37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 054
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 3, 2001
1000
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS ADVISORY COUNCIL
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HEALTH
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Transport and Government Operations
|
| Mr. Ovid Jackson |
| SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD DAY AND THE SIR WILFRID LAURIER DAY
|
| Bill S-14. First reading
|
| Mr. John Godfrey |
| PATENT ACT
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PETITIONS
|
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1010
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Falun Gong
|
| Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
| Mining Industry
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-342. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1020
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1025
1030
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1035
1040
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1045
1050
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1055
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1100
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1105
1110
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-18. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1115
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1120
1125
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1130
1135
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1140
1145
1150
1155
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1200
1205
1210
1215
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1220
1225
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1230
1235
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1240
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1245
1250
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1255
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1300
1305
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1310
| Mr. John Duncan |
1315
1320
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1325
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1330
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
1335
1340
1345
1350
| Division on motion deferred
|
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN IMPROV GAMES
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
1400
| RESPONSIBLE FISHING AWARDS
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| MENTAL HEALTH
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| RESPONSIBLE FISHING AWARDS
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
1405
| MAURICIE
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| WORLD ASTHMA DAY
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| PRESS FREEDOM DAY
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| ZIMBABWE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| POLISH CONSTITUTION DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1410
| CRAB FISHING
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| STATISTICS CANADA
|
| AMATEUR HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| ATLANTIC CANADA
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| HUNTINGDON'S DISEASE
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
1415
| ROCKY MOUNTAIN COLLEGE CHOIR
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
1425
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| SINGLE CURRENCY
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1435
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| PHARMACEUTICALS
|
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| ENERGY
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Hon. John Manley |
1440
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1445
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1450
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Hon. John Manley |
1455
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Hon. John Manley |
| FOOD INSPECTION
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1500
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1510
1515
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1520
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1525
1530
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1535
1540
1545
1550
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1555
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1615
| Division on motion deferred
|
1620
| CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-15. Second reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1625
1630
1635
| Motion
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-250. Second reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. John Maloney |
1655
| Mr. Larry Spencer |
1700
1705
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1710
1715
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1720
1725
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1730
1735
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1740
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1745
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 054
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 3, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[Translation]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the
Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain
bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS ADVISORY COUNCIL
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am proud to
table this morning a report from the Parliamentary Buildings
Advisory Council, entitled “The Hill: Past, Present, Future”.
[Translation]
I am tabling as well the working document, “A Legacy for Future
Generations: The Long Term Vision and Plan for the Parliamentary
Precinct”.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to table draft legislative proposals as
well as accompanying documents to set the framework for the
regulation of assisted human reproduction.
1005
[Translation]
I intend to ask the Standing House Committee on Health for its
comments on these proposals.
[English]
I believe it is important that members of parliament have an
opportunity to reflect upon the draft legislation and to lead a
non-partisan dialogue with Canadians in relation to this
important issue.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the second report
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
[English]
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 26,
your committee has considered Bill C-7, an act in respect of
criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other
acts, and has agreed to report it with amendments.
TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the
Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations on Bill
C-14, which deals with the Shipping Act. The bill is presented
to the House with amendments and in both official languages.
* * *
SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD DAY AND THE SIR WILFRID LAURIER DAY
ACT
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.) moved that Bill
S-14, an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid
Laurier Day, be read the first time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
PATENT ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Industry) moved that
Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the first
time.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
* * *
PETITIONS
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of citizens of
Peterborough who would like to see the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research modified to better include kidney research.
They call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes
of Health Research to explicitly include kidney research as one
of the institutes in its system to be named the kidney and
urinary tract institute.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have yet another petition from citizens of Peterborough who would
like to see VIA commuter service re-established between Toronto
and Peterborough. They point to the environmental benefits of
that, for example, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,
reduction of accidents on the highways and congestion.
The petitioners also point to the way this would strengthen
Peterborough as a business centre, as an educational centre and
as a tourist centre. They call upon parliament to authorize the
recommencement of VIA service between Peterborough, Ontario and
Toronto as soon as possible.
I would point out that this is a petition which has support in
the federal ridings of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Durham,
Whitby—Ajax, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and Markham.
1010
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
lastly, if I might, I have another petition related to kidney
research. This is from people across Canada who, with Ken Sharp
of Peterborough, would like to see more research done in Canada
toward developing the bioartificial kidney, which is an implant
that would replace kidney transplantation and dialysis as the
only means of treating end stage kidney disease.
FALUN GONG
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I submit the following petition asking parliament to urge the
Chinese government to stop persecuting Falun Gong practitioners
and to lift the ban of Falun Gong practice.
[Translation]
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am tabling a petition signed by the residents of Val-d'Or and of
the Vallée de l'Or RCM, and by workers at the Beaufor and
Sigma-Lamaque mines.
This petition states that the government ought to take action to
increase its presence and its involvement in resource regions
that are having trouble adjusting to the new economy, and to
make the rules for its existing programs less stringent and
ensure that they are used in the resource regions.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that the all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I apologize to the House for being a bit delayed this
morning, but I was wondering if I may seek unanimous consent to
introduce a private member's bill which would amend the Income
Tax Act (volunteers).
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-342, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act (volunteers).
He said: Madam Speaker, I thank all members of the House for
allowing me to introduce the bill.
The bill recognizes that this is the international year of the
volunteer. The bill would amend the Income Tax Act to allow all
volunteers, who donate a minimum of 250 hours a year or more to a
registered service, charity or non-profit sporting organization,
to a tax deduction of up to $1,000. This would be similar to the
tax deduction claimed by individuals who give cash contributions.
In my conversations with charity groups across the county, they
think they would support the legislation. I look forward to its
speedy passage. Again, this is another great idea by the NDP.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
Bill C-23. On the Order: Government Orders
April 4, 2001—the Minister of Industry—Second reading and
reference to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and
Technology of Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and
the Competition Tribunal Act.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Industry)
moved:
That Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the
Competition Tribunal Act, be referred forthwith to the Standing
Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the purpose of the motion is
to provide members of the House with a greater role in preparing
legislation through House of Commons committees. It is only the
third of three bills referred to committee before second reading
in this parliament.
On behalf of the Minister of Industry I am very pleased that
Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and its related
statute, the Competition Tribunal Act, will be referred forthwith
to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.
This will give members of parliament a greater role in the
development and passage of legislation. It should also be noted
that this government bill was developed on the principles
underlying four private members' bills.
The initiatives proposed in the bill would ensure that key
marketplace framework laws remain effective and efficient in
promoting and protecting competition to the benefit of consumers
and the business community.
The Competition Act maintains and encourages competition in
order to enhance economic welfare, to ensure that small and
medium size enterprises have an equitable opportunity to
participate in the Canadian economy, and to provide consumers
with competitive prices and product choices.
Last year the competition bureau, with the assistance of the
public policy forum, undertook extensive consultations on the
principles underlying four private members' bills that proposed
amendments to the Competition Act. Stakeholders representing
consumers, businesses, and the legal and academic communities
were encouraged to provide their views. The bill is the product
of that consultation process.
The bill proposes improvements to the Competition Act and the
Competition Tribunal Act in four key areas: first, prohibiting
deceptive contests; second, broadening the scope under which the
tribunal may make temporary orders; third, streamlining the
competition tribunal processes; and, fourth, facilitating
co-operation with foreign competition authorities.
Let me say a bit about deceptive contests. Accurate information
in the marketplace is critical to all Canadians. In 1999
provisions were introduced to the Competition Act to address
telemarketing scams. However the competition bureau's crackdown
on deceptive telemarketers has caused some con artists to migrate
to other technologies such as mail and the Internet.
Deceptive contests involve the mass mailing of announcements
which tell recipients that they have won a valuable prize.
Sometimes the prospective victim is told that he or she must
first pay a fee or taxes before delivery. In other cases the
recipient is duped into telephoning a toll number to obtain
further details or to claim the prize. In most cases the prize
turns out to be worthless or of minimal value. That pales in
comparison to the charges the recipient incurs.
The bill creates a new criminal offence to combat deceptive
contests sent by mail or the Internet. This new provision will
prohibit any person from sending by mail or otherwise material
which gives the general impression that the recipient has won a
prize and that in order to receive such a prize he or she must
make a prior payment of money or incur a charge such as a
telephone toll.
I will say a bit about temporary orders. Complex competition
cases can often require extensive investigation by the
competition bureau before any proceedings are commenced with the
competition tribunal. In cases of serious anti-competitive
conduct a victim might very well have gone out of business before
the issue is resolved.
Effective enforcement of our competition laws calls for powers
to put an immediate temporary halt to anti-competitive conduct
where circumstances warrant. This type of injunctive power is
presently available with respect to alleged offences under the
criminal provisions of the Competition Act and with respect to
the civil reviewable provisions once proceedings have been
commenced before the tribunal.
Except in the case of a merger there is presently no interim
remedy available to prevent anti-competitive conduct while the
Competition bureau is investigating a matter but has not yet
filed a case with a tribunal. The bill would fill that gap by
enabling the tribunal to issue temporary orders on application of
the commissioner of competition.
1020
Turning to streamlining competition tribunal processes, it is
important that the competition tribunal not be impaired in its
ability to make timely and relevant decisions. The proposals in
the bill would amend the Competition Act and the Competition
Tribunal Act to streamline the tribunal processes in three key
areas.
First, the tribunal would be empowered to make an award of costs
in order to discourage frivolous or vexatious litigation.
Second, the tribunal would be able to summarily dispose of an
application without having gone through a full hearing in cases
where there is no genuine issue or genuine defence.
Third, a means would be created by which references would be
brought to the tribunal on a specific issue. In some cases the
outcome of a tribunal case might depend on a single pivotal issue
such as the appropriate definition of the market. An early
ruling might obviate the need for a full hearing on all the
remaining issues. These streamlining measures are consistent
with similar procedures followed by most courts.
Facilitating international co-operation is very important.
Continuing technological changes and falling trade barriers today
have resulted in a rapidly changing global economy. It also
raises the risk that the effects of anti-competitive conduct will
spill across borders and that the evidence necessary to combat
this activity will be located outside Canada. For these reasons
we need to be able to exchange information with competition
authorities for the purpose of evidence gathering if we are to
ensure that our competition laws remain effective.
One of the key objectives of the bill is to provide for enhanced
international co-operation on competition matters. There is no
better example that I can provide of the benefits that flow from
international co-operation than the recent series of cases
involving international price fixing cartels. Let me point out
that in the last few years there have been over 40 convictions of
multinational corporations for price fixing offences under the
Competition Act, resulting in fines in excess of $160 million.
These remarkable achievements in anti-cartel enforcement were
due to the regime of international co-operation for criminal
matters under the mutual legal assistance treaty. A similar tool
is now required for the civil provisions of the Competition Act.
Canadians are being well served by our competition laws. The
amendment initiatives before us today represent the latest step
in a continuing legislative evolution which will ensure that
Canadians and Canadian competition laws remain up to date and
operate effectively and efficiently.
At this juncture I commend the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, the member for Kitchener Centre and
the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine who worked diligently
and hard through their private members' initiatives in shaping
these amendments.
I note in closing that the public policy forum concluded from
consultations that a consensus on private access might be
possible. While there have been significant concerns expressed
by some stakeholders on the subject, it has evoked some strong
support from other quarters. This motion will give the committee
the opportunity to explore the benefits and necessity of such a
proposal. I personally look forward to seeing whether the
committee can find consensus in this area.
I ask that the bill be referred to the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Industry, Science and Technology before second
reading. I look forward to hearing the committee's views on the
government's proposed amendments.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is indeed a beautiful morning and we have a beautiful
piece of legislation to start the day off. I commend the
parliamentary secretary opposite. This piece of legislation,
although far from perfect, is a piece of legislation that we have
to look at with some favour.
As the parliamentary secretary declared, the competition bureau
has served Canadians well. Although many Canadians who have made
appeals and requests of the competition bureau have not always
received the redress they desired, or they were not dealt with as
speedily as they should have been, it has served Canadians
relatively well.
There were some deficiencies in the act which are being
addressed this morning. I commend the government for bringing
the bill forward.
1025
For the benefit of our viewers this morning I should like to
review some of the things the bill will actually do. First, it
would facilitate the co-operation between Canadian and foreign
competition authorities regarding evidence gathering or civil
competition matters.
This is pretty significant. We are getting into a global
economy. Industries are operating in other countries. Certain
countries are becoming highly specialized in some areas and other
countries in others. There is need for international trade.
There is need to recognize our respective strengths and
weaknesses and to co-operate in developing how we might do it
best.
There is a greed element that comes into society every once in a
while. Some people want to sort of dominate, take a dominant
position in industry, and make everybody kowtow to their
particular desires. We need to recognize that we need protection
domestically. We also need protection internationally so that
there is a fair and reciprocal exchange of information and that
the rules of gathering information are comparable.
It would prohibit deceptive notices of a prize aimed at the
general public and sent through the mail or Internet. I am sure
all members of the House are aware that there are certain
unscrupulous promoters out there who provide prizes. They make
people think they are getting something. They receive phone
calls congratulating them and telling them that we have won a $50
prize, only to discover that to collect the prize they have to
send in $5, $10 or some other amount. Then they are thanked for
the $10 and they discover that the prize is not really worth $50.
It is a scam. It is amazing how many people have been fooled by
so-called prizes. They are not prizes at all.
I remember one case mentioned before the industry committee
involving the winning of a prize that was worth roughly $50,000.
In order to collect the prize the person had to invest $10,000
and the prize was not forthcoming. This is a very significant
amendment to the legislation.
Third, it would streamline the competition tribunal processes by
providing the tribunal with a power to award costs, to make
summary dispositions and to determine references.
We need to look at three points in this area. Sometimes people
feel that some other group is unfairly competing with them when
the competition is quite fair. They submit frivolous requests to
the tribunal which wastes a lot of time and is not productive.
These frivolous requests are added to a long list of other
legitimate requests. The provision to avoid frivolous
applications to the competition bureau is a reasonable one.
We should also look at the scope under which the competition
bureau may issue temporary orders. That scope has now been
broadened. I cannot emphasize that enough, because there are
times when the competition bureau could deal with something that
it is currently not empowered to deal with, simply because it is
so restricted as to what it may deal with. Let me read a couple
of things that can now happen.
At the present time an interim order can be issued by the
competition tribunal only after litigation has begun. This
lengthy period of time may elapse before the protective action is
taken, with the consequence that the target of anti-competitive
behaviour may already have taken place and have driven some
people out of business.
That is difficult. I cannot help but refer to a particular case
that happened in my constituency. I was able to assist a small
company that had annual sales of roughly $3 million to $6
million. The source of material which it distributed was being
stopped. It could not be supplied with material any longer
because the suppliers wanted it themselves. They did not
indicate the last part.
They simply said they would not provide the material anymore,
which meant they could not do business any longer. There was
literally a domination in the marketplace. I think it was three
companies that had 85% or 90% of the market. They said they
could have the rest of the market, putting them into a monopoly
situation.
1030
On principle I object to any kind of monopoly. This particular
case went to the competition bureau. The bureau had some
difficulty dealing with this case but over time gradually saw the
merits of the case and dealt with it. The case went to court and
an injunction was issued. The companies that had taken advantage
of their dominant position had to supply the material. These
individuals are now in business and going forward.
Had the tribunal not been able to act in this case, the company
would have been broke today. Had there not been a recognition by
the tribunal that some serious injustices were taking place,
these poor people would be bankrupt, having sunk a lot of money
into their business. They still have not finished. They now
have to recognize and claim for damages experienced as a result
of the anti-competitive behaviour by these people. It looks like
that is going forward. I cannot speak about it any further
because it is before the courts. I hope it is resolved in favour
of this small company and that it recovers its costs.
Some major changes were made to the Competition Act in 1999. I
distinctly remember the debate which took place with regard to
fraudulent telemarketing and the business of tied selling. This
is when a company puts a condition on a price for a particular
article. In other words, to get that price one must buy
something else. For example, banks, and sometimes other
institutions, say that if one buys a particular insurance policy,
it will give it to the individual for a special rate, but to get
that rate the individual also has to take a mortgage with the
bank.
Also, there is the bundling of services to get a better price.
For example, to get a lower price from the bank, a customer would
have to take the whole package, such as a savings account, a
current account, a chequing account and perhaps insurance. There
is nothing wrong with that except when it becomes a condition. It
really becomes a judgment call as to when one is a condition on
the other.
Tied selling is one of those things that the Competition Act
says should not ever be done. I agree with this. The question
now becomes one of interpretation or one of judgment as to when
it happens.
In my final minute I want to suggest the need for government to
recognize that not only should the Competition Act be amended as
suggested, it should to go beyond that. There are a couple of
other proposals that would improve the Competition Act even
further. That has to do with the distinction between criminal
and civil cases.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, this
morning we are debating Bill C-23, an act to amend the
Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act.
In essence the bill brings together a number of initiatives
from MPs' private members bills. It is a bit of a cobble of a
number of bills and initiatives proposed by various members on,
among other things, the practices and procedures of the
competition tribunal.
There are four aspects to the bill. One concerns changes to the
procedures of the competition tribunal in order to make it more
effective.
1035
Another aspect concerns the interim orders the competition
tribunal can issue to prevent situations causing such lengthy
prejudice that a corporation, even if it knows it is causing a
prejudice, will eliminate a competitor and prevent his
or her subsequent return.
The aim of it is to eliminate a practice that could make it
advantageous to behave illegally, since it means that
competitors will be eliminated and that the price to pay for
this is perhaps less than the value of the resultant benefit.
The tribunal could have more teeth and greater effectiveness as
regards these two aspects.
There are also amendments to facilitate international
co-operation. In this age of globalization and rapidly evolving
communications technologies, we now know that greater
international co-operation is needed to improve the effectiveness
of the consumer protection measures in the Competition Act.
A fourth aspect of the bill, which everyone has heard about and
which is perhaps the simplest to understand, includes amendments
to prohibit deceptive contests, the kind that suggest we have
won something and must pay money to receive our prize. The
bill contains provisions which make it an offence to send a
deceptive notice by electronic or regular mail to an individual
suggesting that he or her she has won a price and must pay money to receive
it.
We know that this kind of practice very often leads to abuses
and questionable situations.
I therefore urge everyone to exercise the greatest caution.
When people win something and have entered no contest they should
be on their
guard. There is something very fishy about this and, in
general, the problems will be greater than the rewards.
There have been so many abuses in this area that the time has
come for legislators to send a clearer message that these
practices will be dealt with much more severely.
The bill has many laudable goals. We will obviously have to
examine it in greater detail in parliamentary committee. Then
we will debate it in the House again. We will be able to hear
from witnesses on various subjects they feel we should know more
about. We will also have to take into account the jurisdictions
of the various levels in order to ensure that the bill respects
the work already being done by the provinces. I am thinking,
for instance, of Quebec, with its Consumer Protection Act.
Before having had the opportunity to examine the bill in detail,
one has to wonder how it will ensure that consumers are well
protected when a province already has consumer protection
legislation to regulate such practices and the federal
government gets involved with the Competition Act? There is a
grey area but I am sure that the work done in committee will
shed more light on this issue.
This is what the bill is all about.
My disappointment has to do with the fact that while the
government is dealing with competition issues, one of the great
frustrations and concerns of consumers right now is the gasoline
issue and the behaviour of the oil industry.
If the government is serious about finding tools to improve
business and competitive practices, the oil industry definitely
deserves greater attention because gas prices are reaching
record levels and are constantly increasing. The prospect of
paying even more for a litre of gas is a major concern to
consumers, to those whose livelihood is dependent on an industry
in which transportation is an important component and to those
who live in regions where transportation is an unavoidable
reality and a major production cost.
That is the case in a region like mine, the
Abitibi-Témiscamingue. We have to make heavy use of trucking to
get our products out and others in, which adds considerably to
our production costs. It affects agriculture and it affects the
trucking industry. In the urban centres, it affects the taxi
industry. Thus there are many groups affected by the rise in
prices. I do not need to list them all but many people are
seriously penalized by high gasoline prices.
1040
It is not true that the increase in the price per barrel is the
only reason we are paying such a high price at present. The
trade practices of the major oil companies are dubious, to say
the least, and unfortunately are not being given any specific
scrutiny by the government.
We would have liked to have seen action on a number of fronts,
such as, first, in the short term, helping out the consumer by
doing something about the tax in order to keep the prices down.
At the same time, however, something needs to be done about the
variables of competition.
There is no way I will ever be convinced that it is normal
competitive practice for major competitors such as the big oil
companies to always all have the same prices at the same time,
for gas stations on four corners of an intersection to raise
prices at exactly the same time in one place, while another
place only a few kilometres away will have different prices.
The transportation variable does not explain these price
differences, nor do the variables of competition.
Certain trade practices are used to do in all the little
independents. It is very clear that this is the strategy and
action plan of the major companies. Obviously it is in their
interest, and understandably so; they are in business to make
money. If we do not do something they will use these
strategies to increase their share of the market.
I cannot believe, and this is a common perception, that the
business practices of these firms cannot comply with the usual
rules of competition. There is a sort of collusion between
these companies. A mechanism must be put in place to
continually monitor the conduct of the oil industry. For
example, let us give the competition bureau additional means to
set up an oil industry monitoring section. Let us ensure that
the law makes sentencing or proof of anti-competitive practices
easier to obtain. In this regard, I wish the current bill had
opened this window.
In committee, we will study the subjects presented. Obviously,
people will appear before the committee, but I fear that when we
study the bill we will limit ourselves to the subject matter of
the bill and not deal with this very important section of the
Competition Act or the ways in which competitive practices in
the oil industry may be improved.
Here, I repeat remarks shared by many of the members opposite at
one time. Over 50 of them signed a report stating that the
Canadian market was a real treat for the oil companies.
The report also stated that, on average, Canadian consumers were
paying 4 cents or 5 cents more for a litre of gas than U.S. consumers,
and that taxes should be removed because of competitive
practices in Canada where the federal government's approach to
promoting the establishment of a strong industry has gone too
far, to the extent that this was done at consumers' expense.
I am somewhat surprised to see that only a few still hold this
view, that the others have forgotten that they signed this
report and that this issue is no longer one of their political
priorities even though it is more important than ever to
consumers.
I hope that at third reading some substantial amendments will
have been made to improve competitive practices in the oil
industry and to control these companies somewhat. People can no
longer stand to see these companies making huge profits while
they are paying exorbitant prices for gas.
This has to stop at some point. We must send the signal that we
are concerned about this situation. Even though the bill has
some good features, it overlooks an extremely important
component in our daily lives, namely the oil industry. I find
this difficult to accept.
I hope that in the end the bill will include a clause amending
the mandate of the competition bureau regarding the oil
industry.
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, it
is not my intention to take a lot of time repeating the comments
of other members that have encompassed the scope of the bill.
1045
I want to read the summary of the bill so the listening public
will know what it entails. It states:
This enactment amends the Competition Act and Competition
Tribunal Act. The amendments include the following:
It must have been a hard thing for the government to put in fair
trade practices laws, but that is okay. The summary continues:
amendments prohibiting deceptive prize notices;
amendments streamlining the Competition Tribunal process by
providing for cost awards, summary dispositions and references;
amendments broadening the scope under which the Tribunal may
issue temporary orders; and
some housekeeping items.
A number of areas are being covered throughout the bill that
need to be addressed. I want to comment a bit further on the
amendments prohibiting deceptive prize notices.
My hon. colleague from the Alliance commented about the number
of scams that are out there involving individuals. Toward the
end of his comments he also mentioned whether or not something
like this should be considered criminal or handled through a
civil process.
In that area I am somewhat concerned that we would not look at
deceptive prize projects as a criminal act. We are not talking
about people being ripped off by a few thousand dollars. In a
good many instances tens of thousands of dollars are involved. I
know specifically of three people, who do have their wits about
them but who got involved in very deceptive scams involving
$5,000 to $10,000.
It is disappointing that we are not dealing with scams as a
criminal issue rather than on the basis of it decreasing
competition. Something seems to be amiss here.
There is another issue that will probably not be addressed in
the bill but it is also deceptive. A small business operator in
my riding purchased plans on how to access government grants and
funding. It was formatted in such a way, and with the coat of
arms on it, that it appeared to be something put out by the
Government of Canada. It included a number of things that were
available through government services by accessing different
departments, websites and so on.
One of the toughest things is to know exactly what grants and
funding are available through different programs and how to
access them. As a member of parliament, I receive a number of
notices and often at the last minute. Two days before we can
access funding, a government department will send out a notice
saying that program funds are available. As MPs we scramble to
let people in our riding, who might have some kind of interest in
these funds, know that they are available.
In that one instance a small business owner paid $300 for this
information. It definitely was presented in such a way that it
looked like it came from the Government of Canada. There was a
rider enclosed indicating that it had to be returned within so
many days or the person lost money. There really was nothing the
person could do about it.
The people who are getting caught up in these scams do have
their wits about them. They are genuinely looking to benefit
from some things. The saying is that “if you are getting
something for nothing, chances are you are getting nothing for
something”. That is the bottom line with a scam.
I commend the members who were involved in that particular
project because it is certainly one part of the legislation that
each and every Canadian would be able to feel the impact of
personally.
Another major part of the bill deals with co-operation between
foreign countries, which is of course needed.
I do not know how other members of the industry committee feel,
but apart from not necessarily wanting any more work on our plate
at the committee, which was the only thing holding me back from
saying that I did not want the legislation to go through, it
would be good to get the bill to committee as soon as possible
because it does involve a lot of discussion. I hope we get the
opportunity to get on to it by September.
1050
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-23 today on behalf
of our industry critic, the member for Kings—Hants, who has been
very much involved with these issues.
All of us are involved with competition issues almost every day.
During my former job as transportation critic there were several
instances where the competition bureau was involved, especially
during the evolution of the airline industry. There was a lot of
involvement by the competition bureau when Canadian Airlines was
consumed by Air Canada. There still is and will be for some
time.
The competition bureau has outlined rules whereby Air Canada
must allow competition to start and flourish in order to create a
competitive environment in the aviation industry in Canada. Air
Canada is so strong that it effectively could put new companies
out of business before they even start. It can subsidize four
revenue lines from its better revenue lines, thereby competing
with other smaller airlines that do not have access to the more
profitable lines. It can lower rates on its lower revenue lines
by subsidizing from the higher revenue lines.
Everyone understands how the system works. Air Canada has
complied quite astutely but the competition bureau has been
involved in a couple of cases. That is just an example of what
we are talking about here.
I have another example that is a little closer to home. A
member of my family received a call saying that she had won a car
or some huge prize. She had to call a 1-900 number and answer a
few skill testing questions. I remember that the low end of the
prize award was $2.73 and the high end was a car. When she
called the number she was kept on the line for almost an hour.
They charged her a lot of money, and sure enough she had won the
$2.73. It was a total scam to make money on the phone call.
Another senior lady in my riding was scammed out of hundreds of
thousands of dollars by two or three different outfits from the
province of Quebec. They were the same people who just changed
names, identities and addresses. They used all kinds of excuses
to access this lady's money. In the end she lost her home and
her money. It was a confidence scam. She should have had quick
and easy access to the Competition Act to prevent this sort of
thing from happening.
Our party is pleased to see these amendments come in. It is a
credit to parliamentarians and private members' bills that have
come before. They have all been generated by people who have
come to us as members of parliament and advised us that they had
been scammed, cheated or were victims of abuse in some way.
Members of parliament have responded by raising the issue with
several private members' bills which are now reflected in Bill
C-23. Quite often people do not give us credit but the system
actually does work. It may take a while but it does work.
People are concerned about issues of conspiracy, bid rigging,
predatory pricing, misleading advertising and deceptive marketing
practices. Many of us have been victims of those practices,
including me and certainly some of my constituents. When the
bill is in its final form hopefully it will address those issues.
Non-criminal or reviewable matters include mergers, abuse of
dominant positions and people taking advantage of others. They
may not be criminal but they are reviewable and they are not
fair. This is where the competition commissioner should have the
power to intervene and protect the citizens who have no other
avenue or no other source of protection.
The competition tribunal and the competition commissioner have
done a good job with the tools they have had to work with. Bill
C-23 would give them more tools. In any case I have been
involved in the competition commissioner has done a thorough
investigation, has heard both sides of the story and has done a
good job.
1055
The bill was developed because parliamentarians responded to
citizens through private members' bills. However it has also
come about through consultations across the country, through
public policy forums and a consultation paper that formed the
basis of the discussions entitled “Amending the Competition Act:
A Discussion Paper on Meeting the Needs of the Global Economy”.
All these sources of information certainly enhanced the bill.
Part of the issue is international co-operation. That is
important because the same people from the province of Quebec who
were scamming other people were doing the same in the United
States. The American authorities had limited access to address
this issue because of international rules. The bill would allow
a closer relationship between the law enforcement offices and the
competition bureaus of both countries to deal with these
international issues.
The bill would deal with deceptive practices such as the notice
of winning a prize as in the case of my family member. A lot of
Canadian companies are providing these services or promoting
these scams in the U.S. The same can happen the other way
around. American companies can scam Canadians. There has to be
some international co-operation, and the bill would do that.
The bill intends to streamline the litigation progress, which is
a good thing. It would help the tribunal that manages each case
it hears to be more efficient and to give easier access to
people. The tribunal would be able to award costs against a
party, which is also a good thing. Many people have taken on
incredible legal bills to fight the mail and telephone scams I
have mentioned. In a decision the tribunal would at least be
able to award costs to the victims.
The tribunal would gain the power to summarily dispose of a
matter that it believes has no genuine basis for application.
That is a good thing as well. Frivolous actions are taken and it
would have the power to determine whether or not an action is
frivolous.
Under the new proposal the bureau would be able to issue
temporary or interim orders prior to completion of the
litigation. This was perhaps led by some of the Air Canada
judgments. Powers would be given to the competition commissioner
in the aviation case. It could make judgments early and
immediately, before the case even comes to the tribunal.
Therefore there is a lot of good in the bill. Our party is
anxious to get it to committee as well. We want to make sure
that it has teeth, as the government has proposed. We want to
make sure the teeth are actually there. We want to make sure the
competition bureau is independent. We want to emphasize that
this whole issue evolved from citizens complaining to members of
parliament, who brought it forward in private members' bills and
now in a government bill.
We will be pleased to see the bill go to committee and we will
make our decisions and amendments there.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, we have before the House today a package of amendments
to the Competition Act and its companion statute, the Competition
Tribunal Act. Together these statutes constitute a fundamental
framework in the rules for the operation of free trade and a
competitive marketplace for Canada.
The Competition Act is a broad based statute that affects
virtually all industrial sectors and business entities in Canada,
whether large or small, domestic or international, or involved in
manufacturing, services or resources. The legislation seeks to
enhance competitive market forces.
Competition is important. It is not a means to itself but
rather a means to an end. Competition encourages firms to lower
costs, reduce prices, improve services and develop new products.
Consumers are the prime beneficiaries of a competitive economy.
After all, competition is driven by consumer demands. In a
competitive environment consumers decide what they want to buy
based on their individual needs, preferences and incomes. The
marketplace responds efficiently to this demand by supplying
consumers with the right product at the right price.
1100
An amendment being considered today would make it an offence to
promote deceptive contests by mail, fax or Internet. Under the
new provision it would be a criminal offence to make people
believe they have won a prize and that they must make a payment
or incur a cost to collect it, to increase their chances of
winning it or simply to get more information regarding it.
Deceptions of this sort hurt Canadians. I have talked to people
across the country about the devastating effects on the people
that have been duped. These practices also hurt responsible
businesses and charities by undermining their legitimate
marketing efforts and many of them damage our reputation abroad
by targeting persons outside Canada.
For these reasons such rackets must be stopped, and the sooner
the better. The new provision would add a valuable enforcement
tool against deceptive marketing practices. It would complement
existing provisions against deceptive advertising and
telemarketing and help ensure that consumers have the information
they need to make informed choices.
Sellers would be rewarded for their ability to offer good
products at low prices rather than their cunning ability to
deceive the consumer. Honest businesses would no longer be
threatened by the anti-competitive practices of dishonest
businesses.
The amendments proposed in the bill would help keep Canada's
competition laws up to date, but the work is clearly not over.
Globalization and rapid technological developments are
continually changing the marketplace and the ways in which
business is conducted. To remain effective and relevant the
Competition Act must remain both modern and dynamic.
The amendments constitute one step in the continuing evolution
of our competition legislation. The changes constitute a
balanced package of amendments that would better enable the
Competition Act to protect free competition and the public
interest.
The amendments would protect consumers and honest businesses
alike. The bill would strengthen and improve the overall level
of competition in the marketplace and benefit all Canadians.
I wholeheartedly endorse the amendments and believe they are
worthy of the support of all members of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak about this bill and about the new
ground broken in terms of recognizing members' efforts to ensure
that the legislation that comes before this parliament and its
committees is an accurate reflection of the concerns we hear
about in our ridings.
[English]
I have a lot to say on the bill and will try to be as brief as I
can in the next nine and a half minutes. Much of the bill
reflects the efforts of members on this side of the House to
effect much needed changes to the Competition Act. It is for
that reason that I thank the hon. Minister of Industry, his
parliamentary secretary, the member for Scarborough Centre and
the competition bureau that have been working very hard to ensure
the Competition Act reflects the changes in market structure that
we see throughout the country.
I will give a bit of background on why we are here today. The
hon. member for Kelowna said earlier that it is a beautiful day.
I think it is a wonderful day. There is finally a ray of hope
that our competition policy will begin to look more globalist,
will be open to small and large players, and will ultimately have
more teeth.
In 1997 when gas prices were heading up, 52 members on this side
of the House began a study of the industry, particularly at the
retailing end, and found the level of concentration to be
alarming.
1105
For that reason one of the recommendations was to ensure that a
more appropriate definition of predatory pricing be established.
The House not only made private member's Bill C-235 votable. It
also ensured that it would be properly studied by committee.
That clearly was not the case. Nevertheless, out of that came a
more open process that allowed a number of issues to be studied,
not just one area of competition policy. One such issue was that
section 45 of the Competition Act, the conspiracy section, may
not be relevant in addressing problems in the economy or in
ensuring that strategic alliances which may look collusive but
have very strong competitive effects are somehow segregated from
the egregious types of collusion.
As for the issue of predatory pricing, a move was made with the
help of the industry committee to review some of the criminal
aspects which are difficult to enforce if not to detect. With
the help of VanDuzer and Paquet we were able to propose
changes to the Competition Act which would make it more user
friendly and make criminal burdens of proof civilly reviewable.
We followed that up with a commitment by the previous Minister
of Industry, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who must be
acknowledged here. He began allowing the public policy forum to
conduct a broad study of the Competition Act, particularly in
terms of some of the legislation I brought forward.
I commend my two colleagues who spoke before me, the member for
Kitchener Centre and my colleague from Mount Royal who brought
forward the bill dealing with international co-operation. The
public policy forum effectively criss-crossed the country last
summer to determine the public's concern with respect to abusive
dominance in the grocery industry and retail domination in almost
any form.
The second recommendation dealt with private access, conspiracy,
collusion and summary disposition of temporary orders which we
see rolled up in the bill today. The package received a
significant amount of interest. Most alarming, however, was the
consistent pattern we saw among those with vested interests,
particularly powerful lobbies that constituted themselves as a
diversity of individuals but were really part of the same group
that opposed almost any changes to the Competition Act.
Last week I explained who wrote the Competition Act in 1986.
There are not only concerns that it is an act whose time has come
in terms of need for change. There are questions as to who
really wrote it. Most of us in the House know, as Peter C.
Newman said in the book Titans and in his interview with
the chairman of the Business Council on National Issues, that it
is interesting Canada is the only nation that has allowed its
Competition Act to be written by the very people it was meant to
police.
That has set off alarm bells in most circles and certainly in
the House of Commons. However more important is the impact it
has had on the competitive process. For that reason the
competition bureau, in concert with the minister and with
parliament, has taken a bold step today in saying that
irrespective of what the interests are we must make sure the
competitive process is honoured and that it flourishes.
Opportunities have been made clear on several occasions in the
industry committee. People have testified to the committee
suggesting that by the time the competition bureau makes a ruling
the person it affects is out of business, the damage is done and
it is irreparable. The initiatives taken today are extremely
valuable and should ensure there is an ongoing process for
amendments to the Competition Act to ensure that it is pragmatic
and changes with changing times.
I want to make sure the House understands that the process
before us today must be an open one. The government has
initiated, through the wisdom of the minister, an opportunity
that would allow members of parliament to ensure that issues of
importance to them and to consumers have a voice on the floor of
the House of Commons.
Many members are talking about one of the bills. My colleague
from Kitchener Centre addressed the question of deceptive
practices, particularly as transmitted through mail by using
Canada Post or other means.
1110
That is an extremely important issue with which the public
readily identifies. However there are other issues the public
may not have seen. Another initiative taken up here today is the
whole question of international co-operation. Why is that
important? Most Canadians do not know it, but for the past
several years we have been part and parcel of a cartel that has
forced up the price of citric acid, various important chemicals,
certain vitamins and lycene.
Those issues were resolved, discovered, advocated and taken from
the competition act in the U.S. For that reason it is important
to ensure that where there are international cartels Canada can
effectively prosecute no matter where it occurs in the world.
It is interesting that the competition bureau was successful in
prosecuting these issues and bringing revenue back to Canada.
That revenue, according to some, did not equal what the public
lost in terms of higher prices, but it nonetheless helped the
general revenues.
I will also point out something that is not in the bill but
which the industry committee has nonetheless been effective in
transmitting to parliament. I am talking about the need to
ensure the competition bureau has the resources to carry out its
very lofty mandate and to ensure the market remains balanced.
Questions are being raised in many areas. There is an
opportunity for such questions to be addressed in the industry
committee. I caution hon. members that the pinstripes and the
big suits will be coming to the committee. I implore members of
parliament to ensure a balance of the views of consumers and
ordinary people out there who do not have a voice but who
nonetheless are an important part of our economic structure.
Those individuals count for everything in the economy and must
count for something if the legislation is to be meaningful and
successful.
Members of parliament will be lobbied by some of the most
interesting people in the country. Members will need to decide
for themselves, in committee and on the floor of the House of
Commons, whether to enhance and maintain the competitive process
for all Canadians or merely for those who happen to have the
wealth and the power to influence them.
This is a very good day. There are obviously a number of
concerns we must address. It is the beginning of a much larger
process. It is vindication for a lot of the work I have done and
which I have brought to the attention of the House of Commons and
on which other hon. members have worked so diligently. Let us
ensure that Canada remains ahead of the game, that its
international reputation as a place for doing business remains
pristine, and that Canadians benefit from a vibrant economic
environment in which all people are meaningful participants and
are treated as equals.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Accordingly the bill
stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science
and Technology.
* * *
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, an act to
amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): When shall the bill
be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that the bill be read the third time and passed.
1115
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
address the House at third reading of Bill C-18, an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act with respect to the
equalization program. The bill fulfils the government's
commitment made by the Prime Minister at last September's first
ministers meeting to lift the ceiling for the equalization
program for the 1999-2000 fiscal year.
[Translation]
In addition to this commitment, the Prime Minister asked the
Minister of Finance to consult his counterparts in the provinces
and territories as to how best to ensure follow up. The
Minister of Finance concluded his consultations before the bill
was introduced on March 15.
[English]
At the first ministers meeting, landmark agreements were reached
on a plan to renew health care, improve support for early
childhood development and strengthen social programs. These
agreements resulted, through Bill C-45, passed in the last
parliament, in the largest federal contribution ever made for
health, post-secondary education, early childhood development and
other social programs.
[Translation]
Over the next five years, federal spending in these areas will
total $23.4 billion, $21.1 billion of it under the Canada health
and social transfer.
[English]
As hon. members know, the CHST is one of the three transfer
programs through which the federal government provides support to
the provinces for health care and other social programs. The
other two programs are territorial formula financing and
equalization. Equalization is the subject of today's debate.
Today the federal government transfers approximately $40 billion
to the provinces and territories through these three programs.
The purpose of the equalization program is to ensure that less
prosperous provinces can provide reasonably comparable public
programs and services to their residents without their taxes
being out of line with those of more affluent provinces.
Equalization has played an important role in defining the
Canadian federation since it was established in 1957. In many
ways it expresses the generous spirit of Canadians.
[Translation]
The program is unique among federal transfers in that its
objective was enshrined in the Canadian constitution in 1982.
The constitution states as follows:
[English]
Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the
principle of making equalization payments to ensure that
provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide
reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably
comparable levels of taxation.
Equalization is also unique in that it was one of the very few
programs not touched during the period when the government was
struggling to bring order to the nation's finances. This
reaffirmed the importance the government attaches to the program
as part of the essential fabric of the country.
Equalization payments are unconditional and provinces can spend
the money as they see fit. In 2000-01 the seven receiving
provinces, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, received payments
totalling $10.8 billion.
Since 1993 the program has grown by 33% or $2.7 billion. This
rate of growth of the program demonstrates clearly that the
government understands what equalization means to receiving
provinces.
According to the estimates, which are updated twice a year, the
program is now at its highest level ever. Over the same period,
other non-transfer program spending has grown by 2.6%. The
latest estimates released in February by the finance minister
show that payments to receiving provinces will be about $1.8
billion higher than estimated last October. These higher figures
are due in large part to the exceptionally strong growth over the
last two years in Ontario, one of the non-receiving provinces,
not to the poor economic performance of receiving provinces.
Those economies have been improving each year.
1120
[Translation]
On February 27, 2001, the Minister of Finance announced that
there would be an immediate increase in equalization payments of
approximately one billion dollars. Of this amount, $52 million
is for 1999-2000 and $955 million is for 2000-01. The other $800
million is the additional funding that will be provided to
receiving provinces through passage of the bill.
[English]
I would like to stress also, as I did during the second reading
debate, that the equalization program is reviewed on an ongoing
basis by federal and provincial officials to ensure that
differences in the abilities of provinces to raise revenues are
measured as accurately as possible. Those discussions are under
way as we speak. In addition, the program is renewed
legislatively every five years, most recently in 1999.
A province's capacity to provide public services obviously
depends on how its economy is performing. Equalization payments
therefore are based on a formula that measures the relative
performance of provincial economies. The formula applies in the
same way to all provinces and adjusts automatically in response
to economic developments in the provinces.
When a province's economy is booming relative to other
provinces, its equalization payments automatically decline under
the formula. Conversely, when a province's economy and therefore
its fiscal capacity, or ability to generate revenues, decline
relative to other provinces, its equalization payments
automatically increase. In this way the program acts as an
automatic stabilizer of provincial government revenues.
I would urge hon. members to keep in mind that individual
provinces do not receive the same amount of equalization because
they do not have the same economic circumstances. This year, for
example, Saskatchewan needs $230 per person to be brought up to
the equalization standard, while Newfoundland requires $2,000 per
person. Equalization payments are also subject to ceiling and
floor provisions.
[Translation]
The capping provision, which has been applied in only 5 of the
last 20 years, enables the program to grow at a rate that the
federal government can sustain. By setting a maximum payment
level, this provision ensures that the program does not grow at
an abnormally fast rate.
[English]
The floor provision is the flip side of this coin. It provides
the provinces with protection against large and sudden decreases
in equalization payments that would otherwise be warranted by the
straightforward application of the formula.
The equalization ceiling does not cut entitlements, as some have
suggested. Rather, the ceiling allows the program's growth to
mirror the rate of growth in the economy and to grow at a
sustainable rate. Based on the forecast for GDP growth in last
October's economic statement and budget update, the ceiling will
rise to $12.5 billion in the year 2003-04.
I would now like to turn to the specific bill we are debating
today, which lifts the equalization ceiling for the 1999-2000
fiscal year and only for that year. As I explained earlier,
lifting the ceiling fulfils the commitment made by the Prime
Minister last September at the first ministers meeting. The
final communiqué released at the end of the meeting states that:
The Prime Minister agreed to take the necessary steps to ensure
that no ceiling will apply to the 1999-2000 fiscal year.
Thereafter, the established equalization formula will apply,
which allows the program to grow up to the rate of growth of GDP.
While the final cost of lifting the ceiling will not be known
until the fall of 2002 when the final estimates for 1999-2000
become available, it is currently estimated to be $792 million.
1125
[Translation]
That amount will be allocated among the seven eligible provinces
on a per capita basis. In order to determine the payment that
will go to each, the per capita amount is multiplied by the
total population of each receiving province.
[English]
Each eligible province will receive an additional $67 per
person. Viewed another way, here is the total breakdown per
province. Newfoundland will receive $36 million. Prince Edward
Island will be eligible for $10 million. Nova Scotia will
qualify for $62 million. New Brunswick will receive $50 million.
Quebec will receive $489 million. Manitoba's payment will be $76
million. Saskatchewan will receive $69 million.
In conclusion, the government realizes that not all parts of the
country can generate the same revenues to finance public
services. Federal transfers therefore help ensure two things:
first, that important programs are adequately funded, and second,
that all Canadians receive reasonably comparable levels of public
services regardless of where they live. Bill C-18 contributes to
achieving these goals.
[Translation]
It underscores the priority the government places on
equalization and helps ensure that the receiving provinces
continue to have resources to provide the services their people
need and want.
[English]
Further, it fulfils the Prime Minister's commitment to lift the
equalization ceiling for the year 1999-2000, which means more
money for receiving provinces.
Bill C-18 continues the tradition of fairness through which
equalization has been delivered for over 40 years. I encourage
all members to support the bill and pass it without delay.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-18 on behalf
of the constituents of Calgary East.
At the outset I want to make it absolutely clear that the
Canadian Alliance believes in the concept of equalization. We
believe in the concept that from coast to coast all Canadians
should be receiving equal services. The Canadian Alliance
strongly supports the equalization method of ensuring that a
quality standard of living applies across our nation.
However, we certainly do have a problem with the way it is
handled, the way the equalization formula is applied, and the way
the Alliance feels it is used by the government to score
political points.
Madam Speaker, at this time I wish to advise you that I will be
splitting my time with my colleague from Kelowna.
The bill takes away the ceiling and increases the money
requested by the provinces. We believe that the equalization
system should serve the longer term purpose of equalizing
economic opportunity and autonomy in all regions and should not
create incentives for perverse economic policies on the part of
provincial governments.
The lifting of the cap is a one time ad hoc reaction that fails
to address the bigger and longer term problems and it was
promised for purely political reasons. It may be good politics
but it definitely begs the question, is it a good policy?
The fact that this one time band aid solution is even being
proposed indicates the need for an open discourse in parliament
to review the equalization program. The bill is part of a
political effort to make up for the Liberal government's
irresponsible $23 billion or 35% cut in health care funding.
1130
At the first ministers conference the government agreed to
increase the CHST but it never restored it to 1995 levels. As a
result, the provinces requested more money to address health care
issues. Therefore, the crisis was brought about by this
government in the first place when it cut the CHST. In order to
balance that out and look good, the government said it would
commit $792 million to the provinces. That was because of its
own shortfall in not raising the CHST transfers, as agreed at the
first ministers conference, to the 1995 levels. What we have is
the government trying to play politics by trying to lift up the
ceiling to address the issue, which originally it failed to do.
The parliamentary secretary has indicated why there is a
necessity for a ceiling and we agree. Otherwise it will spiral
out of control. We saw during election time the money given to
the supposed future contender for the Prime Minister's office,
the Minister of Industry, when he received more money in
equalization payments just prior to the election so he would look
good in Newfoundland.
It is no secret across the nation that when the government cut
the CHST it started a health care crisis, a crisis from coast to
coast. In my own riding we heard stories from people who came in
to tell us what the cuts had done to health care.
On the one hand, the federal government has the Canada Health
Act. We agree with the Canada Health Act, but the government
uses it as a stick to the provinces, saying “this is how health
care services must be delivered”. On the other hand, the
government took away the purse. It is supposed to give money to
the provinces to administer their rules in the way they feel they
should be addressing the health care issues. This is a
contradiction.
We are in agreement with the five principles of the health act.
As a matter of fact, we tried to put in a sixth principle, stable
funding for health care, so that provinces do not in the future
have to play games with governments that one morning decide to
cut health care but will not make any changes to the Canada
Health Act or will not give the provinces the leeway to see how
they can deliver the services.
The merits or demerits of how the provinces are going to deliver
services or whether they will be private will be left to the
Canadian public to decide. As we have stated, we are not in
favour of a two tier health care system. As the government of
Alberta has said quite clearly under its bill 11, it needs more
innovative ways to deliver health care services because it does
not have the money, the money that the government cut.
The government cut this money and then said it had balanced the
budget, leaving the provinces to handle how they were going to
deliver the services. As we all know, as the population
increases the demand on health care grows stronger. Our own
health care critic, my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill, will be
leaving shortly for Europe to study how the system there is
delivered.
The health care report we are receiving for Canada is that for
the amount of money we put in, the end product, the delivery of
services, is not that efficient. Therefore it needs to be
addressed. As a matter of fact I saw today in a report that the
premier of Ontario has been saying that he needs more money and
that the surplus the government has should be given to health
care.
1135
Everyone in the provinces is demanding that. Canadians who have
been using health care services are demanding a better system.
Health care workers, with their shortage of nurses, doctors and
patients are all demanding a better system because health care is
failing. This all started because the government cut the funding
for health care. It did that in 1995. Even when the government
tried to bring the funding back up, even when it had the first
ministers conference, it was not brought up to 1995 levels. There
is also the factor of inflation and all these other things. When
we add up all those figures and include the expansion and growth
of services that is needed, the transfer of money from health
care is bigger than what is indicated in the figures.
As members of parliament, we receive numerous calls from people
who use health care services about how much trouble they have
getting services. I am sure members on the government side do as
well. Those who are rich are demanding that we do something
because they have the money to get those services from the U.S.A.
and it is not the right thing to do when we are supposed to have
a public health care system.
The government turns a blind eye to that and trumpets about its
past when health care was good. Yes, it was good in the past,
but the demands were there before the cuts. The Minister of
Health keeps saying that our health care system is good. He has
tunnel vision. He closes his eyes and then stands up and huffs
and puffs in parliament and tells us he is for a public health
care system and that the government will maintain the five
principles of Canada health care. He keeps saying these things.
That is all fine and dandy, but he forgets to tell us that the
finance minister keeps cutting the funding. Of course, he is not
the one who is implementing the delivery of health care services.
It is being delivered by the provinces and the provinces are
asking how they will deliver these services when the federal
government cuts funding for health care.
On the CHST there is an agreement. The federal government gives
money to the provinces through the CHST. The government says it
has addressed this issue. Has it really? No, it absolutely has
not addressed this issue, because we read in the newspapers and
hear from our television stations that the provinces are still
having difficulties and want innovative solutions.
Finally the government woke up. Now we have a commission to
look into health care, headed by the former premier of
Saskatchewan, Mr. Romanow, which I think started two days ago. I
must say it was good for Premier Klein and Premier Mike Harris to
say they want everything on the table. I am very happy to hear
that Mr. Romanow has said he would put everything on the table.
Finally we have somebody to look into the whole situation and see
how we can best deliver health care services.
Coming back to the equalization issue, I need to repeat that we
in our party are in support of equalization, because we believe
that all Canadians from coast to coast should enjoy a comparable
quality and level of important government services. However, we
have a problem, as usual, with the way things are handled by the
government. Our opposition to the bill is not based on
disagreement with the equalization principle but more on the way
it is being handled, the way it is done, because we do not think
this is the most effective way to do it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the member have
unanimous consent to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to enter this debate. I
hope that in the discourse of the debate the hon. parliamentary
secretary will take back certain messages to the Minister of
Finance, because I do want to introduce certain things in the
debate that I think he would be very well advised to take to the
Minister of Finance.
1140
As my hon. colleague who just spoke emphasized, the Canadian
Alliance is not opposed to equalization payments. These payments
are absolutely fundamental because we have provinces with varying
economic development. Some are very wealthy and others are not
as wealthy and there is a way in which we can equalize that. We
certainly agree that provinces should not be penalized because
their economies are in trouble or because they do not have some
of the natural resource bases and so on. They should still be
able to provide programs and services that are roughly comparable
to those of other provinces. We agree with that principle.
The issue is not so much that. I want to deal with the way in
which the legislation has been introduced. The first problem is
that the legislation is actually retroactive legislation. I
think that is really bad.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have committed
the expenditure of funds without the parliamentary authority to
do so. That is an insult to the hon. members on this side of the
House and to colleagues on the other side of the House. We are
here to look after the finances of our country and to find the
best possible way to disburse funds across the various provinces.
I also would like to take issue with the way in which the hon.
parliamentary secretary almost blew up his chest in a bragging
sort of way as to what a wonderful thing the government had done
by increasing the CHST transfers, as if the government given to
the provinces something that was new and additional to what they
had before. The problem with what he said, and with what the
Minister of Finance said before him, is that somehow this does
not even replace what was taken away. What kind of situation is
it when the government asks people if they are not happy to be
given $21 billion and then says, guess what, though, $22 billion
has been taken away? It is absolutely reverse logic.
Some of us are parents and give a child an allowance of $5. Let
us say that one year when things are not so good we take away $2,
giving the child an allowance of $3. The next year we tell him
we are going to restore the allowance. What is the first thing
the child thinks? The child thinks he is going to get $5, but we
only give him $4 and call it a restoration of his allowance. It
is not. That is what has happened here.
I think we have to be very careful about the way in which we
create the message. Let us tell the truth in the way it ought to
be said.
The hon. parliamentary secretary said some very interesting
things about the equalization formula. That was very good. Our
listeners need to know how the equalization formula works.
Unfortunately we do not have the time to go into the details of
the formula to see exactly how it works.
There are some very interesting quirks within the formula
itself. It does not always produce the same results even though
one would think that putting the same numbers into it would
produce similar results. The bases that are used in the formula
for various provinces depend to a large degree on what the end
result is on the equalization payments. That is why we have some
disparities within the formula itself.
We do not have the time now to get into those details, but the
hon. member will know that this is in fact the case and that he
should go back to the Department of Finance and work through some
of those details so that the bases used in calculating the amount
of equalization payments are comparable, fair and equal across
the provinces, that it is adjusted in the way it should be. There
is an adjustment mechanism in there, but I do not think it is
adequate at this time.
The other point we want to register at this stage is that we
need to recognize that this is the lifting of a ceiling for one
year. That is the assurance we are given. I do not know how
many of us here in the House have ever experienced a situation
like this.
1145
When a ceiling is lifted what is the expectation for next year?
The expectation seems to be that we would reach that ceiling
again. What appears to have been a ceiling becomes a minimum or
an expectation. I am very fearful that is exactly what will
happen in this case. The ceiling this year will be increased by
about $800 million then next year the pressure will be on to do
it again.
Let me go back to the CHST transfers that have taken place. This
is a government program that transfers money for health and
social services to the provinces. It is very clearly designated
as a special plan and usually deals with welfare, education and
health. These are the three big areas.
These transfers are designed to do a particular job. The
government now has an equalization formula, and the argument is
made that it will help some of the provinces. When the agreement
was made with the premiers, they said they wanted the
equalization formula to be such that the ceiling would rise so
they could subsidize the transfers of the CHST. That is the
practical impact of this.
Therefore, the government is paying twice for the same thing
under two different titles. That is wrong because it misleads
Canadians into thinking the CHST transfers are adequate and that
the equalization payments are there for everything else when in
fact that is not what happens. We have to be careful that we
tell the truth in these and other matters. The government needs
to recognize these particular issues.
The other point I want to make is that the government needs to
be a trustee of public funds. When this amount of money is given
away, it makes us question whether the role of the government is
to simply see how much money it can extricate from taxpayers and
then give it away when asked for more. Is that the role of
government? I do not think so. The government should treat
public funds as a trust which it is managing on behalf of its
citizens.
It is in this connection that I will refer to something I would
like the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
to take to the minister. It has to do with a letter that I
received from one of my constituents, which said:
Mr. Schmidt: I am returning a cheque for $125 made out to my
mother. I am sure you must be receiving many such cheques. I am
sure you must agree it is ridiculous the way the Federal
Government has distributed these funds.
My mother died in October 2000 and prior to that lived in an
extended care nursing facility for the preceding 10 years. I
cannot even imagine how much of the taxpayers dollars have been
needlessly wasted.
Members may ask what is the point of this. The lady died in
October 2000. On January 31, 2001, she received a cheque
representing the relief for heating expenses which was a fully
funded initiative of the federal government. It was a special
one time tax repayment to low and modest income individuals and
families to ease the burden of high heating expenses. This lady
had not paid heating expenses for at least 10 years and she died
in October 2000. Four months later she received a cheque.
The cheque stub said:
We have determined that you are eligible to receive an amount of
$125 to provide relief for heating expenses.
On what basis was this determination made? It clearly was not
made on the basis that she was alive. Was it made on the basis
that she was dead? Was it made on the basis that she was in a
home care facility for 10 years? Was it made on the basis of her
son or daughter? On what basis was it made?
1150
Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was listening to the hon. member talk about the home
heating oil rebate. I fail to see the relevance to the
equalization formula in the bill before the House today.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): As the hon. members
know, there is a lot of flexibility in terms of what can be said
or referred to within the context of debate in the House of
Commons.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
secretary for raising the question. I think it emphasizes the
point I was just making before I proceeded to refer to the case.
I suggested to him and to all members opposite, in particular
those in the government, that we must consider public funds, the
taxpayer dollars that we collect, as a trust that we manage on
their behalf. We ought to do so with integrity, with the best
judgment and intentions so it meets the needs of our people in
Canada. That is what we ought to do.
What I am suggesting with this particular example is that this
does not demonstrate careful analysis. It does not demonstrate
acting in the best interests of Canadians. It does not
demonstrate either that it is helping this woman. What do we do
about this lady who is in the grave? What is she going to do
with $125? She cannot even cash the cheque. That is the point I
am trying to make. I think we really have to register these
kinds of concerns.
We also need to look at exactly what the bill would do. The
bill would remove the $10 billion ceiling on the 1999
equalization payments and would add about $800 million worth of
funding for the seven provinces that qualify for transfers:
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
That equalization program has already indicated that it is
designed so that these provinces can offer roughly the same level
of public services in health and education, for example, as other
wealthier provinces without imposing excessively high rates. The
bill was designed in accordance with the agreement that was made
last fall between the Prime Minister and the first ministers of
the various provinces.
I also want to recognize that in the equalization formula we
want to be careful that it is not manipulated in such a way that
it benefits some provinces at the expense of other provinces.
That can happen. We need to be very careful about that. We
would strongly support a re-examination of that equalization
formula itself.
In particular, we want to recognize that we need to address the
bigger, long term problems that were promised. Promises seem to
be such a vacuous thing for the government. It seems almost as
if it can promise one thing and do another, or totally ignore the
problem or, in some cases, even deny the problem and vote
opposite to it.
In fact the government did that with the appointment of an
ethics counsellor. It said an ethics counsellor would be
appointed by parliament, report to parliament and would advise on
the ethics of ministers and the Prime Minister in particular.
What happened? We took the government at its word.
We proposed a motion in the House and said that the ethics
counsellor should be appointed by parliament. In fact we took
the exact words out of the promise book. Guess what? Every
Liberal in the House voted against that motion. It makes one
wonder about the integrity.
An hon. member: Except for the few that did not show up.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: That is not what I said. My hon.
colleague said that members who did not show up did not vote
against it. That is true. However they may as well have because
they were not here. The only votes that count are those who are
here. Integrity is in question in either case. First, members
should have been here to vote because that was what they were
elected to do. Second, the government did not do what it had
promised to do in the red book.
Is the government actually going to evaluate and re-examine the
equalization formula? Is it in fact going to be fair or is it
going to operate in such a way that it can be manipulated and can
change the way in which moneys are distributed? These are very
serious questions, which I think need to be addressed and need to
be dealt with very quickly and efficiently.
1155
I am going to stop my remarks at this particular point and
emphasize that we support equalization payments, that the formula
for equalization has to be re-examined and that to lift the
ceiling at this time is probably not the right thing to do.
Therefore, we are going to oppose this particular bill but not
for the reason that we do not like equalization payments. We
like equalization payments. We want them, we need them and
Canada needs to support them.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak on
this bill before us which deals with amendments to the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, or more accurately to
deal with the inadequacy of the amendments to the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
On the way to dealing with the subject, I must say it was a bit
like listening to two Sauls being converted on the road to
Damascus when I heard the Alliance members singing the praises of
equalization, of transfer payments and beating up on the federal
government for having introduced such drastic unilateral cuts in
1995 for which the people of Canada, particularly the people in
the seven have not provinces, are continuing to pay a terrible
price today.
Why do I say like two Sauls on the road to Damascus undergoing
conversion? No voice, no force, no power in this House worked
harder than the Reform Party, now reincarnated as the Alliance
Party, in trying to bring about the very kind of drastic cuts
that were introduced by this government.
Having said that, let me clearly say that I and my party do not
accept the notion that the Liberal Party should automatically,
through force, implement the mean-spirited destructive policies
represented by the Alliance. Yet that is exactly what it has
done in recent years. It is absolutely clear that, not only the
have not provinces but an overwhelming majority of Canadians,
regardless of the party they represent, also do not accept that.
I neglected to say at the outset, that I intend
to split my time. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to split my time with the member from Regina—Qu'Appelle.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
co-operation from members. I was so exorcised and frankly
dismayed at the hypocrisy reflected by some of the previous
comments that I was distracted from making that point at the
outset. I do appreciate their co-operation.
I want to say at the outset that a fair formula for equalization
is critically important to the constituents I represent, the
people of Halifax. More than that it is critically important to
citizens who live in and throughout the four Atlantic provinces,
as well as citizens in the provinces of Quebec, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba.
I will go further than that. I do not believe it is only the
people who are on the punishing end of the measures taken by the
federal government to artificially have equalization payments who
care about this issue. I think what it means to be Canadian is
to subscribe to a fair equalization formula capable of
establishing not just the words to express it but the reality of
Canadians, regardless of where they live, being eligible for a
roughly comparable level of services.
Equalization is about ensuring that we do not experience a
growing gap between those who have and those who have not, as it
relates to individual citizens and regions. That growing gap is
very alarming and is causing real strains in the lives of people,
their families, their communities and inter-regionally, as a
result of the government turning its back on a fundamentally
important principle.
1200
Let me say very clearly at the outset the position of the New
Democratic Party. It has been championed by a succession of New
Democrats in the House, but none more effectively than my
colleague, the finance critic from Regina—Qu'Appelle. He has
been a faithful, inveterate champion of the importance of a fair
equalization formula throughout the 30 years he has served the
constituents of his own community and all Canadians who believe
in the fairness a proper equalization formula represents.
At the very heart of our concerns about the bill before us and
the inadequacy of the amendments is the fact that there is an
artificial limit on equalization payments that will be reinstated
in the year that is now upon us. As far as we and fair minded
Canadians are concerned the cap on equalization must be removed.
I guess the government needs to be reminded at every opportunity
that Canada has a constitutional obligation to ensure that
provincial transfers are set high enough so that all provinces
have the capacity to serve the public interest and to ensure that
the basic needs of the residents of all provinces are met. For
historical, legal and moral reasons this must be the principal
goal of the equalization plan.
The plan as it stands fails to achieve the goal. I listened to
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say what
the bill is about. It would ensure that the objective of roughly
comparable levels and quality of services is achieved for all
Canadians. If the cap on equalization payments is reimposed then
it is absolutely clear the objective he stated in the House this
morning simply cannot be met. Not only can it not be met. It
will not be met. The government has turned a deaf ear to the
pleadings that the cap not happen.
One cannot possibly imagine that the parliamentary secretary,
the finance minister and the Prime Minister do not understand
that objective cannot be met. One has to go further and say that
they do not intend that constitutional obligation and that
important principle to be met by the provisions in the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act amendments before us.
We know the Liberal government has absolutely decimated fiscal
transfers to the provinces, undermining the national interest and
in the process destroying the very moral authority needed by a
federal government that professes to believe in the concept of
roughly comparable services being available to all citizens of
Canada regardless of where they happen to live and regardless of
the state of finances of their respective provinces.
Then the federal government shows great surprise and is actually
puffed up with indignation when a province like Alberta
introduces bill 11, when a province like Ontario is as bold as we
saw the premier being this week when he talked about going
further into privatization and turning our health care system
into a commercialized operation, one based on the notion that
profits will be extracted from people's illnesses and
misfortunes.
1205
We cannot repeat too often the fundamental flaw in the fiscal
arrangements act that is now before us. Bill C-18 seeks to
remove from the fiscal year starting April 1, 1999, the ceiling
that would otherwise apply to equalization payments, but the bill
then reimposes that ceiling for the year 2000-01.
Surely it is worthy of note that all 10 Canadian provinces are
in agreement. They want the federal government to remove the cap
on equalization. Even the provinces that are in the have
category, that are the net contributors to equalization payments,
agree that it does damage to the fabric of the nation and that it
erodes the quality and comparability of services to people in the
have not provinces to artificially impose and maintain that limit
on equalization payments.
The Atlantic provinces and Manitoba asked the government very
effectively before the finance committee last week that if it
will not make a commitment to remove the cap, to remove it
permanently, it should at the very least rebase the ceiling on
equalization to the higher level of $10.79 billion.
Finance ministers from all five of those provinces made their
case this week before the finance committee and did so very
effectively. However the government, the Minister of Finance and
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance have
turned a deaf ear to the concerns of those finance ministers and
the people whom their governments represent.
The minister of finance for Manitoba stated it very well. He
said that the equalization program should be allowed to do its
job by lifting the ceiling as a preferred point. As an
accommodation it should be rebased to the level to which it grew
in the year the ceiling was lifted, 1999-2000. That would offer
much needed support to the provinces that are still reeling from
massive unilateral cuts to transfer payments by the government.
The government must use a 10 province standard to ensure a truly
equalized equalization formula and, more important, the concrete
outcome the equalization formula is intended to achieve. The
federal government has so drastically cut CHST transfers to the
provinces, strangling their ability to adequately fund health
care and post-secondary education, that when Harris and Klein
started down their privatization track the federal government was
not in a very strong position to defend the Canada Health Act or
did not seem to want to.
One does not have to be very insightful, and I do not think it
is cynical, to suggest that in the process of weakening the
commitment to comparable services across the country and of
engaging in massive cuts to transfer payments that enable
provinces to deliver health care, education and fundamentally
important social welfare services the people need, the federal
government knew it was destroying public confidence, absolutely
eroding public confidence in the important public services
Canadians depend upon.
Further, the federal government must immediately restore funding
to CHST transfers to the provinces. It has invested a pittance
into infrastructure and transportation, causing delays of much
needed essential repairs to transportation infrastructure in
every part of the country.
1210
The government has abandoned its federal constitutional
responsibilities for far too long. It should recommit on every
front to ensuring that provincial governments achieve the goal
enshrined in the constitution that goes to the very heart of the
kind of country we say we want to be, the kind of country that
with considerable success we were becoming. That was recognized
by others around the world.
If we fail to do that we are not only letting down the people
who need and depend upon those services, but we are striking a
blow to the very concept of Canada which means so much to people
in this country and people around the world.
The government's actions speak to an attitude of indifference
toward the real needs of Canadians. It is not too unduly harsh
to say that the government is arrogant and out of touch with the
real needs of Canadians, particularly in the less advantaged
provinces.
When the government introduced its throne speech it completely
failed to address the fundamental issue of ensuring some
semblance of comparability of services to every citizen in
Canada. At the time I raised a question on recognition and
commitment from the government to deal with the problem posed by
an unfair equalization formula, one that makes it virtually
impossible for governments in have not provinces to make progress
because of the excessive clawback of resources from offshore
development, for example, that may now give an opportunity to
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to move out of the have not status.
On every front it seems that the government, not the people of
Canada, has given up on the Canadian dream. When a government
stops dreaming, when a government abandons something as
fundamentally important and changes an equalization formula to
artificially restrict the capability of provincial governments to
deliver on that dream, it should examine what it is all about.
There are many elements to the battle to try to get the Canadian
government once again to believe in that fundamentally important
dream. I can speak from a Halifax perspective of what it means
to the citizens of my community to have the federal government
quite cynically make a decision to remove the cap for one year
and then turn around and reimpose it.
I can speak about it from the point of view of what it means for
citizens not to be able to get the health care they require, from
the point of view of students unable to afford an education, or
from the point of view of what it does to the lives of students
if they go into debt to the level necessary to gain a
post-secondary education these days. In a very real way it
becomes a double jeopardy situation for the government to
artificially cap equalization payments and to pull back on
transfer payments. It becomes an out migration policy in effect
of people going to the wealthier parts of Canada from the have
not regions.
1215
That is not the kind of Canada we believe in and not the kind of
Canada we as parliamentarians are supposed to be here building
together.
In conclusion, I implore the government to consider that what is
a very small matter in terms of the text of this fiscal
arrangements bill is a very fundamental matter that will have
massive consequences if equalization payments are to be
artificially constrained by the continuation of the cap in the
year 2001. I ask the government to reverse itself and agree that
the artificial cap should be removed.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to say a few words in this debate before the
House today as well.
I consider this one of the most fundamental parts of Canadian
federalism. We have had fiscal federal-provincial programs going
back to the forties and fifties. Back in the days of Pierre
Trudeau, 1968-69, we had the department of regional economic
expansion and equalization payments being expanded and made
part of our law.
The big turning point came in 1981 with the patriation of the
Canadian constitution. It was decided then to make equalization
payments part of our constitutional make-up. I think that was
extremely important because we recognized that in our unique
federation, which is one of the most decentralized federations in
the world, we needed some way of equalizing conditions between
people in all parts of the country. We needed some way of
equalizing the fiscal ability to have comparable services for
health care, education and farm support programs from one
province to the other.
We have great inequities between the provinces and the regions
because of our constitution and because of our resources. We
also have great disparities. We have three provinces, Ontario,
Alberta and British Columbia, that have been better off
historically than the other seven provinces which have
historically drawn funds from equalization payments.
Saskatchewan, my province, is one of those provinces that has
usually drawn equalization payments but, from time to time, has
had an economy where the growth rate was high enough that it did
not receive those payments.
I think part of the Confederation bargain was to support a
program like equalization. However, the government removed the
cap on equalization, which was $10 billion for the year
1999-2000. In terms of payments, it went from $10 billion to
almost $10.8 billion. That was done, coincidentally, before the
last election campaign. What a coincidence. The Prime Minister
made the announcement to take off the cap and then dropped the
writ. He wanted to win more seats in Atlantic Canada, in
Manitoba and in Saskatchewan. What did the government do next?
It reinstated the cap. There was no election. The cap went back
on again.
When the ministers of finance from Manitoba and the four
Atlantic provinces were before committee they told us that they
did not want the cap on, or, at the very least, that the base
go from $10 billion to $10.8 billion.
It is interesting that the Prime Minister made a commitment to
take the cap off. It is also interesting that all 10 provincial
finance ministers said to take the cap off. With a surplus
predicted to be around $15 billion to $17 billion for the fiscal
year, we now have the fiscal flexibility. A minister's statement
will be coming out in a couple of weeks. We will be able to
handle greater equalization payments to equalize conditions
across the country.
Despite all that evidence, when we moved amendments in the
finance committee a couple of days ago the parliamentary
secretary would not entertain any idea of amendments. Of course
the committee itself cannot produce a ways and means motion to
amend the act. However, the committee suggested that the
minister bring an amendment before the House at report stage to
raise the cap from $10 billion to $10.8 billion. Even
that timid suggestion was turned down by the
parliamentary secretary.
In an irony of ironies—and I think this was reported in some of
the Atlantic papers—my friend from the Bloc Quebecois moved an
amendment asking the minister to consider the possibility
and the wisdom of perhaps some day considering raising the cap.
However, even that was turned down by the parliamentary secretary
as being too radical.
1220
What we need is some serious parliamentary reform. The
committees need to have more independence to suggest what is
right for Canadian people. The committee I was talking about was
told by all the ministers of finance from the Atlantic provinces
and Manitoba that the cap should be gone or that it should at
least be rebased at $10.8 billion instead of $10 billion per
year.
If the committees are not given independence, we will have
growing inequalities between the have and have not regions. We
will have growing inequalities in terms of health care services,
education and social services. We will have growing inequalities
in terms of the taxation burden on Alberta and, for example, New
Brunswick and many other provinces.
Because of the constitution, Alberta is very blessed and
fortunate to have all kinds of oil and gas. In fact, this will
be an interesting problem in terms of fiscal federalism in the
future because Alberta, with the development of the tar sands,
has more gas and oil than Saudi Arabia. It will be an
interesting situation to deal with in the years ahead.
The Fathers of Confederation did not foresee this kind of wealth
in gas, oil and many other resources. The rights to these
resources have now been turned over to the provinces. I support
the provinces' right to have jurisdiction over gas and oil but I
also believe it is the fundamental right of the federal
government to have an equalization program that redistributes
wealth in order to have a greater equality of conditions.
Those are some of the problems we will be facing in the future.
Alberta's tremendous oil wealth, which will be more than Saudi
Arabia's oil wealth, will be a very difficult issue to deal with
because it will create tremendous inequities between two or three
of the Atlantic provinces and, indeed, much of the provinces of
Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. One of the ways we could deal
with it is through the constitutional idea back in 1981 which
called for equalization payments to be enshrined in the
constitution.
By implication, that would force the federal government to make
generous enough payments, which would be in accordance with our
fiscal capabilities, to ensure equality of condition for every
Canadian. It would not matter whether one lived in Corner Brook,
Newfoundland or Calgary, Alberta, everyone would have the same
opportunity to send their kids to school, to get a decent
education and to receive decent health care. That is the basic
philosophy behind equalization.
I hear the Alliance Party people criticizing the government's
involvement in all kinds of different programs and talking about
massive cutbacks. The Alliance Party agenda calling for cutbacks
and cutbacks, has had a great impact on the country and one that
has spooked the Liberal Party. It has spooked the Minister of
Finance and the Prime Minister, and has made the parliamentary
secretary pale with fear.
In 1995, in particular, there were massive cutbacks in
government spending like we had never seen from a Conservative
government any time in the history of this country, going back to
R. B. Bennett in the 1930s. In fact, it makes my Conservative
friends over here look like raving socialists in comparison to
what we saw across the way.
An hon. member: We are.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: My Tory friend from Newfoundland said
“we are”. In comparison to the Liberals, they certainly are.
We had massive cutbacks in 1995. The Liberals were pushed,
prodded and poked by the Reform Party which was basically
anti-government and anti-public program in terms of creating any
kind of equality of condition. The former Reform Party and now
the Alliance Party stood for that and the government has picked
up its agenda.
It is time to turn the corner. We must now attack the human
deficit, the people deficit, in terms of more social spending and
more equality in our taxation system, and we have the capability
to do that.
Some Alliance people would lead us to believe that equalization
means that the taxes of Alberta go directly to the people of
Newfoundland. That is anything but the truth. The equalization
payment comes from the consolidated revenue fund of taxes
collected across the board by the federal government and then
given out to the poorer provinces to create equality of
condition. The Alliance objects to this by trying to heckle us
on the idea of equality, justice and fairness. It wants a system
where the rich get richer and the powerful get more powerful.
The Alliance wants a flat tax, an idea that has been rejected by
the Bush republicans in the United States. Those are the kinds
of ideas that cater to the wealthy, the rich and the privileged.
No wonder the Alliance Party is in trouble with Canadians from
one part of Canada to the other.
1225
These archaic ideas from the time of Fred Flintstone have no
place in the modern world. Canadians want equality and they want
justice. Alliance members should crawl back into their caves.
Their ideas are outdated.
It is time in the debate to tell the government across the way
not to be spooked by those sitting across from it, to do the
right thing, and to do what the provincial ministers of finance
have said, including the ministers of finance from Alberta,
British Columbia and Ontario. They have all said to increase
equalization. They have all said to get rid of the cap, or
re-base the cap from $10 billion to $10.8 billion.
The Prime Minister of Canada said that before the election
campaign. The four Atlantic provinces have come here asking for
it, as well as Manitoba and Saskatchewan. If we do not do it we
will have greater inequalities, greater inequities between the
regions and more people living in poverty and lining up at food
banks.
It seems to me that if we do what we should do as a parliament,
we must make sure we have equality of condition for the common
good, so that a child in the north, the prairies, Alberta,
Newfoundland or Quebec has exactly the same opportunity as a
child anywhere else in the country.
I would once again like to plead with the parliamentary
secretary across the way to speak with his government and to come
back before the House with a ways and means motion to amend the
equalization bill before us, or at least, in the financial
statement coming down in two weeks where there will be a
budgetary surplus of $15 billion to $17 billion, to make sure
that as part of that financial statement there will be an
increase in equalization payments in order to treat every single
Canadian with fairness and justice regardless of where she or he
may happen to live.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I can easily pick up on the comments made by the
previous member because there is much on which we agree.
I could not agree more with the member's remarks when he talked
about federalism and what Canada was all about. It is about
sharing; sharing our wealth and sharing the blessings we have.
From time to time many provinces do not as well as others. Some
provinces that are doing very well today were not doing well in
the past. One province I will point to is Alberta. Until Alberta
struck oil it was doing just about as poorly as Atlantic Canada.
I want to focus so that the listening audience will have a sense
of what we are talking about. We are talking about the
equalization formula and the government putting a cap on it.
Equalization is an unconditional transfer of payment from the
federal government to eligible provinces that is determined by a
formula which takes into account numerous economic, demographic
and fiscal indicators.
Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, I will be sharing my time
with the member for St. John's West.
The equalization formula was designed to make up for a
province's inability to raise sufficient revenues from its own
economy. Equalization payments are made so provinces have
sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of
public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. That
is quite important to understand.
Obviously the poorer provinces, to maintain health care,
education and all the other services that governments deliver,
simply cannot do that on their own. It is quite noticeable in my
home province where equalization payments are the single largest
source of revenue for the province of New Brunswick. I think I
am being accurate when I say that also applies to Prince Edward
Island, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
When the federal government arbitrarily, without consultation,
takes off the cap or caps the payments, it creates a handicap for
those provinces.
Basically the government is taking away the very spirit of the
Constitution Act of 1982, when it is guaranteed in our
constitution that those payments will be there. When those
payments are capped, the cap results in a handicap for us in the
poorer provinces.
1230
Mr. Peter MacKay: Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough just mentioned to me,
are also recipients. In fact I will refer to my notes so this
will be on the record. Seven provinces are currently recipients
of equalization payments, namely: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan.
Those payments are made by the federal government from federal
revenue sources to which all taxpayers contribute. It is not
coming out of one pot of money. It is coming out of general
revenues.
Before my colleague from Newfoundland gets on his feet to drive
home what I think is a more regional message—I may be mistaken
on that, but I think it is—I do want to go through the history
of equalization in the country.
It is a long established practice in the country to share the
wealth, so to speak. I refer to an article written by Kenneth
Norrie, Richard Simeon and Mark Krasnick entitled “Federalism
and the Economic Union in Canada”. It is a summary of major
developments with respect to equalization.
For the record, this practice began in 1867, at the very birth
of our country, in the BNA Act, with what were then called the
BNA Act statutory subsidies, payments made to provinces in return
for surrendering indirect taxes to Ottawa. There was a formula
already established, then, for having given up direct taxation.
In 1940 that was renewed with what they called then the national
adjustments grants, which were recommended by the Rowell-Sirois
report. These grants were paid on the basis of fiscal need.
In 1957 there was another look at equalization. The first
formal equalization plan was established in 1957. It was part of
the 1957-62 fiscal arrangements. The federal government at that
time agreed to bring per capita yields from three standard taxes
up to the average yield in the two wealthiest provinces, hence
bringing us up to a higher level based on the prosperity of some
of the other provinces that happened to be doing better.
In 1958 there was another look at it, with increased
equalization for personal income tax. Again it was a trade-off.
The provincial share of personal income taxes paid to the
provinces increased from 10% to 13%. This entered into the
equalization formula.
Between 1958 and 1961 there was another look at it. The
government came up with the Atlantic Provinces Adjustment Grants
and Newfoundland Additional Grants Act, an act of parliament.
Additional unconditional grants at that time to the Atlantic
provinces were rationalized on the basis of the provinces' low
fiscal capacity, in other words, not as much strength in their
economies.
In 1962 we revisited again as a nation what was then called the
1962-67 fiscal arrangements agreement. Again the personal income
tax share rose up to 16% in accordance with the tax arrangements
and there was the introduction of 50% of the three year average
of provincial revenues and taxes from natural resources. The
equalization standard was again reduced to the national average
level.
From 1962 to 1967 another look was taken at it. The provinces
acquired an increased share of personal income tax. In 1964-65
there were some changes to the natural resources act. Then we
move on to our centennial year and the federal government
introduced the representative tax system of equalization. In
1972 the same thing occurred and that program was extended.
An addition of three new tax sources brought the total level to
19 tax sources at the time. Revenues from these three tax
sources, racetrack revenues, medical premiums and hospital
premiums, were previously equalized under miscellaneous revenues.
There were some changes there.
1235
In 1973-74 school purpose taxes were included. In 1974-75 there
was energy revenue modification. In 1977 the equalization
component of the Fiscal Arrangements Act was passed by
parliament. In 1981 Bill C-24 had two provisions: withdrawal of
the sale of crown leases category from the program and a personal
income over-ride with no province eligible for equalization if
its per capita personal income exceeded the national average
level in the current preceding two years.
As we can see, various Liberal and Conservative governments were
taking steps all along the way and provincial governments were
doing the same thing in recognition of equalization and how
important it was for the stability of the country.
In 1982 a new tax source was added. In the 1982-87 fiscal
arrangements there was the new representative five province
standard equalization program.
I have one minute left and will conclude by saying that April
17, 1982 is a date every Canadian will remember. That was the
date of the new Constitution Act. The new Constitution Act of
1982 was struck, signed onto by the provinces and the prime
minister at the time. There was a provision in the act ensuring
that equalization was enshrined in Canada's new constitution.
Canada has a long and good history of sharing the wealth in our
country. I think the present government's position and attitude
are very meanspirited. I look forward to hearing the comments of
the member for St. John's West, who will carry on.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for
New Brunswick Southwest spoke of Alberta and also referred to the
study by Ken Norrie on federalism and the economy.
I would like to assure the hon. member that we Albertans know we
are very fortunate at the moment and we do want to share our
prosperity with people in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick and
elsewhere. I wonder how the hon. member feels this situation
should be handled. How do we encourage people who might be out
of work in his province, say, to come to Alberta? As I am sure
he knows, we are very short of skilled people in Alberta and we
would like to have more people come to our province to help with
things like the tar sands.
Does he also have a comment with respect to what a caring and
sharing country should do in terms of a province that is at the
moment having very high surpluses, as I am sure all the members
know?
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like clarification.
After the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle spoke I did not hear an
invitation for questions and comments. We went straight to
resuming debate. I did not rise as a consequence. Am I mistaken
or was there a difference between the previous speaker and this
speaker in terms of questions and comments?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Yes, my colleague, there
is. As you know, we have started third reading of this bill. The
first three speakers are allowed 40 minutes with no questions and
comments. In this case, the New Democratic Party asked for
unanimous consent to split its time so that it would have two 20
minute periods instead of one 40 minute period. That is why
there were no questions and comments.
However, as of the remarks of this first speaker, the hon.
member for New Brunswick Southwest, there will be either 10
minutes for questions and comments or 5 minutes for questions and
comments if members indicate they wish to split their time.
1240
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
minister's question in relation to Alberta, the rest of Canada
and my home province of New Brunswick. In fact, we do have a lot
of young Canadians leaving the poorer provinces of Canada to seek
work elsewhere. We like to see that mobility, but obviously it
does create a problem in some of our provinces. We talk about
the brain drain to the United States, but there is also a drain
of talent from eastern Canada to western Canada. We can
understand that and we appreciate it. We do not want to see any
artificial barriers put up, and I know the minister himself would
not.
In fact, in terms of putting a cap on equalization, one of the
arguments the premiers used, and I think successfully, is that we
are doing our best and we are moving ahead, and we want that
stability so we can continue to move ahead and build the
infrastructure that is needed and build an economy back home that
will allow our young people to stay there.
At the end of the day, the government cannot give with one hand
and take back with the other. For example, in the equalization
formula we have a connection between that and the CHST, the
moneys that the federal government transfers to the provinces in
the health and social transfer. When it takes money out of that
pot and pretends to put money in another one, nothing happens.
There is a sort of balance in the sense that we are really not
moving ahead. Giving with one hand and taking away with the
other would be the correct analogy.
However, the truth is that governments should not be doing that,
because they have to look at the overall picture. To build good
education systems, health care systems and a strong economy in
New Brunswick, we need that little bit of help to get us going.
There will be a fair degree of economic growth in New Brunswick.
The numbers that are coming out of Atlantic Canada are looking
pretty good, because we have built on some of our successes and
we want to continue to build on those successes. We do not want
to be penalized because we are succeeding, and that is really how
we look upon this, as being penalized for succeeding.
The federal government is still very important to us in this
country, and it has to take the lead. We do not want to penalize
anyone in this country for being successful, either on the tax
end as an individual or on the giving end in terms of recipients
of equalization. We want to build on our strengths.
The truth is that we would love to see a society where young
Canadians would not have to leave their homes to seek work
elsewhere, whether it is in the United States or some other part
of Canada. That would be a perfect world. We will probably
never achieve that, but let us not penalize the poorer provinces
for the successes they are enjoying.
The federal government is enjoying a fair amount of economic
success over the last number of years. Let it share that with
the rest of Canada, because every single Canadian has paid into
general revenues and those are the dollars that are being used to
help support the poorer provinces.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, let
me thank my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest for sharing
his time with me.
I listened to him explain how we arrived at the present process
of equalization and I listened to the leader of the NDP Party and
the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I must say that the more I
listen to people speak on the equalization process, the more I
realize that we all agree the present system of assisting have
not provinces, and I use those words very loosely, is not
working. We all agree it is not working. We all agree there are
better ways of doing it. Many of us recommend better ways of
doing it.
That begs the question. If most of the parliamentarians in the
House understand what is happening across our country, if we
understand the fiscal realities of the have and have not
provinces, if we understand the sharing, the equalization
systems, the goods, the bads and the uglies, why is it that we do
not do something constructive about it?
Members on this side can only point out, recommend and represent.
It is the people on the other side who must to do something, but
we have not seen very much being done.
1245
Bill C-18, which would remove the cap on equalization payments
for one year, is a positive step and one which various provinces
have asked for. They have also asked that the cap be removed
entirely, which is something I would also recommend, but removing
the cap on equalization would not solve all the problems.
Changing the whole equalization reality would equalize it.
The word equalization is deceptive. When we hear the word we
think of the old Robin Hood syndrome: if we take from the rich,
being Alberta and Ontario, and give to the poor, everybody
becomes equal. If that were the case, what a wonderful country
we would have, but that is not the case. All we are doing is
taking a very minuscule sum of money and sharing it on an equal
basis depending upon status.
The province of Newfoundland has been looked upon by our fellow
Canadians for years as a have not province, a province that has
absolutely nothing to offer. Those who are experienced and
travelled politicians, or experienced in the sense of having read
and educated themselves about all the provinces, realize that is
not the case.
I doubt if there is a province in Canada as rich as Newfoundland
in relation to the resources within its boundaries. If we look
at the small population of Newfoundland, slightly over half a
million people, and divide it into the value of our resources, on
a per capita basis we could be richer than any province in the
country.
The parliamentary secretary from Alberta asked my colleague from
New Brunswick Southwest whether it would not be good for the
people of his province to travel to rich Alberta where they could
find employment. I say to the hon. member that many people from
Newfoundland have travelled to Alberta and have contributed
significantly to the growth of that great province. Alberta and
Newfoundland have been extremely close over the years. I had the
privilege of serving in a government in Newfoundland in the
mid-eighties at the same time that Premier Lougheed was the
premier of Alberta. There was an exceptionally strong bond
between our two provinces and that bond has held.
In recent months, Premier Hamm of Nova Scotia has led the fight
for drawing attention to the plight of equalization clawback
arrangements. It is interesting to see him being supported by
other premiers who have not been directly affected and by the
new leader of the opposition, Mr. Williams in the province of
Newfoundland.
When Premier Hamm and opposition leader Mr. Williams took their
plight nationally, the people of Alberta began to realize what
they were being asked for. It was not just more money from
Alberta and putting nothing back in return. When they saw the
reality of what was happening, the people of Alberta, Premier
Klein, former Premier Lougheed, the University of Alberta, the
Calgary Herald—and I could go on—in their comments, their
speeches and their editorials, all expressed support by saying
that what these people wanted was right and proper and that it
was not something that Albertans did not get in the past.
1250
I talked about Newfoundland and its riches. Besides our
forestry and farming potential and our small business and IT
sector, which are growing rapidly, we have one of the greatest
tourism potentials anywhere in the world. We are one of the last
frontiers in Canada, as many people are starting to see. We are
limited only by access because of unfair treatment by the central
government in the type of ferry system we have, a monopoly
airline, et cetera. Other than that, we have the last frontier
as it relates to all the other areas except the far north.
We also have major resources. People must remember that we
brought the fishery into Canada. We brought the Grand Banks of
Newfoundland and all the surrounding fisheries around the coast
of our province within the 200 mile limit. For years Canada
bartered Newfoundland fish for deals, such as the sale of wheat
and other sales to Russia, China and Europe. Everybody got a
piece of our action, such as the Spanish, Portuguese and
Russians. Our fishing grounds were ravaged by countries given
quotas in lieu of deals made to ship off other Canadian
resources.
In the end Newfoundland paid the price. Our water power in
Upper Churchill was developed by an agreement with Quebec.
Newfoundland receives about $10 million a year while Quebec
receives closer to $1 billion in royalties out of our water
power. I do not blame Quebec. It was a federally sanctioned
deal, with absolutely no federal assistance, that provided a
power corridor through to the United States markets, which is
what was done for Alberta oil and gas across the rest of the
country.
Newfoundland is extremely wealthy with minerals, especially the
major find in Voisey's Bay. It is not being developed for
several reasons, but the main one is that people want to move it
somewhere else in order to create jobs.
Our oil and gas, which is now being developed and, as Alberta
grew and prospered on its onshore oil, Newfoundland will
eventually grow and prosper. As Alberta slides economically,
maybe Newfoundland will be able to pick up the slack and
reciprocate on the assistance it has received.
Confederation is supposed to be about sharing. Newfoundland,
Nova Scotia and other provinces are not putting their hands out
and saying “give us”. They are asking for a chance. They are
saying that they have the resources to become a have province but
that they need the chance to develop those resources and hold on
to the royalties until they can create the infrastructure to make
themselves a have province.
If the government wants to create equalization across the
country, it should start doing it properly. It should try to be
fair so that some day each province in this country will be
equal.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member for St. John's
West speaks on behalf of many Newfoundlanders who have raised the
concern about equalization. I would like to go over some of the
data.
The government recognizes that equalization is a very important
program. It is meant to help those provinces that are the
so-called have not provinces in order to deliver a roughly equal
level of services and programs to their residents.
In 2001-02, Newfoundland and Labrador will receive almost $1.6
billion in equalization. That includes the CHST and
equalization. It will account for about 40% of Newfoundland and
Labrador's estimated revenues. It is expected to total about
$2,930 per person, which is more than twice the national average
and the highest of any province.
If we look at those per capita receipts, which are twice the
national average, one intuitively reaches the conclusion that it
is supposed to work that way. On a per capita basis Newfoundland
and Labrador will receive, by this formula, twice as much on a
per capita basis as the national average.
1255
Does the member feel that it is not sufficient for Newfoundland
and Labrador to deliver the same quality of services and programs
to its residents?
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I find the question
basically insulting. The parliamentary secretary seems to be
asking if it is not enough that we are getting welfare and more
funding than anybody else. That is not what we are looking for.
We are talking about $1.6 billion being thrown into
Newfoundland. Just from our hydro resource alone we are putting
a billion dollars into Quebec, not to mention the oil, gas and
mineral resources. We are getting nowhere near what we are
contributing.
We should be getting our fair share of royalties. We are not
looking for more handouts. That is what is wrong. It is the
attitude of government members across the way that tells us to
take the welfare and thank them. That is not what we want. We
want the opportunity to be a contributor. We have the tools,
resources and the intelligence to do it. All we are asking is
that the government let us do it.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
two questions to raise with the member for St. John's West. I
also applaud him for recognizing that it was the premier of Nova
Scotia, not of my political stripe but of his, who spearheaded a
lot of the battle for a fair equalization formula. Our party has
been very pleased to co-operate with that effort.
Could the member comment on the role and position of the former
premier of his province of Newfoundland on the equalization
formula? I remind all members of the House that when he made his
decision to run in the last federal election, wrapped in the
unity flag and all sorts of rhetoric about equality of
opportunity, he said that one of the reasons he was running was
that he wanted to see changes in the equalization formula and the
removal of the cap.
Has the member for St. John's West been tracking what the
current Minister of Industry has done to contribute to persuading
the government to lift the artificial cap on the equalization
formula?
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, Premier Hamm has certainly
been the one who has led the fight that has now been picked up by
others. I presume the hon. member knows the answer as well as I
do to her question. The Minister of Industry has done very
little, either before or after his return to Ottawa.
Mr. Roy Cullen: What about the $700 million?
Mr. Loyola Hearn: The $700 million was announced five
different times. It was the same money over and over. One of
these days I will analyze the benefits to our region for the hon.
member, and that will embarrass him even further.
The Minister of Industry spent a lot of time in Ottawa and
delivered nothing for Newfoundland as a premier. The only time
he raised the issue of equalization was during the election
campaign when he was to save Atlantic Canada. He was elected,
but there were very few with him because he campaigned on a new
equalization deal. He did not deliver and that is no surprise to
any of us.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the hardworking and faithful hon.
member for Vancouver Island North. I could have used more
adjectives, but I did not want them to go to his head. It is an
honour to stand in the House to talk about Bill C-18, a very
important bill, and to address at this stage the broader question
of equalization payments and the meaning of them.
I cannot resist the temptation to lay down a bit of what one
might call a philosophical foundation for the idea.
That foundation is what we as Canadians believe in so strongly.
We believe in community and sharing with those who have need. The
Liberals have somehow exploited this in their communication
pieces to try to pass it off to Canadians that they are the only
ones who care. They certainly are experts at caring in one
particular way and that is taxing Canadians to death, then
deciding how they can distribute the money they have gathered
together.
1300
Just yesterday, without any previous debate or approval of the
House, the Prime Minister declared some of his values in Toronto
when he announced a $500 million program to aid culture in
Canada. 180
I shake my head at that when we have that same
government saying that it will not increase the ceiling for
equalization payments to help provinces pay for hospitals,
education facilities for students and things like that. The
government is ready to give us $500 million more for its
interpretation of what Canadian culture is.
That is a very narrow point of view of what it means to be
Canadian and what it means to be community. Very frankly the
cultures that I see across the country are many and varied.
These cultures for the most instance are very able in
representing themselves and thriving without the aid of a bunch
of government grants.
In fact in my riding we have a large Ukrainian community that
does wonderful things to promote its culture and to keep it and
its language alive. I had a conversation not long ago, actually
I guess it is over a year ago but at my age years fly into days
or weeks, with several people from the Ukrainian community. They
said we should support more cultural grants from the federal
government.
I engaged them in a little debate and asked them where they
thought the money came from. We talked about it a bit. I told
them that we were overtaxed with the huge burgeoning bureaucracy
that was involved in sending money to Ottawa and that the
bureaucrats spun it through their centrifuges. A bunch of that
money would spill over the edges but would never get to the
target for which it is intended. Then finally some would go back
to a select group chosen in some cases by the Prime Minister
because, as I understood it, he had a lot of clout in cabinet.
However if they did not happen to be one of those they would not
get the money.
I was able to show them that we would all do a lot better if we
could simply reduce our taxes. Then all of us in all our
cultures could fund to our heart's content the Ukrainian schools,
the German schools and other schools that we would have liked to
have but were prohibited from because of the official program of
the government of taking about half of everybody's earnings and
distributing it according to its will.
I also say that in the broader sense of community I do not want
to restrict my community just to the town near which I live, nor
my riding. It is a wonderful riding. I welcome you, Mr.
Speaker, to come and visit. We have a national park in our
riding. It is called the Elk Island National Park, named after
my riding. It is a wonderful place and great place to visit. I
would not like to restrict my sense of community just to our
province.
It was mentioned earlier today that Alberta in the last year or
so had a very good economic picture because of the energy
situation. I can remember back a scant eight years ago when that
was not the case. Albertans were struggling with their education
and health funding probably as much as anyone. We had tremendous
challenges in the province to rationalize the delivery of the
health care system.
A lot of it was due to the fact that this federal government
reneged on what was originally an agreement to pay for half of
the health care for the provinces. Over the years it eroded it
to a point where it was once again the responsibility of the
provinces. However it never reduced the taxes it sucked out of
our provinces to bring to Ottawa. Therefore, I feel the
government funding of those programs was irresponsible.
1305
My country is my community. I came to the House as a Canadian.
I stand proudly when we sing the national anthem in the House.
Some may remember that I was even unwittingly and unintentionally
the centre of a lot of controversy a number of years ago when I
insisted that there should be nothing wrong with my having a flag
on my desk in the House of Commons. Ultimately, it was ruled not
permissible. It was considered a prop, so I am without my
Canadian flag. So be it.
However I am a proud Canadian and this is my community. I
insist that we would do well by extending the word community
across this whole country and that we provide the needed health
care and educational facilities to our citizens, which are more
or less equal, at comparable levels of taxation. However it is
impossible to have them exactly equal as that is just a practical
consideration but they should be as equal as is possible.
Again, it is worth drawing the attention of the members to the
fact that this is in our constitution. If we look at the
Constitution Act, 1982, we will find section 36. I am going to
read it because perhaps some people have not heard it. It
states:
Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of
the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with
respect to the exercise of their legislative authority,
Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of
Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to
(a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of
Canadians;
(b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in
opportunities; and
(c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to
all Canadians.
Then subsection 36(2) of our constitution states:
Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the
principle of making equalization payments to ensure that
provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide
reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably
comparable levels of taxation.
Although that was brought in by a Liberal government, it seems
to me eminently fine. I have absolutely no problem with that
particular clause in our constitution. It behooves us to make
sure that Canadians across the country have comparably equal
services at comparable levels of taxation.
However we need to make sure that there is not duplication. We
must ensure there is efficiency in the delivery of those
services. We must make absolutely sure that the provinces and
the citizens in those provinces continue to have all the
motivation in the world we can extend them to improve their
situation, regardless of where that is. I insist our country
would do best if we neither hung a milestone around the necks of
those who are doing well as they will then do better, they will
expand our economy and they will provide more jobs, nor leave
destitute those whose needs are greater.
Quite clearly I could have spoken for longer but my time is up.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this
important issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pride that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance rose in the House this morning to make his speech and
say that the federal government has been generous in giving
money back to the provinces. The government feels generous
because, among other things, it gave Quebec $489 million in
equalization payments.
1310
If the federal government is returning money to each province
through the equalization program, it is primarily because these
tax revenues from the provinces and workers have increased,
while government spending has decreased. The government has now
eliminated its deficit, but not because it is a good
administrator, not because the Minister of Finance is better
than his predecessor. Rather, it is because the Minister of
Finance decided to take $6 billion a year from the employment
insurance fund. It is because he decided to make cuts to
transfer payments to the provinces for health and education. The
federal government has relinquished all responsibility for the
maintenance of airports and piers.
This money is not a present from the government, it is money
owed to us. In a sovereign Quebec, we will manage the $33
billion that is collected through taxes and we will tell the
federal government “Keep your equalization program”. I am
prepared to trade $33 billion for $489 million.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I was just waiting for the end
of the interpretation. Unfortunately I am unilingual and I
depend on those wonderful people in the booths to do my talking
for me.
I will answer the question in the following way. Indeed there
is but one taxpayer. We are burdened to death with taxes at all
levels of government. The federal government takes the largest
share, then the provinces and our municipalities take some.
I would definitely agree with the member but I would ask him to
come to a small degree of realism. Members of the Bloc are
intent upon leading their people into forming a separate
government independent from Canada. That is their commitment.
They are good at communicating it and I have to admire them. It
is a party that has managed to stay on track and focused on what
its goals are.
However I caution the member, the members of his party and all
citizens of Quebec to make sure they do the arithmetic
accurately. As residents of a recipient province in the
equalization program, they would have a very hard time
demonstrating to me, using hard facts and numbers, that they are
not net beneficiaries of the program. Undoubtedly they pay their
share of taxes and I have no problem with that. However they are
net beneficiaries when it comes to the equalization program. The
numbers are very clear.
Other than that the member was right on in his statements.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is not the first day we have
debated the bill but it is the first day we have debated it on
third reading.
There is a history and a track record to the legislation in this
place. The real track record was the first minister's conference
communique of September 11, 2000, when the announcement was made
on the one year lifting of the ceiling on equalization payments
would occur. Of course that was about one month before a general
federal election was called. People, particularly the Prime
Minister who was the major part of making that announcement,
would very much have had the election in mind at that time.
We have an agreement that was reached in a very politicized
environment. It is for one year and one year only. We really
are talking about retroactive legislation. The spin doctoring
that has come out of the Liberals on this particular initiative
has been absolutely incredible.
I have the press release from the minister's office dated March
15. It spent more time talking about the fact that because of
the Ontario's hot economy the total transfers were going to be
$1.8 billion higher than it did the substance of the press
release which was supposed to be about the legislation, this bill
which was tabled that day in the House of Commons.
There is a general recognition, a disquiet and a discomfort
among some of the bureaucracy in the finance department and other
places that this is a politically opportunistic, unprincipled way
to approach the whole issue of financial transfers to the
provinces. They really are trying to bury the facts of how we
arrived at this.
1315
The real reason we ended up with that announcement last
September 11 was that the federal government had balanced the
books. It got rid of the deficit between 1993 and 1999 in three
ways. First, it gutted transfers to the provinces, particularly
the CHST which funds health, education and other important areas,
by reducing it 33%. Second, it gutted the Department of National
Defence. Third, it reduced all other programs by an average of
3%.
We can see how much damage was done because the priorities of
the government were obviously not the priorities of the people.
This is an attempt to make up for the first set of cuts to the
CHST, the health and social transfers to the provinces, on a one
time basis in a politically charged atmosphere.
I have great difficulty with all the breast beating coming from
the Liberals about how generous they are. They say this is a
good announcement and pretend it will somehow continue. The
official opposition supports the principle of equalization. It
is the government that makes equalization look bad by this kind
of ad hoc, band-aid reaction.
The bill is very narrow in scope, as I mentioned. It deals with
only one year, yet the government is attempting to make it look
more broadly based.
We support the notion that the federal government ought to
equalize access to core public services at reasonably comparable
levels of taxation. There are many problems with the current
system. It should be much more open to discourse and debate.
I listened carefully to the member for St. John's West when he
talked about how economic development, particularly in the
non-renewable natural resource sector, is penalized by the
current way the equalization system is applied.
It reminds me of what we have done with the north. Equalization
payments apply only to the provinces, but in the north we have
federal territories: Nunavut, the western Arctic, the Northwest
Territories and Yukon. Federal transfers to those jurisdictions
are the major part of their budget. Anywhere from 80% to 90%
plus of the total revenues of territorial governments come from
the federal government.
Historically the equalization formula has worked in a perverse
way. If a region creates economic development it is penalized on
an almost dollar for dollar basis. What is the incentive to
become self-sufficient?
This is contrary to economic thought and rational development
policy.
1320
Let us look at the economies of countries with mobile
populations. I heard the Secretary of State for Latin America
and Africa ask about the demand for skilled workers in the
province of Alberta. How do we get people to fill those jobs?
How do we get them to move to that jurisdiction? That is a
crucial question.
It is clearly demonstrated that one of the major reasons the
U.S. economy is resilient and strong and has low unemployment is
that culturally and by policy its population is used to
travelling to new jurisdictions to seek employment. The United
States has the highest labour mobility in the world. That is
what gives its economy such great transitional strength and
reduces its unemployment numbers.
Any country that makes it more convenient to stay in one place
than to move to new opportunities is doing its people a great
disservice. The Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa
was on to a very important question about which our young people
are thinking a great deal.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am truly impressed. The adjectives I used to describe
the hon. member have now been proven correct. He gave a great
speech.
I have a couple of questions or comments. The Prime Minister,
during his swing through the Atlantic provinces in the election
campaign or leading up to it, made a significant policy change.
He announced that the cap on equalization payments would be
removed for one year.
What does the member think about a government that makes major
policy changes for one year only during an election year? If it
is a necessary step, should it not be taken whether or not there
is an election and not cancelled when the election is over?
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I concur with that, but I
attribute it to something more than a concern over the
government's or the Prime Minister's behaviour in this regard.
The larger concern is that we have a parliamentary democracy that
does not allow for real ratification.
1325
For example, in most western democracies a prime minister or
president could make a statement such as the September 11
statement of last year outlining their intent. However it would
need to be argued, debated and ratified and there would be a
great deal of uncertainty as to whether it would be approved.
In Canada, on the other hand, our democracy is so skewed that
parliament is virtually a rubber stamp. The Prime Minister or
even a cabinet minister can now make these kinds of
announcements. The cultural announcement to which the member for
Elk Island made reference is the same thing.
The biggest portion of the $560 million announcement by the
Prime Minister yesterday includes $108 million to foster and
develop Canadian content on the Internet, and French language
content in particular according to the heritage minister.
Since when is money for Canadian culture usefully spent on
getting us into Internet type stuff that the private sector,
private investors and the stock market and everything else have
run with from day one? How did that become a priority? How
could an announcement be made when nothing has occurred in this
place to enable the announcement to be made?
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak to this important issue because of the profound
effect that equalization problems are having on my constituents
in Dartmouth.
Simply put, the current transfer formula does not treat my
constituents in Nova Scotia and Dartmouth the same way that
citizens in other provinces have been treated. I will spend a
bit of time talking about that this afternoon.
Equal opportunities need to be given to Nova Scotians under our
federal transfer regime. Sadly there are a number of barriers in
our equalization formula which continue to work against poorer
provinces such as Nova Scotia and which are causing real hardship
to ordinary hard working persons in Dartmouth.
Simply put, Bill C-18 does not meet the real constitutional
obligations of the government. I will state what they are
because I am not sure we all know. Subsection 36(2) of our
constitution states:
Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the
principle of making equalization payments to ensure that
provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide
reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonable
comparable levels of taxation.
If we look at health care standards and the lack of availability
of pharmacare, per pupil funding levels for primary, secondary
and post-secondary education, and services for those living in
poverty, including the thousands with disabilities in my
community in Nova Scotia, it is self-evident that the lofty
ideals of the constitution are not being met. Canadians know,
and study after study shows, that there are significant
inequities in services and taxation levels across Canada.
I concede that some of the inequities are the result of
decisions made by provincial governments. Many Conservative
governments, rather than using budget surpluses to rebuild social
programs, have brought in large scale tax cuts which benefit the
wealthy. That is not the fault of equalization.
Some inequities stem from the ability of some provinces to
generate revenue from resources. There is no doubt that Alberta
has greatly benefited from the fact that it is situated on large
lakes of underground oil and gas. It receives full royalty
revenues from those resources. There is some accounting of this
in the equalization formula. However another inequity is at play
here.
1330
That relates to the fact that offshore oil and gas revenues
cannot be taxed by provinces in the same way that onshore oil and
gas revenues are presently being taxed. Therefore we are leaving
the have not provinces in Atlantic Canada without the same
ability to provide programs as Alberta has.
While I know there are different jurisdictions for onshore and
offshore resources, it is difficult to give the legal mumbo-jumbo
explanation to the people of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotians have
made their living off the ocean since the province was founded
almost 400 years ago just as much as they have made their living
off the land.
Alberta's tar sands are a provincial resource, and telling Nova
Scotians that Sable Island gas is not part of their province
simply does not wash. They do not see the legal argument. They
see that they are once again being kept poor by unequal rules set
by central and western Canada, and they have a point. The
government is not treating them fairly and it obviously could if
it wanted to.
For example, there was a temporary exemption of royalty revenue
in the calculation of equalization payments which had been
granted to Newfoundland and Labrador in the past. This temporary
measure helped boost the economy of that province, and Nova
Scotia deserves no less.
I call on the government to give Nova Scotia the same deal which
was granted to Newfoundland and Labrador. As my leader and
colleague from Halifax said eloquently in today's debate, Liberal
cuts to the CHST, their elimination of the Canada assistance plan
and their general approach to giving a higher priority to tax
cuts rather than rebuilding our social programs have hit Atlantic
Canada very hard.
These are policy barriers to governments in Atlantic Canada
which the government should address, but it should also be
fulfilling its constitutional role to create equity in services
through the equalization formula.
Bill C-18 leaves barriers in place. The biggest barrier is the
cap on equalization payments. It needs to be removed. I am not
alone in this regard. As has been mentioned, the provincial
ministers and the premiers have brought this matter to our
attention. Bill C-18 has failed to remove the artificial cap on
equalization payments to poorer provinces for this fiscal year.
It means that Ontario and Alberta keep more and Atlantic Canada
keeps less. How can the Liberals justify this? Do they know
what it means to the people in Atlantic Canada?
What it means is that Dartmouth students suffer with less
funding and there is increased labour strife as school boards try
to squeeze concessions from already underpaid workers. It means
that post-secondary students have the highest tuitions and the
most ineffective student aid program in the country. It means
that fewer sick people can afford the medications they are told
by their doctors they need to stay alive. That is not fair and
it is not equal. That does not meet the lofty goals set out in
our constitution.
Specifically on post-secondary education, I repeat my request
for the federal government to increase the support for legitimate
post-secondary educational needs in Nova Scotia through a
bilateral agreement that would recognize the significant price
that Nova Scotians are paying to support a disproportionate
number of out of province students.
I hope the government of Nova Scotia would then use the funds to
reduce student tuition fees, currently the highest in Canada, and
increase the inadequate student aid plan. Atlantic Canadians do
not want handouts. They want fairness. Sadly our party believes
that Bill C-18 would not deliver this to them.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in the country when policies are
not made on the basis of good reason or good common sense but on
the basis of pure politics. That is what has happened in this
regard.
A task force was convened back in 1995. I would like to share
with the House some of its observations. The clerk of the privy
council asked Ivan Fellegi to chair a task force of senior
officials to review the state of the government's policy
capacity.
The task force submitted its report in April 1995 and it
concluded:
The most notable weaknesses at present relate to longer term
strategic and horizontal issues. Resources are
disproportionately consumed by short term demands.
1335
It was basically a condemnation of the way in which the
government makes policy. Its observations were such that it
highlighted to those who read it the unfortunate political
motivation behind too many of the policies that are
misconstructed by the government.
Such is the case here. The bill proposed by the government is
after the fact. It is designed to fulfil a promise made by a
Prime Minister, in anticipation of a federal election, to a group
of Canadians in the Atlantic region who he hoped to persuade
through his promise to support them. It is clear and obvious to
members opposite that was the case.
Is that the way policies should be designed and shaped? Is that
the way policies should be communicated to the Canadian people?
The obvious answer is that it is not.
The bill is a reflection of the government's ability to act in
an ad hoc fashion rather than to plan. There was no consultation
in advance of the promises made by the Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister does not have to consult but he should. The Prime
Minister has made announcements before on behalf of various
ministries and sometimes without consultation with his ministers.
For example, the millennium scholarship fund was introduced by
the Prime Minister without consultation with his finance
minister. This is not the way to make policy and design a better
Canada.
We have another problem in this case. We have a problem for the
people of Atlantic Canada because in many regions the
constituents in Atlantic Canada elected Liberal members. Liberal
members were sent here not because they were bought, which is not
the nature of the people of Atlantic Canada at least in my
experience, but rather to represent their constituencies and to
represent them well.
However I have not heard voices raised in the House in strong
support of the people of Atlantic Canada on the equalization
formula. No one from the Liberal side has stood to condemn the
words of the Prime Minister or his lack of action and the lack of
action of the finance minister on this policy issue. That is a
shame.
I have heard members from Atlantic Canada. They have not
attacked the Prime Minister's approach to this issue. They have
not attacked his lack of sensitivity around the needs of the
people of their own regions or of other regions such as my own in
Manitoba or in the province of Saskatchewan, both provinces which
depended to some degree on equalization payments to offer the
kinds of services to their residents they deserve to have. I
have not heard voices raised in that respect.
Rather I have heard voices raised in the House attacking
provincial politicians in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick. I
wonder at the wisdom of those kinds of personal, petty and
partisan attacks. I wonder why members opposite would rise and
criticize the governing parties of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
It seems the only reason they would do so is that currently
there are Progressive Conservative governments in those
provinces. That seems rather shallow. It also seems at odds
with what their constituents would want them to do, which would
be to stand with Premier Lord, Premier Hamm and with many others
in Atlantic Canada. Their constituents are trying diligently to
have this formula revisited and to ensure the resources they and
their provinces need are made available to them under a fair
formula.
Partisanship is at its worst in the House when members opposite
fail to address issues of importance to their own constituents.
There are clear divisions in the Liberal caucus and among various
ministers on this issue.
1340
The Minister of Industry crowed like a rooster in the barnyard
about his voracious appetite for a revisiting of this formula
when he was premier of Newfoundland. I have not seen him rise in
this place on this issue since returning to Ottawa. Perhaps he
has another agenda in mind. I have not heard him put on the
record his strong support for the people of Newfoundland on this
issue. I have not seen it and I have not heard it.
I heard the minister on a lot of other issues as the people of
Newfoundland have when he was there. When they said goodbye to
him I am sure it was with some hope that he would come to this
place with a Newfoundland agenda in mind. That has not been
evident.
The finance minister has not shown any interest either. Rather
he told finance ministers that this file would not be opened. He
said that a single act would suffice. This ad hoc act and
self-serving makeshift policy is not the way to deal with an
issue as important as this one is to the people of Canada.
The finance minister for some reason refuses to open the file.
Perhaps it is because he does not want to give any credit to the
industry minister, who may be behind the scenes raising this
issue, although he is certainly not doing it where anyone knows
that he is doing it. This has been a closed debate and that is
unfortunate. It has been closed to a very few. That kind of
policy making is not the kind of policy making that people want.
I have sat and listened to the debate with some interest.
Members have unfortunately misrepresented Canadian Alliance
policy. I would like to put on record our policy on this issue.
We recognize that different provinces and regions of Canada have
different levels of wealth but all wish to provide similar
services to their residents.
We are committed to the constitutional principle of making
equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have
sufficient revenues to provide their residents with reasonably
comparable levels of basic services at reasonably comparable
levels of taxation. That is the Canadian Alliance policy, not
the policy that has been misrepresented and put on the record in
the House by some members opposite.
Our policy reflects the desire for fairness and for some
equitable treatment of all Canadians. We believe that
equalization should serve the longer term purpose of equalizing
economic opportunity and autonomy in all regions of our country.
It should not create incentives for perverse economic policies.
It should not be used for self-serving political purposes. Rather
it should be used as it was originally designed, to provide a way
up for people, not just an excuse for a government to try to buy
support.
Donald Savoie in his book Governing from the Centre made
some observations concerning the nature of the way in which the
government has chosen to develop policy. He stated:
While I argue that the centre and, in particular, the hand of the
Prime Minister, has been considerably strengthened in recent
years, this is not to suggest that the federal government is
better able to define new strategic direction or a coherent plan
to which all government departments can contribute. It is ironic
perhaps that as the hand at the centre has been strengthened, its
ability to manage horizontal issues has been weakened.
We see evidence of that in many policy areas and certainly we
see it in regard to this file. The Prime Minister's controlling
hand is all over the legislation. His desire to use legislation
such as this to fulfil pre-election promises is obvious and
self-evident.
What is the ability of the government to deal with the
horizontal issues that affect all regions of the country?
According to Donald Savoie, a noted observer of things political
for decades, the ability of the government to deal with the
horizontal issues that face our nation has been considerably
weakened.
We see that here and in many other areas. Our desire as a
political movement is to make sure that everyone in Canada feels
they are a part of Canada. That is not the case today in Canada.
We have seen centrifugal federalism where the willingness of the
government to practise and develop policies does not reflect the
true Canadian fabric.
Too often we have seen a willingness to use partisan judgment
rather than develop good, comprehensive, intelligent, foresighted
policy.
1345
The Council for Canadian Unity has been at work developing
ideas, researching and looking into ways to enhance that sense of
being a Canadian that should exist across the country from coast
to coast. It has just released the results of a study it
conducted. What it revealed is truly disheartening and should be
disheartening to all hon. members of the House.
Canadian residents were polled and asked the question “Do you
feel that the federal government is respectful of your
province?” The results were tabulated by province and were
truly sad in terms of what they revealed. The results revealed
that in only one province of Canada did the government get a
passing grade from the people in that province. That province
was Ontario. In nine other provinces from the west coast to the
east coast, the Council for Canadian Unity study revealed that
Canadian people do not feel their provinces are being treated
with respect by the government.
This is a condemnation of the way in which the government has
chosen to develop its policies. Perhaps it is a condemnation of
the way in which it has chosen to communicate. However, I doubt
very seriously that venturing out to western Canada on feel good
trips, for example, will change the perceptions of western
Canadians toward the government.
What western Canadians are looking for, and I believe what
people in the maritime region are looking for, is real change, a
real change in the attitude and the approach of the government
toward the people of those regions, a real change in the ways in
which the government develops policy and does consultation. I
believe they are looking for a real change in the way in which
the government and the Prime Minister deal with the reality of
the need for democratic reforms, for openness, and for increased
openness in the Chamber and elsewhere. I believe they are
looking for a real change in the institutional approach we have
developed over many years in the country, a change that would
allow for a greater sense of belonging to the country, a greater
sense of control among the Canadian people, so that they would
feel their input was being valued, that they were being respected
as Canadians.
When the study was released, the reaction was silence on the
part of the government opposite, but I genuinely hope that in the
days to come we will not have to deal with any more of these
pieces of legislation that are designed clearly and simply to
fulfil promises made by the Prime Minister in isolation from any
of his own caucus members and in isolation from any consultation
with the Canadian people. He simply made them, pre-election, for
his own personal electoral purposes. That is not the kind of
legislation we should be dealing with in the House and yet we are
today.
I will conclude by saying that we in the Canadian Alliance will
continue, as will I in my responsibility as the regional equity
critic, to look for ways to genuinely develop a country of which
all Canadians feel they are a part and in which they feel they
are respected. That has not been the case under the government's
mandate.
1350
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The government whip has
just indicated that the vote will stand deferred until Monday
after government orders.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe you would find unanimous consent following
consultation among all parties to further defer the vote just
deferred until Monday to next Tuesday at the end of government
orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters
Treaty Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the two minutes left before question period, which will be
adequate for me to make my brief intervention, I would like to
say that the bill before us has positive features and it has some
negatives. I will briefly outline them for the House's
consideration.
Beginning with the positive, this act dealing with transboundary
waters offers an ecological approach. It deals with water as an
important item that is dealt with as a basin. It is seen as an
ecological asset wherever it is found and therefore it is dealt
with in an approach that is new and, from an ecological and
environmental point of view, I think, most desirable.
Having said that, I will say that the bill also has some
shortcomings because it relies on the voluntary approach when it
comes to non-boundary waters in preventing the export of bulk
water. In other words, Bill C-6 is quite explicit. It says that
the export of water in transboundary lakes and river systems and
the like is not to be permitted, but when it comes to waters from
Newfoundland to British Columbia that are not shared with our
neighbours, it is left to the provinces to decide whether or not
the export should take place. Therefore it covers only one
aspect of our great ecological asset, namely, freshwater.
The legislation also leaves out bodies such as Lake Winnipeg,
the island lakes from Newfoundland, and other lakes from
Newfoundland to British Columbia.
The fact, therefore, that emerges from reading the bill is that
while a good step is being undertaken in the bill in covering
transboundary waters, it leaves out a substantial body of lakes
and rivers that are not being shared with our neighbours to the
south.
The bill also does not contain any reference to reciprocity on
the part of the United States. It may be that this bill is not
the appropriate place to have that kind of reference.
1355
It may be that such an omission could be corrected by an
appropriate amendment to the 1909 Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters
Treaty in a manner that would bind the United States as well. I
am not aware of initiatives south of the border that would be
parallel to the one we are initiating in this parliament, and
therefore I am raising this matter here this afternoon.
Moving on, the question of export of bulk water is one that has
been of major concern to Canadians. We know that the vast
majority of our population does not want to see Canadian water
exported in bulk. Therefore maybe there is a solution to that
problem by having the Government of Canada seek an interpretive
statement under NAFTA whereby bulk water is to be defined as a
non-tradable commodity.
Having obtained that interpretive statement, then we could use
our constitutional powers given for international trade to the
federal government and subsequently enact federal legislation
banning export of bulk water, covering Canada as a whole and not
having to rely on the vagaries of the voluntary agreements with
the provinces, as we would by adopting this bill alone.
Finally, the approach I have just outlined of seeking an
interpretive statement is not a new one. It has been followed
already for health services, which are not subjected to trade
agreements. It has been adopted in relation to education and it
has been adopted in relation to certain natural resources.
What is desirable, then, in the near future would be an
additional piece of legislation that would replace the voluntary
accord proposed by Ottawa in the case of removal of bulk water.
We need that kind of legislation that would make it illegal to
export non-boundary bulk water because it is quite safe to
predict that the voluntary approach would not work in the long
term, as leadership in provincial governments changes from time
to time.
In conclusion I would say that we need this type of legislation
with a certain element of urgency, because in certain provinces
there could be a threat very soon for the export of bulk water
from non-boundary waters, which might be authorized by some
provincial government, as we have learned from media reports
emanating out of Newfoundland.
I will use the remaining minute just to refer to the fact that
the government introduced in August 1998 a very good piece of
legislation called Bill C-156. It was called the Canada water
preservation act. It contained a number of legislative measures
emanating from the Pearse water report, which was initiated in
January 1984 and completed in 1985. It has been languishing
since then, waiting for implementation. It is an important
report that certainly deserves the attention of this parliament.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN IMPROV GAMES
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to announce that last
Saturday a nine member team from Westwood Community High School
in Fort McMurray won the Canadian National Improv Games here in
Ottawa.
They competed in a fierce battle with four other teams, but when
the dust settled and the points were tallied the team from
Westwood came out victorious.
1400
When one considers the accomplishments of these students, it is
obvious that the tar sands are not the most precious resource in
Fort McMurray.
I wish to extend congratulations on a job well done to students
Lucus Merger, Arlen Konopaki, Sean Parsons, Michelle Parsons,
Mike Robertson, Laura Rushfeldt, Kyle Miles, David Zeglen, and
their teacher, Karen Towsley.
* * *
RESPONSIBLE FISHING AWARDS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to acknowledge and congratulate the winners of the Roméo
LeBlanc National Awards for Responsible Fishing.
This award recognizes Canadian fishermen who have contributed to
the development and promotion of responsible fishing practices.
Individual fisherman are the most aware of the need to manage
fisheries in a responsible manner. It is their livelihood. It
is their future.
This award gives them the recognition they deserve. The 2001
winners who are present in the gallery today, Stan Logan, Pierrot
Haché, Stevie Audlakiak and George Purvis, have all been chosen
by their peers for significant contributions to responsible
fisheries. These men are role models for younger generations who
look to Canada's great ocean resources for their future
I wish to extend congratulations to the winners of the award and
thank them for their inspiration.
* * *
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, documents prepared for the industry minister by
Western Economic Diversification Canada show that since the
Liberals came to power western Canada's share of money for
regional economic development has been cut by more than half and
that the rationale for funding certain projects is to gain
“visibility and credit” for the government.
No wonder poll results released by the Council for Canadian
Unity show that a majority of Canadians in nine out of ten
provinces feel that their province does not get the respect it
deserves from this federal government.
Canadians want real change. They do not want feel good tours
and they do not want self-serving Liberal patronage either. For
example, the council's research shows that 60% of western
Canadians cite an elected Senate as a high priority and 55% cite
free votes in the House as a high priority.
The government should stop playing politics with regional issues
and should start addressing the real priorities of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
MENTAL HEALTH
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday,
under a brilliant sky, hundreds of people met at the Aylmer race
track to take part in the event known as “En espadrilles pour la
santé mentale”.
Organized to raise money for the Fondation Pierre-Janet, this
fundraiser brought in over $35,000 to build a new day centre,
exceeding the objective set by the organizing committee.
Today, I would like to thank all those who, in varying degrees,
worked to organize this dynamic event, where good humour was
infectious. “En espadrilles pour la santé mentale,” was a fine
occasion to promote a feeling of solidarity with and generosity
toward people facing problems of mental health.
This event is another great success for the Fondation
Pierre-Janet, which, since 1990, has invested over $500,000 in
the field of mental health in the Outaouais.
Long life to the Fondation Pierre-Janet and to Dan Guay, who
instigated the “En espadrilles pour la santé mentale” event.
* * *
[English]
RESPONSIBLE FISHING AWARDS
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate Stevie Audlakiak of Qikiqtarjuaq,
Nunavut, who received the 2000 Roméo LeBlanc Award for
Responsible Fishing for the Arctic.
Honoured for being our leading proponent of responsible
fisheries developments in Nunavut, which includes Inuit
traditions of responsible fisheries harvesting, Stevie has
ensured the sustainability of the Arctic char harvest as well as
trying to initiate a clam fishery off Broughton Island.
I wish to extend thanks to Stevie Audlakiak for his great
contribution to a viable Nunavut fishery and the continuing
developments in the fishery as he continues to improve and refine
techniques to the benefit of all.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week more than six million Canadians
across the country took part in efforts to help protect our
planet's environment as they celebrated Earth Week.
1405
Students in Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale learned about
recycling, composting, alternative energies and climate change.
I was pleased to see students out in the community planting and
cleaning parks, all in the effort to improve and protect Canada's
environment.
I encourage the federal government to continue its efforts to
promote sustainable development in Canada and across the globe.
* * *
[Translation]
MAURICIE
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a real
catastrophe occurred in the Mauricie region this week, with two
plants announcing their upcoming closure in July and the lay-off
of nearly 750 employees, 90 at the Norton plant in Shawinigan
and, to add insult to injury, 650 at the Fruit of the Loom
plant, the second largest employer in manufacturing in
Trois-Rivières, where a large majority of the workers are women.
Clearly, more than ever, the Mauricie region needs a strategy to
revitalize the economy, in which the federal government, which
collects 50% of Quebecers' taxes, will work with the Government
of Quebec to offset the job losses and to rebuild our industrial
sector as well.
More generally, specific measures should be put in place to
fight the negative effects of globalization on both the public
and private sectors.
Most importantly, however, right now, we must give thought to
women, children and families. Everything must be done to save
these businesses and their 750 employees.
* * *
WORLD ASTHMA DAY
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are celebrating World Asthma Day, the theme of which is
that asthma can be understood and controlled.
Asthma is on the increase in Canada. Every year, it claims over
500 victims. This is 10 deaths a week.
Today is an opportunity to become familiar with the facts of
this disease. Asthma is one of the major causes of
hospitalization in Canada. Yet, if Canadians had a greater
awareness of this disease, emergency room visits could be
reduced by 50% and hospital stays by 80%.
As one of the most common diseases in Canada, asthma carries a
high price tag.
It lowers productivity but, worse, it diminishes the quality of
life of asthma sufferers and their families.
I urge hon. members and all Canadians to find out more about
this disease. It concerns every one of us.
* * *
[English]
PRESS FREEDOM DAY
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is World Press Freedom Day. Freedom
of the press is essential to ensure that democratic rights and
freedoms are protected.
A free press not only promotes transparency and accountability
in governance but also encourages lively debate and engages
citizens in public life.
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said “Freedom of
the press ensures that the abuse of every other freedom can be
known, can be challenged, and even defeated”.
In Canada, freedom of the press and freedom of speech are
protected within the charter of rights and freedoms.
Unfortunately, that is not the case in all countries.
Today we pay tribute to journalists around the world who risk
their lives to report on injustices and fight for the rights and
freedoms that we in Canada so cherish and to Canadian journalists
who contribute to ensuring a real public dialogue in our society.
* * *
ZIMBABWE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's silence on the crisis in Zimbabwe is deafening.
Democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights have been
replaced with violence and intimidation. People live in fear of
the government.
By not acting, the government is complicit in the abuse of basic
human rights by a dictatorial regime. I call on the government
to send a strong message to the government of Zimbabwe by
temporarily suspending all international aid assistance.
Further, the government must insist that our commonwealth
partners do the same. Canada must demonstrate a clear resolve to
President Mugabe that human rights abuses will not be tolerated.
I urge the government to act in the name of democracy.
* * *
POLISH CONSTITUTION DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Polish Canadians, and in
particular the Polish community in my riding of Parkdale—High
Park, who today celebrate the 210th anniversary of the Polish
constitution.
In my riding, the Toronto branch of the Canadian Polish Congress
will be celebrating this important event with a parade on Sunday,
May 6, from High Park Boulevard to St. Casimir's Church, followed
by a mass and a parade to the Katyn Monument.
The constitution of May 3, 1791, the second written constitution
in Europe and third of its kind in the world, was a magnificent
crowning of the Polish enlightenment and of the activity of the
Polish pro-reform camp.
1410
Constitution Day is a proud heritage for Canadians of Polish
descent and a confirmation of the basic values and freedoms of
our own society.
On the occasion of Poland's national day, I wish to express the
hope that the excellent relations that exist between Poland and
Canada will further strengthen and develop for the benefit of our
two nations.
* * *
[Translation]
CRAB FISHING
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, following the
Marshall decision, the Liberal government bought back boats and
crab fishing licences for aboriginal reserves, without
consulting aboriginals and non-aboriginals.
The result of this ill-advised decision was the layoff, without
compensation, of 20 crab fishers, frustration among aboriginals,
and job losses among fish plant employees.
Right now, these 20 crab fishers are without jobs and income,
and the aboriginals on these reserves have decided not to use
these boats and fishing licences. The consequences of these
decisions are disastrous.
Today, we have the best example yet of a government that has no
conscience and is irresponsible.
* * *
STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Statistics Canada is now busy distributing its
questionnaires and guides to the public for the May 15 census.
Question 17, which deals with ethnic or cultural origin, will
not yield any worthwhile responses. The guide indicates that
this question refers to the ethnic or cultural group to which
the person's ancestors belong.
It adds that most people can trace their origins to their
ancestors who first came to this continent, and that ancestry
should not be confused with citizenship or nationality.
Yet Question 17 requires people to indicate the ethnic or
cultural group of their ancestors, and the first example of a
possible response is—guess what, Mr. Speaker—“Canadian”.
So the ancestor who came to this continent could come from
Canada? This completely skews the results this question aims
at, or is it perhaps a new propaganda exercise?
* * *
[English]
AMATEUR HOCKEY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to inform the House today that the Elmira Sugar
Kings Hockey Club of Elmira, Ontario, in my riding of
Waterloo—Wellington, has won the Sutherland Cup, which is
emblematic of junior B hockey supremacy in Ontario.
In 1997 the Sugar Kings brought home their first championship to
Elmira and now this season the Sugar Kings have captured their
second junior B championship crown by defeating the Thorold Black
Hawks four games to two.
For the fans of amateur hockey in Waterloo—Wellington, the
Elmira Sugar Kings have provided an excellent season to remember.
I wish to express congratulations to general manager Graham
Snyder, coach Dave Officer, team captain Darran Fischer and all
the Sugar Kings players, coaching staff and trainers for a job
well done. They bring honour to themselves, to their families
and to their community.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, over
the past number of months Atlantic Canada's provincial
governments have pressed the federal government for a reduction
or an outright elimination of federal clawbacks under the
equalization program.
During the St. John's West byelection, the finance minister
speculated out loud about reducing the equalization clawback, but
he retreated into bafflegab as soon at the plane hit the runway
in Ottawa.
During the last election Liberal candidates in Newfoundland were
all in favour of doing something about the clawback, but now that
the Liberals, including the industry minister, are back in
government, their ardour for the cause has cooled considerably.
We support a reduction in the equalization clawback. We call
upon the government to stop playing politics with this issue and
actually make some changes that would allow Atlantic Canadians to
become equal partners in this federation.
* * *
[Translation]
HUNTINGDON'S DISEASE
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House and all the people of Canada that
the month of May has been proclaimed Huntingdon's Disease
Awareness Month by the Huntingdon Society of Canada.
Huntingdon's Disease is an inherited brain disorder with
devastating effects on the body and the mind.
One Canadian in 10,000 has this disease, which leads to
disability and eventually death. There is still no cure for
Huntingdon's Disease, nor is there any treatment to prevent it
or slow down the progression.
The Huntingdon Society of Canada is a national network of
volunteers and professionals working together against the
disease. It is busy seeking new treatments and working toward
one day finding a cure for Huntingdon's Disease.
Let us all wish the Huntingdon Society of Canada and all of its
many volunteers throughout the country an excellent month of
increased public awareness.
* * *
1415
[English]
ROCKY MOUNTAIN COLLEGE CHOIR
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
occasionally the competitiveness of this place is interspersed
with moments of pure serenity.
That was the case this morning when young people from Calgary's
Rocky Mountain College choir gave a short concert in front of our
parliament buildings. It was sheer delight to hear their songs
of joy, worship and praise.
I thank their leader, Henric Ideström, all the singers and
instrumentalists, and Jeremy Siemens who phoned to inform me of
the event.
It is young people like these with their sincerity, enthusiasm
and faith that give us optimism for the future of our country. I
wish that all members of the House could have heard them this
morning. It was truly an inspiring occasion.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Governor of the Bank of
Canada said something very interesting. He said that Canada
might adopt the U.S. dollar as its currency within as early as 10
years.
I know the finance minister will say that there is no immediate
fear of that happening, but it seems strange that the governor of
the bank, a former close employee of the finance minister, is
publicly musing about the possible death of the Canadian dollar
in an early as 10 years.
Does the finance minister agree with this, or is the governor
simply floating some trial balloons on behalf of the finance
minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, chasing headlines really does not help. It is not
incumbent upon the Leader of the Opposition to sort of make up
stories.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada stated unequivocally that he
supports the Canadian dollar. The studies of the Bank of Canada
over the last five years have demonstrated unequivocally the
importance of Canada maintaining the Canadian dollar. That is
the government's position and that is our position unequivocally.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is not the position of the
governor.
We have here the comments of a former senior public servant from
the Department of Finance, who said something interesting. He
said that the way this government is dealing with the issues of
taxation, spending and the debt weakens our dollar. The Governor
of the Bank of Canada anticipates the demise of the Canadian
dollar. These comments are from our own experts.
Does the Minister of Finance agree with these remarks, yes or
no? If not, what will he do? We have a problem here.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
do indeed have a problem, and that is because the leader of the
official opposition understands neither English nor French.
The fact is that the Governor of the Bank of Canada supports the
Canadian dollar and so does the federal government.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he is obviously shaken by the
question, but I need to ask this question then. As North
American—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Whether shaking or not, the
Leader of the Opposition has the floor and he is entitled to put
his question.
Mr. Stockwell Day: If he can put aside the personal
slights, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask him a question. North
American currencies are becoming increasingly integrated. We know
that. As our currencies become integrated economists are quite
rightly saying that the assets of Canadians are being valued
based on the U.S. dollar, a dollar without borders.
As our Canadian dollar goes down as it has under the policies of
the Liberals over the last several years, the assets of
Canadians, their homes, their savings and their RRSPs, go down.
What will the Minister of Finance do to turn this around?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have brought in the largest debt reduction in
Canadian history. We have brought in the largest tax cuts in
Canadian history. Canadian disposal incomes are at an all time
high. Inflation is under control. Our interest rates are down.
That is what the government has done and that is what it will
continue to do.
* * *
1420
HEALTH
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Toronto the Prime
Minister demonstrated that the government's priorities are wildly
out of line with those of Canadians. In giving $560 million to
the arts, Canadians are left wondering how many MRI machines
those tax dollars could have purchased.
Could the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why their tax
dollars are being spent on culture as defined by the government
instead of being invested in health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the opposition fails to understand that for the very reasons the
Minister of Finance just gave, the government is able both to
provide record levels of transfers to the provinces for health
and to invest in the arts.
If it is MRIs the member is concerned about, she should know
that $1 billion is now in the hands of provincial ministers to
buy MRIs for Canadians wherever they are needed.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the opposition understands perfectly.
Canadians want investment in health care.
Only this week we learned that one of the few parts of health
care that the federal government actually manages, prescription
drug testing and warnings, is so poorly managed that our
physicians are now relying on Americans for information about
drug safety.
Will the Prime Minister rethink the $560 million and invest
those dollars in health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in making that announcement yesterday the Prime Minister was
following through on a commitment made in the election platform.
It was part of the mandate we got from the Canadian people. By
the way, in the platform of the Alliance there was not a single
word about culture, and that may explain the results of the
election.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
Buenos Aires, on April 8, the Minister for International Trade
boasted about convincing his colleagues of the Americas of the
need to reveal the texts of the FTAA negotiations, adding that
only their translation would delay them.
The next day, on Maisonneuve à l'écoute, the minister said even
that the texts could be made public before the Quebec City
summit. It now appears that the self-proclaimed champion of
transparency has hidden part of the truth from us.
Does the minister acknowledge that he unreasonably misled the
public, that he misled them by intimating that the texts would
be released before the summit, when he had decided they would
not?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think that just about everyone understood what
happened, except the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Canadian diplomacy won an extraordinary victory in Buenos Aires.
Moreover, I am not the self-proclaimed grand champion of that,
because Louise Baudoin claimed credit herself in Quebec City for
having triumphed so exceptionally.
So there was a magnificent collaboration from the Americas.
They supported the Canadian recommendation, and I am really
delighted.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister said that it was just the translation that was holding
up its release before the summit in Quebec City.
Yesterday, before a group of business people, he said there was
another condition which he was involved in and it was that
this would not occur prior to the Quebec City summit. He did
not say that. It was misleading the public, when there were two
conditions, not just one.
An hon. member: And on Maisonneuve à l'écoute.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Then, on Maisonneuve à l'écoute, he said
“Yes, it is even possible before the Quebec City summit”. He
knew full well that there was another condition.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: What a liar.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Why did he not say so, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot can very well
call me a liar, and it was miked—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, you are a liar.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: —the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot
continues to repeat this adjective, and I ask him to withdraw
it.
The Speaker: Following oral question period we will discuss
this matter.
1425
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Tuesday,
according to the Canadian Press, the Minister for International
Trade told a meeting of business people that the only two
conditions set by the ministers in Buenos Aires were that
translations be provided and that the texts be made available
after the Quebec summit. Yesterday, in committee, he was
singing quite a different tune.
How could he proudly proclaim, as he did, his great victory in
convincing the other ministers to make the texts available, when
he knew that there was never any question of doing so before the
summit?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Mercier was in the parliamentary
committee yesterday when we discussed this matter.
One country requested that the texts be in Portuguese before
they were made public. I asked that they be in French before
they were released. Another country said “Listen, this is
something quite exceptional which should not be rushed. Perhaps
we should do this after the Quebec summit”.
The chair decided to go with this point of view from a single
country which was not a consensus of all countries. But I am
pleased that the Bloc Quebecois is waking up and noticing that
we have made some substantial progress with respect to
transparency, thanks to this government.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
does not deny that there were two conditions. And he went even
further when he took Quebec's minister of international
relations to task for agreeing to accept the texts in their
Spanish or English versions. The minister posed as a defender of
the French language, saying that the texts would be made public
only after they had been translated into French.
Will the minister finally admit that all his boasting had no
other purpose than to conceal the existence of a second
condition?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is totally amazing. Here we have the Bloc
Quebecois criticizing a federal minister from Quebec for
defending and promoting the French language.
Members should know that this government will be promoting the
French language in the Americas and throughout the world. The
voice of Canada is heard in French as well. It is heard in
French in the Francophonie. It is heard in French in the World
Trade Organization, and it will continue to be heard in French.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Sydney tar ponds remain one of the worst environmental disasters
in North America contaminated by chemicals, causing cancers,
miscarriages and birth defects. Finally Health Canada recognizes
that people should not be sentenced to live in these horrendous
conditions or to suffer premature death.
Will the health minister today report on plans for relocating
the affected families? Specifically, when, where and how will
the affected people be moved?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
based upon soil tests that were made available last week, Health
Canada has proposed discussions with provincial and municipal
leaders so that we can put a plan in place for temporary
relocation of the families in the area under discussion.
It is proposed that there be other soil tests and further
studies, but we believe that working through the joint advisory
group, which is in place, we can work together to relocate those
families in the short term.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, these
people have been living in limbo. Their lives have already been
shortened by 10 years, on average. I hope the minister
understands that a temporary solution is no solution. It will
simply prolong the agony and drag out the suffering.
Will the minister give the assurance that these families will be
relocated permanently so they can get on with their lives?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Health Canada has been working with the hon. members for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton and Sydney—Victoria to develop plans that will
deal with these health issues, but we have to work in partnership
with the provincial authorities and the people from the city.
That is what we propose. We are very much aware that this is an
issue involving the health of those residents. We will move as
quickly as we can in the circumstances.
* * *
1430
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in relation to Lancaster Aviation, by inserting clause
14, the special sales clause, the government provided the escape
clause to allow the sale of DND helicopters and Challenger jets
without going back to public tender.
Why was the disposal of DND helicopters and Challenger jets not
specifically set out in the original request for proposals?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for days now the
hon. member keeps repeating that this contract was sole source
and not competed for.
This contract was competed for in 1997 and was competed for
again in the year 2000. Everything was done according to rule.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, maybe the minister should speak to his Florida friends.
The letter from DND to public works states:
DND fully expects to monitor the activities of the contractor.
DND is very conscious that its aircraft assets are disposed of
with due diligence, and it will do whatever necessary to ensure
this.
Why was Canadian military equipment moved out of Canada to a
foreign country and allowed to be stored at a facility owned by
an individual who has been indicted on fraud and money laundering
charges?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, the contract
was competed for. Everything was done according to rule. The
sale of the surplus aircraft was conducted to the letter of the
law and with the interest of Canadian taxpayers in mind.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the health minister presented
the Standing Committee on Health with a draft bill on assisted
human reproduction. The bill is incomplete and long overdue, but
at least it is a start and the official opposition welcomes a
chance to improve it.
Hon. members will know that our constitution assigns primary
responsibility for health care to the provinces. Will the health
minister agree to convene a federal-provincial conference on the
support and regulation of reproductive technologies before the
end of the year?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
may I say how much I look forward to working with the hon. member
and members on all sides of the House on this issue, which is not
a partisan issue and which raises questions that have a moral and
an ethical as well as a legal and a scientific dimension. I
enjoyed my appearance this morning before the committee and I
look forward to continuing that work.
On the subject of who does what, I believe there is a role for
leadership by the federal government in their consistent
approaches throughout the country. We are making provision for
equivalency agreements so provinces, if they want, can take an
active role in equivalent regulations. I would be happy to take
up with my provincial colleagues, as I already started to do,
their reactions to these proposals.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this morning the minister told the
health committee “that a higher notion than science alone should
guide science”. I agree with that.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt added that because of the moral
and ethical dimensions of assisted human reproduction, he as a
government member would welcome a free vote on relevant and
related legislation.
Will the minister assure us that when the legislation comes to
the House there will be a free vote?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that what
we have before us is a draft bill. We do not have a bill
introduced or a bill at second reading, let alone a vote.
May I also suggest that the member and his colleagues are in a
difficult position to talk about free votes and otherwise.
* * *
[Translation]
SINGLE CURRENCY
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
response to questions that I asked him during the hearings of
the Standing Committee on Finance, the Governor of the Bank of
Canada did not rule out the possibility of having a single
currency for the three Americas, within the next 10 years.
Does the Minister of Finance agree with the Governor of the Bank
of Canada and, if so, how will Canada finally get involved in
that important debate?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
position of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Dodge—which is
the same as that of his predecessor, Mr. Thiessen—is that he
supports the Canadian dollar. He clearly explained why it is
very important for us to keep our currency.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
there, and it was in response to my question that the Governor
of the Bank of Canada said that he could see having a single
currency for the three Americas, this within 10 years.
So, my question for the Minister of Finance is: Will he open up
his mind a bit? Will he open up his mind to this new idea, which
is really not new, because trade integration implies monetary
integration?
Instead of making stupid comments like he did about Dorval, he
should deal with the real issues.
1435
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member should check the committee proceedings. This is not
what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said. He did not
advocate having a single currency within 10 years. He supported
the Canadian dollar, and so does the federal government.
* * *
[English]
PHARMACEUTICALS
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, brand name drug companies are routinely abusing the
loopholes in the current patent legislation that allow an
automatic two year extension of their market monopolies.
Everybody agrees that drug companies should have patent
protection, but when patents expire generic drugs should be
allowed on to the marketplace without costly court battles or
needless bureaucratic delays. When will the industry minister
close the loopholes that allow generic drugs to reach the market
after patents have expired?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question that the purpose of drug patent
protection is there to protect intellectual property and should
not be abused to expand protection beyond the period which is
already prescribed.
I have said when appearing before a committee in the other place
that we are quite prepared at an appropriate time to look at the
regulations, the way in which they are working, to ensure that
there is no abuse.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is really interesting. Canadians spent $15 billion
on prescription drugs last year, the largest driver of our health
care costs. Generic versions of drugs are not only safe
alternatives but allow competition to set the price.
Brand name drugs are taking $186,000 per day out of the pockets
of Canadians who can least afford it, the sick, seniors on fixed
incomes. Will the industry minister fix this problem today? All
it would take is a change in the regulation.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, I am very pleased the member opposite has noted
that the legislation now before the House is legislation designed
to bring us in compliance with the WTO ruling. We need to have
that passed by the end of this session.
Second, he has noted that if there are issues to be addressed
they can be addressed by regulation. I repeat, as I said a
moment ago, in testifying to this bill I indicated this was a
matter we were prepared to have a good look at.
* * *
[Translation]
ENERGY
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development
publicly expressed his concerns about the energy appetite of the
Americans. To quote him “This worries us. We have many
misgivings about northern drilling”.
Why has the Prime Minister concealed his concerns about the
Americans' insatiable appetites? Why has he led us to believe
that there was no problem and that his government was prepared
to provide a positive response to their demand?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has consistently said that the
expansion of energy markets in North America offers tremendous
opportunity for Canadians in terms of business, jobs, growth, new
investment and so forth.
At the same time he has always said that our principles of
sustainable development will apply and that we put a high
priority upon energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the
development of renewable and alternative sources of energy. Those
are values that are fundamentally important to Canadians and we
will pursue them.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, referring to
Monday's announcement of the new American energy plan coupled
with Tuesday's announcement of their ABM defence plan, the
secretary of state commented “Two things the same week is kind
of threatening to us”.
Does the Prime Minister confirm the secretary of state's
description of the U.S. government's announcements as
threatening for the Canadian government and has he informed the
president of the U.S. of our discomfort with his announcements?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think this week held any surprises.
According to the vice-president, the Americans had already
indicated during the election campaign that they had a vision
for energy. They explained this in their speech. We discussed
the matter with the United States and Mexico in Quebec City.
Also, I do not believe there was much new in President Bush's
speech. There was nothing new since the campaign.
We are therefore going to continue to consult with the
Americans.
* * *
1440
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago the Prime Minister was
just a rookie, Sputnik was still circling the globe, and Canada
ordered its Sea King helicopters.
Today many would argue that the time for all three has come: the
Sputnik has fallen, the Prime Minister is now a senior citizen
and the Sea Kings survive as aeronautical antiques.
When could our military expect delivery of the 40 year old Sea
King helicopter replacements?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have had a letter
of interest. We have had opinions and advice from the industry.
Our officials are looking at those comments and very soon will
be able to make public them and ask for a formal request for
proposal. Therefore, when my colleague the Minister of National
Defence and I announce that we will proceed with the acquisition
of the new helicopter we will be on the right course.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the conference of defence
associations says the most critical need of the military is the
replacement of the Sea King helicopters.
Every time our soldiers fly, their families must cross their
fingers in hope of a safe return. When will the minister end
this political procurement nightmare and get the goods our
military needs?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the only
nightmare is in the Alliance Party.
We have a process. We went to the industry with a letter of
interest. The industry gave us advice and we are looking at that
advice. We will make our final position known. We will make a
formal request for proposal so that we can have a very open and
very transparent competition. We hope to achieve all that in the
deadline we have imposed ourselves.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the
summit of the Americas, held recently in Quebec City, a number
of people and businesses both inside and outside the security
perimeter suffered damage and problems.
The Government of Canada has agreed to compensate the businesses
within the security perimeter. Does it intend to help all those
who suffered damages?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first off, allow me to thank my
colleague for her excellent question.
I would also point out to this House that the summit of the
Americas was, for all of Canada, a real success. Of course,
during the summit, people and businesses experienced some
difficulties.
We know that some claims have been submitted to the City of
Quebec. A meeting has already been held with representatives of
the city.
We are announcing today that the government is setting up a task
force to analyze the situation, consult and see what should be
done by the government to help the public.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. At the
finance committee on Tuesday the Governor of the Bank of Canada
was musing about dollarization within 10 or 20 years.
The Minister of Finance has now said he is against the idea,
despite the fact that David Dodge is his central banker, was his
former deputy minister and has come up with this loonie idea,
this loonie proposal of dollarization with the United States.
This is not government policy. I would like to know whether or
not the Minister of Finance has instructed David Dodge to stop
musing about dollarization since it is not government policy.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member was at the meeting. I have read the
transcript. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said that the
arguments in favour of maintaining the Canadian dollar were
overwhelming. That is what he said.
The newspaper report this morning also indicates that. That is
the position of the governor and that is the position of the
Government of Canada.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, our dollar is a symbol of our sovereignty and our
country. It is very important to Canadian people and very
important to our existence as a nation. The former Governor of
the Bank of Canada, Gordon Thiessen, recognized that when he said
categorically that the idea of a common currency should be nipped
in the bud.
The current governor is not quite as categorical when he talks
about the dollar. If the minister really believes in the future
of the Canadian dollar, will he take David Dodge out to the
woodshed and nip this in the bud now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no bud to nip.
* * *
1445
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
original proposal to dispose of DND spare parts was a closed
process. Only certain companies were invited to submit a
proposal.
In fact DND's letters of thanks to those that lost out in the
competition states “Thank you for your recent proposal to handle
the disposal of aircraft spares”.
Would the minister explain why the original contract was amended
in June—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this
contract was competed for. It is normal procedure after a
competition for departmental officials to send a letter to those
that participated to say thanks but that this is the result of
the competition.
The hon. member, by stating that, confirms this was a
competitive process.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
original contract to sell spares was amended to sell 40
helicopters and 10 Challenger jets.
When was the minister aware that Lancaster was closing its
facility in Canada and moving some $77 million worth of DND parts
to the United States? What steps did the government take to
ensure the security of our assets?
What will happen to these parts in the case of a bankruptcy of
Lancaster and in light of the illegal dealings of the Florida
partner?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am informed that
Lancaster is using the facilities in Florida as warehousing.
Therefore it still keeps control of all the assets it is supposed
to sell.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on Tuesday the Minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board stated that elected members of the board represented
all western Canadian farmers. However it is clear that the
Canadian Wheat Board does not represent organic farmers.
Organic growers want the right and responsibility of marketing
outside the wheat board system. The minister is the only one who
can give these farmers the freedom they are demanding.
When will the minister actually listen to farmers and give
organic growers the ability to process and market their own
grain?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I said in response to a question earlier this week
was that as a result of a piece of legislation adopted in the
House more than two years ago, the governance of the Canadian
Wheat Board is no longer in the hands of government appointed
commissioners.
That governance is in the hands of a modern, corporate style
board of directors, 15 members in total, of whom two-thirds, a
full 10, are directly elected by farmers. The act specifically
says that all the power and all the authority of the Canadian
Wheat Board are vested in the hands of those directors.
Farmers should decide, not politicians either on this side or
that side.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the minister does not understand the issue
because organic farmers were not part of the process that elected
the board.
Arnold Schmidt has diversified into organic wheat production.
Mr. Schmidt has gone further than just being an organic producer.
He has developed markets for flour milled from his own grain.
Unfortunately Mr. Schmidt cannot get an export permit for his
organic flour from the Canadian Wheat Board. Why does the
minister insist on stifling rural entrepreneurs and value added
products such as Mr. Schmidt's?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, respecting the democratic governance of the Canadian
Wheat Board which was put in place by parliament, I would invite
the hon. gentleman or his constituent or the person to whom he
just referred to have that issue put squarely before the
directors of the Canadian Wheat Board.
If the hon. gentleman would provide me with the details he just
referred to, I will make sure that the board of directors
considers the request.
* * *
[Translation]
LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, at an international meeting on genetically
modified foods, Canada backed the United States' decision to
question mandatory labelling of food.
How can the minister justify this about-face when the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency just recently issued a certificate to the
Unibroue brewery guaranteeing that its products were “GMO-free”?
1450
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has not changed its position. We
have a system in place at the present time that is compulsory if
the make up or the nutrition of the product has been changed or
if there is an allergenic possibility from food which has been
affected by genetic modification.
As I have said a number of times, and the hon. member already
knows, we are working a set of criteria with the Canadian General
Standards Board to put in place, if we so desire, a system of
voluntary labelling.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that his delay in adopting a
GMO labelling program could seriously limit the access of Quebec
and Canadian producers to foreign markets, which are apparently
much more cautious than Canada in this area?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not saying that
the government should take any action before the consultation
process with some 60 organizations, the Consumers' Association of
Canada and many others, led by the Canadian General Standards
Board, is completed and before we review the recommendations of
the royal society, as well as hear the results of the
consultation with the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Council.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Justice. We question the government's priority to
protect children and to do what it can to fix the Divorce Act.
It is said to be a theoretical priority with the government, but
it appears the minister has absolutely no energy to help families
in trouble. Consultation appears to be the chosen method of
resistance. When will we see a bill that embodies the shared
parenting model that all of parliament recommended to the
minister?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before on this
issue, family law is a shared jurisdiction. We are working with
the provinces. We have issued a consultation paper in
partnership with the provinces and the territories.
We will be consulting province by province with thousands of
Canadians on what they would like to see not only in terms of
reform of the Divorce Act but in family law statutes passed by
the provinces.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we see a pattern. The
Liberals cannot manage.
The Minister of Health had a road map eight years ago on
reproductive technology and he is just getting around to doing
something now. With the Minister of Justice we see the same
pattern of responding to the road map which sits on her desk.
Looking at her ability to manage, it appears she will legislate
for puppies and kittens before she will legislate for children.
Will the minister lead the provinces and show that they can
govern for the 21st century instead of the 19th century?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that we have
always had as our guiding principle the best interest of
children.
I have a document on custody, access and child support in Canada
which I would happily table here this afternoon. This is the
joint federal-provincial consultation document with which we are
going out to Canadians.
I am again appalled that party which speaks the rhetoric of
grassroots consultation does not want to hear from Canadians in
relation to—
The Speaker: I would not have thought it necessary to
remind hon. members against the use of props. Documents can be
quoted from but not bandied about.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The minister
will know that the governor of the state of Michigan is talking
of issuing licences for directional drilling of oil wells under
lakes Huron and Michigan.
Having regard to the risk of damage to the Great Lakes, will the
minister register our concerns and objections with the Bush
administration?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will certainly take the concerns of the hon. member
under advisement. I can assure him that if we do have concerns
about the effect of drilling on the quality of water in the Great
Lakes we will most certainly take them up with the relevant U.S.
administration.
* * *
1455
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the terrible civil war in the Sudan
rages on, a war that has killed more than two million people in
the last 18 years. While the human rights committee will study
the issue, other people will die of famine, war and starvation.
Will the minister call upon our IGAD partners to put pressure on
the government of Sudan to implement the ceasefire to which it
agreed?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have done so and will continue to do so. I agree
entirely with the hon. member that this horrendous situation is
one that cries out for international concern and response.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, three million people in the southern
Sudan face famine today. Up to one million people will die
within the next month.
My question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs is very simple.
What has he done on the part of Canada to reverse this impending
catastrophe?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member of all members knows that this is an
issue that Canada has been engaged in on a longstanding basis. We
have worked with our IGAD partners. We have been involved in the
region. We have established a special envoy. Members of the
House have visited the region and offered advice as well.
While the question may be a simple one, unfortunately like so
many of these horrible situations in the world the solutions are
anything but simple.
* * *
[Translation]
FOOD INSPECTION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
attitude of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is, to say
the least, confusing.
When it comes to tracing shipments of Starlink corn, the
minister tells us not to worry, that everything is under control
and that the inspection system is the best in the world. When
it comes to labelling products containing GMOs, the same system
no longer seems as effective.
How does the minister explain that the same food inspection
system can be foolproof when it comes to tracking misplaced
GMOs, but not up to the task when labelling is involved?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we can all be proud of the food safety
system in Canada.
As I reminded the House previously, before any product created
with the use of advanced technology such as biotechnology is
registered in Canada, it must be reviewed for its safety to
humans, the environment and livestock by the Ministry of Health
and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
When and if we are informed that a unsafe product has entered
Canada or the system, we seek it and we recall it.
* * *
[Translation]
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development.
Since we are celebrating this year the 30th anniversary of our
unique co-operation agreement with Germany in the area of science
and technology, could the secretary of state tell us whether the
government expects to renew this agreement and ensure that
Canada's scientists and high tech industries can continue to
have access to Germany's technology markets and sources?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank
the hon. member for his question.
Indeed, for the past 30 years, Germany and Canada have been
co-operating to promote technological exchanges. During these 30
years, over 500 high tech projects were exchanged between our
two countries and about 100 of them are still active in close to
14 activity sectors.
Last week, the German minister of science and myself have agreed
to continue this co-operation between our two countries and
celebrate its 30th anniversary in the fall.
The German minister will also be visiting Canada at the
beginning of June to see what is being done in our high tech
sector. The co-operation between our two countries is excellent.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Zimbabwe are living in fear of a president
who will stop at nothing to hold power. President Mugabe and his
government must be sanctioned for their actions.
Will the foreign affairs minister lead the charge against human
rights abuses and, I ask again, cut international assistance to
Zimbabwe?
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that
the hon. member wants us to help the poorest of the poor and the
sickest of the sick.
That is what CIDA is doing. We will not support terrorists or
governments that terrorize people. We are dealing with human
poverty.
* * *
1500
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, pretty soon in Halifax, military
men, women and veterans will be honouring the dead of the Battle
of the Atlantic. Many merchant mariners will be there as well.
My question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The
merchant mariners have waited a long time for their second
compensation payment. The minister has reviewed this file over
and over again. Could he please tell the House, the remaining
merchant mariners and their families when they can expect to see
their final compensation payment?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I
have worked very hard on this file in the past and continue to do
so with my colleagues, including the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Finance. I hope to have a solution very soon. The
moment I do, I will be delighted to share it with all my
colleagues, and I will do so.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Lancaster Aviation was awarded a contract to sell
aerospace parts on June 13, 1997. It was amended on May 15, 1998
to include 40 CH-135 helicopters and 10 DND Challenger jets.
Could the minister of public works tell us why this significant
change in terms and conditions and who is looking out for the
estimated $50 million of Canadian assets currently in the control
of an indicted felon living in the United States?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, Lancaster
Aviation is using those warehouses for warehousing services and
Canadian assets are not in danger. This contract was put out for
competition again in June 2000. Three firms competed and
Lancaster Aviation was again the winner.
Everything in this matter has been done according to the rules
and the law.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of the hon. members
to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Dubem Onyia,
Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: During oral question period, the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot used certain words I would hope he would
withdraw immediately.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I do, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I have heard the hon. member's answer.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, may we have an outline of the
business for the rest of the day, for Friday and for next week?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
opposition counterpart for this excellent question.
This afternoon we will continue with Bill C-6, the water export
bill. If this business is finished earlier than the end of the
day, which I understand it might be, I would then propose to call
Bill C-15, the criminal code amendment. If that is the case, I
would ask for the minister and the official opposition to speak.
After that, I would adjourn the debate and we would not proceed
further.
I want to take this opportunity to indicate that it had been my
original intention to call this bill last Monday. However I was
informed that the text I had and the text that was provided to
other hon. members was not the same. I apologize for the
differences that appeared in the texts. It is my intention to at
least start Bill C-15 this afternoon. I will get back to the
next time we will consider Bill C-15 in a moment.
Tomorrow there has been an all party agreement to consider Bill
S-5, the legislation regarding the Blue Water Bridge, at all
stages.
1505
We would then deal with Bill S-2 respecting marine liability.
That would probably be the end of the consideration of
legislation for tomorrow. As a matter of fact I do not propose
calling anything else given the progress today.
There has also been similar all party agreement to consider Bill
S-4 regarding civil harmonization of civil law at all stages on
Monday. We would do second reading stage and by unanimous
consent the bill would go to committee of the whole and
subsequently third reading all in the same day. This would be
followed by Bill C-15, which we will start later this afternoon
pursuant to the remarks I just made.
After question period on Monday, regardless of the progress, I
would propose to call Bill S-17, the patent legislation. Tuesday
shall be an opposition day.
Next Wednesday and Thursday we will be looking at cleaning up
any leftover legislation that I have just described and also
adding: Bill C-17, the innovation foundation bill; Bill S-11,
the business corporation bill; Bill S-16, respecting money
laundering; and Bill C-14, the shipping act amendments to the
list of matters that may come up.
I will also be speaking to other House leaders about arranging
early consideration, and hopefully we can do that now, about Bill
C-7, the youth justice bill, given that the committee has now
concluded its consideration of this bill.
This is the program I offer to the House for the upcoming week.
I thank hon. members on all sides of the House for their usual
co-operation.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the government House leader corrected me by
saying that the Deputy Prime Minister had never specifically
asked me to table the lease between the Auberge Grand-Mère and
the Grand-Mère golf club, but rather that the Deputy Prime
Minister had asked that the evidence I had in my possession be
made public.
But what better place to table the lease than this House, which
supposedly epitomizes democracy in Canada?
Again, for the fifth time, I ask for the unanimous consent of
the House to table this document.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, an
act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
hon. member for Lethbridge.
Canada has the extraordinary responsibility of having 9% of the
freshwater in the world. This bill will go a long way in dealing
with the important issue of regulating freshwater within Canada
and excluding it from NAFTA, which the public wants to see
happen.
It is easy to get misty eyed over water and to think of it as
something akin to the Holy Grail, something beyond reproach and
discussion. I am very glad we are having this discussion on
whether or not we should export bulk water. This debate is in
its infancy in Canada. It is important for us to deal with the
facts.
The bill will prohibit the removal of water from the basins in
which it is located, specifically in those areas that are in the
boundary between the United States and Canada. It will require a
licence from the Minister of Foreign Affairs for any activity of
boundary or transboundary waters which would have the effect of
altering the natural level or ebb and flow of freshwater.
1510
As a party we are absolutely adamant that we ensure Canada has
control over our important water resources. We support exempting
water from NAFTA.
It is a renewable resource resting within science. Therefore,
whatever decisions we make on this particular subject must be
rooted not in emotion but in science and fact.
Interestingly, a Pandora's box has been opened. Right now six
sites in our country are selling bulk water. One of those
particular sites is called Waterbank. I encourage people to take
a look at it. It demonstrates that the cat is out of the bag and
that private landowners are selling water over the Internet.
We need to address this issue but it is not being addressed in
this particular bill. Why do we have to address it? Because
water flows through a hydrological cycle. That hydrological
cycle is interconnected between private and public lands. There
is no way to differentiate or separate that because water flows
in that cycle regardless of what we do. It is also affected by
what we do, such as the building of dams. At the end of the day,
that hydrological cycle will let us know what will or will not be
allowed in terms of bulk export of water.
We are going to support this bill. It is a very important first
step, not only for public debate but also as to what we should do
in the future. I certainly hope the minister responsible will
find the best scientists in and outside our country and use the
best scientific research when determining the pros and cons with
respect to bulk water sales. On one hand, it can be an enormous
renewable resource for Canadians who desperately require it. On
the other hand, it can be a source of jobs and job creation,
particularly in areas such as Newfoundland and my province of
British Columbia.
In British Columbia, water actually evaporates from our oceans,
falls onto the land as freshwater, runs through the cycle,
through the rivers and then goes back into the ocean. It is
possible that there is a resource there. However, if we extract
anything, it must be done on the basis of good solid science.
There are other aspects with respect to water that are not
touched on in this bill but should be. One is the issue of water
quality. We saw the Walkerton tragedy. We know from our
communities that many of them are suffering the ravages of water
which has been abused. Pesticides and fertilizers in particular
are acidifying our groundwater. Water tables are eroding. As a
result of that communities are finding it very difficult to find
the freshwater they require. I know that some communities in and
around my area of Victoria have had some very difficult times
with respect to access to water. We have been on water
emergencies and water has been rationed as a result of that.
The extent of the pollution has being largely ignored. I know I
mentioned examples in this House before of how badly our water
tables are and how our water has been eroded with respect to
poisons.
For example, if we were to test the flesh taken from a Beluga
whale found in the St. Lawrence Seaway we would find it polluted
with cancer causing and taratogenic agents. It would be
considered a toxic substance. Imagine, we have large mammals in
the Gulf of St. Lawrence that are considered toxic waste. The
only reason those mammals would be considered as such is we have
poisoned our water. Those chemicals, which flow through our
ecosystem, are being bioaccumulated in the mammals that live in
our water systems.
As we go from smaller to larger species, the bioaccumulation of
these carcinogenic and taratogenic substances are magnified.
Therefore, in the top line predators there are considerable
amounts of these toxic substances, to say the least. This should
act as a bellwether for us, the ultimate predator within our
ecosystems, because we eat some of these fish.
1515
One of the great gaps in the government's analysis of these
issues is environmental assessment. The government has been told
time and again that environmental assessments are required not at
the end of a project or after a project but at the beginning of a
project.
The public would find it shocking that environment assessments
on 40% of all development projects take place near the end or
after the project is complete. It is an utterly useless
exercise. If development is to be done with environmental
protection in mind, those assessments must take place at the
beginning. I encourage the relevant ministers to review this
practice which simply must end.
Wars in the future will be fought over water. Access to potable
water in other countries is often a serious problem. Here are a
few facts. Chronic water scarcity now impacts 10% of the world's
population. Eighty countries, imagine, 80 countries, with 40% of
the world's population already experience critical water
shortages.
I need only draw attention to the Middle East, to Jordan and
Israel, and to what could become a Palestinian state. These
areas have an absolutely critical water shortage. While people
there are fighting over other issues, what may ultimately
determine their actions and who can live in the area is not the
gun but the amount of potable water.
One-quarter of the world's population is expected to face severe
water shortages in the next 25 years. To show how bad it is,
much of the world's population lives on eight litres of water a
day. That may seem like a lot, but each person in Canada uses
325 litres of water per day. That is extraordinary. Canada
possesses 9% of the world's freshwater, the lion's share.
Ultimately other countries will look at our water supply with a
great deal of envy and some of them may at times need urgent
access to it. It is up to us to protect the resource, be good
stewards and implement solutions that will affect the resource in
a positive way.
More than five million people die each year from illnesses
related to unsafe drinking water. Thirty thousand children die
each day from water related diseases. Having worked in Africa I
know, as many people here know, that children are dying of
dysentery. It is a very serious problem in many developing
countries.
In closing, I encourage the Government of Canada to work with
other parties here today to put forth a bill that will protect
our resources. We must ultimately be stewards not only in what
we do with our water but in how we protect it to ensure the
potable water we have today will not be polluted.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very intently to the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
He said we had an obligation to enter into trade in the area of
freshwater. He talked about people who are unable to get the
water they need.
The people who are looking to buy our water are in fact not the
people who cannot afford it. The people who want to buy it are
our cousins south of the border. The hon. member also said we
had poisoned the water in the St. Lawrence River and that we had
whales that were proof of this.
1520
I am trying to reconcile those two points of view. Do we have
the right to sell something we have proven ourselves incompetent
to look after? At the same time can we talk about selling it to
other people who, due to their own incompetence, have ruined
their own water supplies?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question. The issue is how to manage our water resources
responsibly. I do not for a moment suggest that we sell any
water. I am saying that the cat is out of the bag. There are
Internet sites right now where private individuals with private
land have offered to sell bulk water from their land. That is
not being addressed in the bill and it should be addressed.
The hydrological cycle, as I mentioned in my speech, is an
interconnected one. Water does not know the difference between
public and private land. All water flows together. What a
person does on private land can have a dramatic impact on what
happens on public land. We must build that into the system.
On the issue of pollution, it behoves the hon. member to ask the
Minister of the Environment why we have been such appalling
stewardship of our water and why we have not implemented
environmental laws to prevent rampant pollution from taking
place.
Why are we not taking a critical look at the impact of
fertilizer on the pH levels of water? Fertilizers have a
dramatic impact and cause algoblooms that kill off vast swaths of
fish. We need agriculture. We need to develop the best
practices to ensure that our agricultural products are safe and
that we maximize productivity from our land. However we must
also respect our water resources. Our future depends on it.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill today. I come
from a riding in southern Alberta where one river, the Milk
River, flows south and ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, while
another river, the Oldman River, flows into the south
Saskatchewan river system and ends up in Hudson Bay. My riding
is unique in that way. In my riding water is an absolutely
precious commodity. If we did not properly manage and protect
the water in the area we would be in serious trouble.
We are in the throes now of a drought that has seen in some
places a 30% snowpack in the mountains, 70% below normal. Our
runoff this spring will be very low. One of our irrigation
districts has already told its producers they will be rationed.
Those producers will receive half the water through the
irrigation system that they would receive in a normal year.
In the irrigated area of southern Alberta 4% of the land
produces 20% of the crops. This shows that if water is added to
an area that gets as much sunshine as we do then the area can
produce almost anything. We grow all the pulse crops. We grow
beans, peas, sunflowers, sugar beets, all kinds of crops that
demand high heat units. We grow all these things, yet in that
part of the Palliser triangle we would not have anything without
proper water management.
The irrigation districts in our area take great pride in the
fact that they are good managers of our water. There is a
gentleman in southern Alberta who has been a friend of mine for a
long time. He often comes to speak to me about water issues such
as NAFTA, protecting our waters from trade, and interbasin
transfers. My riding is one area where it would be possible to
take water out of a river basin and put it into another and send
it in a different direction.
It is important that we are dealing with this issue. The
gentleman's name is Tracy Anderson. I must mention him when I
talk about water because to me he is Mr. Water. He has spent his
entire life dealing with water management. He knows full well
how precious a resource it is. Former Premier Lougheed of
Alberta said that by the year 2000 water would be more valuable
than oil.
He had the foresight to know that in time good, clean pure water
such as we have in Canada would become a commodity more precious
than oil.
1525
It is interesting that we are proposing amendments to the treaty
signed in 1909 between Canada and the U.S. The government is
doing so because it failed to exempt water from NAFTA, something
it promised Canadians it would do in 1993 but never did.
If water is ever traded as a commodity among Canadians then our
NAFTA partners will have a right to the commodity as outlined in
the agreement. We cannot say yes to each other without also
saying yes to the rest of North America. There are situations in
Canada where we could help each other. In drought situations
landowners could give up their share of water to a neighbour.
However if we start trading water as a commodity it opens up a
whole new area of concern.
The International Boundary Waters Treaty Act would do three
things. First, it would prohibit interbasin transfers, the
removal of waters from the basin in which they are located.
Second, it would require a licence from the Minister of Foreign
Affairs for any activity in boundary or transboundary waters that
would alter the natural level or flow of waters on the U.S. side.
The Americans would do the same. Third, it would provide clear
sanctions and penalties for violation.
We need such penalties. As the previous hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said, there are Internet sites in Canada
offering to sell Canadian water. We must be very careful how we
handle this.
We realize the provinces have jurisdiction over water. However
the federal government must work in conjunction with the
provinces to structure legislation so that there is shared
responsibility.
Canadians are becoming more concerned about the control of
freshwater. We notice this every time there is a proposal to
sell our freshwater to another country because many Canadians
come forward.
We have 9% of the world's renewable freshwater supply. That is
a huge amount for the size of our country. We need to realize
that it is absolutely the most precious resource we have. Without
good clean water nothing else can happen.
An outright ban on exports would run contrary to NAFTA because
water was not exempted. These amendments are a way around that.
Water should be exempted from NAFTA but it was not. We therefore
must deal with the issue in a different way.
Let us talk about our neighbour to the south. What will happen
if the U.S. has a crisis situation where it runs out of water? If
we get to that stage our neighbour will put forward a hard case
to come and get our water. We must promote conservation the best
we can. We have the water supply. Some of the things done on
the other side of the border should perhaps not be done because
water there is not as abundant as it is here.
Weather and climate permitting, these functions should take place
here. If there is a process where water is needed to a great
degree, it should also take place here. Water should be treated
as a raw material. I suppose any time it can be valued added to,
it should be. It should be turned into crops, into vegetables
and into food for the world.
1530
We see that in the riding. I was actually raised on five acres
of what was called an irrigation camp. My dad worked with the
irrigation district. I learned to appreciate at an early age the
value of water and what it meant to our neighbours and the
farming community in the area.
It is important that we protect our water for future generations
and that we ensure it stays under the sovereignty control of
Canada. The bill would go a long way in doing that, and we will
be supporting it.
I do not think that we can ever forget that water as a tradable
good should be exempt under NAFTA. That is something that should
be addressed by this government or maybe by a future government.
Canadians should be able to help each other in need of water
without putting it into the world market.
I will conclude by saying that we will support the bill. It is
an important aspect of our environment and of our laws. It does
not go far enough, but what it does do we will support.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-6.
This bill to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act
is only seven pages long and contains only 26 clauses. Yet it is
a
very important bill because the length of a bill is no
indication of its significance.
Why is the bill so crucial for Quebec? For various reasons.
First, it has to be recalled that in Quebec in the fall of 1997
a large symposium on water was held, bringing together several
stakeholders, from the private sector as well as the community,
institutional and municipal sectors, to develop a policy on water
management not only at the international level but also within
our borders.
At that symposium, the participants agreed to give the BAPE, the
Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, a clear
mandate. They came up with a fairly eloquent report which
reflected their desire to have their own water policy within a
reasonable timeframe. The report was published in May 2000 and
included many recommendations.
Recommendation No. 4 essentially stated that:
The Quebec government should make the Water Resources
Preservation Act, which bans bulk exports of groundwater and
surface water, permanent legislation.
The Commission is of the
opinion that bulk exports need to be forbidden by law and no
chances taken, with the uncertainties of international trade
agreements, such as NAFTA, WTO and the like.
I recall the BAPE recommendations because they establish the
framework in which Quebecers wish this resource essential for
Quebec be exploited.
1535
On one side, well before May 2000, there was a symposium on
water. On the other side, the BAPE report in May 2000,
established the framework within which we wanted the Quebec
government and the federal government to act.
Following the consensus reached by the BAPE, the government is
now introducing a bill—the act is already in force in Quebec, it
was passed on November 24, 1999—aimed at preserving water
resources.
I mention this because that bill said very clearly that the
transfer of Quebec ground and surface waters outside Quebec was
prohibited. That bill was passed unanimously by the national
asssembly in November 1999 and became law.
That new act said we did not want to see a natural resource such
as water being transferred outside Quebec. It also said clearly
that not only the Quebec government but also the national
assembly—its institution—wanted to prohibit the export of
water since the bill was passed unanimously.
If we look at the federal strategy, which has three elements, we
see the government clearly wants a Canada-wide accord to prohibit
bulkwater removal out of Canada's five major water basins.
We must remember that the provinces gave this agreement a rather
chilly reception at the time.
Why? Not because the provinces reacted on a whim but, quite the
contrary, because there already was in some provinces, namely
Alberta, British Columbia and even more in Quebec, a moratorium.
Why? Because we had passed unanimously, on November 24, 1999, an
act for the preservation of water, which is a natural resource.
This is the reason why this bill got a chilly reception.
What was Quebec asking for? It was asking for two things, even
before signing the agreement. First, we wished to wait for the
report of the International Joint Commission on Canada's
referral concerning water exports. Second, there is the water
management policy issue, which is a current issue, since it is
still being debated.
I am deeply convinced that the government of Quebec will
announce, in the months to come, a real water management policy.
We were asking that the joint commission be given the time
to render a decision on the referral and that Quebec be given
the time to develop a water management policy, table that policy
and adopt it.
It has to be recognized that the bill does not take into
account even one of Quebec's demands. Water management policy is
not a trivial issue but a fundamental one since it
inevitably interferes with Quebec's laws. With the bill, the
federal government will not allow Quebec partners—not only the
government, but also its partners—to establish this policy.
Another clear demand made by Quebec, and not only Quebec but
also by BAPE partners, regarding the export of water was that
the federal government take its responsibilities and have this
issue excluded from trade agreements.
1540
I recall the evidence and documents the group Au Secours gave to
the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. I also
recall the evidence, documents and briefs the Centre du droit de
l'environnement du Québec gave to that same agency. These people
had only one wish, which is that the Quebec government would show
leadership and call to task the federal government and the
minister in charge of the negotiations to ensure that water
export will not be included in international agreements.
In the aftermath of the summit of the Americas in Quebec city,
we would have liked our government and the Minister for
International Trade to show this kind of leadership.
The 35 states that took part in the negotiations met in Montreal
two weeks before the summit of the Americas. The 35 environment
ministers who met to discuss this issue did not indicate clearly
the principles that should be included in the free trade area of
the Americas agreement concerning this issue. The government
should have taken its responsibilities.
Another important point is the whole concept of watershed. The
bill does not give a definition. Regulations will take care of
that. In Quebec, our great fear is that the federal government
will once again use this new power to interfere in provincial
jurisdictions.
The environment ministers held a conference on Monday in
Winnipeg. The federal minister and the ministers of all provinces
and territories were present.
The Quebec minister of the environment took that opportunity to
express his concerns regarding the bill before us. It was not
one of the main topics, but the environment ministers discussed
it.
Again, the Quebec minister of the environment clearly stated
that in his opinion Bill C-6 interfered with Quebec's
jurisdiction over the St. Lawrence River and its tributaries and
duplicated the Water Resources Preservation Act, which was
passed unanimously by the Quebec national assembly on November
24, 1999.
The minister also indicated that the government of Quebec
clearly responded to the wishes expressed by Quebecers. It has
already banned bulk exports of groundwater and surface water
from Quebec.
On Monday, the Quebec minister of the environment, who was at
that meeting in Winnipeg, took that opportunity to reiterate the
fact that through this bill the federal government clearly
showed its will to interfere directly in areas under provincial
jurisdiction.
Another aspect relates to section 13 in Bill C-6, which deals
with water removal. It is rather clear that the provision
prohibiting water removal could be interpreted as applying to
waters other than boundary waters and to water basins within
Quebec's territory.
We believe that such a disposition would go beyond the
requirements of the 1909 treaty, to the point of encroaching
upon Quebec's jurisdiction over water resource management within
its territory.
I remind members that Minister Bégin wrote to the federal
Minister of the Environment on November 29, 1999.
1545
He indicated to his federal counterpart that he would never
tolerate federal interference in these areas of jurisdiction
through this bill.
The other aspect concerns the powers that the minister tries to
give to himself through this bill, powers that we on our side of
the House, at least we in the Bloc Quebecois, consider
substantial.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the federal government both
use Bill C-6 to blow their powers up like a big balloon. We will
not accept that.
Need I recall that the minister is assuming all the powers. In
the area of licensing, he assumes all the powers for the
selection of the eligible projects.
I will remind the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister
of the Environment that, whether we pass Bill C-6 soon or not,
the International Joint Commission already has these powers.
Even if we were not to adopt the bill, there is still a process
or mechanism under the 1909 treaty and agreement providing that a
country or a province cannot make a unilateral decision as far as
the analysis is concerned.
The International Joint Commission is playing an important role.
This bill will not change the mechanisms used by the
International Joint Commission.
Section 14 deals with general provisions whereas sections 11 to
13 “are binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province”,
and the Canadian Constitution is clear on this. Section 109 of
the Canadian constitution grants the provinces clear title.
Whether the government passes the bill in the House or expands
its powers through the bill, it will not be able to override the
constitution since section 109 grants the right of ownership to
the provinces.
Sections 92.5, 92.13 and 92A of the constitution clearly grant the
provinces broad powers in the areas of land use, land management
and the development of natural resources. Moreover, jurisprudence
has established that the term “lands”, as used in the bill and in
section 92.5 of the constitution, extends to waters and mines.
Section 92.5 of the constitution is clear: the term “lands” also
covers waters and mines.
How can the minister, the government, have put before us today a
bill which obviously encroaches on stated, recognized provincial
jurisdictions?
In a letter dated November 29, 1999, the then Quebec environment
minister, Paul Bégin, warned his federal counterpart, the
Minister of the Environment, that Quebec would not accept this
encroachment on its constitutional jurisdiction. In his January
18, 2000 reply, the minister was pretty clear when he said:
With regard to the prohibition clause, the use of the terms
“water basin” in the proposed amendments in no way broadens the
area of federal jurisdiction. The prohibition will apply to
boundary waters.
1550
That is what the Minister of the Environment of Canada said.
That is what he wrote in a letter, and I quote:
...since they are defined in the International Boundary Waters
Treaty, which prohibits bulk removal of boundary waters from the
water basins in which they are located... it will not apply to the
removal of other non-boundary waters inside the water basin over
which the provinces have full responsibility.
Must I recall that, in spite of the minister's letters, all the
documents from the federal Department of Foreign Affairs say
exactly the opposite. It is hard to make any sense out of
this.
Between what the minister says, what his department believes and
what for us is undeniable, which is that where there are
projects the International Joint Commission is always involved.
What we are asking is that the federal government recognize the
consultation process put in place in Quebec following the
symposium on water, through the Bureau d'audiences publiques en
environnement, which made public its report in May 2000, and to
respect the Quebec water preservation act.
This would ensure that the consensus reached in Quebec on the
exportation of water is respected and that in future accords
such as the FTAA, the government include the fundamental issue
of water not being treated as a commodity.
Finally, we wish that the federal government would start
respecting more generally Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
That is what we are asking today, that is what we will be asking
tomorrow and that is the reason we oppose Bill C-6.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are
vehemently and firmly opposed to Bill C-6.
Yet, we support the objective of preventing bulk removals or
diversions, which would not be advisable. However, we say the
bill will not achieve this objective. This is all the more
serious because the federal government is taking advantage of an
amendment to an international treaty implementation act to give
itself more powers than those provided for in the treaty.
I will try to develop these last elements. The first one
concerns water and its importance. The BAPE just reminded
us in a great way by proposing an admirable policy for Quebec.
The international joint commission, which was created under
the boundary waters treaty, has produced a report containing
recommendations, which both the environment minister and the
foreign affairs minister said they drew on to propose the bill.
I will read an excerpt from Minister Anderson's speech
concerning the bill—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: I meant to say the Minister of the
Environment.
The Deputy Speaker: That is fine. I appreciate the member's
co-operation.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I make honourable amends,
even though I am not honourable. I was a minister but at other
level of government. What the Minister of the Environment said
was:
The International Joint Commission concluded that the Great
Lakes require protection, given all of the present and future
stresses and uncertainties.
He forgot to say that the main stress and uncertainty are
related to the trade agreements. Who is negotiating the trade
agreements, if it is not the same government?
1555
He adds:
All the international joint commission's recommendations
dealing with the measures to be taken regarding removal,
consumptive use and conservation concern the provinces and
northern states of the U.S., which, since 1985, are signatories
to a non-binding charter that promotes co-ordination, under which
provinces and states are obliged to carry out
general consultations on issues stipulated in the charter,
especially the issues addressed here.
The International Joint Commission set up under the treaty
whose implementation act the government wants to amend makes
recommendations to the provinces and the states. Let me quote
some of these recommendations. First, on the issue of removals.
Without prejudice to the authority of the federal governments of
the United States and Canada, the governments of the Great Lakes
states and Ontario and Quebec should not permit any proposal for
removal of water from the Great Lakes Basin to proceed unless
the proponent can demonstrate that the removal would not
endanger the integrity of the ecosystem of the Great Lakes Basin
and—
This is followed by a series of conditions. It goes on:
States and provinces shall ensure that the quality of all water
returned meets the objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
Recommendation II reads as follows:
Recommendation II. Major New or Increased Consumptive Uses
To avoid endangering the integrity of the ecosystem of the Great
Lakes Basin, and without prejudice to the authority of the
federal governments of the United States and Canada, the
governments of the Great Lakes states and Ontario and Quebec
should not permit any proposal for major new or increased
consumptive use of water from the Great Lakes Basin to proceed
unless—
This is also followed by a series of conditions. Recommendation
III, under the heading “Conservation” reads “In order to avoid
endangering the integrity” and so on.
Recommendation IV states:
Then follows a series of recommendations involving the federal
governments:
The Canadian and American federal governments are involved
in research. The same thing applies to underground water. The
federal government is involved.
Let me go back to existing institutions and mechanisms. What
does the International Joint Commission, established by the
boundary waters treaty between the United States and Canada,
have to say? This is what it says:
To help ensure the effective, cooperative, and timely
implementation programs for the sustainable use of the water
resources of the Great Lakes Basin, governments should use and
build on existing institutions to implement the recommendations
of this report. In this regard, the governments of the states
and the provinces should take action, with respect to the
implementation of the Great Lakes Charter—
Let me go back to the statement by the Minister of the
Environment. I will not make the mistake of naming him. His
statement shed a different light on the recommendations. Nowhere
does the International Joint Commission recommend that the
federal governments change the dynamics of existing relations
and enact legislation.
1600
We cannot help but ask ourselves why the federal government is
so keen on trying to pass legislation that is, and I repeat it
because it is important, an amendment, not to the treaty—because
this would be done between the two countries—that was signed by
Great Britain and the United States in 1909 and implemented by
an act but to the act.
Is it normal that an amendment to a treaty
implementation act should change the conditions under which the
treaty is implemented, but above all that it should increase the
federal government's powers by trickery? One can understand
that the government would go this way if what it wanted was to
increase its powers.
Constitutionally, the powers—as read, for example, by the NAFTA
commission for environmental co-operation with regard to the
Canadian legal framework on the environment—are as follows:
In Canada, the implementation of an international treaty is
usually effected by the initial ratification of that treaty by
the federal government and the adoption, where necessary, of
appropriate statutes as part of the internal law of the country—
In Canada, the Canadian Constitution is silent as to the power
of any level of government to make treaties.
Section 132 of the
Canadian Constitution refers only to the treaty-implementing
power of Canada as a part of the British Empire.
Canada has since become an independent member of the
international community and, as such, has the authority to enter
into international agreements.
However, the federal government does not appear to have the
authority to bind any of the provinces. Unless the courts were
to hold otherwise in the future, nothing can force a province to
perform, through legislation, the obligations set by a treaty
signed by the federal government.
Therefore, the obligations given to the provinces by the treaty
were implemented through the Great Lakes charter. I stress the
fact that the federal government is using an excuse to extend
its powers.
This approach is all the more intriguing, troublesome, because
the Minister of Environment, in recalling that the international
joint commission said, following its study, that the Great Lakes
basin must be protected because there is only 1% of this
enormous expanse of freshwater that is renewable—the rest is not
renewable, being what was left behind after the glaciers
melted—says that it is the greatest freshwater basin in the
world.
He also said:
If the international joint commission considers caution is the
watchword for the management of water in the Great Lakes basin,
is it not equally so for the smaller bodies of water or
ecosystems across Canada, wherever they are located?
He will deal with Newfoundland. He adds:
I would also like to take this opportunity to address the trade
implications of Canada's policy approach. A number of persons
and groups have called on the federal government to use an
export ban.
He says the main problem is this:
He says Canadian governments when he should have said the
provinces. He goes on:
Canada's views on this matter has been supported by a wide range
of expert opinion. The international joint commission came to
similar conclusions in its final report.
1605
He also forgot to mention that the international joint
commission believes it is likely that freshwater before removal
will not be part of trade deals but that, given the rulings made
by the WTO—and to put it more simply, given the fact that its
regulations ensure that the Tower of Pisa keeps leaning the same
way—there is no absolute guarantee that freshwater before
removal will be excluded from future trade agreements.
We have before the House a bill that is supposed to protect our
water resources from the threat of trade deals. Who
negotiates trade agreements for Canada if it is not the same
government that is refusing to let the provinces take part in the
negotiating process? Is that government not a bit schizophrenic?
It is using the potential consequences of any future trade deal
to warn us that we need an act prohibiting bulk water exports,
removals and diversions.
With the bill, the government is grabbing some new powers.
Pursuant to the bill, the government will now have the authority
to make regulations defining what a water basin is. It will be
able to determine through regulation what river or affluent is
part of the basin when it is clear, as my colleague pointed out
earlier, that the treaty does not deal with this issue. With the
bill, the government is going further than the treaty and is
ensuring that it can act through regulations.
In reality, this seemingly technical bill boils down to the fact
that the Canadian government, instead of relying on the process
that has been in place since 1985 and that can respond quickly
to the International Joint Commission's recommendations, wants
to have its own infrastructure.
From now on, a federal licence will be required to build a dam
on a river which is not necessarily part of the water basin but
which would be defined as being part of it under the
regulations. For example, if Quebec decides to build a dam, the
federal government will have the authority to prevent it from
doing so.
Members know that Quebec is the largest consumer of
hydroelectricity. In environmental terms, this means that
Canada's output of pollutants is lesser than if Canada did not
include Quebec.
Quebec has definitely chosen hydroelectricity over nuclear
energy. Of course, it had mighty rivers to harness and it did
it even though it had to correct a few things here and there.
In closing, I would like to read the BAPE
conclusion, which is not about Bill C-6. This conclusion explains
why we will strongly oppose Bill C-6 and why we will speak out
against the illegitimacy of the bill.
1610
It concludes:
This is the BAPE speaking.
—water is an element essential to life, an element for which
there is no substitute. The policy's first priority should be
the health of aquatic systems, a prerequisite for human health.
Because it is associated with the rights to life, access to
water in Quebec must be considered a right. Access to waterways
and bodies of water in a manner yet to be undefined. Access to
quality drinking water, and free and universal access for the
needs inherent in human life. How rates are set must not
interfere with this essential right to water of anyone living in
Quebec.
The constant and driving search for quality is the common
vision, the overriding focus and the ethical foundation for the
management of water and aquatic environments.
This is what the joint commission is saying. The BAPE goes on:
This is why the principle of precaution must guide decisions
which ultimately affect biodiversity and life on earth. The
field of action is broad, and is founded on respect for common
values.
The management of river basins is a force of peace, security,
development and harmony in its natural sphere of influence.
With 3% of the planet's freshwater reserves, Quebec holds in its
hands a part of humanity's common heritage.
It must manage this heritage responsibly. We hope that our
report will make a useful contribution towards this goal.
As ecologist Pierre Dansereau said at the age of 89, “If we do
not have optimistic plans, there is no hope. Dreamers and
utopia are needed to pave the way for the future”.
For that, Quebec must be able to have a comprehensive water
policy. We will not sit quietly by while the federal government
attempts to erode our jurisdiction and impose a logic completely
at odds with Quebec's objectives.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the essential
ingredient that we should all be talking about is sovereignty
over water.
I understand the previous speaker's concerns in this regard
because sovereignty can relate to Quebec, the provinces and to
the federal government. There are a lot of concerns when we get
into federal and provincial areas, such as in this bill. We have
other examples.
In my province of British Columbia we have some major concerns
about a bill dealing with marine conservation being put forward
by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We are very concerned that
any initiatives we may want to take dealing with west coast oil
and gas, which is a provincial initiative albeit usually with a
provincial-federal syndicate, could easily be pre-empted by the
actions of the Minister of Canadian Heritage with a totally
different agenda.
I would like the member to elaborate a little more on the
subject. It is my view that federal short term initiatives or
thinking can be a real detriment to regional or provincial
initiatives and can circumvent what is for the greater good in
the long term. That is a real concern with some of the
legislation that has emanated from this place recently.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
thank my colleague for his question and for his understanding of
the underlying intent of the bill, which he too describes as
another short term initiative.
Since he has provided me with the opportunity, I will remind
hon. senators of the serious problems that arose when the
federal government decided it was the best one to manage the
fisheries.
1615
The main thrust of my speech centres on the fact that the bill
does not allow the institutions in place, which are essentially
composed of the American states in co-operation, and the Canadian
provinces in co-operation, to function as they have since 1985,
in keeping with the recommendations of the international joint
commission. The federal government wants to inaugurate a whole
new infrastructure instead.
My colleague will certainly understand that deciding whether or
not a permit for water diversion should be issued requires more
than three public servants and four computers. The bill has a
distinct air of improvization about it, as well as
an air of lack of confidence in the provincial
governments.
The reason I have stressed the joint commission recommendations
so much is that it strikes me as extraordinarily important that
the IJC, as a body created under the international treaty, be
able to recommend the use of existing institutions in order to
get important recommendations into prompt, concrete and
co-ordinated application. Neither of the ministers has given any
explanation in this connection.
They say that their bill is not a contradiction. Their position
is more defensive than confidence inspiring. I would even say
that it does not show respect for the competency, intelligence
and democratic sense of responsible populations.
This is no surprise but I must say that my astonishment is
constantly renewed by the federal government's imagination in
taking over others' areas of jurisdiction when it has trouble
looking after its own.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The division is deferred until Monday, May
7, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I
think you would find unanimous consent, pursuant to Standing
Order 45(7), that the recorded division on second reading of Bill
C-6 be further deferred until the end of government orders on
Tuesday, May 8.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1620
[Translation]
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal
Code and to amend other acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin second reading
debate on Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to
amend other acts.
[English]
As omnibus bills before it, Bill C-15 has a number of diverse
elements. Most recently we have seen examples of omnibus bills:
Bill C-51 in 1999, Bill C-17 in 1996 and Bill C-42 in 1994.
These examples demonstrate that the practice of introducing
criminal amendments through an omnibus bill is a longstanding
practice and one that has served the criminal justice system
well.
The amendments proposed in the criminal law amendment act, 2001
respond to serious crimes against children and other vulnerable
members of society, provide additional safeguards for the law
enforcement community, strengthen our laws concerning cruelty to
animals, make administrative and procedural improvements to the
justice system, and make administrative amendments to the
Firearms Act.
First I will deal with the proposed amendments to better protect
our children. The provisions that deal with protecting children
respond to the government's commitment in the Speech from the
Throne to safeguard children from criminals on the Internet and
to ensure that children are protected from those who would prey
upon their vulnerability. They also respond to a consensus of
ministers responsible for justice at the last FPT meeting to
create an offence of Internet luring.
The Internet is a new technology that can be used to stimulate
the communication of ideas and facilitate research, but, as with
any instrument, when placed in the wrong hands it can be used for
ill and to cause harm. Canadians will not tolerate a situation
where individuals, from the safety and secrecy of their house,
use the anonymity of the Internet to lure children into
situations where they can be exploited sexually.
The new offence seeks to address what has been reported as a
growing phenomenon not only in our country but globally. It
criminalizes communicating through a computer system for the
purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence
against a child or the abduction of a child.
[Translation]
We also want to ensure that those who view, or transmit child
pornography to others, will not escape criminal liability by
using new technologies.
We will extend the scope of current child pornography offences
to make it clearer that actions that constitute an offence when
committed with traditional means remain an offence when
committed with electronic means.
[English]
Bill C-15 seeks to create four new offences: an offence of
transmitting child pornography to cover one to one distribution,
such as e-mail sent to one person only; an offence of making
child pornography available to cover those who post child
pornography on a publicly accessible website but take no other
steps to distribute it; an offence of exporting child pornography
to meet our international obligation; and an offence of accessing
child pornography to capture those who intentionally view child
pornography on the net but where the legal notion of possession
may be problematic. The offence is defined to ensure that
inadvertent viewing would not be caught under this offence.
I will now turn to three other proposed measures to better
protect vulnerable Canadians. The first measure I wish to
mention is the offence of criminal harassment, or stalking as it
is sometimes referred to. This is a serious offence that can
have a devastating effect upon the emotional and physical
well-being of the victim.
[Translation]
In Bill C-15, this government is taking strong measures to ensure
that the criminal justice system treats criminal harassment as
the serious offence that we know it to be.
1625
[English]
The government's response to this issue is twofold: first, to
strengthen the existing legislation; and, second, to strengthen
enforcement of the law through comprehensive guidelines for
criminal justice personnel on criminal harassment.
Bill C-15 responds to our first commitment by proposing to
increase the maximum penalty for criminal harassment when
prosecuted on indictment from five to ten years. This sends a
strong signal to would-be stalkers. Criminal harassment is a
serious offence and its sentence would now better reflect this
serious nature.
With respect to our second commitment relating to enhancing the
enforcement of the criminal harassment provisions, I am pleased
to note that together with our federal, provincial and
territorial counterparts a handbook for police and crown
prosecutors on criminal harassment was developed and released in
December 1999. The handbook provides a practical set of
guidelines for criminal justice personnel on all aspects of a
criminal harassment case, including victim safety.
I now wish to address the difficult issue of home invasions, one
that has been raised by a number of my colleagues on all sides of
the House. The term home invasion is generally used to describe
a robbery or break and enter of a private residence when the
perpetrator forces entry while the occupants are at home, and
this is key, and the perpetrator threatens to use or does use
violence against the occupants.
The proposed amendment to the criminal code would indicate that
where the offender's conduct was in the nature of a home invasion
the court must consider this to be an aggravating factor when
determining the sentence to be imposed. Such an amendment would
provide clear direction to the courts and would express
parliament's view that home invasion is a grave form of criminal
conduct which must be dealt with appropriately during the
sentencing process.
Another important measure proposed in Bill C-15 is the new
offence of disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer.
This new offence would apply to anyone who tries to take away an
officer's weapon when the officer is acting in the course of his
or her duties. It is proposed that this new offence carry a
maximum penalty of five years to reflect the seriousness of the
offence and to send a clear message that taking or attempting to
take a police officer's weapon would not be tolerated. The
safety of police officers is a priority for the government.
The criminal law amendment act, 2001, would revive amendments
introduced in the last parliament dealing with cruelty to
animals. The proposed reforms have two primary objectives: to
simplify and better organize the existing laws and to enhance the
penalties for animal cruelty.
In particular we are increasing the penalties for animal cruelty
offences with the highest penalty being five years in prison, up
from the current maximum of six months. We would eliminate the
current limit of two years maximum duration for an order
prohibiting the offender from possessing animals and would
include a new power for the court to order as part of a sentence
that the offender repay to a humane society the reasonable costs
associated with the care of the animal.
I would like to make clear this afternoon that these changes do
not in any way negatively affect the many legitimate activities
that involve animals, such as hunting, farming, or medical and
scientific research. These are regulated activities subject to
specific technical rules and regulations and codes of practice.
The criminal law is not being used to establish or modify
industry standards but rather to prohibit conduct that is grossly
unacceptable. Simply put, what is lawful today in the course of
legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives
royal assent.
The law already requires that we treat animals humanely and with
respect. These amendments would ensure that the law can
adequately deal with those who would wilfully abuse animals. I
believe that all members of the House can support this principle.
There is no subject on which I receive more mail from Canadians
on a weekly basis than on the question of modernizing our laws in
relation to cruelty to animals.
1630
I would like to speak now in relation to the proposed amendments
concerning firearms. The Canadian firearms program is an example
of the preventive approach our government takes to public safety.
Moreover, the program is already achieving higher levels of
public safety for all Canadians and the facts demonstrate it.
Since December 1, 1998, more than 3,000 licences have been
refused or revoked by public safety authorities. The number of
revocations is 26 times higher than the total of the five
previous years. Overall the licensing compliance rate in Canada
is now over 90%.
However, we have learned from the licensing experience. We have
also listened to the concerns of gun owners and other Canadians
about program efficiency and client service. We are proposing
administrative changes to facilitate the registration process and
to continue to ensure a high level of service to clients. These
administrative changes do not affect the deadline of January 1,
2003, for registration of all firearms nor the government's
commitment to public safety.
We are responding to the needs and wishes of Canadians and
firearms owners by proposing changes that will make the program
more user friendly, more cost efficient and client oriented. We
will design a more streamlined system by simplifying the licence
renewal process, by redesigning the registration process and by
making better use of new and emerging Internet technology, for
example, by allowing for registration of firearms online. We
also intend to improve efficiency and reduce costs, for example,
by staggering firearms licence renewals to avoid a surge of
applications in five year cycles.
With these amendments, we will reach a balance between the
interests of responsible firearms owners and our shared objective
of public safety.
The efficiency of any criminal justice system depends upon its
ability to protect the innocent while bringing those who are
guilty of crime to justice. Despite all the precautions that our
justice system takes to avoid the conviction of an innocent
person, no system is infallible. Wrongful convictions can occur
and regrettably have occurred in the past. The names Donald
Marshall, David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin make my point.
In such cases our entire justice system finds itself in
disrepute. That is why Bill C-15 includes important improvements
to section 690 of the criminal code, the conviction review
process. It is a final safety net for those who are the victims
of wrongful conviction.
In October 1998 we released a public consultation paper seeking
submissions on how our conviction review process could be
improved. The consultations informed the measures now found in
Bill C-15.
The ultimate decision making authority in criminal conviction
reviews will remain with the federal Minister of Justice, who is
accountable to parliament and to the people of Canada. The
Minister of Justice can recognize and maintain the traditional
jurisdiction of the courts while providing a fair and just remedy
in those exceptional cases that have somehow fallen through the
cracks of the conventional justice system.
However, maintaining the status quo is not an acceptable option.
Therefore the amendments to section 690 will provide
investigative powers to those investigating cases on behalf of
the Minister of Justice. This will allow investigators to compel
witnesses to testify and documents to be produced.
In order to make the conviction review process more open and
accountable, ministers of justice will now be required to provide
an annual report to parliament and a website will be created to
give applicants information on the process.
I believe that these amendments are the most efficient and
effective way to improve the post-appellant extrajudicial
conviction review process in Canada.
Let me turn briefly to the area of criminal procedure reform.
The Department of Justice has been working closely with the
provinces and territories on criminal procedure reform for some
years. This work is now in its third phase.
The objectives of phase three are to simplify trial procedure,
modernize the criminal justice system and enhance its efficiency
through the increased use of technology, better protect victims
and witnesses in criminal trials, and provide speedy trials in
accordance with charter requirements.
1635
We are trying to bring criminal procedure into the 21st century.
This phase reflects our efforts to modernize our procedure
without in any way reducing the measure of justice provided by
the system.
[Translation]
As I said at the outset, the provinces and territories support
these reforms. As they are responsible for the administration of
justice, I believe that we should do our best to give them the
tools they need to ensure the efficient and effective operation
of the criminal justice system.
[English]
In conclusion, I am sure the standing committee will give Bill
C-15 its usual thorough review and examination. I believe it
contains a number of important improvements to the criminal
justice system and measures that will contribute to the
protection and safety of all Canadians. I call on all members of
the House to support the bill.
With consent, I would move that the debate on Bill C-15 do now
adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker: Let me deal with a matter that I must
proceed with before 5 p.m.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas, Human Rights; the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester, Natural Resources.
The Chair had been given notice by the member for Surrey North
of a point of order as a brief intervention. I will hear very
briefly what it is and I will immediately return to the Minister
of Justice.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I thank the minister for introducing this bill in light
of the fact that last Friday when I asked her a question about
it, it was suggested that I had my research all wrong and that it
would be introduced on Monday. I was vilified by the government
benches for having lousy research—
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member is always very
interested in justice issues, but the Chair rules that he does
not have a point of order and is clearly engaging in debate.
Returning to the Minister of Justice, I will hear her point of
order. She has completed her remarks.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the
government House leader has consulted with the House leaders of
other parties. I would move, with consent:
That the debate be now adjourned.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Minister of Justice
have the consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Does the House give its consent to the motion proposed
by the Minister of Justice?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I move that we now see the clock as 5.30 p.m. and proceed
to the consideration of private members' business.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) moved
that Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (theft of a
motor vehicle), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to again rise to speak
about one of my private member's initiatives. Once again the
Liberal majority on the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs has decided, for whatever reason, to
make this initiative a non-votable matter.
I will not go into a rant about that, but suffice it to say I
have to wonder why a select few members of this place are able to
control all private members' business to the extent that they and
only they decide which issues have even a modicum of opportunity
to become law within the country.
It is no secret that many members from all sides of the House
have become frustrated and disenchanted with the present scheme,
but it will never change unless the government backbenchers
forget about the carrots at the end of the stick the Prime
Minister continues to hold out for them. Members of this place
should be doing what is right for the country. I said I would
not get into a rant, so I will move on to Bill C-250.
Bill C-250 is a relatively simple bill. Its purpose is to
ensure that a person who is convicted of more than one theft of a
motor vehicle receives a minimum of four years' imprisonment for
every conviction following the first conviction.
1640
The bill is aimed at the repeat car thief. Before those on the
other side and perhaps the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert
attack me once again for being too tough on our poor misguided
criminal offenders, I will point out that I am specifically
aiming the legislation at the professional car thief.
As most of us know, professional car thievery is more and more
attributable to organized crime. I will illustrate the
affiliation between repeat car thieves and organized crime in a
few moments.
It would not be entirely correct to claim that this proposal is
only aimed at organized criminals in the normal definition of
that term. We have a number of criminal organizations that have
developed a specialty of stealing motor vehicles just as a form
of illegal activity. They might just be a couple of individuals
who want to supplement their annual income or they may in fact
live for the benefits of their illegal enterprise.
In any case, auto theft is and should be of great concern to the
Canadian public. We are all well aware of our increased auto
insurance rates due to the escalation in motor theft. From 1986
to 1997, auto thefts in Canada increased by 94%. In 1997,
187,500 vehicles were reported stolen. The problem costs the
insurance industry approximately $600 million annually. It only
stands to reason that most if not all of that $600 million cost
of motor vehicle theft is passed on from insurance companies to
those of us who have to insure our vehicles.
Why has motor vehicle theft become such a growth industry? There
are a number of factors.
First, with the sophistication of these professional offenders,
there is relatively low risk. Most of us have to leave our
vehicles outside at some point during the day: when we go
shopping, when we drive them to work, when we leave them at the
local transit parking lot, or even overnight while we are
sleeping. Motor vehicles are often left unattended for minutes
or hours at a time and are so common that thieves can approach
them with little fear of attracting attention.
Second, there is a high return. With motor vehicle prices
rising toward a common value of $30,000 and beyond, it becomes
very profitable for crooks to specialize in auto theft.
Third, there is an avoidance of income taxes. Regardless of
what the Minister of Finance says, income taxes are particularly
burdensome to most of our citizens. One of the exceptions to the
cumbersome weight of taxes is the criminal element. Auto thieves
avoid paying high taxes or any taxes at all by chopping or
disassembling motor vehicles and selling the parts to the parts
industry. They also obtain vehicle identification numbers from
wrecks, reattach those numbers to stolen vehicles and essentially
put a new and improved auto back onto the streets.
I will divert myself for just a moment to give the House just
one example of how devastating this practice of switching vehicle
identification numbers, or VINs, can be to the unsuspecting
buyer. Just last week it was reported how Tammy Mulvey of Ottawa
was victimized by this scheme. She is a 22 year old who works
for a mobile canteen company. I can just imagine how proud she
was when she purchased her first car for $8,000, a 1993 Honda
Civic. I do not know that I can imagine how she felt when the
police helped a tow truck driver take it away. It was stolen.
Tammy had little protection. She bought the vehicle with a VIN
that was free and clear from problems or legal claims.
Unfortunately, that VIN did not belong to the car she bought. It
was identified by the police as part of a $10 million
international motor vehicle theft ring. Tammy was the loser, a
victim because that car actually belonged to someone else. A
loss of $8,000 at the age of 22 is a nasty life experience for
someone just starting out.
What are some of the other factors that ensure that motor
vehicle theft is a growth industry? As the example illustrates,
organized crime finds it quite profitable. Organized crime also
finds many other uses for its ill-gotten gains. Police are
convinced that many, if not most, of the biker gangs drive stolen
vehicles and motorcycles. With motorcycles it is relatively easy
to have three or four individuals pick up a Harley off the street
and throw it into the back of a pickup.
We have all heard stories about how criminals use stolen
vehicles to commit crimes, crimes like drug trafficking and armed
robbery just to mention a couple. A car is stolen. It is used
in the offence and is then dumped through various means.
Stolen vehicles with fraudulent paperwork can become a currency
within organized crime activity. These vehicles are traded for
other items of value. Stolen vehicles have been bartered for
drugs from foreign countries. Apparently it is quite simple to
ship motor vehicles in those sealed international shipping
containers we have all seen travelling across the world on ships,
trains and trucks. Many North American vehicles are worth double
their value in many foreign countries.
1645
It has become very profitable for organized criminals to steal a
luxury vehicle, put it in a shipping container, put it on a ship
and sell it to a wealthy buyer, with no questions asked and no
international vehicle tracking system in place. We should
recognize that many countries have few car dealerships and high
tariffs on imported vehicles. These criminals are filling a void
that cries out for this form of activity.
The last thing I will discuss about the causes of auto theft as
a growth industry has to do with the little risk of jail time for
the offence. We have enough difficulty convincing the Liberal
government to impose jail time for violent offences. Auto theft
is not a violent offence. Our courts often look at auto theft as
being protected by car insurance. We all lose a bit but no one
suffers a great deal. That is absolutely wrong headed.
Why should we be sponsoring criminals who refuse to abide by the
norms of society and who sponge on all law-abiding citizens? Why
should we be permitting organized criminals to expand their
enterprises, to expand their influence and to increase the threat
to society when it is so easy to address just one aspect of their
operations? The bill would impose a mandatory minimum sentence
of four years on professional vehicle thieves.
I will now provide some anecdotal support for what I have been
saying. An RCMP intelligence report dealing with a multimillion
dollar organized crime ring whereby luxury cars were stolen and
shipped overseas stated:
These groups, motivated by the low risk, huge profits and light
penalties associated with auto theft, are operating virtual
stolen-car pipelines.
The ring then funnelled hundreds of thousands of dollars to a
terrorist organization, according to the RCMP report. We can see
how profits from the theft of motor vehicles generates far more
serious and dangerous criminal activities. The director of RCMP
criminal intelligence said:
There has also been increasing use of violence, including
car-jackings and home invasions, to obtain cars.
The president of the Canadian Police Association listed auto
theft as one of the major activities of organized crime.
Constable Jim Messner of the RCMP auto theft squad in Calgary
says that his city has become a shipping hub for stolen high
priced vehicles for organized crime rings. He said:
There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of unrecovered
stolen vehicles is a result of organized crime. We know
organized crime groups have stolen vehicles for a number of
things, including transporting contraband.
In one weekend last year, 31 vehicles were stolen in Burnaby,
B.C. I do not have the figure for how many were stolen that
particular weekend for Vancouver, Surrey, New Westminster or
North Vancouver, but 31 vehicles for the Burnaby portion of the
lower mainland is a symptom of a major problem. In one seven day
period last year, 128 vehicles were reported stolen from the
streets of Ottawa. According to Statistics Canada about 450
vehicles are stolen every day in Canada.
All these statistics are in spite of car owners having to ensure
their vehicles are locked each and every time they are left
alone, and in spite of anti-theft devices and car alarms. Motor
vehicle theft is a matter of significant public interest.
Unfortunately it does not seem to be of any significant
government interest as it has decided not to make the bill
votable.
In a recent operation against organized crime police from Canada
and the United States were able to lay 270 charges and recover
close to $10 million in stolen vehicles. Some 193 vehicles were
recovered from as diverse a distribution as Ottawa, Toronto,
Waterloo, Texas, Florida and Panama.
For any of those listening who do the math most of the vehicles
recovered were from the high end of the motor vehicle industry.
Lincoln Navigators, Volvos and Mercedes were particularly
attractive to these individuals. Twenty-five people were
arrested and at that time the police had warrants for
twenty-four others.
It is most unfortunate that many will get a slap on the wrist
for stealing vehicles. The authorities will only be able to
guess how many vehicles passed through this organization
successfully while our police were forced to expend scarce
resources on their enterprise. More than 150 officers were
involved in this takedown.
It is obviously time to change the law. It is not right that we
merely warehouse these individuals for a few months. For them it
is merely an opportunity to rest up before returning to our
communities to pick up where they left off. For them these
lenient sentences are nothing more than a cost of doing business.
We must show that as parliamentarians we are very serious about
addressing this form of crime.
1650
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today to Bill C-250 which would amend part 9
of the criminal code dealing with offences against property. The
proposal calls for the creation of a new offence: theft of a
motor vehicle with a value of more than $5,000. It then provides
for a minimum sentence of four years if convicted a second time
for theft of a vehicle over $5,000.
I assume that the purpose of the legislation is to combat the
very serious problem of car theft. Unfortunately the bill
ignores two basic realities. First, all theft over $5,000 is
already an indictable offence under section 322 and 334 of the
criminal code. It is already effectively dealt with under the
existing sentencing provisions of the code. More important, the
legislation would do little to combat the problem of auto theft,
a problem that the government is fighting on many fronts in
partnership with Canadians from every province and territory.
The proposed amendment to the criminal code sweeps aside the
fundamental principles of sentencing currently in place and
establishes a very specific regime for an individual facing a
second or subsequent auto theft. The theory is that if we catch
all the repeat offenders and throw away the key for four years
the war against auto theft would be won. I recognize that some
convicted criminals reoffend, but imposing a mandatory four year
sentence for a second offence does not make sense in light of all
that we know about this offence.
Here is what we do know. The vast majority of car thefts are
joyriders or individuals who use the stolen vehicle in the
commission of another offence. We know this because according to
the Insurance Council of Canada the rate of recovery of stolen
vehicles is very high, about 70% to 80% in recent years. Further,
young offenders commit almost half the reported auto thefts.
How does the proposal address these aspects of the problem? We
know that hard time in a penitentiary itself does little to
rehabilitate offenders, so how do we address this serious
problem?
That brings me to the second reality the proposed legislation
fails to recognize. While auto theft has been and continues to
be a serious problem, it is actively and aggressively being
addressed. The problem is being attacked not only by the
sanctions available in the criminal code but by every level of
government, policing agency, private company, association and by
individual Canadians. The existing sanctions within the criminal
code and case law effectively achieve the objectives of criminal
sentencing for both first time and repeat offenders.
Auto theft falls under the class of offences in the criminal
code relating to thefts of property. Section 334 of the criminal
code provides that the theft of property exceeding $5,000 is an
indictable offence for which the individual is liable to
imprisonment for up to 10 years. This provision reflects
parliament's recognition that theft over $5,000 is a serious
offence and it includes auto theft.
Further, joyriding is a specific offence under the criminal code
to take into account the very unique nature of this crime. In
addition, if an offender has prior convictions the sentencing
judge, under current procedures, is bound to treat this as an
aggravating factor that would result in a harsher sentence than
would otherwise be imposed. A sentencing court does not stop
there, however, nor should it.
The principles of sentencing in Canada require a judge to look
at all the circumstances of the crime, including those of the
offender and of the victim, the good and the bad, the mitigating
and the aggravating. Those circumstances must be weighed in
light of the fundamental principles of sentencing. The first and
paramount principle of sentencing is that the sentence must be in
proportion to the crime or crimes committed, and to the degree of
responsibility of the offender.
Put simply, shoplifting by an 18 year old teenager versus the
robbing of a convenience store by a professional criminal may
both be prosecuted as theft under section 334 of the criminal
code. However, to sentence both to six months in jail would not
make any sense. The entire sentencing structure of the criminal
justice system is built around this basic principle of
proportionality. That is why, for example, there is no minimum
mandatory sentence for a section 334.
The sentencing court must also consider the remaining well
established objectives of sentencing: the protection of society;
reparations to and acknowledgements of victims; deterrence to
others; denunciation of the crime; and the rehabilitation of the
offender. Unfortunately, Bill C-250 would, in too many cases,
force the sentencing court to throw away these long established
and useful sentencing principles.
The government clearly supports the notion that those who
habitually re-offend ought to be punished to a greater extent
than the first time offender. However, our current system,
recently revamped in 1996 by Bill C-41, the Sentencing Reform
Act, provides the necessary flexibility to accomplish this
objective.
1655
The determination of sentences therefore requires the
consideration of a number of sentencing principles and
objectives. In the absence of the proposal contained in Bill
C-250, the existing regime enables courts to impose sentences for
auto theft that are just and fair to the victim, to society and
even to the offender. Many sentencing options are available
which can and should be fully considered to tailor the sentence
to the specific circumstances of the crime.
While the problem of motor vehicle theft is international in
scope, the recent international crime victimization survey
conducted in 1996 revealed that Canada's rate of vehicle theft
ranked as one of the lowest among industrialized countries.
In 1995, 18 out of every 1,000 Canadian vehicle owners
experienced a motor vehicle theft, compared to, for example, a
rate of 33 per 1,000 owners in England, and since then we have
made considerable progress. We have seen a steady decline in the
rate of vehicle thefts every year to 5.3 thefts per 1,000
vehicles in 1999 according to statistics from Statistics Canada.
Recent amendments to the criminal code introduced by the
Minister of Justice would make it easier to investigate and
prosecute organized crime rings which would put a further dent in
vehicle theft. The government is currently co-ordinating a
multijurisdictional analysis of the role of organized crime in
auto theft as part of our national agenda to combat organized
crime.
In addition, a number of non-statutory measures have been
employed over recent years to prevent motor vehicle theft in
Canada, a measure that the government either initiated or
partnered with other governments, agencies, organizations and
individuals.
For example, we are actively involved with the provinces and
numerous police agencies in the establishment of the national
stolen and wrecked vehicle monitoring program designed as a
comprehensive database available to the police from coast to
coast. This would make it tougher to steal a car at one end of
the country and sell it at the other end.
Another initiative involves car manufacturers working in
conjunction with the police and insurance companies to design
more effective security features for their motor vehicles. The
government recently initiated the business action program on
crime prevention in partnership with police and insurance
companies across Canada to educate Canadians as to what they as
individuals can do to fight auto theft.
All these measures are designed to reduce car theft and together
with the existing criminal code provisions provide a
comprehensive scheme for addressing this serious problem. While
the imposition of a four year minimum sentence for a second or
subsequent offence may look appealing to a few hardliners, it is
simply not a realistic alternative to what already exists. It
does not give the police, the prosecutors or the courts any
additional tools to combat the problem. As a result, the
Minister of Justice cannot support the bill.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment my hon.
colleague, the member for Surrey North, for his work on this
non-partisan bill and for his presentation to us today. The bill
is meant to add to the protection of Canadians.
As individuals, certain things that come under special
categories are perhaps more personal to us than other things. If
I were to start down the list, my family would be number one in
importance, my home would be next and my car would follow. I am
only one of many individuals who would say that we do love our
cars.
I remember the first car I bought after joining the workforce
and being able to spend more than a couple of hundred dollars on
it. One day I came out of my house and noticed that my car had
been smashed by a hit and run driver. I was thankful that it was
not stolen. It was not a car in the category of cars we are
talking about today, but I will never forget the agonizing
feeling I had in the pit of my stomach when I saw what had
happened to my car.
We need to recognize that a car may be in a special category.
1700
I realize minimum sentences are something that we have been
reluctant to put into Canadian law in many cases. However there
are quite a number of cases where there are minimum sentences. I
do not think this is something that would be put forward only by
hardliners or those who would be considered extremists in one way
or another.
Canadians want protection from crime and from risk of injury,
especially protection from fear associated with the different
crimes committed in Canadian cities. Canadians expect and desire
this from their government. Therefore, many of my constituents
seem to be quite prepared to be a little more tough on crime, if
that is what this would be, especially on theft.
There are a number of instances where minimum sentencing is
used, for instance in the firearms, bookmaking, living on the
avails of a person, wounding with intent and some impaired
driving conditions.
I also want to again reiterate that the Canadian Police
Association has listed car theft as one of the main avails of
organized crime. I also read the comments of the RCMP member
from Calgary. He stated that that place was perhaps a hub for
organized crime and car theft. He agreed that many other police
groups across the country would see this as a very important
problem which needs to be addressed.
The costs associated with auto theft are staggering and rising.
It is a waste of our personal resources. We have a major problem
that is simply not going to go away, as just business as usual.
Without penalties that would increase enough to exceed the
benefits of crime, it is hard for us to think about deterring it.
My city of Regina is notorious for auto theft and vandalism.
This again is a little different category. Just this week my
executive assistant was shot at in Regina. We are becoming
famous for shootings in Regina. A couple of weeks ago several
vehicles were shot at. We were lucky that my assistant's car was
not hit with a real bullet. It was a paint gun.
The problem illustrated here is the fact that there is such
little respect for personal property belonging to others. This
causes fear, loss of work, police costs associated with this, the
removal of the paint from the car and all the effort and energy
that went into dealing with this sort of misdemeanour.
This kind of disrespect springs out of the lack of
accountability in so many areas of those who would be involved in
the life of crime. Auto theft in Canada is in the hundreds of
millions of dollars and is rising. I would ask at what point
would we as parliamentarians be prepared to act.
Province-wide, Saskatchewan shows that the number of claims have
moved from 2,700 in 1999, at a cost of $8.7 million to 2,944 in
the year 2000, at a cost of $9.3 million. By March 1 we had 563
claims at a cost of $1.9 million. Breaking that down to the city
of Regina, in 1999 there were 1,437 claims costing $3.9 million.
In the year 2000 there were 1,574 claims costing $4.4 million.
This year's bill to March 1 is already up to $900,000.
It is important to note that these costs do not even include the
articles taken from vehicles. They do not include the damage to
vehicles that were eventually recovered and then repaired at cost
less than the $700 or so deductible that we have in our insurance
plan in the province of Saskatchewan.
1705
Police costs also must figure into the cost of car thefts. One
of our goals should be to curb auto theft to the point that
perhaps we could divert some of those police funds and associated
costs to crime prevention of other types.
Cost of courts is also an ingredient. Auto thefts place a
burden on our court system and they will be a demand for more
judges and court officials to deal with an ever increasing crime
load in this area, if something is not done.
Then of course there are always rehabilitation and detention
costs for those who have offended and those who are apprehended.
Canadians are tired of having to pay for all of this over and
over. They expect that we would be sensitive enough to adjust
the penalties imposed in order to be a little stronger deterrent
to crime, especially as it relates to organized crime.
Insurance costs to individuals are something that we need to
really remember. Insurance rates rise. When we consider the
$600 million that auto theft costs the country each year, it
costs us as individuals even more than that because our rates
rise. We also have to pay the deductibles and those kinds of
things. It becomes very important economically. It is the
inconvenience of it as well.
In Saskatchewan, if we do not lock our cars when we are out,
even if we hop out for a moment for a cup of coffee at Robin's,
then there is a question as to whether or not the insurance will
even cover that. There are all kinds of minor inconveniences
from security at home to security when we are on the road or
whatever that must be taken into account simply because we do not
get serious enough with those who would steal our vehicles.
The council also reported that there were 165,000 vehicles
stolen across Canada in 1999. It is unacceptable to have 450
vehicles stolen each day in Canada.
The bill is targeted at organized crime and does not increase
the punishment for a young offender who steals the vehicle for a
joyride. That is another important issue which needs to be dealt
with. I am glad the hon. parliamentary secretary pointed out
that the bill does not address the crimes committed, the joy
rides, by young offenders. May I add, unfortunately neither does
the new young offenders bill. The new youth criminal justice act
also fails to address this problem. I am glad the parliamentary
secretary noted that. It would be wonderful if we could make
some changes in the young offenders bill perhaps to address that.
However this bill targets a certain level of car theft, that
which would be carried out by organized crime, so we need not
cross the two.
The bill seeks to increase the penalties and drive back
organized crime related to auto thefts to make it more of an
infraction, to give a little encouragement to the courts to be
stronger when these offences are repeated and repeated. There is
no issue respecting judicial discretion, but parliament must
determine the penalties and the judiciary must honour and respect
the wishes of parliament. If not, who speaks for Canadians?
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague from Surrey
North for putting Bill C-250 forward. Ever since he arrived here
in 1997, the he has repeatedly put forth eloquent and
constructive suggestions to the government on a wide variety of
issues, in particular the Young Offenders Act. I hope the
government has seen the wisdom of what he has been saying and
implements many of the suggestions that he has put forth.
Today's bill, Bill C-250, strikes a balance and deals with the
issue of theft of cars in a very reasonable way. The scope of the
problem cannot be under estimated. More than $1 billion worth of
cars are stolen every single year.
1710
In addition about a quarter of a billion dollars worth of damage
is done to those cars. It costs taxpayers about a half a billion
dollars per year. The rate of increase in car theft is
extraordinary. Between 1982 and 1994 the rate doubled and there
is no end in sight.
We heard about the various motivations for stealing cars, which
I will not reiterate. One of the major reasons is linked to
organized crime. The government has put forth a bill that we
will support. It is a good start in dealing with organized
crime, but there is much more that can and should be done.
RICO like amendments, which were brought in the United States,
should be implemented in Canada. That will enable our police
forces and courts, in particular, to go after the proceeds from
crime. Police forces say that to deal with organized crime we
have to go after its money. The courts must go after their
money, then we might have a chance to decrease the number of
organized crime gangs in Canada. It also involves pushing the
limits of our charter. I will encourage the government to do
just that.
We have to fight fire with fire. A lot of these organized crime
groups hide behind the law when it is convenient for them and
abuse it when is convenient for them.
The extent of the problem, and it is perhaps related to the
degree of organized crime, can be seen in the numbers and the
demographics of theft. My province of British Columbia, as well
as Manitoba, have the highest rates of car theft. Many of these
cars are going to chop shops where they are pulled apart. The
parts are then sold illegally or sent to other countries.
A way to deal with this, which is quite innovative and used in
the United States, is to attach transmitters to the cars. The
transmitters cost about $600. The United States found that the
rate at which cars with transmitters were stolen was 25% less
than the risk to other cars. The savings were massive.
We know the cost to us as individuals is huge. Also the cost to
insurance companies is large. I believe in Canada in 1996, which
is the last year for which I found statistics, it cost insurance
companies $600 million in insurance costs. That is huge. We
need to somehow decrease those costs because they are ultimately
passed on to the consumer.
If we had transmitters on cars then the rate of theft would go
down and the cost to insurance companies would go down. We would
then a net saving to both the consumer and the insurance company.
Perhaps the insurance companies could decrease the comprehensive
insurance costs for car owners who attached transmitters to their
cars. This is something that is imminently doable and should be
implemented as quickly as possible. I would encourage the
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to do that.
We should also look at the issue of drug abuse. Many thefts
that take place in our society are attached to drug abuse.
Addicts yearning for that next hit have to find the money. Some
turn to prostitution but some also turn to theft. To get their
fix, the drug abuser will steal something they can sell.
We have to look at a more comprehensive way of dealing with the
illicit drug trade. We know if we try to block it off at source,
for example Colombia in the case of cocaine and heroin, that it
does not work. We have to is take a new approach to drug abuse
and deal with it on the demand side. We have to decrease demand.
If there is no demand there is no production.
Let us flip the equation around and deal with the demand side. I
was in Colombia in February and met with President Pastrana. I
was very encouraged to see that he was very much in agreement
with North America taking a greater role to decrease demand. At
the same time Senator McCain was as were a number of other
congressmen and senators from the U.S. For the first time the
Americans were saying that they had to get their own house in
order. As a nation we also have to do the same. How do we do
it?
1715
Thankfully, new medical evidence shows how the brain works with
respect to addictions. There are some very exciting programs in
Europe that have a 60% one year success rate for hard core
narcotics abusers. These programs take a different approach. Not
only do they deal with the issues of treatment and counselling,
they also involve work and training skills. These programs also
get people out of their drug environments for an extended period
of time. As we know, that is critically important, because an
individual who has a substance abuse problem and is living in an
environment where drug abuse is taking place has a very difficult
time breaking the habit. These models in Europe, while a bit
expensive at the front end, work very well in the long term for
decreasing the incidence of drug abuse in society.
Prevention works too and Canada has some exciting models. The
Minister of Labour has been a champion of prevention through her
head start program in Moncton. There are head start programs
around the world that also work very well.
By working with the provinces and using the best of all the
models available we will be able to develop a national program
for early intervention. We could do this by using existing
resources.
However, prevention has to start early, particularly at the
prenatal stage because at that time parents can learn how to be
good parents. The issue of fetal alcohol syndrome can also be
addressed. As members know, fetal alcohol syndrome has been
devastating in our society.
By taking the best models from around the world and focusing on
strengthening the parent-child bond using existing resources,
that kind of head start model would have a dramatic impact on
drug use. There is a profound decrease in drug use among
children, youth and adults who go through an appropriate head
start program.
As I have done in the past, I encourage the Minister of Justice
to work with her counterpart, the Minister of Health, and work
with the provinces. I urge them to call together the first
ministers to implement a head start program using existing
resources. This program should not be some huge, dramatic,
expensive, bureaucratically bound national program but one that
works at the basics of strengthening the parent-child bond.
I want to thank my colleague from Surrey North for putting this
bill forward. It focuses on mandatory sentencing and separates
auto theft from other thefts. His bill gets to the heart of a
significant theft problem in Canada. This bill also implements
tough solutions to deal with those individuals who have
repeatedly and wilfully demonstrated an abuse of public trust and
an abuse of other Canadians. I hope that the government will see
fit to implement Bill C-250 as soon as possible.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am honoured to have the privilege of speaking to Bill C-250,
the bill sponsored by my colleague from Surrey North.
He began his speech by lamenting that even though he got his
bill drawn the “impartial” committee decided that it would not
be voted on. I would like to say two things about that.
First, I lament with him that his bill is not a votable item. It
is very unfortunate that the rules of the House permit certain
members of parliament to bring forward private members' bills
that lead nowhere. It is wonderful to be able to debate a bill,
but we should also be able to vote on it. That would allow
members of parliament to show by their votes where they stand on
an issue such as this.
Second, the member has been in the House for one term less than
I. I have never been picked to present a private member's bill.
He is fortunate in that regard. He is ahead of me on that one.
Bill C-250 has to do with auto theft. I always take a step back
when I think of this type of crime. Auto theft in Canada takes
place at two levels, I think, and they are almost quantum leaps
apart. At one level it is mostly youths who take vehicles for
what is called joyriding.
1720
Another one of our colleagues from British Columbia had a
private member's bill on that particular offence, whereby young
people for some reason have it in their heads that it is not
wrong for them to hop into a vehicle that is not theirs, take it
for a ride and abandon it somewhere else. Some of the young
people are repeat offenders. They just do it for a lark and yet
what they are doing is very wrong and should not be tolerated.
There is another level, if we can classify auto theft as being
at different levels. Joyriding is a low level classification
even though some offenders are guilty of very frequently
committing the offence. The other level, of course, is the
organized one, whereby people actually make a living by taking
someone else's property.
It is absolutely true that when people steal vehicles we all pay
for it. In regard to the total cost, I think I heard a total of
$600 million being bandied about. That is a tremendous cost
because we have only 30 million Canadians and I am sure that we
do not have one vehicle for every man, woman and child in the
country. The amount of money is just atrocious and we all pay
for it through higher premiums on our insurance.
Besides that, it is just the wrong thing to do. I really wonder
why in our society we have people who actually feel that somehow
they have the right to take property that is not their own. Some
of them actually even get into the business of stealing vehicles,
altering serial numbers and either chopping down the vehicles or
putting them into containers and sending them to different parts
of the world where they fetch a very good price.
We really need to do something about it. As I have said in some
of my previous speeches on justice issues, it seems to me that we
have to make sure we do not forget what the purpose of the law
is. We cannot pass a law that will make people good and prevent
them from committing crimes because it changes them on the
inside. That is another function and that is something we really
ought to be working on. We should be working on changing the
personal convictions of people in terms of what they deem to be
right and wrong. It is a big job and one that I think takes
place primarily in strong families.
The second aspect of this is of course that the law must act as
a deterrent, so my colleague is proposing that there be rather
stiff penalties for people who engage in this over and over. It
is significant that he does not say that the first time a kid
takes a car for a ride in a joyride situation we would lock him
up and throw the keys away, as some would accuse us of saying. We
in fact favour methods that will retrieve and reform the young
guy who starts that.
However, when it is a repeat offence, and particularly in the
crime rings where they make huge amounts of money by literally
ripping off Canadians, by stealing their vehicles and of course
indirectly then charging the insurance companies and all of us
through our premiums, those are the people who we want to stop
with a law, because obviously they are not induced to stop it by
themselves. The law must act as a deterrent.
It is a very honourable thing the member is proposing. He is
proposing that there be a minimum four year sentence on this
crime so that judges do not have the option of being lenient with
repeat offenders. That is what should happen.
I know a person who has now moved into the city of Edmonton but
used to live in my riding. His name is Ken Haywood. I think he
would probably appreciate me saying this. For a number of years
he owned a car dealership in the city of Edmonton. When he
retired he sold his business and, because of this theft problem,
he became interested in curbing auto thefts.
1725
He been working with all levels of government, both federal and
provincial. I visited with him when he was in Ottawa. He has a
newsletter that he puts out and also a website. I do not know
the address of the website but if people used a search engine and
looked for Ken Haywood I am sure they could find it.
He is looking at technical ways of reducing auto theft. He is
working with automobile manufacturers as there have been some
technical innovations in the last little while. Many of the
newer vehicles now have key coding, but a skilled thief can still
easily dismantle the key column and drive the vehicle away. In
some cases a thief will drive a truck up to the vehicle they want
and drag it onto the truck. There are different technical ways
that can be used to prevent someone from driving away with a
vehicle, but it is pretty difficult to prevent someone from
putting a hook to it and dragging it onto a truck.
Mr. Haywood is searching for different and innovative methods.
He is very intrigued and interested in tracking methods,
including electronic methods in order to identify vehicles making
it more difficult to change serial numbers and other initiatives
like that.
I want to go on record as saying that I support my hon.
colleague. It makes no sense for me to ask other members to
support the bill because they will not have a chance to vote on
it. That is one of the changes, Mr. Speaker, that you were very
interested in. We need to change that in parliament to allow all
private members' business to be votable, so that we can come to a
conclusion and do something about the problems, instead of just
talking about them.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, as I stated at the beginning of the debate, the standing
committee in its infinite wisdom decided to deem the bill as
not votable.
What we are doing today is placing the issue on the political
agenda. Hopefully in some not too distant future, the government
would change and realize the importance of amending the criminal
code to address the shortcomings of the sentencing provisions
concerning auto theft.
The Minister of Justice is on record as recognizing the issue.
In 1999 she stated “The public has a very strong interest
in dealing with auto theft. It is a growing crime in terms of
the number of people whose property is being stolen”. However,
rather than deal with the criminals who are creating this strong
interest and concern over property, she put some money toward
educating Canadians on how not to leave their keys in the
ignition. I wonder if the minister is aware of the term punched
ignition switch.
It seems to be the way of the government, spend tax dollars to
make it appear that something is being done. Heaven forbid that
we should try to hold criminals accountable for their actions.
Earlier I deliberately avoided mentioning youth involvement in
the auto theft industry. Whenever I bring up youth crime I am
criticized and characterized as wanting to gang up on our youth
by locking them up and throwing away the key. Those who know me
know differently.
However according to police statistics, about 40% of the cars in
Canada are stolen by youths between the ages of 12 and 17, and
only 12% are ever caught. What does that teach impressionable
youth? It teaches them that they can steal cars and get away
with it. Who do organized crime recruiters seek out? I suggest
that young car thieves with successful and profitable track
records appear quite attractive to organized crime recruiters.
We need to address youthful criminality early. We should not
and cannot wait until it is too late and they develop into more
professional and experienced criminals. We are doing an
injustice to those youth by allowing them to get away with the
crime at an early age. We are doing an injustice to our society
by permitting the initial training ground in crime to flourish
and mature into more sophisticated activity.
For those who think that car theft is not really a danger to our
society, I wish to relate the instance of the 13 year old driver
of a stolen car who was involved in a crash that killed 16 year
old Sarah Machado in Vancouver.
The 13 year old driver was linked to an organized ring of
juvenile thieves, many too young to drive legally. According to
evidence obtained by the police the 13 year old driver was being
followed by friends in two stolen Jeep Cherokees. As they were
not involved in the crash, they escaped.
1730
Let us think about that for a moment. An organized ring of
offenders as young as 13 and 14 involved in stealing motor
vehicles. Why? It is because it does not seem like much of a
concern to the government.
If we refuse to address these crimes within Canada I ask that we
think about what we are doing to foreign countries. As I have
said, an increasing number of stolen vehicles are making their
way into sealed shipping containers. They make their way to the
docks in Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax and are shipped
overseas. It has been described as our fastest growing export
business. I do not think this is what the Minister for
International Trade has in mind when he promotes exports. When
these illegal exports reach other countries I do not think it is
a legitimate businessman who takes ultimate possession of the
vehicle.
We are helping corrupt those other countries by assisting their
own illegal organizations and by inducing individuals to become
involved in the questionable activity of buying hot motor
vehicles.
Some might think I am exaggerating the problem. Nothing could
be further from the truth. The Insurance Bureau of Canada
estimates that the ordinary thief who steals a Jeep Grand
Cherokee earns a tax free $150 to $500 upon delivery. The
ringleader of the organized crime enterprise pays about $2,500
for the Jeep to be packed in a container and shipped abroad. When
the Jeep arrives at its destination it is sold for twice the
Canadian market value, in the neighbourhood of $100,000, a nice
tidy profit to the crime boss of about $97,000 for just one motor
vehicle.
Surely we should have more serious punishment for multiple car
thieves. We need to discourage the activity to a far greater
degree than we are at present.
In my home town of Surrey it is said that there is a motor
vehicle theft every 90 minutes. Last year Surrey RCMP had three
officers in its stolen auto unit. They have little hope of
keeping pace with the crime. As parliamentarians we must do our
utmost to provide them with the tools to control this illegal and
mushrooming activity. The bill would have been a step in the
right direction.
The parliamentary secretary said the statistics are going down.
A few years ago I was returning home from playing a recreational
hockey game. When I rounded a corner with my wife on our final
six blocks home I saw flashing red lights in the distance and
knew there had been a serious car accident.
My daughter and her friend had left the arena about a half hour
before us and this was directly on our way home. As hon. members
can imagine, my heart went into my throat. Fortunately it was
not my daughter or her friend. I found out from friends on the
police force that it was a 34 year old lady who had been on her
way home from a church meeting, travelling along 88th Avenue
through a green light.
Another fellow going north on 144th Street, a young man with a
serious lengthy record of multiple auto theft and well known to
police, was driving past the police and giving them the finger,
yelling at them and not paying any attention. He ran through a
red light and T-boned the lady's car and killed her. He drove
her right across the street, through a fence and into a yard and
killed her instantly.
When dealing with these kinds of things let us forget about
statistics. I do not care if the statistics are coming down.
This was a person involved in multiple repeat auto thefts.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have just arrived in the Chamber and was scheduled to
take part in the debate on Bill C-250. Given the time remaining
on the clock and given that we started this debate earlier by
consent, I wonder if I might seek unanimous consent to
participate in the debate for the remaining time that was
originally allotted.
The Deputy Speaker: For the record, the time remaining
would be approximately five minutes. At 5.40 p.m. and no later
the Chair would have to intervene. First and foremost the member
would require consent of the House.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Yes, we will be happy on this side of the House to give
our consent, provided the member agrees not to move any motions
and that we recognize that the debate has concluded. There is no
room for any further motions. With that proviso we are happy to
give our consent.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair can certainly be helpful
also. The member has already had the floor under right of reply.
It is simply a matter of being able to put on record what the
member had intended to put, had the proceedings taken place at
the normal hours.
1735
Today, being slightly different, I think we can all understand
the circumstances. Does the hon. member for
Pictou-Antigonish—Guysborough have consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I thank all hon. members present for their
magnanimity. To begin with, I commend the hon. member for
Surrey North. I know he has been a very active member of the
justice committee, a great proponent of issues that stem from our
current justice system. I also know that he has a keen mind for
these issues and a real pragmatic approach.
This is yet another bill coming forward from private members
that would strengthen criminal code provisions. I would suggest
it is very much aimed at raising the bar in terms of both general
and specific deterrents.
Bill C-250 would ensure that a person convicted of more than one
theft of a motor vehicle having a value in excess of $5,000 would
receive a minimum of four years of imprisonment for every
conviction following the first offence.
I will not get into the graphic detail of the range of
sentencing. I know other bills have been brought forward. His
colleague from Calgary brought forward one dealing with home
invasion and break and enters which dealt with a two year minimum
sentence requirement. I would certainly in principle agree with
the nature of the particular motion and the need to put forward a
strong message of deterrence in our criminal code because of the
elevated occurrences of these types of offences.
Bill C-250 clarifies and makes more effective subsection 334(a)
of the current criminal code which talks about punishment for
theft of motor vehicles, which is the focal point of the member's
motion.
We did a bit of research with respect to the Insurance Board of
Canada. Statistics from 1999, which are the latest available,
indicate that over 160,000 incidents of motor vehicle theft were
reported to the police, an average of over 450 vehicles per day
in Canada. Although there is car insurance, unless it is stolen
by a household member or somebody who has been given permission
to drive it, insurance in many cases is under comprehensive or
specified perils coverage, which does not cover the complete cost
of the particular vehicle. The upshot of all this is the
components estimate that the cost to Canadian policyholders is in
the range of $600 million per year in insurance premiums.
Car thefts in recent years have become far more dangerous. As
the hon. member and others mentioned, high speed chases often are
the result of motor vehicle thefts. Individuals who are becoming
more involved in this activity are doing so in a much more brazen
fashion because of the remuneration or the reward. They are
doing so in broad daylight. They are doing so often while the
vehicle is occupied, while the vehicle is being driven, in a form
of car-jacking, which has occurred in some of our big cities in
particular.
A huge element of organized crime is often involved that in many
instances uses young offenders and drug addicts in the need of
quick cash to perpetrate organized theft rings. The focus is
usually high priced vehicles: SUVs and foreign vehicles such as
the Mercedes and BMW, fan favourites of thefts. They put those
vehicles into containers and they are shipped in many cases to
Europe, to the Soviet Union, out of the port of Vancouver or
Halifax.
A very comprehensive problem is coming to light. It is not
uncommon to hear of injuries and even fatalities resulting from
car thefts, either by virtue of a motor vehicle accident or the
use of violence in the perpetration of the theft.
Individuals who choose to engage in this activity have to be
reminded, which is the cut and thrust of the particular bill,
that there will be severe consequences and imprisonment if they
choose to engage in this type of reckless activity.
As I indicated, I support in principle the hon. member's motion.
The attachment of a specific sentence of four years might be
deemed excessive, given the sentencing scale that exists for
other types of offences.
1740
The bill introduced by his colleague from Calgary is an obvious
example of where the crime of home invasion while a person is at
home would receive a minimum sentence of two years. On the
relative scale one would have to ensure there was parity in
sentencing. Judges often look for that.
The degree of violence which is involved, the theft, the
recklessness and the value are all sentencing factors, but in
principle this is a good bill and I hope hon. members give it due
consideration.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on February 28 of this year I raised a question with the Prime
Minister concerning the upcoming summit of the Americas in Quebec
City. At that time I expressed concern to the Prime Minister
about the efforts in Quebec City to effectively turn the city
into an armed militarized fortress during the summit. At the
same time I asked the minister about the contempt for democracy
involved in failing to make public the text of the agreement that
was being negotiated.
In the few minutes I have available to me this afternoon, I will
follow up and voice my very serious concerns about what did take
place in what I consider to be a very serious abuse of police
powers in Quebec City.
Thomas Berger, a respected former judge, an outstanding civil
libertarian and lawyer, wrote a book called Fragile
Freedoms. What I think is abundantly clear is that our
constitutional freedoms, the freedom of speech, the freedom of
association, the freedom to peaceful and non-violent dissent,
came under assault in Quebec City.
I am not in any way condoning the violent actions of a very
small number of protesters who hurled paving stones and other
objects at police officers. Certainly I condemn those actions
unreservedly, as well as the actions of a small number of
protesters who attacked and beat a police officer. That was
reprehensible and unacceptable.
There were over 50,000 protesters who marched in a peaceful
demonstration on Saturday, but there were also many others who
peacefully and non-violently, close to the four kilometre wall of
shame in Quebec City, chose to demonstrate against the profoundly
undemocratic nature of the FTAA negotiations that were taking
place inside the wall.
I personally witnessed attacks by the police on peaceful
demonstrators, the excessive use of tear gas and the use of
plastic bullets, which was absolutely reprehensible and
unacceptable. Indeed independent observers, including la ligue
des droits et libertés and the five observers appointed by the
Quebec government, came to the conclusion that the use of plastic
bullets was totally unacceptable and that there had been abusive
and excessive use of tear gas on Saturday.
My colleagues and I are calling for an independent inquiry into
this gross misconduct by the police force, by the Sûreté du
Québec, by the RCMP and by two other police forces involved. This
is not democracy. This is the antithesis of democracy.
I point out that one of the demonstrators, Éric Laferrière, had
to undergo an emergency tracheotomy because he was hit in the
throat by a plastic bullet. As the Speaker knows, I was struck
by a plastic bullet as well. In a democracy this is an outrage.
I will as well draw to the attention of the House the appalling
treatment of Jaggi Singh. Jaggi Singh was a demonstrator who was
arrested in Quebec City and who remains the only demonstrator not
to have been freed on bail. His offence was supposedly using a
weapon, a 25 foot catapult that hurled teddy bears. In fact this
was no threat to anyone.
I have to ask: Why is Jaggi Singh the only protester who was
arrested during the protest who remains in jail? Why does the
crown believe that he who was not convicted of any violent
offence is dangerous enough to be kept in prison?
This is an outrage. I would hope that the government would
recognize that there must be an independent inquiry into the
appalling conditions that people were held in Orsainville prison,
as well as the very serious abuses by the police in firing tear
gas and plastic bullets at peaceful, non-violent demonstrators.
1745
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the summit
of the Americas was an essential step in promoting balance and a
collaborative vision for deepening co-operation among the nations
of the western hemisphere.
Certainly economic integration was on the summit agenda. However
the summit was much more a vehicle than just to promote economic
growth. The summit declaration and action plan supported
Canada's interest in strengthening democracy and human rights,
increased people's access to benefits of growth and provided
opportunities for all nations in the Americas to improve the
quality of life of their citizens.
The leaders and peoples of the Americas know that democracy,
human rights and observance and respect for the rule of law are
the best ways to ensure human security and the well-being of our
citizens, both individually and collectively.
The Quebec City summit produced a clear and vigorous commitment
to democracy and equity, a commitment that extends to our
democratic institutions, our electoral machineries and to
impartial systems of justice, as well as the protection of human
rights and freedom of expression.
As the Prime Minister said, it was not responsible for an
elected member of parliament representing the diverse views of
his electorate to encourage civil disobedience in the context of
the summit of the Americas.
With respect to the summit, the government worked closely with
the province of Quebec and the municipalities involved to provide
the most appropriate policing and security measures for what was
the largest international summit ever held in Canada.
The Government of Canada was committed to ensuring the safety of
everyone at the summit of the Americas, including community
residents, protesters, observers, police officers, as well as
visiting dignitaries and delegates. Security measures at the
summit struck an equitable balance between protecting the rights
of protesters to demonstrate and maintaining public safety and
public order during an international event.
Through the summit of the Americas, Canada worked to expand
opportunities for more countries to participate in the benefits
of globalization, including democracy, human rights and stronger
economies. Through the security arrangements on site, we ensured
that this dialogue and collaborative effort was supported in the
most responsible and appropriate manner possible.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.)