37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 043
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 4, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| PARKINSON'S DISEASE
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1405
| MARTIN LUTHER KING
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| CHARLES DAUDELIN
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| VAISAKHI
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1410
| CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| HEALTH SERVICES
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| FISHING PORTS
|
| Mr. Georges Farrah |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mr. John Herron |
1415
| NEW HOMES MONTH
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| The Speaker |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1440
| TAX AGREEMENTS
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
| FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1450
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. John Manley |
| TAX AGREEMENTS
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1455
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| TOURISM
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| SOLICITOR GENERAL
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1500
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Comments of Minister
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1505
1510
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1515
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-23. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-328. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-329. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1520
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-330. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Bob Speller |
| UKRAINIAN CANADIAN RESTITUTION ACT
|
| Bill C-331. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES ACT
|
| Bill C-332. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1525
| SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY ACT
|
| Bill C-333. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| PETITIONS
|
| Mining Industry
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1530
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Richardson's Ground Squirrel
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| Free Trade Area of the Americas
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Third reading
|
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1535
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1540
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1545
1550
1555
1600
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
1605
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1610
1615
1620
1625
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1630
1635
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1640
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1645
1650
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
1655
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1715
1740
(Division 67)
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Independent Judicial Inquiry
|
| Motion
|
1745
(Division 68)
| Amendment negatived
|
1755
(Division 69)
| Motion negatived
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-209. Second reading
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1800
1805
1810
1815
1820
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1825
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1830
1835
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1840
1845
| Mr. John Herron |
1850
1855
| Mr. John McCallum |
1900
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Lumber Industry
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1905
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
1910
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1915
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 043
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 4, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
received a summary report from a Roots of our Future conference
on climate change held at Camp Kawartha near Peterborough.
Those present discovered the impact of climate on developed and
developing countries, on the economy, social life and ecosystems.
They discussed changes in the Northwest Passage, impacts on
northern communities and landscape, effects of severe weather
events and changes in weather patterns.
The conference made recommendations about reducing greenhouse
emissions by conservation of energy and the use of alternate
power sources. They urge the federal government to be strong in
these matters.
On behalf of the House of Commons, I thank them for their
efforts.
* * *
CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, April 4 marks the day to recognize
the 2001 Champions Across Canada event, which is a celebration of
those children who have overcome serious health problems.
Today I would like to welcome Damien and Natasha Kaweski,
representing the British Columbia Hospital Foundation. Damien
and Natasha are among 12 champions from across Canada
representing their hospitals and children who have received
hospital care. They are sponsored by foresters of the IOF, who
will contribute over $5.5 million this year to support children's
hospitals in North America.
From Ottawa the Canadian champions will leave for Walt Disney
World in Florida to join 50 other champions from the United
States for the children's miracle celebration.
I ask that the House welcome these champions who have overcome
so much.
* * *
PARKINSON'S DISEASE
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today in
Canada there are approximately 100,000 people afflicted with the
slowly progressing neuro-degenerative illness known as
Parkinson's disease.
The Parkinson Foundation of Canada is a national non-profit
organization that works to provide information and support for
those with Parkinson's and their families. The purpose of the
foundation and its affiliated support groups is to find a cure
through advocacy, education, research and support services.
I hereby recognize that the month of April is Parkinson's
Awareness Month and urge all citizens of the country to support
the Parkinson Foundation and its work.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to note that there has been a significant drop in the
number of welfare recipients in Quebec over the past year.
The solid growth in the economy has encouraged job creation and
brought about a 7% reduction in the numbers of people on social
assistance province-wide.
The measures put in place by the government to battle poverty
and exclusion have resulted in close to 42,000 people being able
to get off the welfare rolls. In all, there are 137,661 fewer
than in 1996.
I am particularly proud to learn that Laval is one of the places
where the drop has been the most significant. The number of
welfare recipients in Laval has gone down 8.4%, and thus Laval
continues to be the dynamic city in full economic expansion that
it has always been.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib): Mr. Speaker, in
recent months Canadians have witnessed a most disgraceful
spectacle in the House of Commons, the spectacle of an
opposition that is such a sore loser and so lacking in
constructive ideas or solutions that it has abandoned issues
that are in the public interest in favour of the relentless
pursuit of a campaign of personal destruction.
Whereas Canadians want to hear discussions of the state of the
economy, the opposition is obsessed by the Prime Minister's
personal finances, by a transaction that was carried out from
beginning to end in total compliance with the spirit and letter
of the code governing ministerial conflicts of interest.
Taking refuge behind the legal immunity conferred upon them by
the House of Commons, they have piled groundless accusation upon
groundless accusation, spreading crazy insinuations and
blackening the reputation of the Prime Minister and his family.
1405
A man of irreproachably honourable personal conduct, the Prime
Minister deserves better than to be the target of such a barrage
of groundless allegations and calumny.
From the very beginning, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice and
Prime Minister has deserved my support.
* * *
[English]
MARTIN LUTHER KING
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 33 years ago today a dreamer
stepped onto the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis,
Tennessee, was shot in the throat and killed. On the spot where
Martin Luther King died, there is a plaque that quotes the Book
of Genesis. It says:
And they said one to another, behold, this dreamer cometh. Come
now therefore, and let us slay him...and we shall see what will
become of his dreams.
The dreamer has been slain and now it is up to us to champion
his dream.
Martin Luther King should be not just a source of inspiration
but of wisdom, wisdom in creating a more just, compassionate and
loving world for all born into it. Less than 12 hours before he
was killed, in his second most famous speech, with his eyes full
of tears, Dr. King said “I just want to do God's will.”
Dr. King was a true servant of God and he brought us all closer
to his will. His dream, wisdom and vision must not only never be
forgotten but carried forward with pride, passion and vigour.
* * *
CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too rise today to recognize the Children's Miracle
Network 2001 Champions Across Canada event. This event is a
celebration of children ages 3 to 15 who have overcome serious
health problems, such as cancer, physical disabilities, major
organ transplants and other life threatening diseases and
injuries.
The Children's Miracle Network is a non-profit umbrella
organization that represents children's hospital foundations
across the country.
Present today is Michael Grigat from the riding of Winnipeg
North—St. Paul, who is here on behalf of the Children's Hospital
Foundation of Manitoba. On behalf of my colleagues from
Manitoba, I wish to welcome Michael and his fellow champions to
our nation's capital.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 20, 21
and 22, the third summit of the Americas will be held in Quebec
City. On this occasion, the 34 heads of state in our
hemisphere, with the exception of Cuba, will continue
negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas.
Behind closed doors, they will be making decisions that will
affect the life and future of all the people of Quebec.
The 34 states deciding the future of the Americas, and therefore
Quebec, include Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, Barbados, but not
Quebec.
Without access to the negotiating table, the Quebec nation must
leave it up to Ottawa to defend its rights and its vision.
In this situation, the need for an independent Quebec is readily
understood. If a country with a population the size of that of
greater Joliette can discuss as an equal with its partners in
the Americas, why can Quebec not ?
* * *
CHARLES DAUDELIN
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
were deeply saddened to learn yesterday of the death of sculptor
Charles Daudelin. He held a very prominent position in our
cultural universe.
Born in Granby, Charles Daudelin was a pioneer in the
development of contemporary Canadian culture. One of the first
sculptors to propose an approach based on the abstract, thus
distancing himself from traditional sculpture, he became a model
for other contemporary sculptors.
His interest in the integration of art and architecture might
explain his role in the concept of public art, that is,
sculptures in public places rather than in buildings.
Canadians, and Montrealers in particular, are very familiar with
his public sculptures. His work may also be found in Notre-Dame
basilica and in the Canada Council art bank.
Mr. Daudelin leaves us a rich heritage of his work and his
influence on visual arts in Canada.
On behalf of the government of Canada, I thank Charles Daudelin
for the work he has left us and offer my condolences to his
family.
* * *
[English]
VAISAKHI
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, 302 years ago on Vaisakhi, Siri Guru Gobind
Singh Ji, who was a saint, a soldier, a poet, a philosopher, a
reformer and a guru, created Khalsa, the pure Sikh, based
on the principles of equality of all humankind, justice, honesty,
hard work, peace, love, courage and community service.
These are the very principles of ethics and morality lacking or
diminishing in today's world, including in some old line
political establishments in our great country.
We in our party wish to congratulate Sikhs in Canada and around
the world. In the spirit of unity, peace, progress, prosperity,
religious freedom and mutual respect within the cultural
diversity of Canada, the Canadian Alliance, the Official
Opposition of Canada, invites all members and senators, including
government members, and the public in general to room 237-C in
Centre Block to celebrate Vaisakhi with us at 4 p.m. today.
* * *
1410
CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to welcome to Parliament Hill today representatives of
the Children's Miracle Network, a network of 170 non-profit
children's hospitals, one of the more compelling and dramatic of
humanitarian and health care initiatives anywhere today.
In a word, the Children's Miracle Network treats 14 million
children a year suffering from cancer, heart defects, diabetes,
kidney disease and accident trauma, to name a few. It provides
more than $2.5 billion a year in charitable care and 100% of
every dollar remains within the community that raises it. Every
community and every region in Canada is a beneficiary of this
incredible effort to save and improve the lives of our children.
I am delighted to welcome to Parliament Hill today one of my own
constituents, Christopher Sherlaw, who has undergone multiple
hospitalizations and surgeries, yet through it all this teen has
exhibited the courage and fortitude that defines him and others
here today whose lives have been transformed by the Children's
Miracle Network.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, reports have it that the former NDP premier of
Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, has been named to head a national
commission on medicare. Details will be made known in a short
time by the health minister.
As members can imagine, my colleagues and I in the NDP know and
value the commitment of Roy Romanow to medicare. He has devoted
his life to serving in a province that is the birthplace of
medicare and is committed to carrying on the legacy of Tommy
Douglas. His appointment today is most welcome and timely.
The challenges facing medicare are serious and threatening and
must be faced head on. Rising drug costs, nurse shortages,
waiting lists for diagnostic tests, creeping privatization, gaps
in community care and shortfalls in public financing are
worrisome, but most of all, trade deals, like the GATS, strike at
the very heart of our universal public health system and threaten
a future for medicare.
We trust this new commission will address these threats to
medicare and we wish Roy Romanow the very best.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH SERVICES
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
we explain the Prime Minister's haste to set up a royal
commission of inquiry to review health services and operations
in that sector, when the federal government has no jurisdiction
over the delivery of these services?
This is the same government that deprived Quebec of $4.3 billion
in health transfer payments, but when the general election
became imminent it miraculously found a few billion dollars to
reinvest in the system. Such opportunism.
In recent years, several forums have given stakeholders a chance
to discuss these issues and the conclusion was always the same
one. Health care spending will grow by 5% annually. The
provinces need money and the only responsible action that the
Prime Minister can take is to restore transfer payments to their
1993-1994 level, with an indexing factor.
Incidentally, the last time the Prime Minister set up a royal
commission of inquiry on health, the Krever commission, he did
not even have the decency to respect the conclusion reached by
its members.
* * *
FISHING PORTS
Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members and
Canadians of a major federal investment in the Gaspé region.
An amount of $1.8 million will be invested in maintenance
dredging operations and other works in fishing ports of the
Gaspé. These ports include those of Cap-Chat, Bonaventure Island,
l'Anse-à-Beaufils, l'Anse-à-Brillant, les Méchins, Port-Daniel Est,
Saint-Godefroi and Tourelles.
The importance of ports for fishers and local communities is
obvious. I am convinced that these improvements will prove
beneficial.
Such an investment shows that the federal government cares about
the regions of Quebec.
Maintaining safe and viable ports in the Gaspé will create new
economic opportunities.
This shows once again that federal initiatives meet the needs of
the people of the Gaspé and of the other regions of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government has failed Canadians through its incapacity to obtain
a uniform Canadian position in advance of the softwood lumber
dispute despite the fact that it was very easy to predict that at
the very least this would be a very contentious issue.
Now the Liberal government is squandering an opportunity to
address something that the premiers, congressional leaders and
the industry actually agree on.
In Monday's announcement, a congressional leader stated:
The softwood lumber products that are the subject of these
Petitions are produced in Canada. As explained in section
VII...petitioners do not allege that softwood lumber production
in the Atlantic Provinces benefits from countervailable
subsidies.
1415
By not moving forward immediately with respect to a maritime
accord, the government is intentionally and deliberately putting
Atlantic Canada into the mix on countervail.
We call on the government and the Liberal members to be vocal
and ensure that we get a maritime accord so we can protect
softwood lumber.
* * *
[Translation]
NEW HOMES MONTH
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to announce that April is New Homes Month.
This is an annual opportunity for the Canadian Home Builders'
Association to pass on to consumers information about buying a
new home, and to showcase building industry specialists and the
products and services they provide.
Since April is one of the busiest months of the year for
Canadians wishing to buy or sell a home, it is a good time for
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to inform them about
the main products and services it offers to assist them in
making their decision: products such as a free step-by-step
homebuying guide, and services such as mortgage loan insurance,
which is available from the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation under the National Housing Act and which makes home
ownership possible for a downpayment as low as 5%.
As the national organization responsible for housing in Canada,
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation plays a vital role
in helping Canadians find information that will help them make
the best decisions with respect to—
[English]
The Speaker: I would invite all hon. members to come
and meet the Children's Miracle Network 2001 Champions Across
Canada at a reception in room 216-N following question period.
These young persons have overcome life-threatening illnesses or
injuries and have been chosen to represent the two million
children who are treated annually by the Children's Miracle
Network hospitals and foundations.
[Translation]
I therefore urge members to come and meet these remarkable young
people.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's attempts to maintain absolute
control over the government and over parliament may result in
the public never learning the truth about Shawinigate.
The Prime Minister is both judge and jury in this scandal. Why
does the Prime Minister not give up his obstructive tactics and
give the green light for an impartial and independent inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I have said on numerous occasions, the matter has been debated
in the House for months, as well as being brought up in 1999.
The RCMP has examined the file. The ethics counsellor has
testified on several occasions at the request of the opposition
and at all times has stated that there was no conflict of
interest. I have done something exceptional, a first, by
tabling personal contracts in the House.
I believe the matter is clear and the House will have its chance
to vote on this issue this afternoon.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he talks about the ethics counsellor,
but yesterday he deflected questions from us about the ethics
counsellor and said “go to the committee and ask the ethics
counsellor yourself”.
We went to that committee yesterday afternoon. We asked
questions but the Prime Minister's handpicked head of that
committee absolutely refused to allow us to ask those important
questions.
Does the Prime Minister not see that we need an independent
inquiry and somebody heading it up whose job is not dependent on
the Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only thing I will add is that the people of Canada
are extremely disappointed in the attitude of the opposition
parties. While we have very important problems in the country,
they ask dozens and dozens of questions but virtually no
questions on the real problems of the nation.
1420
The reason the Leader of the Opposition is in so much trouble as
leader is that he does not know that the people of Canada
want him to be a real politician who cares about the future of
the nation rather than asking those kinds of questions.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not answer
our questions on the economy, on softwood lumber or on anything
else either.
Here is the situation. The Prime Minister sells a hotel to a
convicted criminal. Right next to the hotel is a golf course in
which the Prime Minister has a financial stake. The golf course
then gets HRD funds, improper loans and immigrant investor funds
after the Prime Minister intervenes. The golf course then gets
$500,000 from somebody who was improperly awarded a $6 million
government contract.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether there is anything wrong
at all with this business or is it normal—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he is the person who was condemned for slandering
another person.
I have had no connection with this business since November 1,
1993. Because the Leader of the Opposition slandered somebody,
the taxpayers of Alberta had to pay $700,000 in legal fees, and
of that money, $70,000 went back. They changed the books to make
sure that $70,000 would go back to the Alliance Party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I recognize it is Wednesday, but it is
difficult to hear the questions and answers.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked about a piece of
land purchased for $500,000 by Claude Gauthier, a friend of the
Prime Minister, at a time when the Prime Minister was owed nearly
as much for his shares in the same golf course.
Mr. Gauthier's investment unquestionably increased the
likelihood that someone would buy the Prime Minister's shares.
Was the Prime Minister or his agent involved in any way in the
sale of the land to Mr. Gauthier?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said no. Mr. Gauthier won a bid with the
government. His bid was $2.5 million less than the second
bidder. As the Minister for International Cooperation clearly
explained, a bid was made and the lowest bidder got the contract.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Claude Gauthier got the $6.3
million CIDA contract, for which he did not qualify, and soon
thereafter bought land from a company in which the Prime Minister
had a financial interest.
After donating $10,000 to the Prime Minister's election
campaign, the PMO ensured that Mr. Gauthier received a $1.2
million HRDC grant.
Is this what the Prime Minister had in mind when in 1993 he
promised Canadians to govern with integrity?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, everything is well known. It has been debated in
committee. The RCMP looked into all that. There is absolutely
nothing wrong.
Those people on the other side do not understand that they can
slander people all the time but it does not help the cause of
people who serve in public life.
I have no shame in my record here. It will be 38 years next
week that I will have been defending the rights of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us
assume that the Prime Minister is telling us the whole truth,
let us assume that the 1993 bill of sale was a final document. I
have a very simple question for the Prime Minister.
Why should his company compensate the new buyer in the event of
a problem? Why should his company pay Mr. Michaud's lawyers? Why
should he pay for something if he no longer has any interest? I
would appreciate an answer.
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, lawyers always put in every contract all the clauses
that they think are necessary for the protection of the final
deal.
[Translation]
This is what happened in this case. I apologize to the hon.
member for replying in English. I simply want to tell him that
everything has been said for weeks and weeks.
1425
This proves once again that they have nothing against the
government. Just yesterday, they tried to tarnish the Minister
of Finance's reputation. They have absolutely nothing to do
other than try to destroy people who have given a very good and
honest government to all Canadians.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, basic
honesty requires a person to answer questions. We would
appreciate it if the Prime Minister began answering questions.
When the Prime Minister tells us that the lawyers covered
everything in case something were to happen, is he telling us
that Mr. Michaud was afraid there might be an inquiry and that
he arranged for the Prime Minister's company to pay for his
lawyers? What interest did the Prime Minister have in agreeing
to such a clause, if he was not involved? Is he so generous as
to help anyone who is in trouble?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to inform the hon. member that I read that document only
when it was tabled.
The whole transaction was completed by the person who acts as my
trustee and lawyer. She did not even inform me of the nature of
the documents. She settled the issue and, as far as I was
concerned, everything was very simple in that, as of November 1,
1993, I no longer had any involvement with this golf club, which
has probably been an issue for months and even years in this
House.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has said that the lawyers had provided for everything
in the September 1999 contract. They even provided that the
Prime Minister himself would assume the cost of any inquiry.
Are we to understand that, if the Prime Minister agreed to such
a clause, it was because he was sure there would be no
investigation, because he is the one who decides in the end?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
had she listened to the answer—because her question was prepared
in advance—I said that I was not even aware of the nature of the
document. My lawyer in charge of the trust settled that and she
did not inform me of the nature of the documents she signed with
whomever.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
just remind the Prime Minister that he is the one who keeps
saying the same thing, because he is incapable of proving his
innocence in this whole matter.
So, in ethical terms, the Prime Minister has again put himself
in a position of conflict of interest, since, by deciding or not
to hold an inquiry into his own activities, he is judge and jury
in a decision that concerns him directly.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that he has put himself,
in ethical terms, in a very difficult, if not untenable,
situation by agreeing to this clause, which makes him judge and
jury in the matter of the Auberge Grand-Mère?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the House will vote. All members will vote later today.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, finally
hope on the horizon, at least potentially, for Canadians
desperately concerned about the future of health care. Roy
Romanow is a fervent champion of medicare. We applaud his
appointment, but let me say that the success of the commission
depends upon the government.
Will the Prime Minister give assurances that the terms of
reference of the commission will be sufficiently broad to include
the threat of privatization from flawed trade deals, and that the
government will actually implement the commission's
recommendations? Will he give those assurances?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Leader of the NDP for complimenting the
government for the actions that have been taken.
She knows that I know Mr. Romanow very well. Before accepting
the job, he read the terms of reference. I can tell the House
that if the terms of reference had been too narrow, he would not
have accepted the mandate I gave him.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to think that the Prime Minister might be willing to bring
the terms of reference before the House so we could debate and
strengthen them.
The fact that the Prime Minister evaded answering my question is
not promising. Canadians want these issues addressed.
I will repeat my question. Will the Prime Minister indicate
that it is the government's intention to address the threat of
privatization posed by trade deals, and that the government will
not leave these recommendations on the shelf to gather dust as
has been done so many times by previous commissions and forums?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said in my little meeting with the press earlier that
Mr. Romanow, like the people on this side of the House, believes
in the five conditions of the Canada Health Act and in that there
is no place for privatization of the health care system in
Canada.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in 1986 in Hansard during the Stevens affair the current
Minister of Industry stated:
Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister of Industry?
Will he therefore allow a free vote of the Liberal caucus on
today's motion to establish an independent judicial inquiry on
conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after weeks and weeks of debate I looked in the House
yesterday and there was a time when there was not one Tory member
in the debate in the House of Commons. I agree entirely with the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who said:
The Prime Minister could have put this matter to rest a long time
ago by providing definitively...everything if he was to table a
document that would give us the agreement of the sale.
He said to table the document and I did.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
could the Prime Minister tell the House why it took his lawyer,
Deborah Weinstein, three long years to negotiate the sale of the
shares to one of his original partners?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that a condition precedent to
Mr. Michaud's agreement to buy the shares was that the Prime
Minister's personal company would pay the costs of any inquiry or
any other proceeding?
Will he tell the House if there is any limit to the amount of
money the Prime Minister's company will have to pay in the event
of a public inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is fishing. Yesterday he wanted to have my
income tax returns and so on. He is the one who refused to tell
the press how much money he is paying himself as the leader of
the party when his party is $10 million in debt.
He is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to himself with
money subsidized by the government and he has the gall to get up
and talk about conflict of interest.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult for the
Chair to hear the questions and the answers. The Chair has to be
able to hear the questions and the answers. I appeal for order.
I know it is Wednesday. The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday when the Prime Minister responded to my
question about the bill of sale he said:
I recognize my name on that. It was my name. I had signed it a
long time ago. I signed this contract. I was probably in
Ottawa—
I would like the Prime Minister to think back, to think way, way
back. Where was he and who was there?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was in my office as the leader of the opposition who
had just been elected Prime Minister and was forming a government
that was to be a very good government for Canada. That was my
preoccupation on November 1, 1993.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I did ask him if anyone else was there. In fact he
went on to say yesterday:
I was probably in Ottawa because it was the day after we defeated
the Tories when I was forming a...government.
I would like to remind him that in fact the election was on
October 25, 1993. This contract was evidently signed on November
1. When did he really sign that and who was there?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made a terrible mistake. I said, yes, the day before.
No, it was five days before, but there is one thing we all know.
1435
For two elections she campaigned telling the people of Edmonton
that she would never ever accept the pension, and right after the
election she double crossed her electors and took the money.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is systematically taking refuge behind his ethics
counsellor to justify his behaviour in the Grand-Mère golf club
affair.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the ethics counsellor,
Mr. Wilson, was consulted about whether there was any ethical
objection to the Prime Minister agreeing to a clause which made
him both judge and jury with respect to paying the costs of any
future inquiry which he alone can authorize?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these decisions are taken by the whole cabinet, not just by me.
The problem is studied by the whole cabinet and the members of
cabinet will be able to voice clearly what they think at 5.30
p.m. this afternoon.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, throughout
this saga, the Prime Minister puts us in mind of the actor Tom
Hanks, who stars in Cast Away, a movie about a man alone on a
deserted island who talks to his somewhat deflated volleyball,
called “Wilson”.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he is talking to his ethics
counsellor whenever and however he wants but that, in the end,
he always hears the same answer, the one that suits him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have to keep giving the same answer, because I am telling the
truth. I am not about to give any untruthful answers.
But what I am seeing is that the party opposite has no interest
in the business of the nation. There are problems of
considerable concern to Quebecers, but that is not what they
want to talk about.
All they have focused on for 30 years is separating Quebec from
Canada, and Quebecers are no more interested in talking about
separation for the next 30 years than they have been interested
in talking about it for the past 30.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Jonas Prince was chairman of Delta hotels when he signed
an agreement with the Prime Minister in 1993. Mr. Prince
operated at least nine Delta hotels in Cuba until he sold his
interest in 1998.
My question is for the Minister of Industry, if he would pay
attention. Has Mr. Prince or his companies ever received any
direct or indirect funding from his department, from the Business
Development Bank of Canada or from Export Development
Corporation?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, incredibly, a member of the official
opposition attempted to stand and was so far over the top that
she compared the Prime Minister of Canada with the butcher of the
Balkans.
Today we have another member who would attempt to drag Fidel
Castro into the scandal. I would expect this member, but in
particular I would expect his leader, to stand and apologize for
those over the top and ridiculous comments made yesterday in the
House.
Some hon. members: Apologize.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are wasting a great deal
of time in this question period. Hon. members will not get in
either the questions or the answers, and everyone knows both are
wonderful.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, talk about over the top rhetoric. That is what we have
here. In March 1996, when the U.S. congress was threatening
action against Canadian businesses in Cuba, including the Delta
hotels, a Delta spokesman said “We are confident in the Canadian
government protecting what we do there”.
Was the reason Delta was confident in the government's
protection the fact that Delta still owed the Prime Minister
$300,000?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians have to judge for themselves. Yesterday the
Prime Minister was compared to somebody wanted by the
International Tribunal on War Crimes, the butcher of the Balkans.
Today we are being told that foreign policy is being made at the
golf course in Shawinigan. I suppose we will be told next that
Fidel Castro has a hotline to the Prime Minister's Office and it
is all part of a big conspiracy involving a golf course and a
hotel in Shawinigan. They should not be so foolish.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
TAX AGREEMENTS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
meeting of the finance ministers of the 34 countries of the
Americas in Toronto—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: —the Canadian minister said that he did not
contemplate putting an end to the tax agreement between Canada—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. There is so much noise that it is
not even possible to hear the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. He has the floor.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, at the meeting of the finance
ministers of the 34 countries of the Americas in Toronto, the
Canadian minister said that he did not contemplate putting an
end to the tax agreement between Canada and Barbados.
How can the Prime Minister allow the Minister of Finance to be
the one who decides to maintain the tax agreement between Canada
and Barbados, when it is common knowledge that the minister
draws personal advantage from that agreement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have to say this is disgusting.
This party is now trying to personally attack the Minister of
Finance, a man who has put a huge amount of work, excellent
work, into administering this country's finances since 1993.
Now they are trying to cast aspersions on his character and his
integrity.
On second thought, I ought not to have even risen in reply. I
find this quite simply insulting.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
his first mandate, the Prime Minister had demanded that the
Minister of Finance withdraw when cabinet discussions addressed
shipping policies since he was a shipowner and therefore in
conflict of interest.
How can he now tolerate having the same man decide to maintain
the agreement between Canada and Barbados, when he owns eight
companies that benefit from the taxation system in Barbados and
thus is very much in a conflict of interest situation?
Has the Auberge Grand-Mère affair softened the rules of
government ethics to this extent?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member was not listening to me. All he needs to do is
to read tomorrow the answer that I have given today.
I find it totally unacceptable that they are stirring up
something else when the people of Canada want us to focus on
real problems.
Obviously, though, all these parties are desperate to destroy a
party that, unlike theirs, has unity as well as excellent
ministers and, I trust, an acceptable Prime Minister.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian dollar reached close to a
virtual all time low. The Prime Minister says that the loonie is
the victim of short term speculation, but it is not a short term
crisis that has led to a 25 year decline and a 25% decline under
his watch.
He has called for a weaker currency and a lower dollar for 20
years. Does the Prime Minister think it is a problem at all? Now
that the dollar has finally reached 63 cents, is this not the
policy he has wanted all along?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that it is the loonie on the other side who has
gone to—
The Speaker: I hope the Prime Minister was not referring
to any hon. member.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: They are very, very low, Mr.
Speaker.
The Canadian dollar, since January 2000, has lost 8% in relation
to the American dollar. The Australian dollar, 26%; the Euro,
15%; the U.K. pound, 13%; and the yen, 18%. Yes, it is a
problem. It is not a weak Canadian dollar; it is a strong
American dollar.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of Industry's juvenile
attitude is rubbing off on the Prime Minister. The member for
Markham said for the Royal Bank two years ago with respect to the
currency that Canadians were less prisoners to uncontrollable
forces and more masters of their own destiny.
After 25 years of productivity decline, higher taxes and higher
debt, why is the Prime Minister always satisfied to say that it
is not their fault, that it is because the Americans are doing
better. Why is he always satisfied to see the Americans get the
gold in the economic competition—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with the policy of the government we have created more
than 2.1 million jobs since 1993. Unemployment went down from
11.5% to 6.9%. Interest rates went from 11.5% to 6%.
The deficit was $42 billion and now we have a surplus of $18
billion
1445
I could go on and on and on. The economic performance of the
government is very good, but the level of the loonie on the other
side is very low too.
* * *
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
In order to make their mark on the world stage, the CLD of the
Asbestos RCM and over six businesses of the region of Asbestos
will be participating, in connection with the summit of the
Americas, in an Americontact export trade fair on April 3, 4,
and 5, 2001 in Quebec City.
Americontact 2001 will bring together business people from the
Americas with a special interest in areas of economic activity.
Will the free trade area of the Americas, an integral part of
the summit of the Americas, reflect the values, interests and
priorities of the SMBs, which are vital to the prosperity of the
regions—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, in fact, I took part in the
opening of Americontact in Quebec City and I consider it an
excellent initiative.
Over 70% of Canadian exporters are small and medium size
businesses. Some 94% of the products from the countries of
Central and South America already enter Canada duty free. The
reverse is true for Canadians exports to the countries of
Central and South America.
The FTAA is intended to remedy this situation and give our
business people better access to the markets of the Americas.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the government's response to the U.S. decision not to ratify the
Kyoto agreement has been vague and inconsistent to say the least.
Last week the Minister of the Environment chose to criticize the
European Union instead of the U.S. Last Friday and this Monday
the Minister of Natural Resources refused to answer a simple
question on whether or not they would ratify. Yesterday the
Prime Minister indicated that he intends to respect our agreement
on Kyoto. He is quoted as saying that.
Will the Prime Minister, once and for all, commit to the House,
to all Canadians and to the international community that Canada
will ratify the Kyoto protocol as scheduled in 2002?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no such schedule. The government, the Minister
of the Environment and I are committed to implement the Kyoto
agreement, but we would like to have two amendments that are
extremely important for Canada.
The sink is extremely important for Canada. Because we have a
lot of land we could create a situation where a lot of CO2 could
be absorbed if we had a good system of trees or plants in Canada.
Plus we want to have credit because we are exporting a lot of
resources to the United States, such as natural gas and
electricity that does not cause any—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once
again the Prime Minister is providing Canadians with hollow
assurances. In Vancouver striking transit workers and transit
riders know that the government takes out over $350 million in
gas taxes from the lower mainland but despite election promises
refuses to put a dime back into public transit.
Why will the government not put its money where its mouth is,
ratify the Kyoto agreement and provide funding for very important
public transit in the lower mainland and the rest of Canada? Why
will it not do that?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the position of the government was made clear
moments ago by the Prime Minister. Perhaps the hon. member was
not listening.
The fact is we want the Kyoto agreement to be put into effect.
We certainly want to make sure that we have sinks included
because there are great opportunities for reducing greenhouse
gasses through sinks and sinks are part of the Kyoto agreement.
With respect to transit in the lower mainland, we certainly hope
the strike ends soon, but that is not a responsibility of the
government to negotiate. I trust the NDP government of the
province of British Columbia and the municipal authorities will
get on with the job.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, when
speaking of his new employee, the former Eurocopter lobbyist
David Miller, the Prime Minister stated in the House yesterday:
When the bids are ready, I will demand of Mr. Miller that he not
participate in any discussions.
Is the Prime Minister saying that Mr. Miller will be allowed to
participate in Sea King replacement discussions that occur before
the bids are ready?
1450
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker. Mr. Miller started work on Monday. He is a man who has
worked on the Hill for many years. He will respect all the
conditions of conflict of interest.
He has not been and will not be involved in the file because it
is not part of his responsibilities. He has not been involved
since Monday and will not be involved in the future.
I am very happy that a competent person like him from western
Canada has decided to join my staff.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
maritime helicopter project has already come under heavy fire
from the industry and from aerospace stakeholders. The ethics
counsellor has stated that he would require that people not
become involved in any file on which they had been making
representation.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House today that Mr. Miller
will not be involved from this day forth with regard to this
industry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said it in English and she did not understand, so
I will repeat it in French.
[Translation]
Mr. Miller will not be involved in this issue at all, this is
not his responsibility. He has nothing to do with that and will
have nothing to do with it in the future.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, access to information documents show that the Prime
Minister knew three days in advance of the funeral that King
Hussein was dying. In fact on the morning of February 5, foreign
affairs warned that King Hussein was clinically dead.
With that knowledge, later that morning the Prime Minister
decided to go skiing instead. Worse, he blamed his absence from
the funeral on the Canadian forces.
Why did the Prime Minister not have the courage to take the
responsibility for his own bad judgment instead of blaming the
Canadian forces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said at that time that I was in British Columbia when
I was informed of the death of the king and that the funeral was
in less than 24 hours. I could not make it. The Minister of
Foreign Affairs was there.
He arrived from Ottawa only a few minutes before the funeral.
The president of the United States, with the big system he has,
almost missed the funeral. I could not make it.
I met the current king when he came here. He understood very
well. We have great relations with Jordan. I visited Jordan and
I could not have received a better reception than offered by—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, three days in advance of that funeral the Prime
Minister knew about the situation, yet he chose to go skiing
instead. When he got a bunch of flak for that particular
decision in the House, he blamed the Canadian forces.
Will the Prime Minister apologize for denigrating the good
reputation of the Canadian forces?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us first make one thing perfectly clear. My
predecessor attended the funeral of King Hussein. Canada was
well and adequately represented at the funeral.
Let us ask a second question. Why is the Alliance Party not
allowing the member for Calgary—Nose Hill to stand today to
apologize for her outrageous comparison yesterday?
* * *
[Translation]
TAX AGREEMENTS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the
OECD's condemnation of tax havens, finance ministers of the
Americas will not be discussing this issue at their meeting in
Toronto.
Since 10 of the 34 FTAA countries are tax havens, does the Prime
Minister not realize that a free trade area for capital will
facilitate the annual exodus from Canada of several billions of
dollars, leaving the full tax burden to be shouldered by
citizens like us?
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from
the truth in what the member said here today.
The finance minister and the federal government have been on the
leading edge of an OECD initiative that is trying to eliminate
harmful tax competition.
We also introduced some of the toughest money laundering
legislation in parliament last year.
1455
The finance minister is absolutely convinced that we need to
have a transparent and fair process, but we also want to
eliminate harmful tax competition, make it more transparent, cut
down on secrecy and attack those countries that are harbouring
tax evaders.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since it is tax
return time, and since the Summit of the Americas is just around
the corner, should the Prime Minister not take a position which
is clear and reassuring for the people we represent by promising
to fight harmful tax practices in the three Americas, contrary
to the position announced by the Minister of Finance?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our position is very clear, as are the
positions of the Minister of Finance.
[English]
We are on the leading edge. We are involved with the OECD and
many countries to eliminate harmful tax competition. We have
tough money laundering legislation that passed the House and the
Senate. We are on the leading edge of these discussions.
We want to make sure, though, that the process is transparent
and fair before we list countries that are not involved in
harmful tax competition. The Minister of Finance is leading this
charge and we will get to the root of the problem to try to
resolve it.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in March the Minister of National Revenue admitted that
customs officials were opening mail coming into Canada. A
government bill has just been introduced in the Senate allowing
customs officials to open mail leaving Canada.
Why does the Minister of National Revenue want to invade the
privacy of Canadians?
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CCRA is responsible
for bringing forth controls on imports and exports. We know
there are people taking advantage of our deficiencies in law to
control these imports and exports.
We have to exercise more control so that we will not get into
trouble with smuggling or illegal products entering Canada.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, controls, entry and exit. As it stands right now,
customs officials can read mail coming into Canada. If the
government has its way, customs officials will read mail leaving
Canada.
The question is very simple. Why does the Minister of National
Revenue want to turn the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency into
big brother and spy on Canadians' mail?
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have the most
concern for the safety and security of Canadians. Because we
know people are taking advantage of our deficiencies in law and
are trying to smuggle in illegal products, such as meat products
and others, we need laws. Any products over 30 grams will be
examined.
* * *
TOURISM
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question that is actually relevant to Canadians right now.
My question is for the Minister of Industry.
In rural ridings like mine of Simcoe—Grey the tourism industry
is offering enormous potential for economic prosperity and for
opportunities for future generations. The challenge for smaller
municipalities is their inability to develop the necessary
infrastructure to accelerate growth in this critical industry.
Would the minister tell the House what our government is doing
to assist rural communities like mine in developing their tourism
base?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for his
very persistent and hard work in developing Canada's great
tourism potential.
As he knows, the Canadian Tourism Commission is now up and
running. Indeed I understand the chairman of the tourism
commission will be visiting the member in his riding to look at
the potential of that area.
All the agencies of government, in particular those regional
agencies across the country, have priorized tourism as one of the
great economic generators of Canada. We intend to work hard to
see that it grows.
* * *
SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the parole board recently did its job
by denying parole to Karla Homolka. It recognized she is likely
to repeat what it referred to as her monstrous and depraved
crimes. Clearly the parole board believes the public is still at
risk after her eight years imprisonment.
1500
Now that the parole board has protected Canadians from Karla
Homolka during the first two-thirds of her sentence, what will
the solicitor general do to protect them after she serves the
remaining four years?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the parole board is an independent body
and it has made its decision. What will happen is that the
individual will serve her full term.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has implied
that there is no way to stop it after she has served her full
sentence. He is correct, but there should be and it is his job
to see that there is.
Last year an all party committee reviewed the legislation
governing paroles and prisons. The Alliance Party pushed for
changes that would have dealt with the issue but it got no
support from the government.
When will the solicitor general stop being the caretaker of
inadequate Liberal policies and start doing his job? When will
he put the rights of Canadians ahead of dangerous offenders?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has passed a number of
laws with regard to dangerous offenders and long term offenders.
Such laws come into effect when an offender appears before a
court. However, it is not my job to decide what a judge does or
does not do.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week, 32 of the 34 countries of the Americas signed a
declaration to stabilize greenhouse gases.
Canada and the United States are the only ones that did not sign
that document. Yesterday, the Prime Minister expressed his
disappointment following the decision made by the U.S.
president.
If the Prime Minister firmly believes in Kyoto, will he stop
acting like a political weather vane, ratify the Kyoto protocol
and make representations to his American counterpart?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the meeting to which the hon. gentleman refers, the
first ever meeting of the environment ministers of the Americas,
took place in Montreal. Many items were on the agenda but the
question of climate change was not, although it was discussed. A
number of points of view came forward and some nations signed.
The Latin American nations signed an agreement.
We chaired that meeting. Climate change was not on the agenda
and it was inappropriate for the chair to take a position on it.
Nevertheless, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday and in
previous statements, Canada is committed to the Kyoto protocol.
We want to implement its provisions and we urge other countries
to do the same.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
COMMENTS OF MINISTER
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege
today pertaining to comments made by the government House leader
yesterday in the House.
On page 2668 of Hansard, the government House leader is
quoted as stating:
Both speakers from the Alliance who have preceded my remarks have
been sued, both successfully and both for saying wrong things
about Canadians.
1505
I was one of the speakers to whom the minister referred. When
the government House leader stood and made that comment he spoke
about a case he had heard as a member of the Board of Internal
Economy. As a member of the board, he had firsthand knowledge of
the details of the case.
As the House leader was making a definitive assertion, one not
in the public domain, it is logical to conclude that there was
only one place he could have obtained the information, which was
via his role as a member of the Board of Internal Economy.
As every member of the House knows, members of the Board of
Internal Economy are bound by oath or affirmation of fidelity and
secrecy as legislated in the Parliament of Canada Act. It is my
contention that the government House leader violated his oath as
a member of the Board of Internal Economy, the Parliament of
Canada Act and my privileges as a member of parliament.
There are no public documents or media reports which show that I
was ever successfully sued. The court documents show that the
lawsuit against me was dismissed without cost. In an October 15,
1999 Ottawa Citizen article, authored by Jim Bronskill,
there was only mention of an out of court settlement.
When the government House leader claimed that I was successfully
sued, he obviously obtained the information from a source outside
the public domain.
As a member of the Board of Internal Economy, the government
House leader has firsthand knowledge of the disposition of my
lawsuit. In fact, he played more of a role in determining the
outcome of the lawsuit than I did, as I was not privy to the
discussions of the BOIE.
When the government House leader stood in the House yesterday
and said that I was successfully sued, people would infer that he
knew what he was talking about because he had access to
information not available to the public.
Despite taking an oath of secrecy, the minister chose to discuss
the case in public because it suited his political purposes.
The Board of Internal Economy finds its authority in the
Statutes of Canada, specifically the Parliament of Canada Act.
Subsection 50(5) of the Parliament of Canada Act reads:
Every member of the Board shall, as soon as practicable after
becoming a member of the Board, take before the Clerk of the
House of Commons an oath or affirmation of fidelity and secrecy
in the form set out in Form 3 of the schedule.
Form 3 of the schedule reads as follows:
I,..., do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will faithfully, truly
and to the best of my judgment, skill and ability execute and
perform the duties required of me as a member of the Board of
Internal Economy of the House of Commons.
I further solemnly swear (affirm) that I will not communicate or
allow to be communicated to any person without due authority in
that behalf any information relating to matters of employment and
staff relations, tenders, security and investigations in relation
to a member of the House of Commons, nor will I allow any such
person to inspect or have access to any books or documents
belonging to or in the possession of the Board and relating to
the business of the Board. (In the case where an oath is taken,
add “So help me God”).
I know that members of the board generally hold their oaths very
dear because when my case was heard the level of secrecy was so
high that even I received extremely limited communication from
the board.
However, for reasons of his own, the government House leader
chose to ignore his oath, which is the law, and to make a new
allegation.
Under no circumstances should the government House leader or any
other member of the board discuss in public a case they have
heard as members of the Board of Internal Economy. He certainly
should not have made an accusation that was not in the public
domain when he had firsthand knowledge of the true facts of the
case.
It is clear that the government House leader's comments were not
just an off the cuff mistake. He led the government's opposition
to our motion yesterday and his attack on me was obviously part
of his strategy.
The government House leader's accusation was also made by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister during debate and
by the Minister of Industry during question period.
This was clearly a planned and deliberate act by the government
House leader.
1510
If the government House leader's assertion that I was
successfully sued is true, then he is obviously in clear
violation of his Board of Internal Economy oath, the Statutes of
Canada and my privileges as a member of parliament.
This situation is even more egregious. Not only did the
government House leader talk about a case that he had dealt with
at the Board of Internal Economy, he chose to deliberately
misrepresent the facts of the case. By no legal measure could it
ever be considered that I was sued successfully.
It must be pointed out that the very next government speaker,
the Minister of Industry, who was not a member of the BOIE at the
time in question, presented a more accurate portrayal of what
transpired and carefully avoided any mention of me being
successfully sued. The truth, therefore, was obviously known to
the government side.
However, for purely partisan, political purposes, the government
House leader chose to ignore the truth. Instead, despite having
firsthand knowledge of the truth through the BOIE, he
deliberately chose to present a misleading statement to the
House.
As stated on page 119 of Erskine May's twenty-first edition:
As previously mentioned, this was not an off the cuff remark by
the minister. It was obviously a calculated strategy devised by
the government House leader.
Mr. Speaker, I also refer you to the twenty-second edition of
Erskine May, where on page 63 it states:
It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and
truthful information to Parliament...Ministers who knowingly
mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to
the Prime Minister.
I do not believe members of the House will have a great deal of
confidence in the Board of Internal Economy if members of that
board believe they can discuss in public the cases they have
heard. Certainly there will be no confidence in the BOIE if its
members are free to not only discuss cases in public but to
deliberately misrepresent them.
In conclusion, the government House leader made a definitive
statement about me. It is either true or false. If the
statement is true, the minister has violated his oath as a member
of the Board of Internal Economy, the Parliament of Canada Act
and, by extension, my privileges as a member of parliament.
If the statement is false, and I contend that it is, not only
has the government House leader violated his oath as a member of
the Board of Internal Economy, the Parliament of Canada Act and
my privileges as a member of parliament, he has also deliberately
misled the House and is therefore in contempt of the House.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find this a prima facie case
of both privilege and contempt. I am prepared to move the
appropriate motion in that case.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully
to the remarks of the hon. member. I have sat on the Board of
Internal Economy since the beginning. I have heard cases of hon.
members of assorted kinds, and I have never and will never—
Miss Deborah Grey: What is that pin?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, someone is making fun of
the pin of les Jeux de la Francophonie in the middle of my
remarks. I do not know how that contributes to what is being
said here.
Miss Deborah Grey: No I am not. I am just asking what it
is.
Hon. Don Boudria: I will wear it proudly, Mr. Speaker.
Miss Deborah Grey: You should.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. government House
leader has the floor.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have not and will not
reveal anything that happens before the board. Members who serve
with me know how much I value the work being done by the board
and how much I value its secrecy. I think everyone on all sides
of the House knows that. I will leave it at that because I think
many witnesses would agree with me, privately if not publicly.
I do not believe I did that yesterday. My reference was to
media reports of a settlement and nothing else. I will not
discuss things the board did or did not corroborate because that
would reveal what I said a moment ago I would not reveal. I will
not do so to defend myself or for any other reason because it
would be inappropriate. I have not done so and will not do so.
1515
That being said, if the hon. member feels that the media reports
were wrong and that the word “successfully” was inappropriate
in this context, I will unequivocally withdraw the reference to
the word “successfully” at page 2668 of yesterday's
Hansard. I say unequivocally, notwithstanding the
sarcastic and snarky remarks of the hon. member from Edmonton,
who is obviously not interested, that I do apologize.
The Speaker: I think that concludes the matter.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in
both official languages the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the
Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of
Wednesday, March 14, 2001, in relation to Bill C-13, an act to
amend the Excise Tax Act.
The committee has considered Bill C-13 and reports the bill
without amendment.
[Translation]
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the first report
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
[English]
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 26, 2001,
the committee has considered Bill C-12, an act to amend the
Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence, and reports
the bill with amendments.
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act
and the Competition Tribunal Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-328, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(theft over $100,000).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the title of the bill is an act to amend
the Criminal Code for theft over $100,000.
The purpose of the bill is to do two things. First, to allow a
penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment for theft over $100,000.
Second, to allow the same 14 year maximum penalty for people who
would bring property obtained through crime into the country.
This is long overdue. This change would encourage police
officers to carry through on investigations involving white
collar crime, such as embezzlement, when there are large amounts
of money involved. In the United States, there is grand theft in
place, which is a special charge allowing a higher penalty than
other theft charges.
It is long overdue in Canada and I look forward to debating the
bill in the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-329, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(protection of children).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House
today to reintroduce the bill in this session of parliament.
This is something that I care about very much. It is a bill
that seeks to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
This section of the criminal code allows for the use of force as
a means of correcting or disciplining a child.
Children are the only group in society that adults are allowed
to use force against, as outlined in the current section 43 of
the criminal code.
1520
My bill would seek to uphold the rights of the child as outlined
in international law and many other policies and programs of the
government. It would also seek to enforce that there are
adequate means of correction that need not involve physical harm
or force against children.
I am very happy to introduce the bill in the House today.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-330, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (desecration of the Canadian Flag).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill to amend
the criminal code regarding the desecration of the Canadian flag.
I thank the member for Eglinton—Lawrence for seconding the
motion.
We all know that a vast majority of Canadians are proud of the
flag as a national symbol and believe that the desecration of it
is an offence. The flag is a symbol of our freedom and
independence. For those who fought for our country's liberty,
the destruction of our flag is particularly upsetting.
Unfortunately there are some people who feel that by destroying
our flag they are expressing their disagreement with government
policy or the entire nation itself as a means of protest.
In this vein I put forward the bill to protect our national
symbol. I am not advocating throwing people in jail over this,
but I do think a fine on a sliding scale is appropriate
punishment for those who wilfully destroy our most profound
national symbol.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
UKRAINIAN CANADIAN RESTITUTION ACT
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-331, an act to recognize the
injustice that was done to persons of Ukrainian descent and other
Europeans who were interned at the time of the first world war
and to provide for public commemoration and for restitution which
is to be devoted to education and the promotion of tolerance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce
my bill. The bill calls for a redress of the Ukrainian
internment which occurred during the first world war, when over
5,000 citizens were interned and over 80,000 were made to
register like common criminals.
I thank the current Speaker who was an advocate back in the days
when he first came to the House. The current Prime Minister,
when he was leader of the official opposition previous to his
days as Prime Minister, promised Canadians of Ukrainian descent
that he would deal with the issue. To date he has not.
I ask all members for their support to bring a resolution to
this issue once and for all.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES ACT
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-332, an act to amend the Special Economic Measures Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the Special Economic Measures Act is not
often mentioned, but we felt that it needed to be amended when
we saw first minister Axworthy and now the current Minister of
Foreign Affairs involved in a conflict in Sudan, where a
Canadian company is associated with serious and repeated human
rights violations. In fact, Human Rights Watch indicated this
year that the company was associated with the continuation and
intensification of war.
However, the Special Economic Measures Act could not be
implemented by the Canadian government alone and, secondly, it
could not be invoked for situations where the actions of
companies resulted in serious and repeated human rights
violations.
1525
By amending the act, the bill will give authority to the
governor in council to take action. We hope that the government
will hear this strong voice.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY ACT
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-333, an act to establish and
maintain a national registry of sex offenders to protect the
children and communities of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the enabling
legislation that would provide a guideline for the development of
a national sex offender registry. The bill has a great deal of
support from all opposition parties in the House, and I sincerely
hope the governing party.
The real credit for the draft legislation goes to Canada's
30,000 policemen, victims of sexual crimes and our country's
law-abiding citizens. The draft legislation is modelled after
Christopher's bill, the Ontario sex offender legislation.
We expect the government to take the legislation in the spirit
it was developed in a non-partisan manner and forward it to the
House of Commons justice committee. We expect the government to
honour the motion unanimously passed in the House of Commons on
March 13 which read:
That the government establish a national sex offender registry by
January 30, 2002.
This bill would assist in the protection of our women and
children. I sincerely hope the government takes action now as we
have not seen any yet, and we are growing impatient with its
inaction.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous
consent to pass Motion No. 330 which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
introduce a comprehensive plan of action to stop the
international drug trade that should undertake to: (a) reduce
domestic consumption through drug rehabilitation programs based
upon some of the new and effective European models; (b) prevent
the use of drugs in the early stages of childhood by introducing
a national Headstart program that focuses on strengthening the
parent-child bond; (c) pursue a hemispheric free trade agreement
that reduces tariff, non-tariff barriers and the elimination of
double taxation regimes; and (d) introduce amendments to the
criminal code based on the model of the American Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organisation Act (RICO); and that this
plan should be taken to the Summit of the Americas and the
Organization of American States for further action.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition from workers of the Sigma mine,
of the McWatters company, and signed by residents of the Vallée
de l'Or and the city of Val-d'Or.
The petitioners are asking the government, through its national
highways program, to intervene in the McWatters project for the
Sigma-Lamaque complex on the Trans-Canada Highway, highway 117, in
the municipality of Val-d'Or. The government should reinforce its
presence and increase its activities in mining regions that are
experiencing difficulty in adapting to the new economy.
[English]
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition from people in the Peterborough area
who support the re-establishment of a VIA Rail link between
Peterborough and Toronto.
The petition has support from as far away as Whitby, Ajax,
Durham, Victoria, Haliburton and Brock where the members of
parliament also support the re-establishment of this VIA Rail
link.
1530
The petitioners point out that it is of great environmental
benefit, reducing global emissions that affect the atmosphere.
They also point out that it will strengthen Peterborough as a
tourism, commuter and educational destination.
The petitioners call upon parliament to authorize the resumption
of VIA Rail service between Peterborough and Toronto.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present two petitions, both from people who are
interested in research which will improve the situation of those
with end stage kidney disease.
The first petition is from citizens who support research into
the bioartificial kidney, a project which would replace
transplantation and dialysis treatment as the only treatments now
available for people with end stage kidney disease. The
petitioners call upon parliament to support research into the
bioartificial kidney.
The other petition is also from people who support kidney
research. They call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research to include kidney research as one
of the institutes in its system, to be named the institute of
kidney and urinary tract diseases.
RICHARDSON'S GROUND SQUIRREL
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put forward a
petition from constituents in my riding about Richardson's ground
squirrels, commonly known as gophers.
In Saskatchewan we have two very popular gophers named Gainer
and Leonard that are mascots of the Saskatchewan Roughriders and
are not included in this petition.
We are asking Health Canada to reintroduce the strychnine poison
which was used for gopher control a few years ago. We ask Health
Canada to bring it back so that damage done to property in our
province is controlled for our citizens.
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to present a petition signed by hundreds of people who are
asking the Canadian government to release all the documents on
the free trade area of the Americas, as they are at the
negotiating stage.
The petitioners are also asking that 5,000 copies of the draft
agreement in French, 10,000 copies in English, 1,000 copies in
Spanish and 500 copies in Portuguese be made available
Canada-wide, and that four versions be posted on the Internet,
with the monthly update.
* * *
[English]
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 all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-4 in the name
of the hon. member for St. John's East is acceptable to the
government and the documents are tabled immediately.
That an Order of the House do issue
for any studies conducted by heritage agencies of the
government relating to the preservation, protection or
development of Fort Townsend in St. John's, Newfoundland.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other Notices
of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate
informing the House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to
which the concurrence of the House is desired.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the
Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, be read the third
time and passed.
1535
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human
Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank
all the committee members who examined this important bill with
such care. They did an excellent job, on which I congratulate
them.
One thing is certain. Once this bill has been passed, it will
make it possible for the system to be more firmly anchored in
the realities of today's labour market. As well, it will offer
a better response to Canadians' needs.
For some decades, the employment insurance system has been one
of the cornerstones of our social security system, and thanks to
it Canadian workers and their families have been able to cope
with temporary job loss and get through difficult times in their
working lives.
Today we in this House have the opportunity to support this
bill, which will bolster the foundations of that system for the
benefit of the Canadians of today and of tomorrow.
Our government has always acknowledged its duty to help people
who are experiencing difficulty getting into the work force, or
remaining in it.
[English]
The bill aims to ensure that the employment insurance program
will be fairer to Canadians and more effective. We also want to
correct and adjust certain measures which turned out to be less
effective than anticipated.
First, we will eliminate the intensity rule. Introduced in
1996, the intensity rule was intended to reduce frequent users'
dependence on employment insurance.
[Translation]
We are also changing the criteria for reimbursement of benefits.
We want to be sure that it applies only to taxpayers with
higher than average incomes.
[English]
Moreover, first time claimants and everyone who receives
sickness, maternity or parental benefits will also be exempted
from the clawback provision.
The well-being of families is a top priority for the government.
We have therefore taken into consideration those parents who
return to the labour force after taking time off work to look
after their children. In addition, we are extending the look
back period by four years for parents. Instead of being treated
as new entrants into the workforce, these parents will require
the same number of hours as any other claimant should they lose
their jobs and need regular benefits.
[Translation]
As you can see, the bill makes substantial improvements to our
employment insurance plan, improvements to benefit workers in
seasonal jobs, families and many claimants.
When we undertook the employment insurance reform in 1996, we
had promised to monitor the effects of it very closely. With
the intent of honouring our commitment, we instituted an annual
evaluation mechanism to allow us to identify and correct aspects
not producing the desired effects. This mechanism is very
useful. In 1997, it allowed us to correct certain anomalies by
launching the short work weeks adjustments projects.
[English]
Today that same evaluation tool enables us to make other
concrete changes to help job seeking Canadians even more. Above
all, the monitoring and assessment process assures us that we are
heading in the right direction.
[Translation]
In February, we tabled the fourth annual employment insurance
monitoring and assessment report, which revealed clearly that
most of the aspects of the system were achieving their intended
objective. On the whole, the system is accessible to workers
who have contributed to it and find themselves temporarily out
of work. In addition, its first priority is those needing it
most, that is, low income families.
This report tells us that 88% of paid workers should be entitled
to employment insurance benefits if they have lost their job or
left it for valid reasons.
It should also be pointed out that claimants do not generally
exhaust their benefits. On the average, they use about two
thirds of them.
1540
[English]
In fact, data from Human Resources Development Canada studies
reveal that of those persons who exhausted their benefits, about
12.4% moved on to social assistance, a number that is down from
before the 1996 reform.
Turning to the EI commission, members of the opposition have
suggested that this bill should have dictated the framework and
the results of the review of the EI premium rate setting process.
We believe the bill allows the review to take place in a stable
and predictable rate setting environment. Certainly on this side
of the House, we will not preclude the work of that important
review.
The EI commission will continue to conduct important work with
respect to the other areas of its mandate during the two year
review period provided for on the bill.
[Translation]
The Canadian public has given us a third consecutive majority
mandate, because it shares our values, balanced approach and
vision of the future.
[English]
In 1996 we introduced solid reforms to the employment insurance
system, one of the cornerstones of our social security system.
Today I ask everyone in the House who wishes to strengthen the
foundations of our employment insurance system to support the
bill.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to
split my time with the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. member has
asked for consent. Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise
to speak at third reading on Bill C-2. The bill was introduced
by the government to live up to some of the election promises it
made before the last election.
The minor amendments included in Bill C-2 are, at best,
tinkering. It is quite obvious after listening to many witnesses
that the EI act has become so convoluted and confusing that a new
act is required to treat all employees and employers fairly and
to clearly define the role and limits of employment insurance in
Canada.
The Liberals' misuse of EI has betrayed workers in traditionally
seasonal employment. That was made abundantly clear by the
witnesses we heard from. The current EI rules discourage
education and skills acquisition. It is incumbent upon the
government to develop a strategy for workers in traditionally
seasonal employment which, to a large extent, is a rural Canadian
issue. It is incumbent upon the government to address that
issue.
However, there are many who felt that EI legislation was not the
vehicle for the government to do that. The 1996 amendments to
the EI legislation were to do three things: one, to make
unemployment benefits more active, for example, to rely less on
income support and more on labour market adjustment; two, to
enhance employment stability; and three, to lower program costs.
When the government introduced Bill C-2, it said that these
objectives had not been met, that in fact the adjustments had
failed to reduce frequent EI use. The government bases its
position on a study that examined the impact of intensity rules
during the first year of application. While the professors who
did the study justified an examination of only one year, another
professor testifying at the very same time said that one year was
not sufficient to study a change in behaviour. Therefore, there
is some contention as to whether the information the government
has used in Bill C-2 to rescind changes made in previous
legislation in 1996 is questionable.
I want to examine some of the aspects of this legislation which
we are dealing with at third reading.
1545
I want to deal specifically at this time with the intensity
rule.
The minister stated that the intensity rule has had the
unintended consequence of being punitive. Some industries at the
committee told us that they had seen their entire workforce,
subject to the maximum reduction of benefits, going from 55% of
their salary down to 50%. In some industries, like the fishery
industry, the workers pointed out that they were not seasonal
workers, they just worked in an industry that was seasonal. The
government designates the period of time when these fishermen can
work. The government determines when the fishing season is open,
thus limiting the time when work is available.
However, the seasonal use of EI has permitted more companies and
individuals to remain in an industry than is economically viable.
We cannot escape the fact that by definition the regular use of
the EI program makes it a wage subsidization program and not an
insurance program.
I would like to move on to the benefit repayment provision which
is known to most Canadians as the clawback.
The minister stated that the clawback was being modified because
it was not properly targeted. The clawback was introduced to
discourage individuals with higher incomes from repeatedly
collecting benefits.
The minister stated in her appearance before the committee that
some affected groups under the clawback provision from 1996 were
not clearly dependent on employment insurance. That may be, but
by exempting individuals who have collected less than one week of
EI in the previous 10 years from the clawback, it is clear that
the main point of the clause in Bill C-2 is to eliminate the
graduated schedule of high repayment rates for frequent claimants
that was introduced in 1996.
With Bill C-2, an individual who collected two weeks of EI
benefits in the past 10 years would be subject to the same 30%
clawback as an individual who collected 200 weeks of EI over the
past 10 years. That is taking someone who only collected two
weeks and treating that person in the very same way as someone
who collected over 200 weeks. It is quite clear that the attempt
is to eliminate the graduated schedule of repayment for frequent
claimers.
I think every Canadian understands and appreciates that there
has to be a limit set and that there has to be a set amount of
income where an individual no longer qualifies. I do not believe
any Canadian would like to see NHL players collecting EI in an
off season. I think Canadians accept the fact that there has to
be a limit set. The big question is where should that line be
set? What is the limit that should be set?
The average yearly earning in Canada is currently $31,700. This
means that the clawbacks affect only those individuals who
currently make significantly more than the average Canadian. The
elimination of the graduated schedule of increased clawbacks for
high income earners who are frequent EI collectors means that low
income contributors to the EI fund who never claim employment
insurance are in effect subsidizing those high income earners who
frequently claim employment insurance.
The one issue we all agree with is that there was widespread
support, or opposition to depending on how we look at the issue,
from both the employers and the union.
While they had different objectives with the rates, both groups
strongly opposed the way government was using surplus EI premiums
in general revenue. Both the employers and unions objected to
the cabinet taking over the control of setting employment
insurance rates. Clause 9 has been snuck into the middle of a
bill.
1550
I ask, Mr. Speaker, for unanimous consent to have clause 9
struck from the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly one way
to get the government members to join in this debate.
There was almost unanimous agreement that the government had no
right to take over the rate setting processes from the
commission. There was almost unanimous consent from all parties,
with the exception of the government side, to removing this
aspect. Although the government said that this was a temporary
measure for only a two year period of time, it is very clear to
all of us in the House, and to most Canadians, that whenever the
government takes over control of anything it very seldom, if
ever, returns that control where it belongs.
Both employers and employees, and I will include the unions in
this, are very much against the government using the EI surplus
of $35 billion to balance its books. They feel that money has
been accumulated by premiums of both employers and employees, and
should be used for no other purpose than the employment insurance
account. This is just one more example of how the government has
taken control. It has taken responsibility, authority and
control of matters like this and put them into the hands of a
small group of people in the cabinet.
I would like to report the position as I heard it from the
business community. The Canadian business community was almost
unanimous in the opposition to major elements of this bill. While
the business community believes that people in seasonal
industries need assistance, they do not believe that it is
appropriate for it to come from the employment insurance fund of
which they are required to pay 60%. The business community felt
the EI fund should not be used by the government to fund social
programs. It felt that was a taxation that should be shared by
all Canadians, not just the business community and the workers.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce viewed Bill C-2 as being
inconsistent with development of advanced skills or
entrepreneurial spirit and did not advance Canada's
competitiveness in a global economy.
A survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business
found that between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs went unfilled because
of a shortage of suitable skilled labour. It is criminal that
there would be 250,000 to 300,000 jobs that we cannot fill
because we do not have a trained, skilled labour force.
It was also obvious from the witnesses that we heard that this
bill is a major concern in rural areas of Atlantic Canada and
Quebec. Approximately three-quarters of the witnesses
representing local communities or organizations were from these
regions. They talked a lot about the impact the 1996 changes had
on their communities. In some cases millions of dollars had been
removed from the regional economy. That should be a concern to
the government.
1555
I want to respond to some comments that have been made about the
attitude of people in Atlantic Canada. Comments have been made
that Atlantic Canadians might be considered to be lazy. Lazy
people do not work in Cape Breton coal mines. Lazy people do not
go out in December to pull up lobster traps in the cold and the
dark.
While some businesses have complained about being unable to find
workers, there is little wonder when one considers that the
maximum weekly employment benefit is $413. A minimum wage job of
$7 an hour, seven hours a day, five days a week is only $245.
The question has to be asked. Is Atlantic Canada only good
enough for minimum wage jobs? The answer to that is no. Atlantic
Canadians have as much right as any other Canadian to expect to
get paid a decent wage so they can support their families.
Two generations of Atlantic Canadians have been caught in the EI
trap. Witnesses testified that young adults were leaving the
fishing communities. The average age of food processing plants
in Atlantic Canada is 44 years. It is unlikely that these
individuals will be writing software in the high tech businesses
in the near future. With the way the high tech businesses are
going in today's economy, those jobs might not be there anyway.
Atlantic Canada has a burgeoning offshore resource economy. It
is vital that the government provide the necessary education and
training to assist this region in diversifying its economy.
I sometimes get into trouble in my caucus when I say this, but
there is a parallel between Atlantic Canadian fishermen and
Canadian farmers in the prairies. While fishermen suffer from a
lack of supply, farmers suffer from a lack of demand. However,
in both instances these are traditional occupations in the midst
of dramatic transformation. The government must work with
stakeholders to reinvent these industries for the 21st century.
The government has an obligation to make sure that people who
rely on those industries move forward in the economies of the
21st century.
For people who are in situations that do not offer them
opportunities, government has an obligation to think outside of
the box. The government has to look for alternatives for people
who are working in a seasonal industry area. One of the most
important things the government has to show some support for and
put many resources into is education.
Young people in communities who traditionally rely on seasonal
employment must be provided with other alternatives. Education
will afford them choices that they may not have now. Individuals
must be provided with job skills for the workplace in the 21st
century. We have to move forward in what we offer for education.
We have to provide training so that people who are stuck in a
seasonal industry can move into another industry that becomes
available, which hopefully the government will help to develop.
We must provide people who are presently in a seasonal workforce
with job training and job skills for the workplace in the 21st
century.
Another thing we heard was the way the apprenticeship program
operated and that sometimes it discouraged young people from
looking at it, or even older people, because of the delay in
receiving benefits or the two week disallowance for benefits. We
feel that anybody who is in job training or in educational
programs should be covered for those two weeks. We do not think
there should be downtime for people who are trying to advance
their skills so they can move on in the workforce.
It is important that the government address this in order to
encourage more young people to continue or enter apprenticeship
programs.
1600
One of the things the government has to address in thinking
outside the box is that there has to be a long term commitment to
infrastructure programs in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec and all
across this country, because only long term infrastructure
programs will open up those economies to diversification. It is
only by building bigger and better roads that material can be
moved to and from industries and that will open up those areas.
There is a reason why the Halifax port did not become the super
port. It lacked the infrastructure necessary for it to get the
product to the marketplace. It lacked the infrastructure
necessary to be considered a super port.
The government has to make a commitment to those areas where
there are seasonal jobs. The government has to commit to opening
up those areas, to putting infrastructure money into those areas
and to putting money into job training and skills training so
those economies can diversify and move forward in the 21st
century.
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the
House of Commons in the debate on the third reading of Bill C-2
in regard to the government's 1996 reforms to the EI system.
Before I speak to the content of the bill, I just want to take a
moment to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee
to tell us what their concerns were. Most of them felt that the
legislation is inadequate, that at best it is tinkering.
It would seem that we at least have the government's attention,
because for the next number of weeks the standing committee on
human resources development will be taking a broader look at
labour market issues, with specific attention to be given to the
EI system. This is clearly necessary given the depth of concerns
raised by all sides during our study of Bill C-2.
Everyone agreed that what was required was a thorough review of
the system with a view to how it could be improved. Whether that
is what we end up with at the end of the day remains to be seen,
but at least we have been given the opportunity to try. All the
witnesses are to be congratulated for helping us convince the
government to allow greater study of the EI bill.
Before the last election Bill C-2 was known as Bill C-44, which
died on the order paper. Bill C-2 is designed largely just to
tinker with a few of the changes made to EI in 1996. Some people
have suggested it may even have been part of the government's
re-election strategy, but perhaps I will say more on that later.
The EI act and the EI system have become so convoluted and
confusing that what is really required is an entirely new act.
All employers and employees need to be treated fairly and equally
and the role and limits of employment insurance in Canada need to
be clearly defined by law.
The Liberal misuse of EI is really a betrayal of workers in
traditional seasonal employment. Current EI rules do not
encourage education, training and skills development. The key to
reducing dependence on EI in areas of traditionally seasonal
employment depends on this. We absolutely must reform the system
to provide heavy emphasis on skills development, education and
training in order to break the cycle of dependence on the EI
system.
It is incumbent on the government to develop a strategy for
workers in traditionally seasonal employment, which to a large
extent is a rural Canadian issue. The Canadian Alliance is more
than ready to assist in this regard.
One of the provisions of the 1996 legislation that Bill C-2
seeks to remedy is the so-called intensity rule. The intensity
rule was introduced to discourage repeat use of EI by gradually
reducing benefits from 55% to 50% over time.
1605
The minister has stated that the intensity rule had the
unintended consequence of being punitive. Indeed, some
industries have seen their entire workforce subject to the
maximum reduction of benefits. Workers in some industries, like
the fishery, point out that they are not seasonal workers.
The provisions of the clawback system are quite complex and
convoluted. By exempting from the clawback individuals who have
collected one week or less of EI in the past 10 years, the main
point of the clause is to eliminate the graduated schedule of
high repayment rates for frequent claimants. With Bill C-2, an
individual who has collected two weeks of EI in the past 10 years
will be subject to the same 30% clawback as an individual who has
collected 200 weeks of benefits.
What of the worker in the high tech sector who finds himself or
herself downsized and out the door, only to be gainfully employed
again in a few weeks? If this happens twice in an eight year to
ten year period, is that person a frequent user?
We already know that we will be taking a look at the larger EI
issue in committee in the coming days and weeks. Whether the
government takes any notice of our work remains to be seen.
My colleague and I will be advocating some of the things I spoke
of earlier. We will be advocating skills development, training
and education, and education for young people in communities that
traditionally rely on seasonal employment. We must provide those
young people with alternatives to seasonal employment or, at the
very least, something to fall back on during the off season. We
must also provide training and skills development for individuals
currently working in areas with traditionally seasonal
employment. We must provide these individuals with job skills
for the workplace of the 21st century.
Another thing came up during committee testimony. Apprentices
should be paid allowances during the two week waiting period
while taking courses. Not only would this help employees, but it
would help employers too.
Finally, the government must undertake a long term commitment to
infrastructure spending. The one area where the Liberals should
be spending money is the one area where they have not. A strong
transportation infrastructure will allow regions that rely on
traditionally seasonal employment to attract more investment and
greater opportunities.
The bill as it stands is a smoke screen at best. It touches the
edge of the reforms passed in the House in 1996, but fails to
recognize what is really required: an overhaul of the system.
The committee recognizes the need to do more and will hopefully
come up with a solid set of recommendations for the minister. We
can only wait to see if that will translate into legislation that
is actually meaningful and productive for the millions of
employers and employees in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2, now in third reading, is, let us not
forget it, the same as Bill C-44, which had been introduced in the
last parliament before the election campaign as an act of
contrition by the Liberal Party. It was as the party it had said
“We did reform EI in a way that is extremely hard on the
workers, the unemployed and the employers. In the end, we more
or less used the till to fight the deficit.
We are introducing this bill because we have recognized, long
after everybody else, that the intensity rule, for example, was
a low blow and unacceptable for the workers”.
It deprived people, most of them with low salaries, of the money
to make ends meet. We were told that the reduction would amount
to only $10 or $11 a week, but for the worker who earned $250 or
$300 a week and lost his or her job, this small amount was what
was missing to buy butter, to finish paying the rent or things
like that.
The Liberal Party realized that its reform did not make sense.
but nonetheless, during the election campaign it said that it
would go further than Bill C-44. The Prime Minister himself said
that “Major mistakes have been made and EI has major
shortcomings, and they should be corrected”.
1610
When the House reconvened, we were very surprised to have
brought before the House Bill C-2, which is a mere copy of
Bill C-44. But what is important to mention is that a poisoned
gift was left in the bill in the form of clause 9. Under this
provision, the government would alter the legislative
arrangements for setting the premium rate.
In other words, after the vote to be held this afternoon, if the
Liberals maintain their position, the government would no longer
have to strike a balance between the EI plan and the plan
requirements.
It would no longer have to give back to the plan the money it
used for purposes other than what the EI plan was originally set
up for. In fact, it would be able to spend the money on any
government operation.
What this means is that this clause will legalize the
mismanagement of funds, the theft of the hard earned money the
government has been taking from the pockets of workers and the
unemployed for several years now. This is why, right from the
outset, we in the Bloc Quebecois have said that we would not be
voting in favour of this bill if that provision was left in.
We were able to get the consensus of all the other opposition
parties. We also have the support of the auditor general,
management and unions.
Both the CLC and the Conseil du patronat du Québec said they did
not want the federal government to make sure it can do whatever
it wants with the money without having to account for it.
The figures have been more or less the same for the past few
years: each year, $18 billion is collected in premiums and
$12 billion is put back into the plan. This leaves a surplus of
$6 billion, which is used to cover the government's general
expenditures, to pay down the debt with money belonging to those
who contribute to a fund that has become a very regressive
payroll tax.
Members should know that premiums are paid on a maximum annual
income of $39,000. This means that people earning $45,000 do not
pay premiums on the extra $6,000 and, therefore, do not
contribute their fair share toward this portion of the
government's general expenditures. Those with the lowest
earnings contribute more than their fair share.
Even worse, people like us, MPs, and all those who are
self-employed, such as physicians and lawyers, those who do not
pay into the plan, make no contribution whatsoever. They do not
carry their share of the burden, not out of malice but simply
because the government has turned this into a regressive payroll
tax, allowing it to dip into the pockets of those most in need.
And it did not stop there.
Since 1997 there has also been a terrible tightening up of EI
eligibility criteria. Fewer people qualify. I heard the
parliamentary secretary mention 88%. What she is saying is that
88% of workers would qualify for benefits should they become
unemployed. The purpose of the EI plan is to provide financial
support not to those who have a job but to those who are
unemployed.
In this case, it is not 88% but rather 40% of the workers who
really qualify for employment insurance when they lose their
job.
Since the reform, thousands of young people pay premiums from
day one and in the end they never qualify for benefits. Only 25%
of the unemployed young people qualify. This means that 75% of
them are paying for nothing.
Clearly, we had many reasons to oppose the bill. We still
played the parliamentary game and I think that in the end it
will have paid off. Sixty or seventy groups were heard by the
committee. The great majority of them were from Quebec and had
been recommended by the Bloc Quebecois.
One after the other they systematically told us that it was not
Bill C-2 but real reform of the employment insurance system that
they wanted.
They talked about everything that was wrong with the bill. The
committee unanimously adopted a motion that I brought forward. I
will read it because I think it is the only message of hope
we have on the whole employment insurance system. It reads as
follows:
That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities report to the House of
Commons all other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and
that this report be tabled to the House no later than June 1,
2001.
Between the November 2000 election and the date when parliament
returned, the government did not do its homework. Perhaps the
Liberals told themselves “Let us give it a try. Let us table
Bill C-2 as if it were Bill C-44. It might work and we will not
have to give them more”.
However we were there to do our job. We heard witnesses in committee
and they showed that many more amendments were required. All
committee members, whether from the Liberal majority or the
opposition, supported the motion that I proposed. I hope this
will allow us to finish the job in the coming weeks, so that by
early June we can have a new government bill that will correct
the other flaws of the plan.
1615
There are many things that are unacceptable. Let us begin with
the creation of an independent employment insurance fund. The
frustrations of the workers and employers who appeared before us
had to do with the fact that people contribute to a plan over
which they have no control. They find this unacceptable. That
issue will have to be debated again because it is not true that
people who contribute to the plan will continue to give 33% of
the money to the government.
Either the government will turn contributions into a payroll
tax—and then we can make a complete overhaul—or we will have an
independent fund but that issue is still on the table.
There are other matters that are urgent as well, very important
ones having to do with unemployed workers' bread and butter,
such as abolishing the waiting period. No benefits are paid
during the first two weeks of a period of unemployment. This is
a throwback to the old Unemployment Insurance Act of the 1940s.
Now that people pay premiums from the first hour, why must we
still have this waiting period, which no longer exists in many
countries? It should be abolished.
Coverage could also be increased from 55% to 60%. Unemployed
workers were among those who helped to pay down the deficit
but they did not get tax breaks because they do not earn enough
to qualify for any significant deductions. One way of helping
them would be to give them an adequate income between jobs.
Our seasonal workers also need a status which is independent of
economic activity, because a period of growth like the one we
are now experiencing has a negative effect on them. We require
them to work more hours to qualify but we allow them fewer
benefit weeks when all is said and done, although they are in
jobs which give them 15 or 20 weeks of work year in and year
out, economic growth or no economic growth. They do not get 25,
30 or 40 weeks of work in forestry or tourism because the
economy is booming. They might get an extra week or two but
not 8, 10, 12, or 15. This is something that needs to be
addressed.
We also discussed the whole issue of self-employed workers, of
whom there are an increasing number in society. They represent
an important segment of the labour force but are not covered by
any plan.
It would be necessary to reflect, to make recommendations, to
ensure people of worthwhile, minimal protection. We need,
to take advantage of the present situation since we
sense that it is possibly going to lead to a downturn, or
perhaps already has. Before we get into a recession, or worse
yet, a depression, we need to have a system in place that will
provide people with enough to survive on. I am willing to bet
that the present system will not.
There are all manner of other improvements needed. There is the
discrimination toward young workers and women who are new to the
workforce. They will be required to have accumulated
910 hours of work before being eligible for employment
insurance.
It has already been shown, although it took three years, based
on the statistics, that the intensity rule was not having the
desired results. This has cost people $250 million since 1997.
I requested an amendment to Bill C-2 that would take the
retroactivity back to January 1, 1997. The reply from the
minister, who had to authorize this, since royal assent was
required, was “We find that is too much money to have to pay
back to people”. It was not, however, too much to take from
them in the first place. It was perfectly all right to take it
from the low wage earners. This is one more thing that needs
examination and correction as soon as possible.
Then there is the whole matter of the older workers.
We live in a society that has produced people who often have
worked in a factory or in various sectors where there are
massive layoffs as they reach the age of 45, 50, 52, 53, or 55.
These people find themselves without a job and cannot easily be
retrained for other types of work. All the active measures
are in place to help them learn other trades but it is
not true that a forestry worker can be turned into a computer
technician overnight. There is a limit that cannot be crossed.
There are people like that.
We live in a society benefiting from gains in productivity but
the government should have the courage to distribute them
properly, to create a bridge so that when people 52, 54 and 55
years of age cannot be reclassified in another job, we can find
a way for them to carry on until they are entitled to their old
age pension.
This too is part of an employment insurance plan.
1620
I will give some examples but there are a whole lot of others
that will have to be corrected by June 1. We must be able to
make proposals. In my opinion, the ultimate scenario is one in
which there will be a number of proposals that could receive
unanimous committee approval, I hope, and a number of others
that will not but at least the door would be opened after five
years' effort.
Let us think back to 1995-96, after the employment insurance plan
was tightened up. At the time, we said it was unacceptable. We heard the
Prime Minister say “The unemployed are beer drinkers”,
something he apologized for in the fall of 2000.
The trend has been reversed but we must not stop halfway. We
must devise a real, adequate employment insurance plan.
It is sad that all this is happening when the government is
grabbing the fund's surplus and no longer wants to comply with
the act's provisions requiring the system to balance out over a
single economic cycle.
The chief actuary of the EI plan has said that a reasonable
surplus to deal with any economic crisis would be in the order of
$14 billion. Yet the current surplus is over $30 billion. The
only way the government has found to avoid meeting its
obligations is to remove from the EI commission the right to set
the premium rates. We are faced with a situation that is not very
pretty.
However, we know why the government has done this, that is
because the EI commissioners have gone as far as they could. They
could not, in conscience, go any further and tell the government
that it was reasonable to leave the premium at $2.25 when the
plan could balance out with a premium of $1.75. The employers and
the unions were unable to support the government's policy.
Therefore, the way the government found was to say “We will
remove your moral responsibility, we will remove from you the
responsibility of making a decision and, thus, we will be able to
do as we please”.
Faced with this situation, we feel it is obvious that the
legislation is still unacceptable. I say to all workers, all
employers and all the unemployed that the representations were
not made in vain.
Tenacity is important.
A task has been given to the human resources standing committee. It
has until June 1 to recommend further amendments to the
employment insurance plan. I think a door is now open and we
will be able to finally convince the government that it has a
responsibility in this matter.
Obviously the finance department and the federal government are
really intent on grabbing as much money as possible. With that
money, they can then spend in all kinds of sectors that are not
under their jurisdiction.
The witnesses who appeared before the committee and all
those who have a good grasp of the situation have shown a great
deal of tenacity. For one thing, they have certainly understood
that the federal government has diverted their contributions to
the employment insurance plan.
The deduction on our cheque stub does not indicate general
government expenses or payroll tax but employment
insurance premium. For every $3 in premiums, $2 go to the EI
fund and $1 to other expenses. This, people still find
unacceptable.
During the campaign and at the beginning of the debate on this
issue, the Liberals accused the Bloc of stalling this marvellous
bill and suggested that those we are supposed to stand for would
not put up with our attitude.
I did some checking. I went in the field and asked around to see
whether ordinary citizens thought we were right to say that the
bill was unacceptable, because it is not true that the
government is doing its job by putting $500 million into a plan
with a $28 billion surplus. People said to us “Go and say that
it is unacceptable for the government to help itself to the
surplus like this. Try to win other points, try to get them to
see reason”.
The work we have done and the witnesses we have heard from are
proof of people's tenacity. I am not saying that the battle is
over and won. I am saying that we will have a chance in the
next two months to submit a report through the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities, which will make it possible to finish
the job and to bring about real EI reform. I hope we
finally achieve this result because we will have done our job.
1625
After being told that people chose to be unemployed, after
seeing something like the intensity rule imposed, we will have
abolished it and we will realize that it is the same sort of
situation with young people. They are not going to work longer
just because 910 hours are required. They are going to work as
long as there are jobs and opportunities and we give them a
chance. In this way, we are going to help the regions hang on
to their resources.
This is an important point. For decades there was a social pact
between Canada's resource regions and its central regions.
We in the resource regions provided the raw materials: wood,
wood products, agriculture and tourism. In return, we had an EI
plan that gave people a decent income during periods of
unemployment, particularly during the winter.
With the new EI plan, this pact has been broken. Workers have
seen their income support taken away and have been told to
manage on their own. In return, the government has not really
given them anything to help them diversify their regional
economies. One of the consequences has been the exodus of young
people.
When, in our areas, there are no young people to take over, it
is a catch-22 situation that must be resolved. One of the tools
we have to do it—and it is not the only one—is to provide
reasonable eligibility conditions for employment insurance so
that the young worker who has accumulated 600 hours is not
forced to move in order to get the 300 missing hours, never to
return after all the resources we put into training him. As we
can see, there are still many things to be changed in the
employment insurance system.
We will vote against Bill C-2 because the government has decided
to maintain the misappropriation of the premiums paid into the
system. I believe that this attitude is responsible and that we
have the opportunity to transform further the legislation. In
that sense, I hope I will get the same support during the
next few months. I also intend to consult the people and ask
them what their priorities are.
We know very well the requirements that should be in the
employment insurance system. We can
negotiate efficiently until June with the government to find out
what the priorities of the people are. I will do that during the
next few weeks. I will try to ensure that we will be able to
bring about other changes that will be those that the people
really want.
In this way, we will be able to carry out our mandate, which is
to ensure an adequate distribution of wealth by means of a real
employment insurance system and not a system by which the
government puts in its pocket money coming from employers,
employees and the unemployed.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I ask for
the unanimous consent of the House to share the 20 minutes
allowed me with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Szabo): The hon. member does not need
the unanimous consent of the House to share his time for a 20
minute speech, but I will allow it.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for
allowing me to share my time with my colleague from Winnipeg
Centre. He once was a blue collar worker and is certainly
familiar with the problems faced by construction workers and will
be able to speak to this issue constructively.
It is a pleasure to address Bill C-2, not that I am pleased with
Bill C-2 because it really does not go far enough. The standing
committee on human resources development heard witnesses from all
over Canada and more than 60 of them came here to Ottawa. I want
to thank those who travelled to Ottawa to express their views on
Bill C-2 concerning employment insurance.
None of these witnesses said that Bill C-2 went far enough.
They focused more on what was
not in the bill. That is what was worrying them. I want to
thank them for coming to parliament and speaking on behalf of
Canadian workers and even management.
1630
We might look at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which I have
accused of not representing the chambers of commerce throughout
the country. Its representatives were saying that employment
insurance should not be changed and that it would not encourage
people to relocate.
The Prince Edward Island Chamber of Commerce testified before
the committee and said that it did not agree with the Canadian
Chamber of Commerce. It does not want people to relocate, it
wants them to stay home. There are seasonal jobs in Prince
Edward Island, in New Brunswick, in
Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia. There are also some in the Gaspé
peninsula, in Quebec, in northern Ontario and in northern
Manitoba.
I am sure my colleague from Winnipeg Centre will be able to tell
me about it.
The situation is the same in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in
British Columbia. I have travelled to all the provinces. I also
went to Whitehorse in the Yukon. Everywhere I went,
unemployment was a problem. Employment insurance was
created to take care of the unemployed. This system belonged to
employers and employees.
When the employment insurance reform happened in 1996,
it was all fine and well at the time for employers to say “This
is what we must do. We must encourage people to work”. They
quickly realized that in small and medium size businesses in
Canada, where up to 74% of jobs are to be found in an area like
mine—in just one riding—we are losing $69 million in benefits
every year.
This means that small and medium size businesses lost all these
benefits.
Those who receive EI benefits do not have any money left once
they have bought food and paid their debts. Who gets the money?
The grocery stores and the banks where the car payments and the
mortgage payments were made. They are the ones who get all the
money.
People soon realized that it was small and medium size businesses
that lost the $35 billion that was taken away from workers. With
all due respect, EI recipients are not likely to have two bank
accounts with millions in them. Many of them do not have any
money in their bank account.
The Prince Edward Island Chamber of Commerce did well in
representing seasonal workers when it appeared before the
committee. Its representatives told us that they did not want the
government to make any more cuts in the EI plan, that they wanted
to see the plan restored.
Bill C-2 abolishes the intensity rule. As the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques said, this
bill does not go far enough. Coverage should be increased to 60%.
I would even push it further and say it should be increased to
66%. It should be two-thirds of the salary.
We must accept the fact that there are seasonal jobs in our
country. We do not have seasonal workers. There is no such thing
as a seasonal worker. Workers are not the ones who decide on a
Friday that they will no longer have a job the following week.
It is not the construction worker who decides. He does not decide
if there will be construction work for him tomorrow or next week.
It is not up to him. It depends on the health of the economy.
I have said it many times before. They took the cart and put it
before the horses. The horse has never been able to learn to push
the cart. That is the problem. They have taken money away from
the economy to help everybody. That is what the employment
insurance plan was for in the 1940s. That is what it had been
created to do, to help those who lost their job.
It is criminal to take income away from people in the middle of
winter. It is criminal to keep a lumberjack who works hard in the
woods to make a living from getting employment insurance benefits
to help provide for his family because his work is seasonal. That
is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable that people working in a fish plant cannot
provide for their families because the Liberals decided to cut EI
in 1996.
1635
These same Liberals were saying back in 1992 that if they were
elected they would eliminate the cuts made by Brian Mulroney.
That is what they were saying in 1992. We have press cuttings to
prove that. What they have done to workers and Canadian men and
women is unacceptable.
Let us have a look at the clawback clause. It is unfortunate
that Canadian Alliance members keep saying that we are always on
the side of workers who are constantly on EI. The unemployment
insurance plan does not belong to the government or to a
political party. It belongs to Canadian workers. It belongs to
them and not to politicians. This money is not ours. It belongs
to workers and employers who have contributed.
It is unacceptable that workers in the construction or
automotive industry are laid off for two months, as is currently
the case in Ontario, while their plant is being retooled to produce
a new model, for example. It is unacceptable, in this day and
age, that they do not have an income to meet the needs of their
family during that time.
When members of parliament leave the House of Commons in June
and come back in September, they keep their salary.
Why should the salary of a construction worker be cut? Why should
the salary of a worker in the automotive industry be cut? Why
should we not treat these people as we would want to be treated? It is
unacceptable.
However, we know one thing. After I was elected I said that I
would support any change to employment insurance which would go
in the right direction. As far as I am concerned, abolishing the
intensity rule is a first step; it is better than reducing it to
45%. I support that.
Regarding the clawback rule, I support abolishing it and
increasing the limit from $39,000 to $48,000. It is unfortunate,
however, that the government changed its mind and decided to
include clause 9 in Bill C-2. I will explain why. In so doing, it
has made people wonder what the government has to do in an area
where decisions were normally taken by the commission.
I said it right from the start, in 1997, and I have repeated on
several occasions in this House “The government stole the money
anyway”. This will not stop me today from supporting the changes
to the intensity rule and this will be my recommendation to my
caucus.
I wish to ask for one thing from the government.
With respect to the promises the government made during the
election campaign—and this is not only about Bill C-2, because
even the public works minister bragged about putting other
measures on the table, in Quebec—I hope and ask that, as voted
in committee, we will be able to make recommendations to the minister
between now and June 1, and that she and the Prime Minister of
Canada will show an open mind and that they will not do so for
electoral purposes only. Real changes need to be made for the
well-being of Canadian workers.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to have the opportunity to join my colleague from
Acadie—Bathurst in pointing out some of the many shortcomings of
Bill C-2.
I will start by saying that I admire the work the member for
Acadie—Bathurst has done. He is, probably more than any member
of parliament, a leading authority on the subject. He took it
upon himself to travel to every province in the country, I
believe 28 cities and communities, to listen to workers and
employers about EI and other issues. He then wrote a very good
report on the subject. I urge all members to get a copy of the
report and to listen to what people who really care about these
issues have been telling us.
I am pleased to add to the comments of the member for
Acadie—Bathurst. He quite correctly pointed out that although
there are some elements in Bill C-2 that we can support, such as
doing away with the intensity rule and raising the clawback
provisions to a reasonable level, it fails to address the real
problem with employment insurance which is that hardly anyone
qualifies any more.
The bar is set so high on the eligibility rules that less than
40% of all unemployed people qualify. What kind of an employment
insurance system—
1640
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Order, please. I would
like to point out to the member that he should ask a question or
make a comment to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
When you were not in the chair it was decided that I would be
splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre and that is
what we are presently doing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It is just that we are
on questions and comments and I was urging the hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre to make a comment or ask a question. If the hon.
member for Winnipeg Centre wants to ask his question, he may now
go ahead.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I misunderstood. I thought
we had moved on from questions and comments.
Would the member for Acadie—Bathurst expand on one amendment
that many groups brought to the committee? These groups wanted
to know why apprentices, who are in the trade school portion of
the apprenticeship program, are penalized with a two week waiting
period. Would an amendment to Bill C-2 that would no longer
penalize apprentices for that two week waiting period not have
been more beneficial?
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, that is something I did not
address in my speech.
When the government changed the unemployment insurance in 1996,
it used the argument that the changes were needed to promote
employment and training programs. At the same time, it punished
the apprentices who attended apprenticeship programs at a
community college by adding a two week waiting period, which was
not there before.
It is clear that the Minister of Finance wanted some extra
money. The government did not do what it intended to do. It
needed some cash and that is why today the government has $35
billion in cash that it took away from the workers, which is not
acceptable.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague for
Acadie—Bathurst.
Earlier, the government representative said that employment
insurance was a social security system. It is not a social
security system, it is an insurance plan. I would like to hear
what my colleague has to say about that.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, that is right. The government
would have us believe the EI plan is a social security system.
What the government wants is that retirees who have worked all
their life pay into a social security system. It wants to have
people on welfare pay for a social security system. It wants
these people to pay for the unemployed while we used to have in
Canada a plan called unemployment insurance. It used to be the
workers and the companies that were responsible for workers. It
used to be that way.
Then the government came up with this idea and now the Canadian
Alliance has adopted it. Out West they say “Cut employment
insurance”. In Ottawa, they say “Cut employment insurance”.
They come to our ridings at election time and say “If we are
elected, we will increase the employment insurance coverage”.
They have it all wrong.
It is not a social security system, it is an employment
insurance plan.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
devastating changes that were made to EI back in 1996 have really
starved a lot of rural communities and ridings like my own,
Winnipeg Centre. The changes made to the EI system in my riding
alone pulled $20.8 million per year of earnings out of my
community. That is money that will not be spent in my riding.
The member for Acadie—Bathurst pointed out that this has an
effect on small business. Every dollar spent gets spent four
times before it finds its natural state of repose, usually in
some rich person's pocket, but it gets circulated in the
community. This has a huge impact on areas like mine which are
economically depressed.
There is one riding in Newfoundland where the changes to EI
pulled $57 million worth of benefits per year out of that riding
alone. It is no wonder the government is enjoying this
incredible surplus, this incredible revenue generating machine.
It is like a cash cow that I think the government has become
addicted to. It is like some provincial governments become
addicted to gambling revenues. This government has become
addicted to the revenue generating ability of the EI fund.
1645
I started out by saying that there are two things in Bill C-2 of
which we approve. Those are doing away with the intensity rule
and raising the clawback provision threshold.
What the government failed to face were the two fundamental
problems with EI. One is the eligibility issue. The bar is set
far too high to qualify. The second is the method with which it
calculates the benefit that a claimant will receive or what we
call the divisor rule. It failed to address those two key
fundamental issues. As a result less than 40% of unemployed
people actually qualify for unemployment insurance.
What kind of an employment insurance program is that? What if
we had a house insurance policy that we were forced to pay into
but if our house burned down, we would have a less than 40%
chance of getting any benefit whatsoever? We would think we had
just been cheated or hosed by some fraudulent insurance salesman.
That is what the EI system is doing to unemployed workers today.
There is a gender issue here too. If the individual is an
unemployed woman, she has less than a 25% chance of collecting
any benefit whatsoever. If the individual is an unemployed youth
under the age of 25 he or she has a 15% chance of collecting even
though the person is forced to pay into this insurance program.
I firmly believe that if we deduct money from people's paycheque
for a specific purpose and then use it for something completely
different, it is a breach of trust because we have developed a
trust relationship with them when we told the them that if they
paid into this insurance fund and were unlucky enough to become
unemployed, we would pay a benefit. That was the promise that
was made. Yet that is only true for less than 40% of Canadians,
so it is a breach of trust. In the best light it is a breach of
trust. In the worst light it is out and out fraud. We have
deceived Canadians into thinking they have an income security
system in their employment insurance system but we are denying
them the very benefits.
If the government were serious about improving the unemployment
insurance system, it would have listened to the 60 presenters who
came to the standing committee from all walks of life. We had
people from municipalities, chambers of commerce, labour groups
and employer groups. All of them found serious flaws in an
insurance system that generates revenue for the government to the
tune of $750 million a month, not per year. Every month the
employment insurance system pays the government $750 million in
dividends. That money goes directly into the general revenue. It
is not even dedicated for any specific purpose.
I actually heard the House leader of the ruling party once stand
up and give us this logic. He said that if the employment
insurance system ran into a deficit, the government would have to
pick up the loss and pay. Therefore, when it was in a surplus
position, the government should keep the surplus.
We did some mathematics. We added up all the times that the EI
system has been a deficit situation. The total, cumulative,
aggregate amount of money that was ever paid into it when it was
in deficit was $13 billion. The total surplus is now $35
billion, predicted to be $43 billion by the end of this year.
Even if we accepted the government's logic, what about the other
$25 or $28 billion? Take back the $13 billion that was paid in
and use the rest for income benefits and maintenance for the
people for which the program was designed.
There are only two designated uses for EI money in the act. One
is income maintenance for the unemployed and the other is
apprenticeship and training. We are not supposed to build
highways with it, or paydown the deficit with it or give tax
breaks to the wealthy with it. That is not a designated use as
contemplated under the act. That is why I say when money is
deducted from a person's paycheque for a specific reason and then
it is used for something completely opposite, essentially that is
a breach of trust in the very best possible light.
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst raised another point. Where
does the government get off claiming ownership of that money at
all? In 1986 the federal government stopped paying into the UIC
program. That money is solely and exclusively contributions by
employers and employees. It used to be one third, one third, one
third paid by the government. It does not pay anything into it
anymore. Where does it get the proprietary right to any surplus?
Where does it get the right to dictate what the contribution
rate would be?
1650
Frankly, the government should have no say whatsoever. It
should take a small administration fee for administering the
program. The program should be run by those who are actually
involved in it, which are the employers and the employees.
It has been enormously frustrating in my whole career, first as
a union leader and now as a member of parliament, to wrestle with
a dysfunctional program such as employment insurance and to see
the failure and mismanagement of a program. Now it has gone
beyond mismanagement. I figure it is out and out abuse because
it is using it as a revenue generator, which it was never
intended to be. It was there to provide income maintenance to
people who were unfortunate enough to fall into a situation where
they lost their job.
The whole EI program seems to be some kind of a tough love
attitude now. We are going to force these people to pull up
their boot and get back into the workforce by starving them. It
seems to be based on the premise that most people would rather
sit on EI than work. I find that offensive. As a working person
myself, I find that an offensive attitude.
This came up in 1987 when I think the Forget commission toured
the country looking for amendments to the Employment Insurance
Act. It studied the UIC system. One labour leader came before
the commission and said that the government was always trying to
find people who were ripping off the system or who were
committing fraud in collecting unemployment insurance. In actual
fact, there are more federal government cabinet ministers
convicted of fraud, on a per capita basis, than there are EI
recipients convicted of fraud.
At that time, I believe seven or eight of Brian Mulroney's
cabinet ministers were busted, caught and convicted of fraudulent
activities. In that same year only 200 unemployment insurance
recipients were caught and busted for fraud. Out of a million
some odd people collecting EI, only 200 people were found to be
actually committing a crime. Out of 30 some odd cabinet
ministers, eight or nine of them were convicted of fraud. It is
good to keep it in perspective sometimes.
One amendment the government could have made, a very small cost
factor and a change demanded by industry, was the issue I asked
the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst about. When apprentices
were in the community college portion of their training, their
eight-week community college instalment, whether plumbers,
electricians or carpenters, the government started penalizing
them with a two-week waiting period, as though they were
unemployed.
Apprentices are not unemployed when they are attending community
college. They still have jobs. They still have attachments to
the workforce. They are simply going through the steps of the
community college portion of their education and training. Why
then are apprentices being penalized this two week waiting
period?
We asked the government to consider that at the committee stage.
I personally asked the minister if she would entertain a friendly
amendment to the act to give satisfaction to the many apprentices
who are involved with this. I even pleaded the case by pointing
out that a lot of apprentices were choosing not to go on to their
training component of their education because they could be
without that two weeks' income. A lot of apprentices were
dropping out of the apprenticeship system.
That is just one example of how the government did not listen to
what Canadians were telling it was wrong with the EI system.
It is a regrettable day. We are backed into a corner. We are
going to vote in favour of Bill C-2 to get through the few
details that we would like to see go through. However the
government missed the mark. It did not hit the nail on the head
at all.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before putting
a question to my colleague who just finished his speech, I would
like to get back to what he said about the time when the
government used to pay a third. It was one-third, one-third, one-third;
in other words, the employees, the employers and the
government each paid an equal share.
Today, with this bill that is going to become law, we realize
that the government has stopped paying its share. It has
completely changed its tune. Today, instead of paying its share,
it is claiming ownership of the surplus. The government is
taking 40% of the surplus.
1655
All of us, as individuals—and the trade unions also have
mentioned it—know what we are talking about. If any group in
society were caught taking money in this way, it would be
charged with theft and we would quickly pass special legislation
to prevent a reoccurrence. Now the government is passing
legislation to steal from the workers.
Since my colleague talked about this a bit, I would like to hear
his thoughts on this.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is
speaking from the heart because he shares the frustration that
many Canadians feel. That is the government has no right to lay
claim to the surplus and to use it for any purpose if it does not
even contribute to the plan. All the government does is
administer the plan.
Maybe it would be justifiable for it to charge some
administrative fee for managing the program, but surely it does
not have the right to take $750 million a month that should have
gone to income maintenance for unemployed workers, and use it for
anything it wants. It is literally for anything the government
wants because it goes into general revenue.
What the government chose to do with the surplus is really
galling, and I would ask the hon. member to try to imagine the
optics of this. It took the surplus from unemployed workers,
arguably the most vulnerable people in the country, people who
have lost their jobs, and squandered it on tax cuts for the
wealthy. The government chose to invest $100 billion of our
money in tax cuts. It is like a perverted form of Robin Hood, to
rob from the poor to give to the rich.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
have the circle that the government draws around areas of high
employment, but within these areas of supposed high employment
are pockets of small communities. The residents of those
communities are required to obtain the same number of qualifying
hours to draw employment insurance benefits as those who are in
the nucleus of the high employment centres. Perhaps they are in
small fishing communities where resource dictates and have had
very little work in recent years. Because their communities fall
within the larger areas, consequently they require the same
number of hours as the high employment centres.
Does the member think that is fair and are these people being
treated fairly?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member points out
one of the many inherent things that are not fair with the
system. When an arbitrary line is painted around a geographic
region, it is not a homogeneous group.
My riding of Winnipeg Centre is a good example. The
unemployment rate for the city of Winnipeg is about 4.9%. The
unemployment rate in my riding is 16%. Frankly, we would be
disadvantaged because the geographic area for EI would be ranked
at the 4% or 5% unemployment rate.
It is one of those major irritants that people in economically
depressed areas feel about the EI system, and it is one of the
examples of how it is not meeting the needs of unemployed
Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): 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 Cumberland—Colchester, Lumber Industry; the hon.
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Lanark—Carleton,
Agriculture; the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore, Fisheries.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, formerly
Bill C-44. I would like to say thanks to the hon. members from
the NDP. They certainly can relate to the situation and the
difficulties people have had, particularly in the Atlantic
region. I know there are other parts of the country that have
had a difficult times as well.
1700
I will refer to the last question that was put to the hon.
member. In southwestern New Brunswick communities that depend on
seasonal workers are lumped in with bigger communities like Saint
John, my riding, and Fredericton which have their own
unemployment problems. That makes the numbers artificially low
in areas where they are in fact a lot higher.
In Saint John, New Brunswick, they talk about the unemployment
rate being around 8%. People in Blacks Harbour, which is not too
far from Saint John, are lumped in with us. The unemployment
rate in Blacks Harbour is 45%, but because it is lumped in with
us they say the unemployment rate there is 7% or 8%. That is not
fair.
We are pleased that the intensity rule is being changed in the
bill. However there is a great need for other changes in the
bill that have not been addressed. Our people need their
dignity.
Every one of us in the House of Commons is able to go home and
feed our families. We are able to dress them. Some have young
people going to college. I wonder if members ever stop to think
about the people coming into my constituency office who can no
longer afford to feed their families. Never have my city and my
riding been like this before.
Four thousand men worked at the shipyard. Those men made good
salaries and contributed to the economy. Things were booming. We
had the Atlantic sugar refinery before the government took it
away from us and closed it down. Those men also contributed to
the economy. We had VIA Rail and those men contributed to the
economy.
Mr. Peter MacKay: And women.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, and women as well, the hon. member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough reminds me.
Members should look at what it is like today. It tugs at my
heart. A man who worked at the shipyard came to me almost with
tears in his eyes. They no longer have EI and they do not have
another job. I had never seen this before.
They do not want welfare. They want their dignity. As far as I
am concerned, if they go on welfare they will have their dignity
because they will not have done so by choice.
I suppose Bill C-2 and Bill C-44 were designed to make
significant changes to our employment insurance system, and all
of us here would hope for the better. However that is not
necessarily what has happened. Most of the debate surrounding
Bill C-2 relates to what has been called the intensity clause,
which would see claimants' benefits reduced if they have had to
seek employment insurance with greater frequency.
In Bathurst, New Brunswick, there was a former Liberal member
who was in the cabinet. Do hon. members remember? I will never
forget when the government brought in the new EI regulations. The
people were hurting. The parish priest, on a Sunday, marched
down the main street in Bathurst with the people. Never before
had a parish priest done that. The hon. member who sat in the
cabinet told the priest he should have something better to do on
a Sunday.
Do hon. members know what happened? Because of what happened
and what the government did, the member was not re-elected.
Nineteen members in the Atlantic region were not re-elected. When
the Liberals almost got wiped out in the Atlantic region the
government said it had better do something and take another look.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Just before the election.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: It was just before the election. The
hon. member is right.
1705
Those members who sit in the House, no matter which side, and do
not have the heart to deal with the people who need us to speak
out for them, to fight them and do what is right for them, should
not be in the House of Commons. That is what we are here for. We
are here for the grassroots man and woman so that they can
educate their children. That is what they want to do.
We lose many of our people to the United States these days. They
have no work here because of cutbacks in the health care system
and in the educational system. There is no work in my riding
because of what has happened with shipbuilding.
Tomorrow there will be an announcement with regard to
shipbuilding, but it will not be made in the House of Commons. It
will be made at a press conference. Shipbuilding is high tech.
Frigates are high tech. When ships are built a multiplier effect
takes place in communities. Steelworkers work and supply the
steel. Other jobs are created because of all the equipment
needed for the ships. We should be dealing with the issue in the
House of Commons instead of having a press conference. I am
really upset about that.
This is the peoples' House. The government should come in here
with the bills and tell us what changes will be made. It
should come in here and tell us if a shipyard will be in P.E.I.,
or Nova Scotia or Saint John, New Brunswick. It should not ask us
to read about it in the newspaper. We do that these days with
everything. We pick up a newspaper or turn on a TV to find out
what is happening instead of finding out in the House.
Every member in the House knows that some men and women must
take on seasonal work. Let us look at Newfoundland. For
heaven's sake, with the storms it has had do members think people
there can go out and plant flowers this week like they can in
Vancouver? Do members think they can go out and plant potatoes?
No. They have had snow for the last six months in Newfoundland.
Mr. Peter MacKay: There is a ban in P.E.I. because of
potato wart.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: That is right. There is a ban in
P.E.I. and that will have a tremendous effect on its economy.
Because the changes to the intensity clause and the clawback are
a small step in the right direction, we will join our NDP
colleagues in voting in favour of the bill. However no member in
the House should think for one minute that we will sit here and
be idle. We will work until the government corrects the bill all
the way and makes it fair and just for all the men and women who
want to work.
Those people want to work 12 months of the year. Do members
know how much some of them make? Some of them make $240 a week.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Some get a lot less than that.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, that is right. That amount is
before they pay their EI premiums and clawbacks. After those are
paid they make around $200. How does a family feed a child? How
does a family buy Nike sneakers for their child so they can be
like the boy or girl who sits next to them in school? How do
they do that on $200 a week?
There is a need for all of us in the House to come together and
make those men, women and children our number one priority, not
the large corporations. I am not opposed to corporations. They
create jobs. However let us be fair and just.
How come the government can take a surplus of $35 billion from
the workers? It does not belong to the minister or to the
government. The hon. member from Newfoundland, who is sitting
over there blushing, knows that. He bloody well knows that money
does not belong to the government.
He knows it belongs to workers in Newfoundland and New Brunswick.
The hon. member from P.E.I. knows it as well. His face is as red
as an apple.
1710
An hon. member: He is as red as a Liberal.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, indeed. We will fight for an
independent commission to look after that money. There is no way
it should be used to pay down the debt. There are men and women
who need that money. They paid into employment insurance but are
not eligible to receive it.
I appeal to all my colleagues. We will all vote in favour of
the bill but we will not let the issue go away. We need more
changes. We need more members to speak out and to work to make
sure our people have dignity.
I cannot believe someone out west would say that people in the
maritimes are sitting with their hands out, that we are lazy and
that we do not want to work. I cannot believe anyone would say
that about our people.
When people from B.C. and Alberta come to the maritime provinces
they say it is the most beautiful part of Canada and that the
people are wonderful, kind and gracious. In Atlantic Canada that
is how people are. They reach out to their neighbour. They help
each other. We in the maritime provinces will continue to build
this country and to make all Canadians equal.
I appeal to my colleagues on the government side to please take
another look at the bill and to lower EI premiums for those who
pay in.
An hon. member And to keep the service.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: To keep the service, yes indeed. It is
important for employers as well. If employers pay lower premiums
they can expand and create jobs. That is what we are looking
for. That is what we are asking for.
I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of our people back home and on behalf of all people across
the country.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker,
my colleague from Saint John talked about workers who take home
$200 a week. Would she comment on the ones who take home nothing
at all because of the changes to employment insurance?
In our country, which is supposed to be the best country in the
world, there are people who do not qualify for EI from February
until May. They do not make $200 a month, they make nothing at
all. It is unfair and unjust. People have to go on welfare but
when they start to work again they must pay the welfare back to
their provincial government.
I would like to hear how the member feels about her part of New
Brunswick, the province I come from. It is important that this
be said here to all Canadians. In what is supposed to be the
best country in the world we have people with no earnings at all.
It is totally unacceptable.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, I do not know what
happened to the Liberals' values. I do not know where they went.
The clawback of welfare is unbelievable. We are supposed to have
EI for the dignity of our people. That is what it is there for.
However this measure took away the dignity of the people.
A little girl came to see me at my riding office and she was
crying. She asked me to help her. She told me her father did
not have work and that he would need to go to the United States.
She said she did not want to leave her nanny and grampy and aunts
and uncles who were there. There is no way that this should
happen. We need to make changes to restore the quality of life
of Canadians from coast to coast.
1715
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 5.15 p.m. pursuant
to order of Monday, April 2, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose
of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
[English]
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the members.
1740
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bagnell
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Clark
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comartin
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Laliberte
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 174
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Day
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harris
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Obhrai
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Perron
| Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
| Yelich
– 87
|
PAIRED
Members
Bourgeois
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Plamondon
| Stewart
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL INQUIRY
The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion and
of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, April 3,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
divisions relating to the business of supply. The question is on
the amendment.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent in the House that the members who voted on the
preceding motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before
the House, with Liberal members voting no.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote yes, with the member for Selkirk—Interlake and the
member for Calgary Southeast being added to our vote.
1745
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote yes to the amendment.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party vote yes to the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to the amendment.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Clark
| Comartin
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Day
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Peschisolido
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vellacott
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 113
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 152
|
PAIRED
Members
Bourgeois
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Plamondon
| Stewart
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. The next
question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the main motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1755
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Clark
| Comartin
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Day
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallant
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Perron
| Peschisolido
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vellacott
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
|
Yelich – 113
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Laliberte
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Tonks
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 152
|
PAIRED
Members
Bourgeois
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Plamondon
| Stewart
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
It being 5.55 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved that Bill
C-209, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (Public Transportation
Costs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague, the
hon. member for Sherbrooke, for seconding the bill.
On behalf of the residents of the riding of Jonquière, whom I
have the honour to represent in this House, I want to say it is a
real pleasure to speak today to Bill C-209, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act, which was selected as a votable item by the
subcommittee on private members' business. The bill would
provide tax deductions to those who use public transit in Canada.
Some might wonder what brought me to introduce this bill. Why
give tax deductions to the people who use public transit?
First, I have political reasons for doing so. I would like to
remind members that in 1999 the House of
Commons passed by a vote of 240 to 25 a motion brought forward by
Nelson Riis, the former NDP member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys, which asked the government to consider granting
a tax exemption for the use of public transit.
1800
Since then the Liberal government has taken no concrete
measures on this issue. It has taken no action whatsoever, either
by introducing a bill or a national policy to implement the
motion.
Many stakeholders believed that the government was going to
act and lobbied for such a bill to be introduced. To this end,
close to 40,000 postcards signed by citizens were sent to the
Minister of Finance.
Today I want to salute several of them, Claude Bonhomme and
Georges Gratton of the Société de Transport de l'Outaouais, the
Corporation intermunicipale de transport du Saguenay, Michael
Roschlau and Amelia Shaw of the Canadian Urban Transit
Association, the Centre for Sustainable Development, the David
Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Railroad Association and many
others.
The fact of the matter is that when employees enjoy the benefits
linked to public transportation, they have to pay taxes. However,
most people who are entitled to free parking pay no taxes on this
benefit. This situation is a major disincentive to using public
transportation. It must be rectified immediately. As a matter of
fact, some employers have already started paying for annual bus
passes for their employees.
This solution is very forwardlooking but it could be improved
upon. Giving a deduction to all public transportation users is
desirable.
Clearly a person using public transportation saves a lot of
money. I will show how. Owning and using a car costs
around $8,000 a year, not to mention parking costs. A public
transportation network pass only costs between $500 and
$1,000 a year, which is a substantial saving.
In spite of this comparative advantage, public transit ridership
dropped significantly in this country between 1990 and 1996,
which is very serious because the drop in ridership is at the
root of many problems including increased greenhouse gas
emissions, increased traffic congestion, increased energy
consumption, higher road infrastructure building and maintenance
costs, and decreased quality of life in cities.
In my opinion, the federal government needs to provide
assistance to those using public transportation, while respecting
provincial areas of jurisdiction, in order to encourage greater
use of these services. The bill does so by providing tax
deductions to users of public transportation.
Bill C-209 is part of such assistance. It amends the Income Tax
Act so as to allow individuals to deduct certain costs incurred
for the use of public transportation when calculating their
income tax. For the purposes of this section, “Public
transportation” includes a public transportation service by bus,
subway, commuter train or light rail.
In order to avoid abuse, the individual will need to provide
documentation to support the amounts claimed for public
transportation. I must point out here that this tax benefit will
be available only to people purchasing monthly or yearly passes.
This will make the accounting far easier, while avoiding
potential fraud.
1805
As well, it will encourage people to buy passes rather than
tickets and this will substantially improve transport company
revenues.
If anyone doubts the appropriateness of my bill, I will list a
few of the advantages to this method of transportation.
The first relates to the development of outlying centres and
areas. Hon. members may find this surprising but public
transportation ranks second in popularity. According to recent
polls 52% of Canadians in urban areas use it occasionally and
30% regularly.
They contribute as well to the prosperity of the downtown core.
In addition to taking people to work, public transit takes people
to the shopping areas of the major centres. It is therefore a
subtle but very present economic force. In addition to the
aspect of economic force, there is an issue of equality behind my
bill.
Access to employment, education, health care and community
services depends largely on a quality and accessible public
transit system. Public transit is extremely important to
students, seniors and people on low income who do not have the
means to buy a car or who decide simply to not have one. Also,
to everyone looking for work, public transit is an exceptional
incentive but it cannot cost a fortune.
As my party's critic for regional and rural development, I can
say that in addition to fostering economic growth in the major
centres, my bill would foster regional development, in
particular.
We will recall that the communities' transportation budgets are
not very high and service to low population density areas is
especially limited. Permitting deductions will mean increased
revenues for the transportation companies, which will be able to
offer a better service in these areas. In my riding, I am
thinking specifically of the municipalities of Larouche,
Lac-Kénogami, Shipshaw and Laterrière.
The second benefit goes to the environment. The environmental
contribution of public transit is this bill's essential element.
Members know as well as I do that protecting and improving our
environment is a major concern for many Canadians and Quebecers.
In fact, from an environmental point of view, the bill is an
ideal solution for the federal government.
In 1997, under the Kyoto protocol, the government undertook to
reduce by 6% domestic greenhouse gas emissions by the year
2010-12 based on the 1990 level. The situation has only gotten
worse since. According to some experts, Canada could exceed the
1990 level by 25%. Others, including the federal Minister of
Natural Resources, think that this figure could be as high as
35%.
While stakeholders' opinions may vary, the fact remains that
Canada is far from achieving its objectives. Ironically, the
federal government is boasting about spending in excess of $1
billion over a five year period to deal with climate changes.
Also, it is very unfortunate to see that the government is only
investing that money in foundations that ultimately create
duplication because such bodies already exist in provinces like
Quebec.
1810
Instead of investing $1 billion in duplication, the government
should take immediate and concrete action. In this respect, my
bill is a step in the right direction since it proposes a much
cheaper solution than all the investments made by the Department
of the Environment in its programs or foundations.
Incidentally, in his last annual report, the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development was very critical of the
Minister of the Environment. He said that the government has
trouble putting its words into actions in the fight against smog.
I extend my hand to the government and to the Minister of the
Environment. I am providing him with an opportunity to act. He
should forget about the millions spent in all his bureaucratic
organizations.
The measure I am proposing will cost much less.
All these figures are not theoretical, for there is indeed an
impact on society. Let us not forget that as many as 16,000
Canadians die each year from the effects of high pollution levels
in major cities. The number of children hospitalized for asthma
increased by 23% between 1980 and 1990.
Public transportation is therefore the ideal solution to this
disastrous state of affairs because a single bus can carry as
many passengers as 40 or 50 cars. In addition, its toxic gas
emissions per kilometre are a mere one-quarter of those
produced by the cars. As an example, the air pollution in a
major Canadian city increased by 20% when public transportation
services were suspended.
Environmentally, although it is vital that more people opt for
public transportation, there is unfortunately no national
transportation policy that would encourage them to do so. It is
therefore clear to me that a tax deduction would have this effect
and would improve air quality in this country.
Naturally some pettyminded souls will say that this measure is
costly and hard to monitor. To them I would say that right now
the federal government is not putting one red cent into public
transportation. In comparison, the United States is investing
$41 billion over six years in this sector. The problem of
traffic jams and excessive fuel consumption continues to be an
important problem which the bill is designed to correct.
In addition to all these benefits, there is also a benefit when
it comes to traffic jams and energy consumption.
The federal government should not be looking only at the numbers
when considering this type of initiative. There are many
qualitative benefits to be taken into account.
The reduction of greenhouse gases is only one of many examples
of these benefits. It could also help reduce traffic buildups.
Earlier, I mentioned that one bus could carry as many passengers
as 40 or 50 cars. In large urban centres, 50% of the population
already uses public transit.
For example, if all STCUM clients travelled by car, they could
fill, bumper to bumper, a highway that would stretch from
Montreal to Gaspé. That is over 900 kilometres. One can imagine
what would happen if public transit disappeared overnight.
Despite the growing popularity of public transit in the greater
Montreal area, rush hour traffic remains extremely heavy. This
means that public transit does its share but there is still room
for improvement.
1815
It would take no more than a simple incentive, like the one
proposed in my bill, to make public transit not only a way of
going from place to place but a way of life. This incentive
should be in the form of a tax deduction for public transit
users.
Moreover, with gas prices on the rise, many people would like to
use public transit to remedy this situation but if they do not
have access to adequate service in suburban areas they have no
choice but to use their cars.
I will say it again, Bill C-209 would lead to a huge increase in
revenues for those transit companies providing the best service.
My dearest wish would be to see us as a society manage to
decrease our dependency on fossil fuels.
I would also like to address the advantages from the
infrastructure point of view. The excessive use of cars is
extremely costly to governments in terms of highway
infrastructure. We need to realize that vehicles are hard on our
roads, so it is our duty as parliamentarians to seek to reduce
the harm done. I am sure that encouraging an increased use of
public transportation will decrease the number of cars on the
roads of Canada and Quebec.
Hon. members may wonder what degree of additional use of public
transportation my bill would bring about. I wish to inform
everyone here and those who have the pleasure of watching us
this evening that in the San Francisco area public
transportation use rose 31% among those benefiting from a limited
exemption. When this was expanded, the figure went even higher.
It could therefore be estimated that my bill might bring about a
similar increase if it were passed.
In conclusion, the purpose of Bill C-209 is to do away with an
inequity. Some people have employer subsidized parking, which
encourages them to use their cars rather than take non-subsidized
public transportation.
We know that cars are the principal source of exhaust emissions,
which are harmful to human health. We also know that the number
of children hospitalized because of asthma rose 23% between 1980
and 1990.
It costs about $1 billion a year to treat diseases caused by
noxious gases resulting from automobile emissions.
This bill is the best way to lower congestion. If all public
transit users in the Montreal area were to take their cars, the
duration of any trip would triple and come to an average of about
an hour and a half. A single bus keeps 40 to 50 cars off the
streets and one light rail train replaces 15 cars.
It would also provide an affordable alternative to consumers who
are being gouged at the pumps. If cars are kept off the streets,
our roads would remain in better shape for a longer period of
time and we would not have to invest millions of dollars each
year.
Before I close, I want to point out that the House will be asked
to vote on this private member's bill in the next few weeks. I
feel it is important to mention that it will be a free vote.
On this important issue, I urge all members to keep an open mind
and vote in favour of the bill to ensure a safe environment for
their children and grandchildren.
1820
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on
Bill C-209, introduced by the member for Jonquière.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the bill proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to
permit individuals to deduct an undetermined percentage of their
public transportation costs. These costs would include service
by bus, subway, commuter train or light rail. To be eligible for
a tax deduction, individuals would be required to provide
supporting vouchers indicating the amounts paid for the use of an
eligible public transportation system.
I should point out that the bill goes beyond or is different
from what has been proposed by the Canadian Urban Transit
Association. Notwithstanding that, this is an excellent
initiative on behalf of the private member.
I will start by emphasizing that this government is very much
committed to seeking ways to encourage more individuals to use
public transportation systems in order to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. In fact, addressing climate change is a priority of
our Opportunity for All agenda. Encouraging greater use of
public transportation could certainly help us move toward this
objective.
Regarding the specific option of a tax deduction for public
transportation costs, I would point out that some important
fairness and effectiveness considerations should be taken into
account. Let me take a moment to explain some of the
difficulties the bill raises.
[Translation]
First, it is not clear that this measure would result in the
desired increases in the number of public transit users. The
measure does not address the matter of new users and therefore
we may imagine that it would be current users of public transport
who would benefit the most from it.
[English]
We all know that the cost of public transit is often a small
factor in an individual's transportation choice when weighed
against other considerations such as accessibility, convenience
and personal preference. Consequently, if the increase in
ridership was small, there would be little benefit in terms of
reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
We must also consider the fairness of introducing a tax measure
that would mostly benefit individuals residing in large urban
centres with extensive public transit systems.
[Translation]
The inhabitants of smaller centres and rural areas, where
accessible and convenient public transport is not always
available, would not benefit from this measure.
It is for these reasons that the tax system generally does not
make provision for individual costs, such as public transit
costs, in particular.
[English]
If it did, it would be equivalent to asking Canadians in general
to subsidize the personal expenses of other individuals. This
would not be fair, as personal expenses vary widely across
individuals and reflect to some extent the personal preference of
the individual incurring them.
The government recognizes the importance of examining cost
effective ways of encouraging energy efficiency and renewable
energy. The government also believes that building on existing
initiatives announced in recent budgets would likely achieve
greater environmental benefits.
Let me also take this opportunity to explain some of the
initiatives the government has already put in place to improve
our environmental performance.
[Translation]
In budget 2000, the government allocated $700 million over a
four year period to preserve and improve the natural
environment, develop new technologies and effectively meet the
challenges posed by climate change.
[English]
As part of this initiative, the government allocated $100
million to the establishment of a green municipal investment fund
to provide loans in support of municipal projects in areas such
as urban transit, energy conservation and waste diversion. An
additional $100 million was also set aside for the establishment
of a sustainable development technology fund to promote the
development and demonstration of new environmental technologies,
particularly those aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
[Translation]
Under the environmental initiatives announced in budget 2000,
the government also earmarked an additional $210 million over
three years for the climate change action fund, which was set up
in the 1998 budget to help Canada respect its international
commitments on climate change.
1825
[English]
Eligible initiatives under this program include those that
demonstrate the best urban transportation technologies and
strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In building on
these investments, in our economic statement and budget update of
October 18, 2000, the government allocated an additional $500
million over five years to address key environmental challenges
such as climate change and pollution.
[Translation]
If we take into account the new environmental initiatives of
$700 million in budget 2000, the government's investment in
environmental measures in the year 2000 totalled $1.2 billion.
[English]
The government also indicated in the 2000 budget that it would
be consulting with other orders of government and the private
sector to reach an agreement on a creative and fiscally
responsible plan to improve provincial and municipal
infrastructure in Canada's communities. The federal government
has allocated upward of $2.6 billion to this initiative over the
next five years. Urban transit projects will be an essential
component of this joint effort.
In conclusion, I am sure that all hon. members present today
share, like myself, a very strong commitment to encourage greater
use of public transportation systems in order to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. However, in light of what I have
discussed, I hope hon. members also realize that providing a tax
deduction for public transportation costs may not be the
appropriate measure to achieve this outcome.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise
this early evening to address Bill C-209, which seeks to amend
the Income Tax Act and allow individuals to deduct certain public
transportation costs from the exorbitant amount of income tax the
government opposite extracts from them each year.
I would like to commend the hon. member for Jonquière for
bringing forward an insightful and innovative amendment to the
Income Tax Act. The merits of the bill are numerous, not just
for individuals but for society as a whole, and I am delighted to
bring some of them to the attention of the House this afternoon.
Perhaps before I do, I will just digress for a moment from my
speech to say that I was very disappointed in the remarks made by
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. It is
quite obvious from his remarks that the government has decided
yet again that it will be advocating that all the Liberal members
vote against this particular legislation, and that should come as
no surprise. The government is increasingly reluctant to offer
Canadians any form of tax relief and of course that is what the
bill sets out to do.
I seem to have struck a nerve over there because I hear them
heckling even though hardly any of them are in the House.
The reality is that the remarks made by the parliamentary
secretary dealt almost entirely with how the Liberals can shovel
money out the door in all their grandiose programs and plans of
how to spend tax dollars rather than offer Canadians tax relief.
That is indicative of the way the government has operated and
continues to operate.
As to the bill itself, the first benefit is the most obvious,
that is, this amendment to the Income Tax Act would reduce the
tax burden on Canadians, something the government opposite is
reluctant to do and something our party has been advocating for
years.
The bill will not go so far as to reduce taxes to the levels we
have been promising Canadians, but it will nevertheless provide
relief to some Canadians who so desperately need it. I am
referring to the thousands of students, seniors and low income
Canadians who rely on public transit as their sole source of
transportation. For these people, driving their car to work or
school is not an option since they usually do not have that
luxury.
I need look no further than my eldest daughter, who lives with
me in Ottawa and does not have the luxury of even owning a car.
She is a struggling student, as so many are in our country, a
fourth year student at Carleton, and she travels for about an
hour and a half every day to get to university and then to get
home in the afternoon or evening. She spends about three hours
every day on public transit.
1830
That is not unique to my daughter. Many students and many
working Canadians in our country have to face similar long hauls
on public transit. Without the public transit system, many of
these people would be forced to quit their jobs or drop out of
school. Without public transit, seniors would be unable to
access essential services such as health care. Providing these
people with a deduction for the expense of public transportation
will not give them a windfall by any means. However, as anyone
who has experienced the struggle of living paycheque to paycheque
knows, every dollar does count.
There are also benefits to society beyond the immediate benefit
to the individuals who use public transit. The implementation of
this amendment would provide an incentive for commuters to leave
their cars at home and begin or go back to using public transit.
Often the cost of driving is only marginally higher than the cost
of public transit. Most people usually elect to drive for no
other reason than the sheer convenience of it.
The statistics on public transit highlight this trend. Only 19%
of Canadians are frequent transit users and 11% of them are
semi-frequent users while 22% are occasional users. An
astonishing 48% of Canadians do not use transit at all.
This amendment will widen the gap between the cost of driving
and the cost of public transit, giving public transit greater
appeal and reducing the number of cars on the road. This single
action is where the benefits to society begin.
One of the immediate benefits would be to the environment and
consequently to the air we all breathe. For every bus we are
able to fill, we are able to take up to 50 cars off the road.
This is a critical number when we consider that six of seven
major air pollutants come from cars and light trucks, which emit
four tonnes of pollutants every year on average.
In 1997 Canada made an international commitment to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 emission levels by
2008-12. Despite the fact that Canada has yet to ratify the
agreement, there is no reason for us not to at least attempt to
meet our commitments.
We could simply follow the precedent established by our
neighbours to the south and renege on our international
commitment because of the downturn in the economy. However, this
is not an option for Canada since we are consistently reminded by
the Minister of Finance that Canada is immune to a recession.
Fortunately for the environment, this means that the Canadian
government could withstand the minor tax exemption such as the
one being proposed today.
Also of benefit to Canadians, which may not be as apparent as
the immediate benefits to the environment, are the numerous
benefits that accompany a reduction in the congestion on our
roadways. Congestion is very costly to Canadians in terms of its
impacts on the economy and road infrastructure.
Recent studies in Canada, the U.S. and Australia have estimated
that congestion costs in urban areas are in the order of $1,000
annually per household. It therefore stands to reason that if
businesses are able to move their goods to market more
efficiently the cost of goods will go down. This is yet another
example of how the bill would improve the lives of all Canadians.
The toll that congestion takes on our roads is self-evident. We
have all experienced first hand the deplorable state of our
national highways, the gridlock occurring in our major cities and
the inability of growing towns to expand their existing road
systems to accommodate population growth.
The government has made it very clear that it does not intend to
spend any more than the current 4.1% of the $5 billion it
collects in fuel taxes on improving our roadways. If we intend
to retain the antiques we have, without further deterioration, we
have to reduce the number of people using them.
The bill would hopefully provide the incentive for the people of
Canada to take action where the government refuses.
I could continue with my praise of the bill, but I would like to
take a few minutes to make a few comments on the whole issue of
private members' bills and their place within the House. Each
year the members elected to the House bring forward their ideas
for improving the lives of all Canadians. More often than not,
these ideas are allowed to fall off the order paper without
having been given, in my opinion, due consideration.
1835
I have been extremely fortunate that in the past two months my
name has been drawn consecutively in the two private members'
draws. This was an unprecedented opportunity for me to select
and to present two of my six private members' bills.
The first, Bill C-237, was a bill that would have amended the
Divorce Act to ensure that divorcing parents begin custody
discussions on an equal footing. They would start out with joint
custody and work from there. The bill was intended to remove
children from the often bitter battles that accompanied marital
breakdown to ensure that they could not be used as pawns during
settlement negotiations. Put simply, the bill would have put the
children's interests ahead of the divorcing parents.
However, the bill was not considered important enough to vote on
by the private members' committee so it fell off the order paper
after one hour of debate.
My second bill, Bill C-272, has not yet been debated but
regrettably has been handed the same sentence: a one hour debate
before it too drops from the order paper. The bill would have
allowed adoptive parents a one time income tax exemption for
expenses incurred during the adoption of a child. Unfortunately,
the bill has also succumb to the same fate as my previous bill
despite the apparent benefits to Canadian families and children.
While I appreciate the limited time the House has to consider
legislation each year, I believe that as elected members we could
be doing a better job of how we select and debate private
members' legislation. An opportune time for us to examine these
procedures is during the all party discussions on parliamentary
reform.
As elected members, we owe it to our constituents to find a more
effective means of bringing bills with merit into law. I am
pleased that the process worked in favour of this particular
private member's bill, Bill C-209, and I am pleased to express my
support for the bill.
I will sum up by saying that I really hope the bill passes. I
hope that it does not succumb to the same unfortunate treatment
as my previous bill in the last parliament. That particular
bill, after a lot of work and with the support of the majority
government, the Liberals, was passed on to the justice committee.
However, in the end, the Prime Minister called a premature
election and the bill died at the committee stage.
The bill today, should it pass, would go to the finance
committee where hopefully it will not suffer the same fate as my
last bill. I urge all members to do support the bill and to vote
for it.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Madam
Speaker, after hearing some of the comments from the member for
the government side, I will alter some of my comments. It was
forced upon me.
I will begin my remarks by indicating that we in the NDP support
the private member's bill put forward by the Bloc member for
Jonquière. We welcome the initiative that it shows. It is just
one of a number of incentives and initiatives that would go some
distance to resolving some of the problems we have with the
burning of fossil fuel and other health and environmental
problems that arise as a result of that.
Going back to the claims by my friend from the Liberal Party
about all the things the Liberals have done, let me tell members
about a personal experience I had in my home riding of
Windsor—St. Clair because of something the Liberals did.
The automotive company, Chrysler at the time, made an
arrangement with its union, CAW, whereby Chrysler's employees,
who were members of the union, could purchase a large van at a
reduced price to be used as a commuter van. A number of people
who were commuting to the auto plant lived quite a distance away,
some as far as 50 to 60 kilometres. The arrangement was that the
employees could purchase a van at a reduced amount and that they
would use the van during the week to transport other employees
who were also commuting.
This arrangement reduced the number of private vehicles being
used by employees to between eight and ten, depending on the area
of the county they were commuting from. It really was a
substantial reduction in the use of private vehicles.
1840
This went on for a couple of years and, lo and behold, the
employees heard from Revenue Canada. All of a sudden these
employees were being attributed a taxable benefit, and it was
substantial. In most cases it averaged out to several thousand
dollars a year and had to be paid back retroactively for the two
years. This was a great endeavour on the part of the employer,
an automotive company, and its employees to reduce the use of
vehicles, and that was the response they received.
Another specific issue I want to mention, which has already been
mentioned by my friend from Jonquière, is the effect automobiles
have on infrastructure, especially on our roadways.
My home city of Windsor has a major problem with its roadways.
As a direct result of the trade agreements and the amount of
traffic those agreements have generated from Michigan and the
U.S. generally, our roadways, which were designed to last 20 to
30 years, will now need to be replaced every 10 years or less.
This will be paid for by the municipality. The initiatives we
have is a great one because it would substantially reduce traffic
and extend the lifespan of our roadways.
Another point I want to make about the trade agreements concerns
the amount of increased air pollution and the environment. In
the last month or two the environment committee, under NAFTA,
which is based in Montreal, issued a report that specifically
proved that the amount of air pollution has increased as a result
of NAFTA, This is air pollution that has been identified as
having increased quite dramatically in the Quebec City to Windsor
corridor.
What we would be looking for with this type of initiative in the
bill is to reduce traffic. If we got the cars off the highway to
some degree, it would make it easier for trucks to move along. We
would have less air pollution from trucks because they would not
be stalled and sitting in any number of locations, as is the
problem at the Windsor-Detroit border and in a number of places
along that corridor. If we could reduce the amount of auto
traffic, it would make it easier for vehicles to move and would
therefore reduce the amount of environmental degradation.
Living in the riding that I do, we often hear accusations that
if we pursue these environmental type initiatives, which I see
the private member's bill to be, it may jeopardize the jobs of
auto workers.
The labour movement in this country has developed a transition
program to deal with the changes that will inevitably occur as we
move away from the extensive use of automobiles and the burning
of fossil fuels by automobiles and, more generally, by factories
and residences. This program would require government assistance
and the co-operation of the labour movement, the employers and
the government.
1845
It is one that we will hear much more about over the next decade
as we shift our lifestyle. As my friend from the Bloc indicated,
it will require a just transition type of program to be put in
place so that retraining will occur in the labour market. There
may have to be some tax incentives in other areas. Compensation
and assistance may have to be given to municipalities to deal
with the transitions they would go through, and that is very
important.
In terms of the assistance that comes from initiatives to move
away from the attachment we have had to the automobile, other
jobs will be created. As more public transit is used we will
have an increase in the manufacture of trains, big vans and big
or small buses. There will be more manufacturing of those
vehicles, which would replace the loss of the manufacture of
private vehicles.
If we move to alternate fuels we would be looking at the
manufacture of wind turbines and windmills. This manufacturing
process is quite adaptable to the plants that already manufacture
automobiles.
The just transition program the labour movement has been
developing analyzes all of this information. It will not be easy
but it will be a useful mechanism that could be used to get
through that transition.
We are in one of those phases, much as we were at the start of
the last century when we moved away from the use of horses and
the vehicles they drew. We will move away from total usage of
private automobiles. It is an exciting time to be doing so. An
initiative such as this is one of many that has to be followed. I
urge the government to look at these initiatives and to move
ahead.
We have had many questions in the last few days regarding the
Kyoto protocol. My friend from the Conservative Party urges me
to think in terms of not just getting the bill passed and
ratified but beginning to implement it. Earlier this afternoon
the minister was discussing this subject with some media people.
I feel he is beginning to get the same message: that we have to
move in that direction. I will wrap up by acknowledging and
praising the work done by the hon. member for Jonquière. Our
party will support the bill.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
my pleasure to have an opportunity to participate in the debate
this evening. The overall context of the issue we are talking
about is how it can improve environmental initiatives.
The hon. member for Jonquière is a very strong environmental
member of parliament. That is why she has brought forth Bill
C-209. Thank goodness for her bringing forth an environmental
issue. The government has been very reticent from a legislative
perspective over the last seven years to bring anything forward
respecting the environment. Over the last seven years it has
passed zero environmental pieces of legislation of its own
initiative. There has been the mandatory review of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, but we never saw that proactive
initiative in the same context as we saw during the Conservative
regime.
The learned member of parliament that you are, Madam Speaker,
you will recall when the environment really mattered. The
Conservative regime negotiated an acid rain protocol with the
Americans. It brought forth a principal piece of legislation,
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It even made
initiatives with respect to bringing the world community together
to fight ozone depleting gasses, which became the Montreal
protocol.
The Progressive Conservative ministers Jean Charest and Lucien
Bouchard had a tremendous record compared to the lacklustre
condition of today.
1850
Our party supported a very similar initiative brought forth by
the former member from Kamloops, Nelson Riis. Our party thought
that providing Canadians with some tax reduction was better than
no tax reduction.
We should start rewarding positive initiatives. If the NDP is
now advocating tax cuts and tax reductions, hopefully the
Government of Canada will start embracing those particular
aspects.
There is a dilemma here. Our party critic, the hon. member for
Kings—Hants and vice chair of the finance committee, has pointed
out that too often we utilize the tax system to leverage public
policy. The downside is that it complicates the taxation system.
It would be better if all Canadians were provided with broad
based tax relief and a simpler taxation system.
We in our party are reticent to support the initiative brought
forth by the member for Jonquière, but we do support the spirit
in which she brought it forth. She is encouraging Canadians to
use public transit in order to take away the gridlock on our road
systems and to deter the wear and tear on roads. Also, it would
ultimately enhance human health. Taking more vehicles off the
roads would mean fewer hazardous emissions. The congestion we
see on the roads also leads to more accidents and loss of life,
so the spirit and the intent of this initiative should be
supported.
Our caucus will be discussing the hon. member's bill. We
supported a similar initiative when it was brought forth by the
member from Kamloops, so we will reserve judgment. I am sure
that my good friend, the member for Jonquière, will be lobbying
me heavily in future votes.
Given that I have a few minutes remaining, it would be very
appropriate to discuss one of the issues that we really need to
think about in a more proactive way than we have over the last
little while, and that is with respect to climate change as a
whole. The government has really done zero with respect to
reducing greenhouse gases. It has not begun to try to live up to
our commitments with respect to the Kyoto protocol.
There is one thing I was concerned about that was a little
revisionist, although we are going to reward good behaviour here
as well. The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River pointed
out that we need to reduce greenhouse gases. I remember the
debate we had here in 1997 when his party was still challenging
the science of climate change. There has been an epiphany at
some point and that party now understands the consensus that CO2
clearly has a detrimental effect on our climate.
The Progressive Conservative Party would like to see a number of
things in terms of addressing climate change. We should have
massive tax reductions for the utilization of renewable sources
of energy. We should have massive tax reductions for investment
in energy efficiency initiatives. We should have massive tax
reductions for R and D on renewable sources of energy and energy
efficiency initiatives.
The federal government should lead by example and allocate a
percentage of the energy it consumes to renewable sources of
energy. We should be negotiating with the various industrial
sectors as well. Instead of having voluntary initiatives or
government from on high by regulation, we would rather negotiate
with every industrial sector in the country on a sector by sector
basis and agree to binding reductions as opposed to having
regulations or doing it through voluntary initiatives.
1855
Industry will play its part if it knows what the rules are. The
government should establish the rules so that it can reward early
action by providing further incentives when milestones are
reached even sooner. There is a myriad of opportunities that tax
incentives could provide. For example, the Danes use tax
incentives and they have over half their energy provided by wind
generated power. The government has to get its act together with
respect to environmental initiatives.
The species at risk bill before the House has a framework that
can definitely work. The problem is that it has four or five
shortcomings that need to be improved. In order to protect
species at risk the government should accept the amendments that
will be presented by members of the NDP, the Bloc, the
Progressive Conservative Party, and even some learned members of
the Liberal Party. We should have a bill that we can celebrate
as opposed to a bill that we merely have to accept.
The initiative of the member for Jonquière would encourage
Canadians to use public transit. Bravo to the member. It would
help human health by reducing toxic emissions in our cities and
would save human life by reducing congestion.
The only concern our party has is that better ways need to be
found to move the yardstick on public policy. We should be
investing in our cities with more public transportation as
opposed to nickel and diming it this way. The intent of the bill
should be applauded.
[Translation]
Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will begin
by congratulating the hon. member for Jonquière on her bill.
I think that the government fully supports her bill's objective,
what she seeks to accomplish. It is just the method that is a
problem. We think that there are alternative ways of
accomplishing the same thing, but more effectively.
[English]
I should like to comment on how touching it was to hear the
Canadian Alliance all of a sudden jumping on the green bandwagon
and wishing to transfer all these funds to seniors and low income
people.
It was touching but a little hypocritical. If one recalls the
election campaign, that party had essentially no position on the
environment. It had its so-called flat tax or single rate tax
that would have produced the largest transfer of wealth to the
rich. Suddenly the Canadian Alliance has changed its tune on
this matter, and that is very nice to see.
The member for Fundy—Royal claimed that the government had done
absolutely nothing on the subject of the environment. I would
point out that it has committed $1.2 billion over four years for
environmental projects. In the Liberal books, $1.2 billion is
not nothing.
We need to do further work in this area. Public transit is a
hugely important issue, especially with George W. Bush saying no
to the Kyoto accord. Achieving environmental success in this
area is all the more important because we may be more limited in
areas such as forestry, oil and gas.
The Bloc member's basic objective is a laudable one, but we have
more work to do in investigating alternatives on how to get
there. What is the most efficient way of improving public
transit? Is it through the tax system or through expenditures,
for example through direct government support for public transit?
1900
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I rise to get further clarification on a question I
raised on February 27 about the softwood lumber issue that is now
upon us.
I raised the fact that the four Atlantic premiers had written a
letter to the Prime Minister, asking the government to renew the
Atlantic accord which gives free trade and protection from
litigation to the four Atlantic provinces.
I asked the question because time after time the parliamentary
secretary and the minister would rise in the House and say that
nobody wants the agreements renewed, referring to the softwood
lumber agreement, when in fact four Atlantic premiers wanted the
maritime accord renewed. That was the main thrust of my question
at the time; but now, on April 4, the question is even more
urgent and there is more support for the proposal to renew the
maritime accord.
Governor Snowe of Maine supports Atlantic Canada's request to
renew the maritime accord. She says it is working and it should
be renewed. It is working in the interest of the U.S. and
Canada. She wants it renewed. Here is the governor of Maine
wanting it renewed and the Government of Canada will not renew
it.
The people in the U.S. industry have recognized the unique
situation of Atlantic Canada. Their petition to their government
asks it to increase or to establish countervail duties and
anti-dumping charges. The American industry says that the
petitioners do not allege that softwood lumber production in the
Atlantic provinces benefits from countervailable subsidies, and
that this portion of Canadian production should be treated as it
was in 1991 and 1992.
The American industry and the American government say that the
accord should be renewed. The four Atlantic premiers say that
the accord should be renewed. Even the province of Quebec came
to our committee and said that it wants province specific
treatment and that it supports the maritime accord being renewed.
Now the Canadian industry in Atlantic Canada is unanimous in
wanting the maritime accord renewed.
The fact of the matter is that the minister is out of step.
Almost everybody wants the maritime accord renewed. There is a
lot of confusion about the government's position in this regard.
I learned today that some of the Liberals in Atlantic Canada are
taking credit for the fact that the United States industry
developed its petition and excluded Atlantic Canada. Somehow
some of the Liberals in Atlantic Canada are taking credit for
that.
Another part of the confusion in Atlantic Canada is the
monitoring system which was just extended from the four softwood
lumber agreement provinces. Suddenly, in the middle of the night
on Thursday, the mills got a fax after closing hours saying that
they now had to be part of the monitoring system as of Monday.
Today a B.C. industry, one of the leading industries in the
softwood lumber business, is asking for a 15% export tax. There
is a lot of confusion.
Let us agree with the Americans, the Canadians and the premiers
and renew the maritime accord, put that aside, and then deal with
the other issues across the country. Let us deal with the
maritime accord, put it aside, and have that part of it done.
I ask the minister to get in step with everybody else. Again,
the governor of Maine wants renewal of the maritime accord. The
province of Quebec wants renewal of the maritime accord. The
four Atlantic premiers are asking for renewal of the maritime
accord. The Atlantic Canadian softwood lumber industry wants
renewal. Even the U.S. industry wants renewal of the maritime
accord.
Will the minister stand to say yes, we will begin the process of
renewing the maritime accord?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that
the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester has been quite
persistent on this file, as have all my Liberal colleagues from
Atlantic Canada. We have heard no shortage of concern about the
maritime accord.
1905
The member raised questions about the Canada-U.S. softwood
lumber agreement. He specifically mentioned the letter from the
four Atlantic premiers concerning the codification of the
provisions of the maritime lumber accord.
As the member well knows, we are now in a situation which would
be quite acceptable to everybody if the Americans would accept
it. We now have free trade under the NAFTA rules for not only
Atlantic Canada but for all regions. That is what we want for
all Canadian regions.
The exchange of letters in 1996 confirmed the procedures for
U.S. recognition that should a countervailing duty investigation
be initiated during the five year period the maritimes would be
considered to have not subsidized. The U.S. action does not
target any program in Atlantic Canada. We think that is great.
We will continue, as the member asked, to advocate free access
for lumber originating in the Atlantic provinces as well as free
access for all provinces as provided by NAFTA.
As the member knows, the Minister for International Trade is a
minister for all Canadians. He represents all Canadians on this
file and he has to take into account their concerns. When he met
on February 26 with U.S. trade representative Zoellick the matter
was raised by the minister. It was one of the first topics he
raised and the Prime Minister raised it with President Bush. It
has had a very high level of attention by our government.
The minister put forward the idea of envoys. At first there was
no great enthusiasm from the American side. Now it seems there
is more interest in it. That would be very important. There
would be wide consultation with the respective governments,
including all provincial governments. We will pursue the matter
of free trade for the Atlantic provinces but we want it for all
Canadians.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am rising to follow up on a question that I
asked on March 14 which dealt with the ongoing existing crisis in
Canadian agriculture.
Today I want to turn to an incipient crisis, a crisis that all
Canadians and parliamentarians of all stripes want to avoid and
to prevent by any means available to us. I am speaking of the
potential for the foot and mouth outbreak in Europe to spread to
this country. The risk from foot and mouth disease can scarcely
be overstated. The economic impact the disease could have if it
were to spread to Canada can scarcely be overrated.
Just looking at the province of Ontario 1996 production figures,
we see that 24% of all farms in Ontario were beef farms and that
14% were dairy farms. Looking at my own riding of
Lanark—Carleton, 60% of the farms in Lanark county, which make
up about half the riding, were either beef or dairy. There were
130 dairy farms, 364 beef farms and 28 farms described as
livestock combination and probably included one or the other.
In the part of my riding that has now been incorporated into the
megacity of Ottawa, the township of West Carleton, a little over
50% of agricultural production is in beef or dairy. A disease
that affects ruminants would have a tremendously damaging impact
on my riding.
Looking at the 1952 outbreak in Saskatchewan of foot and mouth
disease, which very fortunately hit only 42 farms before it was
contained, caused $7 million of damage in today's dollars.
However things have changed. The impact of this disease would be
far more severe if it happened in Canada today because beef is
such a prominent export for us. We could expect that borders
would be shut for exports of Canadian beef.
Some countries, if faced with a foot and mouth outbreak, can
continue to supply their domestic market, but in the case of
Canada such an enormous amount of beef is exported that it is a
crucial part of our industry. We would see tremendous damage
done if there were to be an outbreak here.
As a result I take this issue very seriously.
1910
I attended the debate last night and listened with great
interest to all speakers. I was involved last week in a press
conference in which a number of Canadian Alliance MPs spoke to
the issue. This week I am running ads in two newspapers in my
riding on the subject to advise farmers of some of the things
they can do. This includes alerting them to the government
website that deals with taking preventive measures on their
farms.
What I see being done is excellent in terms of slurry mats at
airports, the turning back of British military vehicles and so
on. However I am very concerned with the consistency with which
these measures are being applied. We hear reports that they are
not applied across the board. That worries me greatly as I know
it does all members.
What is being done to ensure consistency of the application of
these measures? Moreover, what is being done to ensure that
information on measures individuals can take is being
disseminated to Canadians?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my colleague
from Lanark—Carleton, who is a very successful business person,
tabled a question about the main estimates. First I want to
answer that and hope I have time for the foot and mouth issue.
The minister has said on several occasions since the main
estimates were tabled that the budget allocated to farm income
has not been reduced for the year 2001-02. On the contrary, we
have increased our funding commitments to farmers.
Over the next three years we have committed to inject up to $3.3
billion of federal funds into the farm safety net system. With
the provinces under the framework agreement of 60:40 cost
sharing, this amounts to $5.5 billion over three years. As well,
on March 1 the minister announced additional funding of $500
million which provides, along with the provinces cost sharing,
$830 million more.
The year 2000 was a transition year. In the 2000-01 main
estimates Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had to account for
both the 1999 AIDA program and the new Canadian farm income
program, CFIP, for the 2000 tax year.
This was done in accordance with the accounting practices of the
Government of Canada which requires departments to recognize
liabilities in the year the decision was made to incur them.
Since CFIP started in the 2000 tax year the budget allocated to
that year of the program was reported in the 2000-01 main
estimates. As I stated before, the Government of Canada remains
committed to helping farmers. I thank my colleague for his
confidence regarding the CFIA.
We had a great debate in the House last evening. In fact, it
was not a debate but rather input from all sides. It was an
opportunity for all Canadians to make a difference and keep the
country free of foot and mouth disease, as all of us on all sides
of the House want to do. I look forward to talking more on that
subject.
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise again on a question I
raised in the House a couple of weeks ago about genetically
modified fish that are commonly called transgenic fish. I prefer
to call them frankenfish.
The government has completely abandoned any possibility of
rehabilitating the habitat of our natural environment so that
wild fish stocks can come back. Unfortunately it is aiding,
abetting and promoting a genetically modified or transgenic fish.
The only place this is being done in the world is in Prince
Edward Island and in Newfoundland by a company called A/F
Protein, an American company, that is using Aqua Bounty in
Surrey, Prince Edward Island, to promote its product.
The government will say that it is done in closed laboratories.
The fish will not be allowed to be outside the closed labs. The
company is now applying to extract millions of salmon eggs and
move those eggs into the United States for rearing in an open
pen. This is a problem for many commercial fishermen and
aboriginal groups. They also have other concerns about the
average aquaculture industry. There are many escapes from these
pens. The aquaculture industry told us that aquaculture fish
cannot reproduce or survive in the wild. We now know that to be
wrong. They do reproduce in the wild. These fish are so
voracious in their appetite that they can overwhelm and overtake
natural fish.
1915
What I and many people in the industry fear is that these fish
will escape into the wild and destroy the wild stock altogether.
Since they are a genetically modified or transgenic species, they
themselves over time will become extinct if there are no proper
controls. This is our greatest fear.
The other fear we have is about these fish getting into the
commercial market. Consumers who go to a supermarket now do not
see any salmon there marked “this is farmed salmon”. I have
said to the aquaculture industry time and time again that if it
is so proud of its product then that product should be labelled.
The industry should let the consumers of Canada know what they
are buying. Consumers would not know what they are buying if
transgenics get into the market.
The aquaculture industry has also said for years that under no
circumstances would it accept genetically modified or transgenic
fish. It has now modified that position and is saying it will
not accept these species of fish unless the government can prove
they are safe for human consumption. The only way that can be
proved is through very long term studies of at least 20 to 30
years. We simply do not have the resources within the government
or the human resources to do those types of tests.
The hon. member from the Liberal Party will get up and talk
about CEPA and say what great things the government has, with the
proper legislation in place. It is simply nonsense. CEPA is a
piece of legislation passed in the last legislature which has so
many holes in it that it simply will not protect wild species or
human consumption, and they are what we are greatly concerned
about.
The Royal Society of Canada did a report, apparently actioned by
the federal government. It did a test study on transgenics and
came up with some recommendations for the government. The Royal
Society of Canada said to place a moratorium on transgenics and
genetically modified fish or, as I prefer, frankenfish. The
Royal Society said to place a moratorium on these fish until
there is more information.
This is what the government needs to do. This is what my party
encourages the government to do. We in the NDP say once again,
please do all that is possible to protect wild fish stocks and
their habitat.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, for my very
fine colleague, a hard working member on many committees, I want
to have the opportunity to present some facts.
Officials from the regulatory departments are reviewing and
considering the recommendations of the Royal Society, the expert
panel's report. Further, members of the Canadian aquaculture
industry have publicly stated that they have no interest in
growing transgenic fish. However, in the long term the
technology could prove publicly acceptable and may confer certain
benefits to the industry.
Over the next three years, DFO will spend $3.4 million in
research to enhance the regulatory system to control the
potential risks associated with this new technology. Until these
regulations are in force, all applications for the commercial use
of transgenic fish are subject to an evaluation under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, as my hon. colleague
mentioned.
In addition, any proposal to move transgenic fish from a
hatchery to a grow out site, where they mature, or between any
other locations, is subject to an indepth federal-provincial
introduction and transfer review under the Fisheries Act.
The member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore
also expressed concerns about what the minister and department
are doing to protect the interests of commercial fishermen and
the wild salmon stocks in Atlantic Canada from the potential use
of transgenic stocks.
It is in the best interests of both the aquaculture industry and
governments to minimize any escapes. To address this, under the
leadership of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation
Organization, the aquaculture industry met with government
representatives here in Ottawa in February 2001 to further
develop a code of containment for salmon culture. It is expected
that this code will lessen the chances of cultured fish escaping
to the wild and will contribute to the sustained growth of the
aquaculture industry.
In Canada, no transgenic organisms are being grown outside
secure containment facilities. In addition, our policy on
transgenic organisms requires that reproductively capable
transgenic fish used for research purposes be maintained in
secure land based facilities. As an additional safeguard, all
transgenic organisms destined for containment in natural
environment facilities would be required to be sterile if they
received regulatory approval.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.20 p.m.)