very often in the bills introduced in
the House, are provisions regarding regulations, which will be
made at a later date and which we know nothing about.
As parliamentarians, we are asked to form an opinion and to take
a stance on a bill when the regulations have not yet been
tabled. This is totally unacceptable. If the government had
wanted to be transparent, if it really had wanted people to know
about the compensation process for landowners, then it would
have tabled the regulations at the same time as the bill.
The enforcement issue is another aspect of this bill. I said a
few moments ago that Quebec has had legislation on species at
risk since 1989.
I would add that not only does Quebec have legislation on
species at risk, but it also has two other tools.
1635
The first tool is the Quebec wildlife conservation act. In
Quebec, we have species at risk legislation and perfectly
adequate wildlife conservation legislation as well. We have
fisheries regulations as well. These three enable us to protect
our flora, our fauna and our aquatic environment.
Closer scrutiny of this bill, clauses 85 through 96 in
particular, shows that the government plans to create a new
authority. Its agents would intervene on both Quebec and
Canadian territory.
How can we accept the creation of a new federal authority, when
we in Quebec already have wildlife conservation officers? Those
officers come under Quebec's wildlife conservation act. Why
then create a new federal authority? How will it apply on our
territory? That we do not know. We do not know what the
protocols of intervention will be. We do not know what the
authority's powers will be. This is totally unacceptable.
What is more, if this bill merely applied on crown lands, that
is land under federal jurisdiction, we would not oppose it. If
we were told “We are adopting a bill here in the House in order
to protect endangered species in Canada's national parks” we
would applaud that. We would applaud it because the protection
of species is not restricted to a single territory, and we are
fully aware of that.
What is more serious is that this legislation will not apply
just to lands under federal jurisdiction. It is clearly
indicated, and we must acknowledged that the minister has shown
frankness, honesty and transparency by telling us so in this
House, that the bill would also apply to Quebec lands.
The minister tells us that, to a certain extent, the bill would
apply to lands belonging to the government of Quebec, including
Quebec wildlife preserves. Imagine that, it would apply to
lands managed by the government of Quebec. If the federal
government deemed it necessary, agents of the federal authority
could turn up on these Quebec owned and Quebec administered lands
in order to enforce their law. If conflict is what it wants, I
do not think the federal government could find a better way to
stir it up.
Another aspect of this bill is the whole issue of offences, as
if no offences are set out in the Quebec legislation. It is as
if the Quebec law provides no offences for an individual who
decides to stalk and kill an endangered species. The offences
covered in the Quebec law are severe. Why have a federal law
providing for offences as well?
1640
The laws overlap. This is totally unacceptable, for two reasons.
The first is because, and I have said this, there is blatant
interference in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. There is such
blatant interference that the day the bill on endangered species
was tabled, the minister acknowledged, to some extent, that the
bill was open to legal challenge.
Have we the time for a legal challenge? If Quebec did not have
a law, it would be a different matter. There is not only Quebec.
It is as if the provinces were guilty of not protecting species.
There are other provinces, including New Brunswick, that have a
law as well. The expertise and the experience the Quebec
government has acquired over 12 years of applying the law must be
respected.
There is room for improvement, I agree. A law passed 12 years
ago certainly needs updating, and I acknowledge this quite
honestly. However, we must realize that the federal government
is about to make a serious mistake by proposing this bill.
I think the only reason the government is considering tabling
this bill is to be able to come meddling again in the name of
environmental protection.
I understand the need for legislation on endangered species.
Considering that there are over 70,000 wild species that exist
and that have been identified in Canada during all these years,
we can understand that. Far from me the idea of claiming that
the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada,
COSEWIC, did not do a good job, on the contrary.
Currently, under this harmonization agreement, the two
governments are co-operating. COSEWIC, which identified 15
extinct species, 87 endangered species, 75 threatened species
and 151 vulnerable species, shows that there is a real need for
legislation. This is a bill that could have some teeth.
Today we are asking the government to act responsibly in its
own jurisdictions.
On this issue, as in all environmental issues, we are asking the
government to take action in its own jurisdictions, instead of
lecturing the Quebec government as it often does about specific
issues. Let the federal government take action.
I would have liked the minister to be present in the House
today. I would have asked him why the federal government took so
long before introducing a bill to protect species at risk. The
Quebec government passed such legislation in 1989, but the
federal government still does not have an act to protect species
on its lands and sites. Why did the federal government wait so
long, more than nine years after signing the 1992 Convention on
Biodiversity?
1645
Throughout this mandate, we will remind the federal government
that it must act in its jurisdictions, not only as regard
threatened species, but also the contamination of its sites.
An hon. member: Which is its own business.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Precisely, it is the federal government's
own business. How can the government explain that some land and
sites are currently contaminated? That contamination is getting
into the water table. There is contamination of drinking water
supplies in municipalities.
My colleague from Sept-Îles, the hon. member for Manicouagan,
strongly criticized the government for its inaction on the issue
of the Sept-Îles airport.
Please explain why, in 2001, because of
contaminated federal land, parents have to use bottled water to
wash their kids. It is unacceptable.
Why do Shannon residents have to deal with contaminated water?
How do you explain that the federal government has known since
1997 that the military base in Valcartier was contaminated and
that it has always refused and is still refusing to co-operate
with the government of Quebec?
I wrote to the minister at the beginning of the month and my
letter remains unacknowledged, as if there was no emergency.
What we want is respect for our areas of jurisdiction. What we
want is for the federal government to be proactive on
environmental issues in its own areas of jurisdiction.
We will be examining this bill in detail. It seems that history
is repeating itself once again. Need I remind the House that the
government has introduced twice the bill now before the House? It
was formerly known as Bill C-33. The provinces are not the only
ones to oppose this bill, environmental groups do too, because it
does not go far enough.
Once again, with this bill, the minister is alienating the
provinces as well as the environmental groups. The
minister should go back to the drawing board and introduce a bill
that would protect endangered species in his own areas of
jurisdiction and that would also respect our jurisdictions and
avoid duplication with provincial legislation.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Before resuming debate,
it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House
that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
is as follows: the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Agriculture.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is certainly my pleasure to speak to Bill C-5. I will give a
bit of background before I actually get into analyzing the bill
and what will be our party's position on it.
I thank those people in the constituency of Red Deer who gave me
a 73% support margin, the 70% who turned out to vote. I thank
the close to 40,000 people who put an x beside my name. I
also thank my wife, my family, and all those campaign workers who
did so much work to make that happen.
1650
This is my first speech as the official opposition environment
critic. I think it is fair to tell the House a bit of my
background in environment. It is fitting as well that I live in
probably the most beautiful riding in Canada. I know there will
be some dispute in that regard, but I have parkland, lakes,
foothills, the Rocky Mountains and part of Banff National Park in
my riding. It certainly rivals most constituencies and is a good
one for the environment representative to be from.
In high school I was very interested in biology and the
environment. Most people in my constituency would probably
consider me somewhat of an environmentalist. I was very active
in the province of Saskatchewan in the Saskatchewan Natural
History Society, the publishing of the Blue Jay magazine,
Christmas bird counts and sharp-tailed grouse dancing grounds.
All those were part of my high school days in Saskatoon.
In university I majored in biology. During the summers I worked
for the Canadian Wildlife Service. I was involved in habitat
protection projects, in sandhill crane projects at Big Grass
Marsh in Manitoba. I spent a lot of summertime working on
environmental issues with environmental groups.
Upon graduating from university I moved to Red Deer where I was
a high school biology teacher for 14 years. During that time I
became rather known in the community as part of the parks board
and for habitat protection. Many people would remember me as a
teacher who could get many teenage students up at 6.30 in the
morning to go out on early morning birding trips and partake in
nature. We did a lot of biological studies. We studied areas in
Kananaskis on the east slopes, the Syncrude project and many
other environmentally related subjects.
I was very involved with a committee that preserved the river
valley. We are very proud of our 28 kilometres of trails and of
our pristine river valley and creeks. We had to do a lot of
environmental lobbying through the seventies to make that happen.
It is something of which our city is very proud. The Gates Lakes
Sanctuary, the Kerry Woods Nature Centre are all things that are
the pride of our community.
I was involved in the provincial organization which was a
co-operative one between industry and education called SEEDS,
Society Environmental Education Development Society. That group
was very active in much of the curriculum development within the
province of Alberta.
I used to travel as well and shared the stage with people like
David Suzuki, talking about the Conserver Society. My only
comment there would be that in the seventies I was probably 20
years ahead of what today is common sense knowledge.
I will now refer to the bill itself and where it is at. All of
us are interested in the environment, 100% of Canadians. We all
want to preserve species at risk. I am surprised when the
government did its poll that it found 92% of Canadians cared. I
am really surprised it was not 100%. I cannot imagine people
saying they are not interested in preserving an endangered
species. We are on common ground there.
All of us also realize that there are tradeoffs in environmental
issues. Some would have a pristine environment. Obviously those
people would be prepared to live in a cave, not have roads, not
have modern conveniences. Then we could have a pristine
environment. On the other side there are industrialists who
would probably pave the world. Of course that would be
unsustainable, would not last and certainly would not be
acceptable.
Somewhere there is middle ground on environmental issues. I
believe all of us have to work very hard at achieving that.
Extremes are not acceptable on either side. It is that middle
ground we must work toward.
1655
The Liberal record on the environment is not very good. Let me
talk a bit about that and how it relates to the Endangered
Species Act. In 1992 a protocol was signed saying that we would
put legislation in place to protect endangered species. The 1993
red book talked about ensuring a clean healthy environment for
Canadians and the preservation of natural species. The 1997 red
book also said that. The 2000 red book did not say much about
it.
What does the environment commissioner say about the government
and what we have done environmentally? Let me quote a couple of
statements that I think puts it in perspective: “In many areas
the Liberal government's performance falls short of its stated
objectives. This gap reflects the failure to translate policy
directly into effective action”.
The commissioner went on to say: “Although the federal
government has repeatedly stated its commitment to sustainable
development, striking a balance between economic, social and
environmental goals now and for future generations, it continues
to have difficulty turning the commitment into action”.
No one says it is easy to deal with environmental legislation.
No government will have an easy time with it. However, 100% of
Canadians would say that the government should deal with
environmental issues, be it water or endangered species which
Bill C-5 addresses.
There are many examples of where the government has failed to
deal with the problems. Many of them have been identified. Just
to name a few, if we started with toxic waste sites we would find
that according to most groups there are some 10,000 toxic waste
sites across the country.
The most notable one is the Sydney tar ponds that have been
talked about for 100 years. Legislation has been proposed.
Solutions have been proposed. A committee is in operation but it
has no timelines. It does not know where it is going. Basically
no one is happy. Industry is not happy. People are not happy.
Politicians are not happy. The provinces are not happy. Everyone
recognizes the problem. Government and all of us in all parties
need to work on that. We cannot say we will fix it and then not
do it.
Kyoto is another example. I was not the environment critic
then; I was in foreign affairs. I know how Kyoto was dealt with
in the House. When the minister said he was going to Kyoto
questions were asked as to the cost involved if he signed the
agreement, what would happen, what would be the socioeconomic
implications of signing the agreement, how he would deliver on
that signature if he were to sign it.
The Americans were very clear. They could not sign it because
they had not done enough homework. The Australians came with a
lot of homework done and even they had trouble. We went ahead and
signed it. Now we are finding that our emissions are 11% higher.
We have guaranteed to lower them 6% below 1990 levels. When we
do not deliver on our promises, people stop trusting us.
Bill C-5 is just that kind of legislation. We can introduce it
and put all the words in place, but if we have no intention of
delivering we have some serious problems.
Let me make it extremely clear, because I do not want a headline
saying that the Alliance opposes endangered species legislation,
that the Alliance Party supports endangered species legislation.
We want it and we encourage the government. It should have come
sooner. We want endangered species legislation. It is a good
idea. It is supported by farmers, ranchers, industry,
individuals, scientists and environmentalists. We want it but we
want the right legislation. We want legislation that will work.
1700
Through our committee I hope we will be able to put together
legislation that will work to preserve and protect endangered
species. The worst thing we could do is to put forward another
bill that will not work and that no one has thought through.
I will speak to the history behind the legislation and why we
are doing it. I mentioned that the convention on biological
diversity was signed in 1992. At that point we said that Canada
would go along with many countries in terms of this kind of
legislation. Was it a popular move? Yes, it was right on. It
should have been done and we should be doing it.
We did not implement anything for eight years. It is not totally
the government's fault because there were all kinds of problems
with Bill C-65. Most people were happy that it died when the
election was called in 1997. Bill C-33 was an improvement. A
lot of people would say that, but it died with the call of the
election in 2000.
Red book three did not mention any legislation on species at
risk. I assume that was a typographical problem, that the
publisher forgot to put it in, and that the page designated to
species at risk was left out. I assume the payment to the
printer was reduced because he did such a bad job of printing red
book three.
Let us talk about the international scene. As many members
know, I am very interested in international events. I am really
concerned that in productivity Canada has dropped from third to
13th. In many areas of health care we are 23rd out of 29 OECD
countries. Environmentally we have dropped from fifth to seventh
in terms of world ratings. That really concerns me.
When I travel I ask people what they think of Canada. They
usually say positive things and I say positive things about my
country. I love Canada. I would not be here if I did not. They
tell me the Canada they think of is one with pristine lakes,
limitless forests, wolves and bears literally on most corners,
mighty rivers teeming with salmon, and the land filled with
bounty; the most beautiful place in the world.
My riding is pretty beautiful but it has environmental problems.
I do not know of many places in Canada that do not have some
environmental problems. We love to have international people
think of those wonders. Obviously tourism is very important. I
used to be part of that industry. Certainly it was great to
welcome foreigners to our country and it still is. However we
must shape up in terms of protecting our environment. We must
start doing things that show leadership in protecting the
environment. That is partly what Bill C-5 is all about.
What kind of legislation do we want? We could follow the
examples we find in the U.S. We could follow examples from some
other parts of the world, but we could also learn from the
mistakes they have made.
Why should we introduce 1970 California legislation when it did
not work? Why should we go through the pains of Oregon, Montana
and Colorado when there were problems there? Let us fix what
they did wrong and learn from that. Let us do what they have
done in Britain and Tanzania.
On first analysis we see Bill C-5 as being weak and ineffective.
It has not listened to the provinces, industry, environmental
groups and landowners to deliver legislation that will work.
What is our job? It is to try to fix it. As the opposition we
will commit to working with the government to bring forward
amendments and to try to make it work.
1705
The minister said that he was very favourably disposed to
amendments. I hope he means that. If he does, we will work with
him because the legislation is good and popular for everyone.
However, it has to be legislation that will work. The government
cannot say that it knows best and that we should have trust. It
cannot be that kind of legislation because a lot of people out
there do not totally trust government to deliver what is good for
them.
We need to be sure that we consult, listen to and implement what
the people are telling us. That becomes very important in the
bill.
We must also remember that there is a great deal of distrust.
Some people feel, maybe wrongly, that they will lose their
business, be it a farm, an industry or a job in a mine, because
of legislation like this.
We need to sit down with people and show them how legislation in
other parts of the world has been designed so that it will work.
It cannot be rammed through with closure. It cannot be top down
and heavy on penalties, threats and attacks because that will
never work. That has been tried and it did not work. It meant
that endangered species became extinct because of the type of
legislation that was there.
Let us learn from that and not waste money, RCMP time and
conservation officers' time trying to enforce a bill that has not
been well thought out and designed in this place.
Let us not talk about the heavy penalties, the non-compliance,
the RCMP and the heavy hand of government. Let us talk about
what kind of legislation will work to save endangered species.
Canadians are in favour of preserving endangered species. We
are in favour of preserving endangered species. Farmers,
ranchers, industrialists and environmentalists are in favour.
Therefore all members of the House should be on the winning side.
How would we as the opposition improve the legislation? What
should we do? What must we look at? I will spend the rest of my
time speaking about how we can develop better legislation. I
will put forward a few suggestions. Obviously I will miss some.
Obviously some will come out from people we call as witnesses at
committee. They will have all kinds of suggestions. I have a
long list of people who want to come and make sure parliament
hears their voice. We had better be here to listen.
What do we need to do? First, we need to co-operate. The word
co-operation has to be critical in the legislation. Let us start
with the provinces. We must not threaten provinces. We must
listen to the member who spoke before me who said that Quebecers
feel threatened by the legislation. That cannot be. It will not
work in Quebec if they feel threatened by the legislation.
We cannot use court challenges. We cannot simply do driveby
smears. We cannot have ministers using innuendo on one province
over another. All provinces must be treated equally. We must
remember that all the provinces have signed an agreement stating
that they will implement and support endangered species
legislation. That must tell us how important this is if all the
provinces have agreed already.
We already have taken a step in co-operation. Now we must build
on it. Having the provinces onside is critical. This cannot
work if they do not work with us. I think all members would
agree with that.
Second, we have to have the landowners on side.
We cannot expect landowners to absorb all of the cost of
protecting something that 100% of us want to protect. If all of
us want to protect an endangered species, all of us must absorb
the cost of doing it. We must have input into it and feel part
of it. That would be very positive.
1710
What kinds of things can we do? Habitat preservation is really
interesting. I was involved in such a project. I mentioned that
I worked for Canadian Wildlife Service as a biologist. In one of
my jobs I spent the whole winter identifying habitat for
migrating waterfowl. We used aerial photographs to identify the
stopping places and breeding places of waterfowl across western
Canada. I forget how many millions of dollars we had, but we had
a bankroll and we signed agreements with farmers to protect that
habitat for 25 years.
I was in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I went to a place
called Derwent, Alberta. I was driving a government vehicle when
I showed up in town. I went to the restaurant for a cup of
coffee and breakfast, and they would not serve me. I then went
to a gas station to fill up the tank, and they would not serve
me. I then went to the RCMP and an officer said he wished I had
not come to the station because people would see me there. I
asked him what was wrong with me. What was wrong was that I was
driving a government vehicle and people thought I was a tax
collector or something. They did not know what I was doing, so
they sent me out of town.
I went to Edmonton and met with a lawyer whose name I got from
the RCMP. I explained to him what I was doing. When I went back
to that community I got a free breakfast. Everybody said hi and
knew my name.
I had x number of dollars. I phoned Canadian Wildlife
Service in Saskatoon about two or three weeks later and said I
was out of money, that all the agreements I had worked on during
the winter were signed. My boss said they could not be because
it was a whole summer's work. When I said that they were, he
told me to make friends for wildlife in that part of Alberta,
which I did.
I went to Ukrainian weddings, which often lasted a week, for an
entire summer. That was co-operation. People there were happy
to be involved in preserving wildlife. They did not have any
problem with that at all. They were happy not to drain or burn
and to provide nesting sites for migrating waterfowl. They were
compensated and we co-operated with them. That is how we must
approach this subject.
Had the heavy hand of government come down on those people
telling them that they must preserve the area or they would be
fined $50,000, their land would be seized or whatever, there
would not have been many nesting waterfowl in the area. The
government would have been treated like I was when I first drove
down Main Street. It would not have been welcome.
I could use other examples. Ducks Unlimited is an interesting
example. It often encourages people with incentives to protect
water and wetlands areas, and it works great. It works right
across the country. It has been in business a long time working
with people.
I cannot help but tell the story of the gorillas in Rwanda. My
wife and I spent a month in Rwanda in 1985. We trekked after the
mountain gorillas. We followed them and we lived with them
literally for a couple of days. There are fewer than 500 of them
left. Fortunately, however, even with the wars they have not
been decimated. The reason for that is farmers in the area who
were encroaching on their habitat were told that tourists like to
come and see the mountain gorillas. They were told that some of
the profit from tourism in the area would be shared with them and
that they would be paid not to knock down the bamboo the mountain
gorillas eat.
In countries like Rwanda, Tanzania and South Africa there are
many examples of co-operation in the protection of endangered
species. They are doing a heck of a job. It does not cost a lot and it is
working. We have to look at all of those examples and I hope we
will be able to do that in committee.
1715
The best conservationists I know are farmers and ranchers. I
had a fellow from my riding phone me recently. He has owned his
land for 100 years. For 40 years he set aside 180 acres for
wildlife. He asked me if he should plough it this spring because
he has an endangered species on the land. He said he wanted them
there so his grandchildren to see them, but the government might
seize the land. That is what these people are thinking. I know
the legislation does not say that but the people do not know
that. That is why we need the time to communicate with those
Canadians who are affected by this.
We should not simply brush off the farmers and ranchers as a
bunch of selfish guys who want money. That is not true at all.
They want to save endangered species but they want a co-operative
way of doing it. Let us make sure the legislation does that.
A difficult area to talk about is our aboriginal communities. It
is very important that all Canadians be treated equally in
preserving endangered species. It is very important that our
native leaders, as well as the grassroots natives, be onside with
any endangered species legislation or it will not work. It
creates jealousy and conflict in the neighbourhoods and it puts
the species at risk. Whether we are talking about grizzly bears,
or salmon or whatever, all Canadians need to be treated equally
in this legislation. I cannot emphasize the importance of that.
We need to recognize that many aboriginal people are very
concerned about the natural world. We need to recognize that it
is part of their religious ceremonies in many respects. We also
recognize that if we just talk to the chiefs and not the
grassroots who are living in substandard conditions, without
sewer and water facilities, and living in impoverished
situations, this legislation will not work.
I was troubled when I read the part of the legislation where it
said the government would enforce the legislation for Canadians
and that it would consult the aboriginal communities. We cannot
just consult. They need to feel that they are part of this. The
need to be brought into the consultations. We cannot leave them
out. They have to buy into this. They have to be a part of the
groups who make the decisions. They have to be included in the
round tables. They have to be part of everything. If they are
not, this will not work.
It is difficult to include that because some would say that I
was picking on them. I am not. I am saying that we treat all
Canadians equally. For me, that bill does not make that clear.
Let us make it clear. Let us bring them to our committees. If
we do that, we will be successful.
It is important that we include industry in this list. It is
good business for industry to be interested in endangered
species. That is just smart. The member for Wetaskiwin would
like this example. When Union Carbide decided to build a
petrochemical plant in his riding, one of the first things it did
was get together with a group and purchase a farm. It is called
the Ellis Bird Farm which raises bluebirds. The mountain
bluebirds have thrived because of what Union Carbide did.
Community groups are working with it to work on this kind of
enhancement of a species.
1720
As well, when we talk about industry, we must do a
socio-economic study. We must include the socio-economic impact
as part of any endangered species list.
It is not just a simple matter of saying we are going to protect
all endangered species. While it is easy to say we all agree
with that, we must look at all of the implications, be it the
aboriginal communities, industry, farmers, ranchers or
compensation. All of these issues must be part of the bill. To
make this bill too simple will not work. It will not save any
species. That is a major concern.
Before I leave the Ellis Bird Farm, there are so many committed
people across Canada. Myrna Pearman is a person who should be
recognized. She is the director, although I am not sure of her
exact title, of the Ellis Bird Farm. She makes it click. She
makes the community feel part of it. She makes Union Carbide a
welcome industry in that community.
I know there are hundreds of examples. I know there are lots of
examples in Ontario and in Atlantic Canada of the same sort of
individuals and same sort of projects with industry. They must
be consulted. If they are not consulted, they will not be
players and they will not participate. That will endanger the
endangered species.
When I talk about what is important and what would we do,
co-operation has to be a word we focus on.
Let me just zero in on a few other areas we want to talk about
with some specifics. I am going to list these quickly and
obviously we will have a chance to elaborate more on them later.
We must take time to consult. We cannot have closure. We
cannot have the minister saying it has to get through by June. I
do not know why we waited eight years. If takes longer than
June, than let it. However, let us do the consultation that is
necessary. Let us do it right, if we are going to do it at all.
First, we need the full committee review. I have now talked to
12 environmental groups, a whole bunch of industrialists and I
will be talking to a lot more farmers and ranchers. They want to
be heard. It is the duty of the House to listen to them. We
need to listen to the provinces and talk to each one of them. We
cannot use closure or ram this down our throats to get it through
and be done with it. It is too important for that in my opinion.
Second is the species at risk list. Let COSEWIC, the
scientists, determine the list. I found it troubling, and maybe
I did not understand something, that cabinet would decide on the
list. I do not want the cabinet deciding on that. I want
scientists making that decision. I want socio-economic impact
studies and I want to hear from scientists. I trust them a lot
more. I want the broad range of scientists, not just the small
range.
Just to make sure we get it clear, many groups have spoken on
endangered species. There are many people out there who should
be listened to. It is important that COSEWIC base everything it
does on science, not on politics. It should be the scientists
who make the legal list in consultation with all of the people I
mentioned. It should not be left to political lobbying, to
political favouritism or to that sort of thing. It is too
important an issue to Canadians to be left only in the realm of
politicians.
Third is communication and co-operation. The only way this will
be successful is if we put emphasis on the voluntary and on
communication. The bill says we would have round tables.
I have sat at round tables of foreign affairs. At one there were
four defeated Liberal candidates and three fundraisers who were
there for a weekend with their wives and good meals. They could
not have given a damn about the issue we were talking about. I
want those round tables to be real round tables. They are a good
idea but let us make them for all groups. Let us listen to the
extremes, the middle and then come to our conclusions. They are
a good idea but let us communicate properly and let us get the
feeling of the whole country.
1725
Right now the country is suspicious about what we are doing.
Compensation is a major issue and the minister said this in his
speech. We must deal with it and it must be in the bill. It is
not good enough to say it will be in the regulations and trust
us. It is not in the bill now. The only thing that is acceptable
is to have that in the bill.
We have serious problems with the Pearse report. I feel it is a
formula for disaster. It will make the endangered species act
not work. We need to have compensation in the bill. We need to
spell it out and make it clear. If we do we will please an awful
lot of people and go a long way in getting the bill through.
Provincial-federal co-operation is vital. We need to see the
mechanism on how that is going to work and make sure it works.
With the issue of enforcement, we cannot have willy-nilly
“we'll enforce it” because Environment Canada does not have the
ability to enforce it. It says the RCMP will not be involved, so
who is going to enforce this? How can we have a bill that has no
enforcement? Is there going to be something? Again, we are told
that it would be in the regulations. That is not good enough.
We have to see it. We have to know what that means before it can
be accepted.
In conclusion, the official opposition believes in an effective
endangered species legislation. We support it. We want to make
it work. We want to make it better. We believe that we can get
effective endangered species legislation and that we can be world
leaders. We have to have a full hearing in committee and clearly
communicate and talk to Canadians. We need scientists, not
politicians listing the endangered species. We need innovative
approaches. We need to learn from what others have done. We
need compensation as part of the bill. It must be there.
We need to talk about recovery and habitat protection, not just
species. We cannot just really protect a species, we have to
protect its habitat. How do we do that? Of course compensation
comes into that. Get the politicians out of it. The round
tables have to include all Canadians.
Above all, I came to parliament because I wanted to make a
better Canada for my children and my grandchildren. I want them
to be able to see grizzly bears catching salmon in B.C. I want
them to be able to see dancing prairie chickens. I want them to
see sandhill cranes and whooping cranes. I want them to hear the
loon on lakes in Ontario. I want them to be able to see the
beluga whales at the mouth of the St. Lawrence. I want them to
be able to see teeming stocks of cod and other sea life in
Atlantic Canada.
We can make this happen. We can make this country what so many
international people think of it. However, we are going to have
to work at it. We are going to have to work co-operatively at
it. That is what we will be working toward in working with the
government, hopefully, on Bill C-5.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): If there is agreement
with the House, I would like to call it 5.30 p.m. and go into
private members' hour. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 5.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[Translation]
FUEL PRICE POSTING ACT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-220, an act respecting the posting of fuel prices by
retailers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to demand on behalf of
consumers that the pre-tax price of a litre of gas be posted. As
I said when I introduced this bill, when a fuel retailer causes a
poster, label or sign to be posted indicating the selling price
for a fuel, the price must be indicated without any taxes imposed
on the consumer under federal or provincial legislation.
When we introduce a bill in the House, it is placed on the
notice paper and then we have to wait for the draw.
Sometimes one has to wait one, two or three years before one's
bill comes up in the draw. If one is lucky, one's bill might be
one of the first ones to be drawn. I was lucky, which is
fortunate for consumers.
Then the bill is reviewed by a committee, and one has to explain
why it should be made a votable item or not. One goes before the
committee members, as I did last week. Members listen to find out
what the bill is all about. I explained all that to the
committee.
Then the committee meets a second time to determine whether the
bill should be made a votable item. And this is when the problem
starts. Once at this stage, and even earlier in the process,
there should be a draw to decide which bills are votable and
which ones are not. This is the problem we have in the House.
At the second meeting, last Friday, when opposition members saw
that I was introducing this bill, Bloc members and Alliance
members alike said “This is a provincial matter. This is a
matter for provincial governments. You have no business
introducing such a bill”. Therefore I did not win; it was
decided my bill was not votable. But it does not matter, because
in the House the main thing is to speak on behalf of consumers.
I am going to tell the House what the price of a litre of gas
is: today in Val d'Or, in Abitibi, it is 77.9 cents. Very few
people know what the price of a litre of gasoline is before
taxes. However if people call the Régie de l'énergie in Quebec, the
experts will explain what it is.
The price we see announced is 77.9 cents per litre, but when we
go in to pay the bill after filling up the tank, we see a total
of $40, for example, but we do not see the 10 cent excise tax or
the 10.55 cent Quebec road tax on the invoice. In our region we
do not have a 1.5 cent special tax, as they do in Montreal.
However, in Montreal motorists pay 15.55 cents, whereas in
Abitibi, thanks to the government in office, we pay 10.55 cents
because we live in a remote area. Then there is the GST and the
QST.
Consumers only see two taxes; they do not see the other taxes.
In the meantime, oil companies, such as Petro-Canada, put a
sticker on the pumps that says that taxes are included in the
price. That sticker has been there for months. It is still there.
The funny thing is that once they stick it there, they forget to
remove it.
Today, the price of gas in Abitibi is 77.9 cents.
Petro-Canada has a sticker on the pump saying that taxes are 51%.
Let us take this price of 77.9 cents and add a few figures. The
minimum price, according to the Régie de l'énergie, is 35.8
cents. The cost of transporting gas to Val d'Or is about 2.4
cents per litre. The cost of transporting it to Quebec City or to
Montreal is about 0.3 cents per litre. If we add it up, 35.8
cents plus 2.4 cents, we get a total of 44.4 cents, which means
that taxes would be 33.5 cents.
Now we get to the sticker. I am targeting Petro-Canada in
particular because the Government of Canada owns 18% of that
company. The consumer does not know what the exact price of a
litre of gas is without taxes because it is not posted.
1735
Throughout the year consumers are aware of the multiple billion
dollar profits Canada's oil companies are making. They know how
much the bosses and their friends are collecting in dividends,
yet the companies are unable to tell us how much a litre of gas
costs at the pumps. They do not want to tell the consumers
this.
Yesterday morning, at 6.35, I went to a gas station and asked
for a litre of gas just for the fun of it. How much would it
cost? On Chemin de la Montagne in Hull, the posted price was
70.9 cents a litre. I tried to get a litre but did not manage
to get exactly that.
I went inside and paid my 70 cents, then went back out and tried
to pump a litre. I ended up with 1.03 litres for 71 cents, yet
the posted price was 70.9 cents.
Let hon. members try to do the calculation of what the price of
a litre of gas is without the taxes. No matter what means we
use, this is impossible. The oil companies are billionaires
many times over, but they cannot tell the consumer how much a
litre of gas costs.
We know that a litre of gas costs 35.8 cents anywhere in Quebec.
The price added on top of that is for shipping it to the
regions. In Nunavik people do not know the price of a litre of
gas. We know, however, that 4 cents a litre is for getting it to
the Chapais, Chibougamau, Matagami and James Bay regions.
We know that the profit margin is included in the price per
litre at the pump.
That is what I want to say to the government, and I tried to
have a motion passed making the bill votable.
We know that the government of Quebec is doing a very good job,
because it allows reductions on the transportation tax or the
special tax in the outlying regions.
What is happening right now? Father Charles-Aimé Anctil,
Val-d'Or's parish priest, wrote me the following one day: “What
a surprise not to hear politicians up in arms about the hike in
gas prices. Don't tell me that you can't do anything: you are
the ones with the power”.
We are doing everything we can to get the oil companies to post
the gross price of a litre of gasoline, minus the taxes. They
are not interested. When we ask them why, we are told that it
is the governments that are opposed.
I put the question to the government of Quebec and to the
Government of Canada and I was told that the problem was not
them but the oil companies.
The biggest laugh of all is that there is nothing preventing the
oil companies from posting the gross price of a litre of gas in
Canada.
As of today, the price of a litre of gas in Quebec is 35.8 cents.
It should be possible to find out the gross price of a litre of
gas, minus the taxes, in Ontario, Manitoba or Vancouver, but it
is not, because Petro-Canada's pumps break the price down into
benefits: 1%, price of crude oil, 30%, refinery costs, 18% and
taxes 51%. That is what is posted today.
However a look below, at the little bottom line reveals the words
“average prices at the pump in 1999”. We are being had by
Petro-Canada, by misinformation. At the moment, the oil
companies are worth billions and cannot even manage to change the
labels.
It is disgusting that a company belonging to the Government of
Canada is incapable of being in consumer mode and revealing the
cost of gasoline without taxes.
The aim of the bill is to find ways to enable the consumer to
discover the real price of gasoline. A consumer buying a litre
of gasoline in Abitibi Senneterre, or anywhere in Quebec knows
he pays the QST and the GST. He knows he has to pay the excise
tax. He also knows there is a provincial tax. He knows there
are taxes for Tom, Dick and Harry, but he cannot know the gross
price of a litre of gasoline.
In some provinces, there is no provincial tax. All the better
for consumers. One day, with luck, we may not have to pay the
provincial tax on a litre of gasoline in Quebec.
1740
What counts most is reporting to consumers, telling them “Here
is your product and the cost of it”. A litre of gasoline in
Quebec is currently 35.8 cents, plus transport, which in
Abitibi and I am still talking about my region, is 2.4 cents and the
service station profit may be 3 or 4 cents, but we can
live with that.
We can live with the taxes. In any case, we will always have to
pay them somewhere. We will take it in our righthand or lefthand
pocket. We are always going to get hit. Be it under the
government of Quebec or the Government of Canada, we will always
be paying taxes somewhere.
What matters to me is knowing the gross price charged by an oil
company for a litre of gas. Not many people have this
information. We have specialists. Perhaps we will know more
tomorrow because the report on competition, or the study that was
done, is supposed to be tabled tomorrow.
Here is what the study said:
That the oil industry should bear in mind the public's level of
frustration and adopt more transparent pricing practices,
including showing the gross price and giving the breakdown for
refinery, processing, whole sale and retail prices, and taxes.
I think that everyone's interests would be better served if the
industry made a greater effort to explain how prices are set and
made this information available to consumers.
This quote is from a letter sent me by the minister on June 5,
2000. I have nothing prepared, I am speaking off the cuff. The
federal Minister of Natural Resources wrote me and recommended
precisely what I have just said: “that the consumer should be
better informed”. That is what is important.
It matters little which governments are in power in Canada. What
matters is the consumer. When we go into a corner store, we know
that a case of beer costs $22 plus taxes. On the reserve, it
costs $22 without taxes. That is another story. Whenever
one goes to buy something, one knows the price. Here in Ottawa,
we know that the lunch special costs $8.95, plus taxes.
Try that with a litre of gas.
Everybody is upset at the Government of Canada regarding the
price of gas in my region and elsewhere. I tell parliamentarians
that there is no act preventing oil companies from doing that.
There is no legislation preventing oil companies from indicating
the gross price before taxes. There is no act preventing them
from doing that. They do not want to do that, they are hiding
things.
We should know tomorrow, because we just got a memo saying that
Industry Canada will table its report on the oil industry
tomorrow.
It is always the same thing with this issue. The government is
the one being blamed. Sometimes this may be a good thing, but the
government of Quebec is also blamed as well as all the provinces.
However, it is wrong to say that all the provinces regulate gas
prices in Canada. Unless I am mistaken, there may be two
provinces that have an energy board: Prince Edward Island and
Quebec. These two provinces set a floor price. They can try to do
so. Today in Quebec that floor price is 67.6 cents, depending
on the regions. In Abitibi the floor price of a litre of gas is
currently 67.6 cents. It is less than in Montreal, because in
Montreal they also have taxes. These are special taxes for the
metro, 1.55 cents, and others at 1.5 cents, 0.10 cents, 15.55 cents.
The important thing for Canadian consumers is to know what kind
of products they are paying for. What is the capital? What the
gross price before taxes? We do not know. This is what I am
asking from oil companies. If it does not work here in Ottawa, I
am asking oil companies to stand up and to show the real price of
a litre of gas before taxes.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
When the debate started I heard my name used as seconder. I
would like it noted that such is not the case. Perhaps that
could be addressed on the books and the hon. member could find
somebody else to sponsor the bill.
1745
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent for the member for Scarborough Centre not to be the
seconder?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr.
Speaker, I believe there is an error. I mentioned to the pages at
the beginning that the seconder of the motion was the hon. member
for Fredericton. I would ask you to put the question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I will not go through the
pages. I will ask the hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, if the hon. member for Scarborough
Centre does not want to be the seconder, would another hon.
member want to replace him?
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I said at the beginning that
the seconder of my motion was the hon. member for Fredericton,
and he was sitting beside me. If there is an error, this is not
my problem. I was asked about this earlier.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I must inform the hon. member
for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik that, when the motion was read,
the hon. member for Fredericton was not sitting beside him. So I
asked earlier if there was unanimous consent for the hon. member
for Scarborough Centre not to be the seconder any more. There was
no unanimous consent. So I think the problem is solved. The hon.
member's colleague is still the seconder of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on
Bill C-220.
The bill would require fuel or gasoline retailers to indicate
the selling price of fuel without including the price of the
taxes that would be applied. I commend the hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie James—Nunavik for his efforts in this regard.
It is no wonder that no one on the Liberal side is even standing
to second the bill of their own party member. That is how they
encourage private members' business. We of course want all
private members' bills to be votable, but there is no one to even
second this one.
The member's efforts would inform Canadians about the true price
of fuel as opposed to the price we are paying, which includes
taxes. The bill defines fuel as gasoline types of fuels used by
internal combustion engines and diesel fuel and propane gas. The
bill makes it clear that we are not talking about home heating
oil or aircraft fuel. We are talking about the fuel we use in
our automobiles.
I do not have too many problems with the bill. The bill is of
course limited in scope, as well as limited in seconders, because
it applies only to consumers buying gas for their cars. It seems to
me that with the sharp spike in the price of home heating oil and
gas, which has hit us so hard and is not included in the bill,
the House should be consumed with that issue and that issue
alone.
Canadians are suffering this winter in our cold climate. It is
a particularly cold winter this year. There has been a 70% hike
in natural gas prices which the Liberals did not foresee and did
not prevent. They did nothing about it except to send out
cheques of a couple of hundred dollars, and then too, to people
who probably do not pay the heating bills, for example, students,
prisoners or even deceased Canadians.
We know that Canadians are paying over a couple of thousand
dollars compared to the couple of hundred dollars that the
cheques are for. The government completely missed the target of
sending the cheques to those most in need of assistance with
their heating bills this winter.
The Liberal finance minister has no sympathy for Canadian
seniors or persons on fixed incomes who have so little money that
they are choosing among getting their prescriptions filled, what
they can afford to buy to eat, or heat.
1750
I might add that it is also the Liberal government's fault that
our heating fuel costs are higher than those in the U.S.A. This
government keeps our taxes high and our dollar weak. We are
being hurt twice. It is a double whammy.
Let us talk about gas prices, which is what the bill talks
about. We started to see the price hikes about a year ago. It
is the amount of tax placed on gas that has driven the price
upward. We get really upset when gasoline prices jump by 10
cents or 20 cents per litre and we hate it when it happens
overnight. We hate it most when it happens on a Friday just
before a long weekend. We all feel that we are hostages to
gasoline prices while we also rely heavily on our automobiles for
all kinds of work.
The Canadian Alliance's chief natural resources critic, the hon.
member for Athabasca, in Alberta, is of course very knowledgeable
on the subject of gasoline prices. He has been working in this
area for a long time. My colleagues and I have great respect for
his understanding of this field in particular. He has been
recommending transparency in the price of gasoline and has been
advocating this on behalf of consumers. He explains that the
price we pay at the gas pumps includes a tremendous amount of
tax. That is why, when the price of gas or oil on the world
market is hiked, we feel it, because not only is the price of the
gas hiked but the taxes also get higher with respect to that
increase.
This exacerbates the increase in the wholesale price. If it
were not for the taxes piled on top of the price of the gas,
Canadians would not be so radically affected by the price hikes
in the world price of oil.
Canadians want to be able to clearly see the gouge made in their
pocketbooks by taxes on gas. It is not the oil companies that
are the villains here. It is the taxes. If Canadians could see
the large amount of taxes applied to the price of gas it would
heighten awareness in Canada of the importance of tax cuts.
Taxpayers could properly direct their frustration and anger at
the governments applying these taxes, particularly the federal
government.
Everyone knows that the Canadian Alliance stands for tax cuts.
About 9 cents per litre of gas is federal tax. On top of that we
have a provincial excise tax. On top of that we have a
provincial sales tax. On top of that we have the GST. We have a
tax on a tax on a tax and on a tax. This is very unfair.
I have some facts and figures from the B.C. edition of
FuelFacts for February 13, 2001, which is the latest
edition. FuelFacts monitors the price of gas. Clearly we
can see from the chart that gas is 29.5 cents per litre. When
all the taxes are piled on top of that 29.5 cents, the price of
the same gas is 74 cents per litre. That is a shame. Only 16
cents of this 74 cent per litre price goes to the refiner and the
marketer of the gasoline.
Some people might say that is how the government raises revenue
to pay for the things we need such as health care, highways,
schools, prisons, free flags, golf courses, hotels for the Prime
Minister's riding and so on. However, my province of British
Columbia gets only 5% of the amount of federal taxes we pay on
gas. This amount is returned to us to pay for transportation
infrastructure.
In 1997 the federal Liberals raked in about $360 million in fuel
taxes from British Columbia. This figure has risen. It is now
about $700 million a year. The federal government returns only
5% to British Columbia and B.C. is the only province in the whole
country that does not have any four lane highways.
We cannot even buy enough street lamps with the 5% that the
Liberals return to us for transportation and infrastructure
development.
1755
Where do all of our tax dollars and tax revenues raised by
gasoline taxes go? They are not helping us in B.C. to pay for
our highways, our airports, the RCMP, border protection, the
coast guard or emergency preparedness, et cetera. Our money is
being kept in Ottawa or is being spent by Ottawa. Maybe it is
being spent on some of the boondoggles or maybe in the Prime
Minister's riding for fountains. Who knows where the money goes?
There are many factors in this other than high taxes. Sometimes
it is surprising to see how the geography works.
Prices are affected exponentially with the increase in the price
at the original level. Sometimes a 5 cent increase becomes a 10
cent or 15 cent increase at the consumer level because of the
taxes.
In regard to gas stations, I want to mention that the government
should be investigating how, on any morning, afternoon or
evening, gasoline prices can suddenly increase, sometimes within
seconds or minutes. However, when the price of fuel goes down,
it takes two or three days for the gas station prices to go down.
What are we supposed to conclude when that happens? Is it
collusion, price fixing or an oligopoly? What happens to the
stock or inventory of the retailers?
We do not want to interfere with their private businesses. We
want supply and demand, or competition, to control the market,
but at the same time we need to balance that with the public
interest. We do not want the public to be victimized or
exploited by the federal government's taxes and then by
businesses and so on.
In conclusion, the bill would make it clear exactly how much
money per litre of gas is being taken by the government out of
the pockets of Canadians. However, isolating the amount of taxes
from the actual cost may not be the real solution for giving any
tax relief to Canadians.
In the end, maybe we do not need to legislate. Maybe the
retailers would volunteer.
However, the hon. member's bill is a very thoughtful idea and I
tend to support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, to follow the rules of the
House of Commons, I would like to change the name of the seconder
of my bill. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the
name of the hon. member for Scarborough Centre replaced by the
name of the hon. member for York West, who is here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous consent to
proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to hear that the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik has
finally found somebody to second his bill. It took a while.
In the same vein, and before getting to the substance of the
issue, at the beginning of his speech, the member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik accused the opposition parties of
not agreeing, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, to make his bill a votable item.
For the sake of transparency, I request unanimous consent, and
offer our total co-operation, to make this bill a votable item.
Therefore, before getting to my speech, I would ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to make this bill a votable item.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous consent to
make this bill a votable item?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, things are crystal clear.
Members on the government side refused to make this bill a
votable item. So now everybody knows who wants to make it votable
and who does not.
Let us put this debate into perspective. What is the situation
on the fuel market? Over the last year or year and a half, there
has been an exceptional increase of prices causing hardship to
consumers. It creates inflation. Truck drivers, farmers,
consumers and people using heating oil are affected. This crisis
is ongoing and is costly for consumers.
At the same time, we have an industry making record profits and
governments raking in huge amounts of taxes, especially the
federal government, which collects taxes not only on fuel but
also on oil companies' profits.
1800
Let me add that the federal government will collect more than $5
billion thanks to the excise tax and will only reinvest 6% in the
highway system. This is an incredible cash cow for the
government; the high prices of gasoline, petroleum products and
petroleum-based products is not a problem for the government
since they generate additional revenues. However, for consumers,
they represent a real loss of their purchasing power, and
consumers are really feeling it.
Therefore, the issue is an important one. How did the
government address the problem? It did two things. First, last
spring it asked the Conference Board to review the situation.
We have not yet seen the study; we will have it tomorrow.
I am announcing, and it is a scoop,that members will learn
that, according to the conference board, the oil industry is
doing fine. According to the versions of the report that are in
circulation at this time, and of which we have a copy, we can see
that it contains no criticism of the oil industry. Members should
not expect great miracles tomorrow or they will be disappointed.
In fact, this is not surprising since oil companies happen to be
members of the conference board.
The second thing the government did was just before the
election. What did it do? It decided to free up $1.4 billion so
it could send $125 or $250 cheques to individuals or families to
help them deal with the high cost of energy products, or so it
said. One has to look at how the government did that. It
decided to send a cheque to all those who receive a GST tax
credit.
However, some people do not have an oil heating system,
they have electric heating. Some do not necessarily use a
car, they use public transit, and so on. This measure was
strictly meant to help members opposite during the election
campaign because I am sure people badgered them on this issue.
Members just had to say, “Look, we will mail you a cheque in
January, we will help you”. We are talking about a $125 cheque
for someone who has an oil heating system and who has seen his
heating bills doubled. For some families, the increase can be as
much as $1,000 with a long winter that started early in December
and that seems to be dragging on longer than last year.
That makes for incredibly high costs. These timid measures were
not aimed at the people who really needed help.
Let us go back to the bill now before the House. What is the
hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik suggesting to solve the
problem? It is a bill that says: “Here is our solution. We are
going to ask the oil companies to post the prices before tax”.
I listened carefully to the hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik to try to understand how his logic
works. The price I am interested in is the price I have to pay.
Even if the price before tax is posted, when I go fill up, I am
still going to have to pay the same price if nothing is done to
change the business practices in the industry and the fuel tax
policy. The total price is going to be the same.
Consumers want to know the price they are going to pay, not the
price that will be posted. I do not see what good it would do to
post a lower price.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Pierre Brien: I thank my colleague. I am glad to see I have
so much support from the Liberals, although it is kind of
strange.
What is important is the real price we have to pay, and that is
a different debate in itself. Should we always post the price
with tax? Consumers know full well that they are going to have
to pay the GST, the PST and the excise tax. They might not
always know the exact amount of tax they are going to pay, but
they know the goods they are buying are taxed. The excise tax
comes to 10 cents a litre and the provincial tax varies in
Quebec between 10 and 15.5 cents depending on the region.
Taxes are high, but we already know that. Consumers are more
interested in finding out what improvements can be made to the
business practices in the oil industry.
How can we improve the situation in the short, medium and long
term?
In the short term, we could give consumers a break by reducing
or suspending the excise tax for a while. We are being realistic
and we know that oil products are under the control of countries
which are big producers and which were therefore able to reduce
the oil supply so that the price of a barrel of oil is very high.
This is part of the explanation for the increase. We know that
and we are being realistic.
However one thing still puzzles us. Why is it that, when the price
of gasoline at the pump increases, it is suddenly increasing
everywhere instantly? There could be three or four different
stations at an intersection, and they all suddenly show the same
new price. As far as prices are concerned, there is incredible
harmony among people who should be fierce competitors.
1805
I studied economics. I try to understand how this is possible
without some form of collusion. Of course, this is very difficult
to prove. But it is something to consider.
Should we not change the Competition Act to make the burden of
proof less demanding in cases of anticompetitive behaviour? Oil
companies should be held accountable.
There is an area where we could do something. A very interesting
study was made a few years ago by Liberal members. It suggested
that the average price of gas in Canada was about 4 to 5 cents
higher because there is not enough competition in the industry.
Why was there no follow-up on this report, why is it gathering
dust on the shelves? The government is just playing for time by
referring the issue to the conference board in the hope that the
problem will just go away. It will not.
Every time the oil companies publish their quarterly results, we
realize that record profits are piling up. Their production
activities have much to do in that regard but I am convinced they
do not lose much in retail marketing. Logically, the oil
companies should have a hard time in retailing when prices go up,
but they do not, because they control the process from refining
to retail marketing.
We go even further than that by looking at what is being done in
six American states. They have decided that companies will not be
allowed to be refiner, distributor and retail marketer all at
once. I will very candidly admit that this was first brought to
my attention by a working paper prepared by Liberal members
describing this situation. They wrote that in the United States,
some states have a
legislation called a divorce act, to keep companies from being
involved both in retail marketing and in refining. We have checked
and there are six of them.
This is an interesting notion which prevents too great a
concentration within the industry. I believe it is a way to
improve competition in the industry, and we should look into it.
Also, we should not lose track of another element, namely the
long term. We must invest massively in the research and
development of alternative energies. The way we use gasoline
today has consequences for the environment. It is in our best
interest to invest massively in the development of alternative
energies.
The oil industry has no interest in doing so because it stands
to profit from the current situation. Governments will therefore
have to be major players in supporting and developing alternative
energies.
Before I conclude, I would like to get back to the member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. I know he goes around the regions
pretending to care about gas prices. It was his choice to have
this motion debated today.
There is another motion in his name, requesting that the
government considerably lower its taxes on gas. He could have
chosen that one because it is not his motion that was drawn, but
his name. He is the one who decided which motion would be
debated. He chose this one even though he had another one asking
for lower taxes, which could have been votable. He cannot say
whatever he likes. If he really wants lower taxes, he should say
so and act accordingly and introduce real motions.
In conclusion I will say that this bill does not deal with the
problem. Posting the price, before or after taxes, does not
matter. What matters is the price we pay. We must look for real
solutions to the real problems consumers are facing, and that is
what we are doing.
We will have the opportunity to get back to this in the next few
days when the Conference Board's study is made public. We will
put forward our solutions once again.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will say a few words on the motion by the Liberal
member from across the way.
I certainly agree with him that we should have more explicit
pricing of energy costs and should have the taxes listed. The
intent of the bill is probably quite honourable.
I will throw out a couple of other ideas that we might want to
consider.
When I look at oil companies today I see them making tremendous
profits, higher profits than they have made in many years. I
think the time has come for the federal parliament to look at the
idea of a surtax on those excessive profits and of using the
surtax to reinvest in renewable energy resources. We should
start looking for alternatives to the internal combustion engine,
such as wind and solar energy and other renewables that are
clean.
I think we could do that if we had more money to invest in those
technologies.
1810
I want to lay before the House today a couple of statistics that
show we have room to put an excess profit tax or special surtax
on the price of energy.
I have some numbers from Statistics Canada on the profitability
of the energy sector: the oil, gas and coal industries. If one
looks back at 1999, the after tax net profit was $3.1 billion. In
the third quarter of 2000 it more than doubled to $7.1 billion.
In other words, there is an awful lot of money, an awful lot of
cash, in that industry.
The Alberta government does not seem to be putting much of a tax
on the oil and gas companies in that province. A study was
recently conducted by a university group in Alberta, the
University of Alberta's Parkland Institute, in November of this
year. It said that the Klein government had basically been
giving away Alberta's oil wells.
Taxes now in Alberta are a lot lower on oil companies than they
were during the days of Conservative Premier Peter Lougheed.
Taxes are a lot lower in Alberta than in two other very oil rich
jurisdictions in the world, Norway and Alaska.
The institute did the study before the increase in energy prices
and before the huge spike in profits of the gas and oil
companies. The study was done between 1992 and 1997. Between
those years, if the Alberta government had taxed the oil
companies as much as Peter Lougheed and the Conservatives did a
number of years ago, it would have collected an extra $3.78
billion. The Alberta government would have collected $3.78
billion in extra money if it had had the same taxing regime, the
same royalty regime, as Peter Lougheed, the Conservative premier
of Alberta back in the 1970s.
If we compare a more modern regime in the world in terms of
taxes to Alberta, let us use Alaska. Alaska is part of the
United States. It is not exactly a socialistic country in terms
of taxation regimes. Between 1992 and 1997, if taxes in Alberta
had been the same as taxes in Alaska, there would have been an
extra $2 billion for the people of Alberta in terms of revenue
from the oil industry.
The tax regime is even higher in Norway. If Alberta taxes had
been the same as the taxes in Norway, there would have been an
extra $5.7 billion per year. I should make it clear that I am
talking per year. If the same regime as the one in Alaska had
been applied in Alberta it would have an extra $2 billion per
year. If the same taxation regime as Peter Lougheed's it would
have an extra $3.78 billion per year.
There is tremendous room for a tax increase on the oil industry
in Canada. These numbers are from 1992 to 1997. Since then
prices and profits have skyrocketed. The time has come for the
federal government to act by putting a surtax on the excessive
profits of oil companies and using those profits to invest in
renewable resources.
Some oil companies in Alberta will scream and holler, but we
have the jurisdiction as the federal parliament to impose a
surtax. It has been done to banks and to other companies in the
past. Let us take the leadership and do it in terms of oil
companies and make sure the excess money is used for the ordinary
people of Canada.
My old friend from Souris—Moose Mountain lives in oil country.
I am sure he will agree that the profits are excessive and much
too high. I am sure he will agree that the great Conservative
leader Peter Lougheed taxed them at a fair rate back in the
seventies and that the same thing should be done today.
If Ralph Klein will not do it then we will do it in the
Parliament of Canada for the benefit of all Canadians, for more
money in renewable resources.
1815
I say that as a westerner and I know there will be some people
who will say that it is none of Ottawa's business to impose an
excess profit tax on the oil companies. We can do it to banks;
we can do it to other companies; but we must stay off big oil.
That belongs to Alberta. That oil belongs in part to all people
in the country as well as the excess profit they are gouging from
consumers.
They are gouging the consumers when they go to the gas pumps.
Some of that excess profit should be used to invest in renewable
energy. They are gouging consumers in Regina, Macoun, Estevan,
Weyburn, Montreal, Vancouver and even in Bengough. In
Newfoundland it is about 80 cents a litre for gasoline. Big oil
is bloated with humongous profits.
Let us put a special surcharge, an excess profit surcharge on
these big oil companies and make sure that money is used on
behalf of Canadians. I believe that is what should be done.
I am sure that all these right wingers in the Reform Party and
my friend from Souris—Moose Mountain will get up and agree with
that. As a matter of fact, if we did that we could lessen the
tax burden from Ottawa on ordinary citizens, have a fair taxation
system and collect the money on the basis of the ability to pay.
I believe that is what should be done.
If we do that, I am sure about 95% of the Canadian people would
agree that we are going in the right direction. Even my good
friends in the Reform Party that come from the oil patch, the
alliance reform or reform alliance party, would grudgingly agree
that is not a bad idea whatsoever.
The last point I would like to make is that my good friend John
Solomon, a member of parliament from 1993 to 2000, used to
recommend an energy review commission to review energy prices and
make sure consumers are not gouged. It is an idea we should look
at once again.
I say to my Liberal friends that the Liberal premier of
Newfoundland was on television at 5 o'clock this afternoon
talking about how the Newfoundland government will control the
price of gasoline in the province of Newfoundland. It will be
tied to the world price. If the world price goes up, the price
in Newfoundland will go up; if the world price goes down, the
price in Newfoundland will go down.
Prince Edward Island does a similar thing. It is a little
different in terms of how the price is set there. It is a little
more arbitrary in Prince Edward Island, but at least it is the
same principle and the same idea.
Maybe, as a federal parliament, we should be directing our
government to try to co-ordinate efforts across the board, to
have some regulations in terms of oil and gas prices.
These are just a couple of ideas. As I said, John Solomon often
used to speak in the House of Commons about the need for an
energy commission and doing what is now being done in
Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. Perhaps the federal
government should lead in that direction.
In my last minute I once again recommend an excess profit tax
and surtax on big oil. Let us have big oil pay its fair share.
Ordinary citizens pay their fair share; in fact they pay too much
in terms of taxes. How about big oil paying its fair share and
using that money, the extra hundreds of billions of dollars to
invest in renewable energy? Each and every one of us and the
environment would be much better off. I am sure those words are
supported enthusiastically by my friend from the alliance reform
party from Souris—Moose Mountain.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure today that I rise to speak to Bill C-220, an act
respecting the posting of fuel prices by retailers.
I commend my hon. colleague for the introduction of the
legislation. It will help in terms of achieving greater levels
of transparency in the pricing and in terms of allowing consumers
to know the price they are paying at the pumps for fuel that
actually goes to the retailer and ultimately to the petroleum
company.
1820
That being the case, the real culprit in fuel pricing in Canada
is not necessarily the producer but, as is more often the case,
the federal government in terms of the gas taxes that are
collected and are not returned to the provinces for investment in
our highways and our infrastructure.
The excise tax on gasoline in Canada and the U.S. is quite
similar, despite the fact that gas retailers and refineries in
Canada operate in a less efficient market than the U.S. The
federal government is clearly the real culprit in terms of the
taxes levied on petroleum.
From 1998 to 1999 the federal government collected $4.7 billion
in gas taxes and only returned 4.1%, or a paltry $194 million, in
provincial transfers for highways. Thirty-six per cent to 45% of
the price consumers pay at the pumps actually goes directly to
federal and provincial taxes.
The 1998 Liberal caucus task force, with, I believe, 47 Liberal
backbenchers, recommended reducing the federal excise tax on
gasoline from 10 cents to 8.5 cents. After studying the issue
their request was turned down by the Minister of Finance.
Ironically, what the Liberal caucus task force was looking for
was the elimination of the 1995 deficit reduction surtax that was
introduced by the Minister of Finance at that time to ostensibly
reduce the deficit.
The deficit is gone. Why is the gas tax, that unnecessary 1.5
cents per litre gas tax, still there? It was introduced to get
rid of the deficit. The deficit has gone. The tax is still
there despite the fact that 47 Liberal backbenchers recommended
its elimination. It is one of the times that I actually agree
with my colleagues opposite that the gas tax should be gone.
We have called for a national highways infrastructure program.
There are great disparities between the provinces in terms of
their ability to afford to upgrade their highways as opposed to
some of the other provinces.
In Nova Scotia we are facing significant financial constraints
and infrastructure deficits at this time. Highway 101 in my
riding is a death trap. There have been over 50 deaths in recent
years on that highway. It has the highest level of traffic in
the province and is one of the most dangerous highways in the
country. We are looking for, and the federal government has said
there will be, a federal-provincial cost sharing or twinning on
that program.
The difficulty is that the province is not in the fiscal
position to participate on a 50:50 basis from day one. We are
looking for a front end loading program where the federal
government would in fact pay the lion's share of the cost upfront
but, over a five year period, the province would pick up a
greater part of the contribution. This would make a lot more
sense, particularly given the fact that this is a life and death
issue and should be viewed as such.
This type of initiative would, in a reasonable way, facilitate
the commencement of that project in the short term. It would
save lives and lead to greater levels of economic development in
that fast growing area of the province, the Annapolis Valley. It
makes a great deal of sense.
I will comment now on a different area of the petroleum issue.
The premier of Nova Scotia has been campaigning vigorously on
this issue, on behalf of all Nova Scotians, regardless of
partisan politics. I direct my comments to the member for
Halifax West, who I am sure at this point supports the premier's
initiative.
The campaign for fairness, which Premier John Hamm has
initiated, is a very important debate in which we need to be
engaged. The federal government is currently taking the lion's
share of offshore petroleum revenues from Nova Scotia. We are
not receiving the benefits. Nova Scotia needs those revenues in
order to bootstrap itself into the 21st century and afford the
education and transportation infrastructures needed to compete in
a hypercompetitive global economy. At the same time, it needs
those revenues to reduce its fiscal burdens, particularly its tax
burdens, which inhibit growth and prosperity in this very
difficult time.
1825
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the
members who spoke tonight, be they members of the Canadian
Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Bloc
Quebecois or the New Democratic Party. Most of them submitted
good ideas.
I would like to make a remark before my last comment. The hon.
member for Témiscamingue is trying to mislead the House of
Commons and the consumers of Abitibi—Témiscamingue by saying:
“The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik goes around in
his riding boasting of what he says in parliament, but in the
meantime, he tabled a motion saying the opposite”.
We will put some clarity in the rules of the House of Commons.
According to last week's draw, I got to present a bill, not a
motion. When I received a call from the private members' business
office, I was in Abitibi, in the beautiful city of Val-d'Or, 400
kilometres away from Ottawa. That call informed my office that I
had won the draw and that my bill was chosen, not a motion.
I do have many motions dealing with the demands made by the
people of the large riding of Abitibi, which covers 802 000
square kilometres and has a population of 100 000, including 68
mayors as well as Inuit and Cree chiefs.
The hon. member for Témiscamingue is trying to mislead the
House by saying that it was a motion and that I could choose.
That is not true. He lied.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I cannot accept that comment,
absolutely not. I ask the member to withdraw his words.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw what I said,
namely that he lied.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
will admit that the member did table a motion dating back to
Monday only, so he could not have won the draw for that motion.
In fact, it would have been impossible for him to table the
motion I was talking about.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The member's comment is
really a point of debate. I cannot accept it as a point of
order.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, in any event, we will move to
another topic because that one is headed nowhere.
There are 14,000 outlets in Canada. Perhaps half of them are
private service stations. They do what they want, depending on
the price of gas.
Regardless of the report that will be tabled tomorrow and
the comments in it, which matters to the public and to the
consumer, is that the oil industry, with the millions, the
billions it is making, stand up. It should bear in mind the
public's level of frustration and adopt more transparent pricing
practices, including showing the gross price and giving the
breakdown for refinery, processing, whole sale and retail prices
and taxes.
I think that everyone's interests would be better served if the
industry made a greater effort to explain how prices are set and
made this information available to consumers. That is what is
important.
There has been some good discussion this evening touching on the
American, BQ, NDP and PC points of view. What is important is
that the oil companies are going to have to stand up and tell
consumers what it costs. They are hiding behind the taxes. It
is true that the taxes should be reduced.
I would like both levels of government, federal and provincial,
to reduce the taxes. We are all in agreement with that. What is
important is that the oil companies stand up. They are making
billions of dollars in profits on the backs of consumers. It is
time they came clean.
I could say some unpleasant things, but I will not. I enjoyed
this evening's debate. We all had a very interesting time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 6.30 p.m., the time
provided for the consideration of private members' business has
now passed. The motion not being designated as a votable item,
the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise this evening to speak on the late show. I had the
opportunity of posing a question for the Prime Minister a couple
of weeks ago with respect to the Prime Minister's visit to the
United States and his discussions with the President Bush.
The Prime Minister was to talk about the unfair subsidization of
agricultural products that the United States has been so famous
for. The Prime Minister in his answer was very forthcoming. He
said that he was going to discuss that particular issue with the
president and that he would try to convince him to remove those
subsidies wherever possible so that we could compete on a fair
and level playing field.
As part of my question, I also suggested that if he did not
receive the answer from the president that he was looking for,
that there would not be any more subsidies, would he then
increase the support payments to Canadian farmers so that they
can compete. That part of the question was never answered and
was left hanging, a moot answer from the Prime Minister.
I would like to have an answer because it is extremely
important. For example, right now the United States is putting
$48.2 billion back into its agriculture and its producers. Canada
right now, and it has increased, is supporting its agricultural
producers by $3.1 billion. There is a terrible discrepancy with
the amount of unfair subsidization, not only in the United States
but in Europe.
This is my question for the parliamentary secretary tonight.
Since the Prime Minister did not get any of those assurances from
the president, since there are still unfair subsidies being put
forward by the United States and the European Union, since our
producers are still not able to compete on a level playing field,
why will the Prime Minister of the country not support
agriculture? As a matter of fact, it is getting to the point
that the Americans are putting more and more dollars into its
producers.
Just recently, the parliamentary secretary and I had an
opportunity to meet the house agricultural committee chairman,
Larry Combest, while we were in Washington. Mr. Combest said:
America's farmers and ranchers will be looking to us to not only
assist them in coping with the challenges that they are facing,
but also to make some meaningful improvements to the farm safety
net in order to bring some stability to their livelihoods. I
think that the report we are reviewing today presents us with
good opportunity to begin an earnest effort in this Committee to
build consensus on how best to address all the challenges facing
agriculture today, and to craft better farm policy for the
future.
I wish we had that individual here on that side of the House so
that those same views could be shared with our producers and our
agricultural farmers of the country.
I want the parliamentary secretary to be able to stand today and
tell us that in fact we are going to compete with the Americans
on a subsidy basis. The Prime Minister got the wrong answers
when he was down there. I would like to hear the right answers
from the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians can
be proud of the fact that we have one of the best food safety
systems in the world. However, that does not mean that we can be
complacent. Recently food inspection systems around the world
have had to respond to a troubling development, the growing
threat of BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as
mad cow disease.
Canada has taken several measures to prevent the spread or the
induction of the disease. So far, those measures have been
successful but there is no such thing as zero risk. That is why
Canada asked its trading partners to provide information that
would help to assess their BSE status. They responded, except
for Brazil.
In addition, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the FAO,
report indicated there is significant potential that BSE may have
already moved beyond Europe. Further information came to light
that Brazil may have imported cattle from the European Union
countries that are not free of BSE.
1835
As a result, Canada suspended imports of beef products from that
country. We took an extra step. We went the extra mile to help
resolve this issue. With our NAFTA partners, the U.S. and
Mexico, we sent a team of officials to Brazil to fully assess the
Brazilian regulatory system for the risk of BSE.
The team has gathered considerable data. Building on this
information, our animal health authorities are taking all the
steps required to complete their assessment expeditiously.
Just as Canada's objective in the decision to suspend imports
from Brazil was entirely related to maintaining the safety of our
food supply and the health of Canadians, our final decision will
be based solely upon achieving these objectives. Canadians
expect no less.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.00 p.m., pursuant to order
made Tuesday, February 13, 2001.
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)