36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 112
CONTENTS
Monday, June 12, 2000
 | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1110
1115
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1120
1125
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1130
1135
| Mr. Ian Murray |
1140
1145
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1150
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1155
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-33. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1220
1225
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1230
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1250
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1255
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1300
1305
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1310
1315
1320
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1325
1330
1335
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1340
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1345
1350
1355
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| PROSTATE CANCER
|
| Mr. Ted White |
1400
| AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| ALS SOCIETY OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| SYRIA
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| CADETS
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1405
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| HUNDREDTH BIRTHDAY OF SISTER BERNADETTE DEBLOIS
|
| WOMEN'S RIGHTS
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1410
| NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| STROKE AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1415
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1420
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1425
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CHILD POVERTY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1430
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1435
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| CANADA DAY
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1440
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| AMATEUR SPORT
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HOUSING
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1445
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CHST
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1450
| REVENUE CANADA
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| JEAN LESAGE AIRPORT
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1455
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| REVENUE CANADA
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1500
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NAFTA
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments during Question Period
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Divorce Act
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1510
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
| Volunteer Emergency Workers
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| 1911 Census
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Importation of Plutonium
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1515
| Parental Leave
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Health
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Importation of Plutonium
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1520
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Third Reading
|
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1525
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1530
1535
1540
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1600
1605
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1610
1615
1620
1625
| Division on motion deferred
|
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-24. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Third Reading
|
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1630
1635
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1705
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1710
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-37. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-24. Third Reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1715
1720
1725
1730
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1735
1740
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1745
1750
1755
1800
| Division on motion deferred
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-37. Second reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1805
1810
1815
1820
1825
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1830
1835
1840
1845
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1850
1855
1900
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1905
1910
1915
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1920
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1925
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1930
1935
1940
1945
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1950
1955
2000
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
2005
2010
2015
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
2020
2025
2030
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
2035
| Mr. Ken Epp |
2040
2045
2050
2055
| Mr. John Herron |
2100
2105
2110
2115
| Mr. Ken Epp |
2120
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
2125
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
2130
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
2135
2140
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
2145
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2150
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
2155
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
2200
| Mr. John Herron |
2205
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
2210
| Division on motion deferred
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
2215
| Health
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
2220
| Airports
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 112
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 12, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[Translation]
LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on Motion
No. 230, introduced by my colleague from Louis-Hébert.
For the benefit of those following this important debate, I will
reread the motion as introduced:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make
labelling of genetically modified foods compulsory, and should
carry out exhaustive studies on the long-term effects of these
foods on health and the environment.
The federal government has a duty, as far as food is concerned,
to inform and protect the public. The public has concerns about
genetically modified organisms, which in the rest of my speech I
will call GMOs, and the federal government therefore has a duty
to inform and protect the public. The government cannot
continue to wash its hands of what is happening, like Pontius
Pilate.
It would be too easy to once again bow to the pressures and
lobbies of the multinationals and not to worry about the
worries, questions and concerns of a public which does not know
whom to trust and is desperately calling upon its government to
protect it from the feared invader.
The public is asking itself a number of questions, for instance:
why are plants and foods being genetically modified? To whose
advantage is it? What is in it for the consumer? What effects
do GMOs have on health and on the environment? What effects
will they have on agriculture, on the economy, on trade? What
are the social consequences of the introduction of GMOs?
I cannot address all of these questions in the time allotted to
me. Let us be clear, therefore.
Right now, GMOs offer consumers no advantage. They offer only
uncertainties.
Consumers are entitled to exercise an enlightened choice in
purchasing their food. To be able to do so, they need proper
labelling so they have access to a wide variety of products
without fear that they may contain elements that might cause
them concern about their health.
Eating habits have significantly changed in recent years. In
addition, everyone should have the information necessary to buy
their food in accordance with their culture, that is their
lifestyle or eating habits: foods that are organic, fat free or
not genetically modified.
A number of polls conducted since 1994 reveal between 80% and
95% of the public strongly support labelling GMOs. More recent
polls in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada have revealed that
people would be prepared to pay a little more for food that is
not genetically modified or would prefer food slightly less
beautiful or fresh, but not genetically modified.
1110
Members of the different parties have tabled petitions in the
House from all over the country calling for the labelling of
GMOs. The Bloc alone has collected to date 43,000 signatures
calling for a bill on the compulsory labelling of GMOs. The
minister of agriculture has himself received petitions from
several thousand individuals and many letters asking him to make
GMO labelling mandatory.
How can the government, which is getting ready to call an
election to ask voters to renew its mandate, turn such a deaf
ear to these requests, which are increasingly specific,
justified and numerous? How can the government continue to
ignore the public and to thumb its nose at it regarding the GMO
issue?
The accurate and thorough labelling of food products would allow
us to identify GMOs and to withdraw them from the market, should
problems occur.
From a commercial point of view, the monitoring of GMOs could
allow agricultural producers to maintain access to export
markets by meeting the national standards in effect in many
European and Asian countries.
I want to say a word on the need for research on the long term
effects of GMOs, including in the areas of health and the
environment.
It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure food
quality and safety. The government cannot ignore this
responsibility and must, to fully assume it, conduct studies on
the long term effects of GMOs on health and the environment.
So far, preliminary studies on GMOs have shown that these
products have harmful effects on rats, butterflies and bacteria.
Of course, these results do not allow us to conclude that GMOs
necessarily pose a threat to human beings. However, these
results mean that the government should go further in its
research, particularly in the area of foods for human
consumption.
The use of genes from various species in foods generates
concerns about food allergies. There is a possibility that the
resistance to antibiotics found in certain GMOs may spread to
other forms of life in nature.
Genetically modified seeds can pollinate plants in neighbouring
fields simply because of the wind, insects and animals.
The transmission of resistance to herbicides and insecticides
could create super weeds or super insects, which would invade
the fields and take the place of rare or more vulnerable
species.
The presence of GMOs in an environment where neighbouring farms
are operated by organic farmers could contaminate their fields
and cause them to lose their certification.
Do members realize the kind of dilemma the public servant who,
in the course of an evaluation, discovers that the products were
contaminated by GMOs will be facing? Will he keep quiet or will
he withdraw the organic farm's certification?
Obviously, with regard to GMOs, there are too many questions and
not enough answers. Workers in Quebec and Canada pay enough
taxes each year for the government to take their concerns
seriously and to put in the required funding for research so we
can learn more on the subject.
Dr. Clark said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence. The scientific community is divided on the effects of
the introduction of genetically modified plants into
environment.
For many researchers, the scientific debate boils down to a lack
of concrete evidence and sufficient data that prevents us from
stating that GMOs are harmless. For others, the debate is about
methodologies, scientific assertions and the objectivity of the
criteria and parameters used by companies and governments to
measure the impact of genetically modified plants.
All this to say that an incorrect assumption will produce a
false result, and this result is being used to increase
acceptance of new GMOs.
The questions are serious, but the answers are long in coming.
The future of agriculture, the environment, health problems and
biodiversity are the main factors that we as parliamentarians
must consider as we face the intrusion of GMOs into our lives.
In conclusion, the motion before us this morning, which is in
its second hour, is intended to get members thinking. It
favours a preventive approach or a moratorium on GMOs, as long
as procedures are not transparent and understood by the general
public, and as long as labelling is not compulsory, so that
consumers can make their own decisions about what they eat.
1115
Despite all the uncertainty regarding GMOs and the absence of
scientific studies with respect to their long-term effects, and
despite the clear desire of the public for mandatory labelling
of GMOs, the federal government is sticking to a policy of
voluntary labelling, leaving the decision up to companies. The
stand it is taking internationally is primarily trade-oriented,
and does not take sufficient account of issues of health,
agriculture and environmental protection.
The federal government should review its position or it will pay
the price in the next election.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central
to participate in the debate on Motion No. 230. The motion calls
for the compulsory labelling of genetically modified foods and
for exhaustive study on the long term effect of these foods.
My constituents and I share the concerns being address in this
motion. In fact, on behalf of the constituents I represent in
Surrey Central, B.C., I presented a similar private member's
motion on October 15, 1999. My Motion No. 204 called on the
government to require foods to be labelled so that Canadians
could have a choice before consuming these products.
The issue here is choice and informed choice. We want to be
able to choose what we are going to eat or what we put into our
bodies. People not only want to know what they have the right to
know, they do not want to guess what they are eating. That is not
too much to ask. Many of my constituents have contacted me to
express those views.
When I was serving as the official opposition deputy health
critic, I received a great deal of information concerning this
matter. While on a trip to Australia I came across some
newspaper articles which contained ample information. That was at
a time when this parliament did not have any debate, but the rest
of the world was talking about these issues. My motion was aimed
at having some sort of debate in the House.
I would like to read part of a letter I received from two of my
constituents, Mike Koolen and Heather Fox. They wrote:
I do not think that enough study has been done to prove that
genetically engineered foods are safe for the environment or for
human health. I find it appalling that our government is willing
to turn its population into guinea pigs.
I have the right to choose what I will eat and I am against our
government taking away my right to choose between food...
As such, I want to add my voice to that of other Canadians who
are pushing for the right to choose what we eat.
These remarks are indicative of the kinds of fears that have
been instilled in people's minds as a result of the technological
advances in the way we grow the food we eat.
Let me for a moment look at the positive side of genetically
modified foods. For years and years we have traditionally used
genetic modification to improve foods, crops and animals. As an
example, I think of new varieties of garden corn which have a
short growing time and which can grow in a cool climate. These
are early ripening varieties. As you now, Madam Speaker,
strawberries grown in your part of Quebec are very susceptible to
cold but genetically altered varieties have been used for a long
time so that they are not susceptible to cold. They can tolerate
cold.
We now have the capability at the microscopic level to
manipulate the genetic tree, and we have been doing it for years
and years.
We have the ability of intervention at the molecular level. We
are even capable of taking DNA from one species and linking it
with the DNA of another species. There are some scientific
concerns on this issue and some scientific debate.
1120
Today's debate is timely and worthwhile. On the positive side,
genetic engineering could give us seeds and crops that would not
require pesticides or herbicides. Most people concerned about
the environment would say that is positive.
I was astonished to read that about 200,000 people die just
because of a deficiency in nutrients, particularly vitamin A.
Science has now given us the tools to produce enough food to feed
the earth's population and to make quality foods that meet the
vitamin and mineral requirements.
We could also seed land that is less fertile to bear crops and
be productive. Those are just some of the potential benefits but
not all.
Let us look at the negative side. What do individuals see as
potential hazards in this area? There are potential hazards, of
course, from eating or being around such genetically modified
foods but the effects on the human organism are yet unknown. We
could have wild strains overwhelming some of our natural strains,
having unsuspected effects on domestic plants. On this
scientific debate there is some legitimate argument on both sides
and we should be open to those discussions and arguments. There
is much we do not know about the long term effects.
I believe that the consumer who has a concern about genetically
modified foods should have that information available. I also
believe that people who do not want to take genetically modified
foods into the body, such as a crop, a cereal or a product,
should have that choice.
Where is the problem? It is technically very difficult to label
all genetically modified foods. For instance, pasta has
constituents that come from various sources and a genetically
modified component would be very difficult to isolate. Even in
the food processing plants where juice is extracted from foods,
it is very difficult to isolate some of the different loads
coming from different farms. I am not saying that it could not
be done but it would be very difficult.
It may be better to label food that is free of genetic
modifications rather than all those that have genetically
modified components in them. We want some kind of labelling so
consumers have the right choice.
Rather than doing it the other way around, it could be done in
an easier and more economical way so that consumers do not have
to pay for the expenses and, at the same time, it serves the
purpose. It is just an idea. This would give those who want to
make a choice the ability to do so. Those who do not want to
have the pesticides, herbicides or certain genes in their growing
process could choose that strain.
The mandatory component of the motion we are considering today
is something that smacks of bureaucracy and of people telling us
what to do. I favour small where small will do when it comes to
bureaucracy. I would much prefer a process driven by the market.
I have learned that some businesses have voluntarily started
separating or labelling these products. For example, Loblaws has
quietly made plans to stock its first genetically modified free
products in some stores. It will have separate shelves. It will
have genetically modified foods on one shelf and genetically
modified free foods on another shelf. It will be similar for
modern foods. Loblaws has also indicated interest by stating
that its genetically modified free products and its genetically
modified products would be separated.
1125
As an individual, I would much prefer a process driven by the
market. I could then choose foods that are not genetically
modified. That is the process I would choose.
The issue of science is where I think we should try not to be
political. It should be based on pure science, not on politics
or fearmongering. Good science is science that can stand close,
careful scrutiny. Therefore the principle that I would use on
this issue is to make the consumer aware by giving them
information based on scientific fact and letting them make the
choice.
The issue of a long term study that my colleague suggested also
makes eminent sense.
In conclusion I would like to say that consumers not only want
to have the choice but they have the right to have the choice
based on scientific evidence.
[Translation]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Madam
Speaker, first of all, I would like once again to congratulate
the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for moving this motion in the
House. This is a very important issue for all Canadians and I
appreciate having the opportunity to discuss it again.
[English]
This motion addresses two very important aspects of the question
of genetically modified foods. It calls for mandatory labelling
of all food products, in part or in whole, to be labelled. That
is a matter which is totally supported by members of the New
Democratic caucus. We have indicated our support in this debate
pursuant to this motion as well as by the introduction of our own
motion within the last couple of weeks in parliament.
We do believe, as the member for the Canadian Alliance has just
indicated, that this is a matter of choice. It is about giving
consumers the right to make decisions about what is in the best
interest of their own health and well-being. To us it is a
fundamental question around which there should be no dispute.
The second part of the motion is just as important as the
question of labelling, which is the investment by government into
research and science to determine the long term impact of
genetically modified organisms on our health, on our soil, on our
environment and on our society generally. That is an area I want
to focus in on this morning because it is an area where we can
see the most significant neglect on the part of the federal
Liberal government.
In addressing this subject, I would also like to point out that
it is one thing for the Alliance to suggest that we should have
labelled foods and that we should provide information on
genetically modified products, but it cannot be rationalized in
in an overall policy context if in fact this party does not
understand the investment required in Health Canada. It cannot
in the same breath suggest that Health Canada can be cut back
further and that in fact, this whole move toward deregulation and
offloading of responsibilities outside of the purview of the
federal government can be tolerated. One cannot on the one hand
speak for a proactive position on the part of government in terms
of informing consumers and on the other hand not acknowledge the
role of government in ensuring the safety of food in the
marketplace today.
It is absolutely important for us in the House today to call
upon members of the Canadian Alliance to revisit their position
of supporting industry's agenda to reduce the role of government
and in fact allow for products to go on the market without any
guarantees of safety. That, in our view, is absolutely
unacceptable, intolerable and must be addressed.
I will get back to the federal government's responsibility in
terms of genetically modified foods. In the course of these
debates over the last couple of months in the House, we have
heard that this government has been very vigilant and has taken
every step possible to ensure that any products that have been
genetically modified and on the market have been tested and
proven to be safe.
1130
That is not the case. There is no basis in fact for that kind
of statement. What we are dealing with yet again, when it comes
to the federal government and health care, is a wonderful act of
illusory politics. This is a case of absolutely creating the
appearance of action when there is no evidence to support those
kinds of statements.
I want to point to couple of examples to make that case. All of
us will recall back in 1997 when the present health minister was
appointed. His first action was to kill the drug research lab
and to cause the loss forever of the only independent research
body in government when it comes to drugs. The government was
also on the verge of dismantling the food research lab. Except
for the outcry of 200 scientists and many consumers across the
country, the government would have proceeded down that path.
Many of the labs in the food research purview of government were
closed. The government and the health minister promised to open
some of those labs. In 1997 the health minister issued a public
release saying that he would open a number of labs that had been
closed which were important to the protection of Canadians when
it came to the safety of the foods they eat, including a lab to
study the development of methods for the detection of genetically
modified organisms.
This was promised in 1997. Today it is June 2000 and no such
lab has been reopened. No orders have been given by the health
minister to resume this important work. Our health protection
branch continues to operate on an underresourced and understaffed
basis, without any significant focus to the long term impact of
genetically modified foods on the health and well-being of
Canadians.
I am not sure how Liberals across the way are not up in arms
over this kind of development. I hope that after today they will
put all the pressure they can on the health minister to live up
to his commitments, because we do not have that kind of capacity
in the government today.
Let me also mention to members of the House that when we have
tried to get to the bottom of the statements indicating that
massive research is being done and all these protections are
being taken, there are no details provided and no information
forthcoming to show that this is actually the case.
I resorted to an order for return to get information about what
the government was doing in terms of research on genetically
modified foods. As of October 19, 1999, the government has
reported that there is “currently one ongoing research project
on a topic related to genetically modified foods with a planned
expenditure in 1999-2000 of $166,389”.
That is the sum total of the government's commitment to long
term, scientific based, independent research into the whole
impact of genetically modified foods. The government cannot get
away with trying to tell the people of Canada that foods are safe
when it has taken no steps to offer those protections.
Instead, what do we get? We get a propaganda machine that kicks
into place to try to persuade Canadians that everything is safe
and not to worry. We get a little coloured leaflet that goes to
every door in the country at a cost of about $25 million
containing a blatant, incorrect statement. I know I cannot speak
any more strongly in terms of parliamentary language to indicate
just how inaccurate the information is, but it makes the
statement that everything on the market basically is safe. I
will quote from the booklet:
Before any product derived from biotechnology can be marketed in
Canada, the government of Canada requires that it undergo
thorough laboratory and field testing.
That is not true. That research is not done. It has not been
done and it is not being done now.
1135
The point of the debate today is to say government has a
responsibility to ensure within government that there are
laboratories, scientists and independent capabilities to do
ongoing, indepth research and investigation into the impacts of
genetically modified products. It is a disservice to the
Canadian people to pretend otherwise.
I see my time is almost up. There is so much more to say, but
if there were anything that needs to be said today it is that the
government is not being truthful to the people of Canada. It
owes it to the people of Canada, especially in the wake of
Walkerton, to do everything possible to ensure that the food we
eat, the water we drink and the drugs we have to take are safe
beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is not the case now and it is incumbent upon the government
to take charge of the issue, to reinvest in our scientific
capacity in the health protection branch and to take every step
possible to ensure that all genetically modified products on the
market are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. That is leadership.
That is ensuring that the health and well-being of Canadians come
first.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to have this opportunity to respond to Motion No.
230. The motion of the hon. member for Louis-Hébert has two
parts. The first would make labelling of genetically modified
products compulsory. The motion also calls for the government to
carry out “exhaustive studies on the long term effects of
genetically modified foods”.
Let me begin by saying that the Government of Canada's
commitment is always to safety first. The well-being of
Canadians, animals and our environment is our highest priority.
Canada has an enviable reputation around the world for the safety
of its food and the rigour of its food inspection system.
Canadians rightly trust the regulatory system which has been
vigilant in ensuring that our high standards are maintained.
On the question of labelling of foods, our federal legislation
calls for Health Canada to set the requirements for mandatory
labelling. The data requirements for the safety assessments of
all foods are established by Health Canada, which also conducts
premarket reviews of new foods including those derived through
biotechnology. Every such food goes through a stringent review
process before being allowed on the market.
The role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, is to
carry out inspection and enforcement activities relative to the
food safety standards set by Health Canada. The CFIA is also
responsible for the environmental safety assessment of a number
of agricultural products such as plants, animal feed and
veterinary vaccines including those derived through
biotechnology.
I remind everyone that current labelling regulations in Canada
require that all food products, including those developed through
biotechnology, be labelled where a potential human health or
safety issue has been identified, or if foods have been changed
in composition or nutrition.
Labelling decisions are made by Health Canada and are based on
the results of its food safety evaluations. I am sure the hon.
member would agree any authority for labelling must be based upon
science.
Let me address the first part of the motion before us by
reminding the House that several initiatives are now already in
place to study the question of how and when to label a
genetically modified food. The government believes that all food
labelling must be credible, meaningful and enforceable. We are
actively engaged in consulting with Canadians to score how
labelling can best serve the public.
We have strongly encouraged the establishment of a Canadian
standard for the labelling of foods derived through
biotechnology. This standard will include provisions for
definitions, labels, claims and advertising, and compliance
measures.
The Canadian General Standards Board, under the sponsorship of
the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, is in the process
of developing the standards through open and inclusive
consultation. Representatives and individuals from a broad range
of Canadian interests have formed a committee to work on the
standard, which is expected to be complete within the next six to
twelve months. My hon. colleagues should be aware that by
endorsing such a thorough process to develop a labelling standard
Canada is indeed a leader worldwide.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the House that
the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has already
begun its series of hearings on the labelling of genetically
modified foods. Canada is also assuming a leadership role in the
development of international standards governing how and when
genetically modified foods are labelled.
Canada chairs the Codex Alimentarius committee on food
labelling, otherwise known as the CCFL for good reason. At the
recent Codex meeting in Ottawa, Canada was recognized for its
success in chairing the CCFL working group that drafted key
options and recommendations for the labelling of
biotechnologically derived foods.
Once again Canada has been tasked with leading the group that
this year will look at which of these options can be turned into
Codex guidelines and then be implemented.
1140
It is clear that work is under way to address the information
needs of Canadians on the issue of labelling. We believe that
Canadians want labels that are meaningful. It is the goal of the
government to ensure that information provided to Canadians
enables them to make informed choices. I reiterate that the
House should not support Motion No. 230 on the basis of the first
part of the motion on labelling.
I will now address the second part of the hon member's motion
which recommends that exhaustive studies be carried out on the
long term effects of genetically modified foods on health and the
environment. The safety assessment of conventional products and
of products derived from biotechnology are both subject to
stringent health and safety requirements under Canada's food and
safety system. I re-emphasize that food safety and consumer
protection are priorities for the Government of Canada. We are
strongly committed to the safety of Canadians, animals and our
environment.
Canada has a strong reputation as a producer of foods that are
consistently safe, clean and of high quality. We have built that
reputation by putting very rigorous regulatory systems in place.
Our approval systems are science based and transparent. The
decision of the government to accept or reject a product is based
on sound science and fact. Our regulators include experts in
nutrition, molecular biology, chemistry, toxicology and
environmental science, to name just a few.
There have been recent studies calling into question the safety
of biotechnology derived products. We hear a lot of talk about
junk science. Canadian regulators do not accept junk science,
poor science or half science when evaluating products of
biotechnology. The regulatory system assesses products on a case
by case basis. The research and safety required for evaluation
directly addresses the potential risks of the product to human
health and the environment. If there is any question as to the
safety of these products they are not approved. The government
continually reviews the effectiveness of its approaches.
The Government of Canada takes pride in advocating our science
based approach around the world. We rely on the need for
scientific research to settle questions related to long term
health, safety and environmental issues. We are committed to a
regulatory system that meets the highest standards of scientific
rigour. This commitment is reflected in the establishment of two
important groups, an expert panel and an advisory committee.
The Royal Society of Canada has appointed an expert panel to
examine future scientific developments in food biotechnology and
to provide advice to the federal government accordingly. This
forward thinking body will advise Health Canada, the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada on the science
capacity that the federal government will need to maintain the
safety of new foods being derived through biotechnology in the
21st century.
The Royal Society of Canada named its expert panel this past
February. In examining the leading edge of this technology the
panel will recommend what new research, policies and regulatory
capacity will be needed to ensure the Canadian standards of
safety remain as stringent for the next generation of
biotechnology derived foods as they are today.
A number of challenges and opportunities are associated with
biotechnology that require detailed consideration and public
discussion. Food biotechnology presents Canadians with
challenges but also unprecedented opportunities.
The recently formed Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee or
CBAC will bring stakeholders and interested parties together to
advise the government to raise public awareness and to engage
Canadians in an open and transparent dialogue on biotechnology
issues. Canadians want to take part in the dialogue on food
biotechnology. The CBAC will actively create opportunities for
Canadians to participate in its activities and discussions. This
will include an interactive website for interested Canadians to
review, consult and provide input into this topic among many.
The work of the expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada will
contribute to a balanced and consultative process where all
questions and concerns can be thoroughly considered. The
government looks forward to the contributions the expert panel
and CBAC will make in furthering the dialogue on biotechnology
issues.
I assure the hon. member for Louis-Hébert that the government
will continue to undertake the necessary steps to ensure the
health of Canadians, animals and our environment. I would add
that the assessment of any genetically modified plant or crop is
rigorous and comprehensive. It requires significant scientific
data to be provided and evaluated.
Regulation through sound science is an essential step in the
continued safe production of biotechnology derived foods. The
2000 federal budget confirms this priority in Canada's regulatory
system. The $90 million investment in the regulatory system for
biotechnology products will help Canada, the CFIA and other
regulatory departments to continue to enhance and evolve their
safety first regulatory approach to keep pace with the next
generation of scientific discoveries.
1145
This increased investment illustrates the continued dedication
of the Government of Canada to supporting the regulatory system
for the benefit of all Canadians.
We can take great pride in the steps the government has taken.
We should remember that Canada was the first country in the world
to actively engage a broad range of stakeholders in this issue.
These initiatives have become the model for other countries.
Just last week, on June 5, the United Kingdom announced the
establishment of its Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology
Commission which will look at developments in biotechnology.
This commission has a mandate that was decidedly similar to that
of the CBAC.
We have initiatives under way to ensure that Canada is well
positioned for the future. The Canadian public is already
strongly engaged on the issue of genetically modified foods. The
government is adopting a balanced and consultative approach to
the labelling of these foods and we are letting Canadians know
that our top priority is health, safety and the environment. We
have incorporated these values into our regulatory system.
For these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote against Motion
No. 230.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to debate genetically modified foods. I
was a General Motors dealer for years in the car business and
every time I hear GM foods I wonder if General Motors would like
it to be changed.
We are here to talk about genetically modified foods. It is a
subject that makes most people nervous. It makes most consumers
nervous. The people I talk to around my riding are very
concerned not only about genetically modified foods, but also
that we may lose our original foods. If there are enough
genetically modified foods produced, then we may eventually lose
the original type of food we had.
It reminds me somewhat of the debate in the Miramichi last week.
There was a world conference on salmon fishing. The big problem
was the possibility that the original Atlantic salmon would
disappear because of the impact of aquaculturally raised salmon.
If aquaculturally raised salmon mixed enough with wild Atlantic
salmon, then eventually the wild Atlantic salmon would disappear.
That is a comment I hear often from people in my riding. They
are concerned about genetically modified foods and that this may
happen with other foods.
The term “genetically modified foods” concerns consumers and
farmers especially. They do not know where to turn. They do not
know whether to use traditional agriculture or to branch out and
take a leap forward into genetically modified foods. They are
not sure which is safe for them. They are not sure which is safe
for the land. They are not sure which is safe for consumers.
The whole country is looking to the government for leadership on
this issue. It is an issue that must be addressed and the
Department of the Health must provide the regulatory system to
control this whole subject. Labelling is part of that, but it is
not enough. It does not go far enough.
The government will be held accountable because the fear of the
unknown is what bothers most people and most people do not have a
clue what the impacts of genetically modified foods are. How
would they? We do not have even a definition of genetically
modified foods yet.
The onus is on the government to deal with this situation. I
applaud the hon. member for bringing forth this motion requiring
labelling, but it is not enough and it does not address some of
the main issues. It just is not clear enough. The motion states
that the government should carry out exhaustive studies on the
long term effects of these foods on health and the environment.
Although I applaud the move to labelling, what this bill states
cannot be defined. Exhaustive studies on the long term effects
cannot be defined, and it would be very difficult to do
exhaustive studies on the long term effects without stopping the
process now.
The fact of the matter is that genetically modified foods have
helped the Canadian agricultural industry become competitive in
the global economy and helped farmers to make better use of their
land and provide more food for a world that needs food. However,
it is absolutely mandatory that the government take every step
possible to address the definition of genetically modified foods
and to protect consumers.
There are many agencies that have already voluntarily agreed to
supply labelling for genetically modified foods. The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada held an off the record
technical briefing for reporters in October and said that food
companies are permitted to label genetically modified foods, but
there are no plans to make it mandatory.
In response to that some agricultural and retail organizations
have offered to do it.
1150
Sustainable agricultural practices are another big topic for our
country right now, how we can maintain our land and ensure it is
able to produce the foods we need. Some of these genetically
modified foods help guarantee that our agricultural business will
be sustainable. We do have some positives.
We also have new markets that we never had before. Some of our
agricultural industries are able to supply products which were
never available before in the world. Some of our research
laboratories and companies in Canada are world leaders in this
field. There are pros and cons to this whole subject, but again
the onus is on the government to provide the regulatory situation
to deal with this new concept to ensure that consumers have food
security and that the industry is controlled.
The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian
General Standards Board have launched a project to help develop
the standards for voluntary labelling. Maybe this would be the
way to go, with the government as back-up. The ministers of
health have announced their intention to establish an independent
expert panel to examine future scientific developments in
biotechnology. The first thing they have to do is define
genetically modified foods. Without that definition, regulations
cannot be written to control labelling or any other aspect of it.
I want to conclude by saying that it is extremely critical for
our future. We may be making mistakes now that will affect us
for a long time. We may be deteriorating our food base, or we
may be enhancing it.
Again, it is up to the government. It has the power, it has the
resources, and it has the responsibility to deal with this issue.
That is where it should be. It should not be left up to a
private member's bill to say that we need exhaustive, long term
studies before we can do anything. The bill does not say whether
we should stop the genetically modified process while we are
doing the exhaustive studies or whether we should continue. It
is up to the government, not a private member's bill, to deal
with this very, very important issue.
We are watching this very closely. We will hold the government
accountable for the process and for the ability to regulate and
provide the regulations. Generally speaking, so far genetically
enhanced foods have benefited the agricultural sector and
biotechnology does offer an opportunity to improve our
environment and improve our food quality. However, it is not
appropriate for this very, very important subject to be dealt
with through a private member's bill, which has no definition of
even the subject of genetically modified foods or some kind of
timeframe for this exhaustive study.
Again, the Progressive Conservative Party will be holding the
government accountable to ensure that the regulatory process is
in place and followed.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased today to rise in this important debate on the whole
issue of the labelling of genetically modified foods.
I must first of all commend my colleague from Louis-Hébert, who
undertook her initiative on this issue a year ago. Today, she
has already gathered throughout Quebec 60,000 signatures on the
petition supporting her initiative, that is legislation
requiring the government to label GMOs.
I was listening earlier to my Liberal colleague talking about
transparency.
I heard him talk in his speech about concepts, theories, great
philosophical considerations, but he did not talk about any
concrete measure to support my colleague's initiative. I was
astounded when he said he had great confidence in the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency.
My colleague approached the Commission d'accès à l'information
to try to become acquainted with the process regulating the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, to learn how one determines
what is a GMO and what is not.
1155
This morning, I heard the Liberal member say that everything
hangs on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I have my opinion
with regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, because I
have been called upon a few times to participate in some
missions overseas. What are they doing with the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency? They are making it into a propaganda
instrument, what I often call a “Canada approved” seal.
When they are overseas, government representatives are great
democrats, incredibly open-minded. Back in the House, the
government no longer practices democracy but information
control.
If the Liberal member has a paper on the process used to
determine what is a GMO and what is not, I strongly call upon
him to pass it on to us and most of all to tell the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency to inform us on the process, because we
do not know it yet. The steps we are now taking show that there
are seven or eight ministers involved in the GMO issue and
nobody has been able to explain the process fir determining what
is a GMO and what is not.
I can go even farther. In this government, there is a new trend.
They now talk in terms of risk management, on such a serious
issue as genetically modified foods. They might take a risk—
that is how the Liberals think—and then they will see. That is
risk management, and on an issue as important as this one.
At the present time, there are a few countries which are
following this risk management approach, which is a kind of
compromise to avoid having to confront and settle the question
of GMOs.
I insist that the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives and
the Canadian Alliance change their minds on this. The work of
my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, as well as that of my
party, the Bloc Quebecois, aimed at tabling this legislation so
that there will be mandatory labelling of GMOs is but the
beginning of a process aimed at clarifying matters.
All that we are calling for at the present time is to have
labelling made mandatory and to have the government invest the
essential resources, both financial and research resources, into
lending some credibility to Agriculture Canada and the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency, so that they are not put in a position
of being both judge and jury.
I trust that the Liberals will understand the importance of this
debate. We are already aware that there have been problems with certain
crops, because Canada is lagging behind many of the other
countries as far as monitoring GMOs is concerned. I have
already said, and say again, as do some of the farmers in my
riding, when the day comes that people have any doubt whatsoever
about whether our products contain any GMOs, in this era of
global trade, the shipment of wheat or any other product that
has been genetically modified will not get out of the country.
This will mean significant losses for the economy.
The European Union, Japan, Brazil, even the United States, have
started work on mandatory labelling, on specific means to ensure
identification of what is a GMO and what is not. Meanwhile, once
again here in parliament, in the statements by ministers, in the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the discussion
is still around concepts and theories, and not concrete
measures, things that might make both the agricultural industry
and the consumer feel more secure?
1200
Some producers have invested a great deal of money in organic
farming, and, because of the government, they stand to loose a
great deal of that money. We are working hard to get a
certification program for organic farmers.
In view of the great risk associated with genetically modified
plants, it is absolutely essential that the government take
action.
I would like to say a word about the behaviour of Liberal
members since the beginning of this debate, especially since we
succeeded in having the Standing Committee on Agriculture hold
public hearings. We realize how unaware they are of the import
of this debate and all the consequences of this crucial issue.
Let me remind the House of the countries that have taken
concrete steps. In April 2000, the European Union submitted
regulations on which plants are genetically modified. Mexico has
followed suit. As soon as 2001, Japan will implement a mandatory
labelling policy. Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and even India
have also taken action. These countries are now conducting tests
to sort out the mandatory labelling issue.
In Canada, with the Liberal government, we are talking about
concepts and theories, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
which is supposed to give us an incredible level of security in
our health controls.
A moment ago, when I was listening to the remarks of my
colleague opposite, I had the impression he was reading a speech
that had been written from beginning to end by Health Canada.
This is to say that these people are not serious and that they
do not understand the scope of the GMO issue. When the economic
and health consequences will be known, those who already oppose
compulsory labelling will be held accountable at the next
election.
The public is aware of this issue. People have been asking many
questions. They want to know what is in their food. It is
fundamental. Producers want to know what kind of seed they are
planting. This is also fundamental.
Why does the government still refuse compulsory labelling of
GMOs when Canada's main trading partners have adopted it? There
will be an imbalance somewhere down the road.
But it is reducing the issue to one of risk management, of
losing millions in exports, and of managing possible risks to
the health and safety of producers.
I hope that in the coming days, the Liberals will discuss the
matter, change their mind and rally to the position of the Bloc
Quebecois, which is more realist and concrete, which provides
for safety measures and, most importantly, promotes a cause that
is very important for today's society.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species
at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
in the opening to her recent book The Nature of Economies,
Jane Jacobs writes, “To be heard, a book needs a collaborator: a
reader with a sufficiently open mind to take in what the book is
saying and dispute or agree, but in any case think about it”.
May I suggest that speeches in this place have the same
requirement. They need a collaborator, they need an audience with
sufficiently open minds to take in the message of the speech.
I am sad to say that oftentimes on a issue of such fundamental
importance to Canadians as the environment, when those concerned
with its preservation and restoration rise to speak, few are
really willing to listen.
Many in this place say they care and many make fine speeches
themselves, but words are a poor substitute for action. All of
the rhetoric in the world will not save a river, a fish, a
forest, nor will it protect a child from a hazardous contaminant.
Our words will not protect species at risk, only our actions can.
1205
Any movement to restore, preserve or protect the natural
environment is often faced by an onslaught of criticism from
industrial interests. They are quick to say this will cost jobs.
They are quick to accuse those seeking to protect the environment
of being alarmists. They put forward a false dichotomy of
environment versus economy.
In the case of endangered species, they cite the wicked spotted
owl as the single cause of job losses and the closing of
communities within the forest industry in the United States. This
is not true but such mythologizing serves their needs. Such
alarmism pays dividends to those who are fundamentally
uninterested or even opposed to protecting the environment and to
protecting species, many of which are threatened by the
activities of the industries in question. What many fail to
recognize is as E. O. Wilson states, “that the planet's
biological wealth is the basis for our material and cultural
wealth”.
A few weeks ago EcoSummit 2000 brought medical doctors,
scientists, aboriginal leaders and policy experts to Ottawa to
meet with parliamentarians and discuss the effects of water borne
pollutants on human health. The special guest speaker at the
Monday evening session was the noted American environmentalist
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Professor Kennedy reminded us in a very eloquent and passionate
speech that we cannot separate the environment from the economy.
They are not in contradiction to each other nor are they factors
to be balanced one against the other on some mythological
teeter-totter of government policy making. They are entwined. To
quote Professor Kennedy, “In 100% of the situations, good
environmental policy is identical to good economic policy”.
Identical. We must always remember, environmental injury is
deficit spending. It is passing the cost of our generation's
prosperity and loading it onto the backs of our children.
The human animal is part of nature, yet too many see humanity as
a separate entity. As a result we try to tame nature. We try to
civilize and domesticate nature. We make war against nature.
Yet we continue to ignore the fundamental aspect of our humanity.
We are in nature and nature is in us. We cannot control nature.
We are merely part of a wider natural system. Humans can only
intervene in processes of nature. If we respect the rest of
nature, if we learn from nature, then it is possible to conduct
human activities in harmony with nature. If we show no respect
and continue to act through greed, brashness or ignorance we will
face dire consequences. As Jane Jacobs said:
Nothing is more unforgiving of error than nature. If we poison
our own water and air with hormone-mimicking chemicals...nature's
solution for maladaptation is extinction.
When we respect nature we can begin to understand the incredible
services it provides. For those who must, putting a monetary
value on nature's services is difficult for many reasons. What
price can be assigned to the last drop of water, the last gasp of
fresh air? But it is not impossible.
In his book Natural Capitalism, Paul Hawken estimates that
biological services that flow directly into society from the
stock of natural capital are worth at least $36 trillion U.S.
annually. Yet these fundamental services are rarely understood
and grossly undervalued. Why must we protect nature? We must
protect nature because it enriches us. As Professor Kennedy said:
It enriches us economically, yes, it's the base of our economy,
the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. But
it also enriches us culturally, recreationally, aesthetically,
spiritually and historically. It connects us to one another; it
connects us to our history and our culture. Human beings have
other appetites besides money, and if we don't feed them we are
not going to grow up. We are not going to become the kinds of
beings that we are supposed to become. We're not going to fulfil
ourselves or our destinies. When we destroy nature we diminish
ourselves, and we impoverish our children.
1210
Biological diversity is vital to the healthy operation of
natural systems, the same systems that remove toxins from our
water and air, that provide safe containment of our aquifers and
that restore nutrients to soil. Therefore we must protect
species in order to preserve biological diversity.
Which of our present species of plants will prove to contain
ingredients essential to future medicines, vaccines and cures? We
cannot know this, hence we must protect them for our children and
our grandchildren.
The UN convention on biological diversity recognizes that
biological diversity must be conserved. In order to do this,
sustainable use of components of biological diversity must be
ensured. To further this we must have a fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic
resources.
Article 8(k) of the convention on biological diversity calls on
all contracting parties to develop and maintain necessary
legislation and/or the regulatory provisions for the protection
of threatened species and populations. Canada should be
congratulated as the first industrial country to ratify the UN
convention on biological diversity. As a nation we made a
commitment to protect endangered species through this convention.
It is now long past the time to act on this commitment.
The House now has before it Bill C-33, an act respecting the
protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Already serious
concerns about this bill have been raised not only by
environmentalists and conservationists and environmental lawyers,
but by scientists and industry representatives. Incredibly many
concerns are shared by these various groups.
If Bill C-33 passes the second reading vote, it will then
proceed to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development. As part of parliamentary procedure, witnesses will
be called before the committee which will hear their
presentations on this bill.
We will do nothing to protect species at risk unless this bill
leaves committee as a good, effective piece of legislation. The
House must support legislation that is strong, fair, effective
and makes biological sense. Unfortunately Bill C-33 is wanting.
Legislation must also be enforceable and it must be enforced.
The environment committee of this session of parliament has a
fine tradition of being open minded and thoughtful as it listens
to the many expert witnesses who come before it. The environment
committee has a practice of serving the interests of Canadians by
taking tough stands to protect our natural heritage. I expect
that the environment committee will continue to act in the public
interest to protect our nation's commons and will also honour
parliamentary tradition in remembering its responsibilities to
parliament.
I remind members of the House, as I have many times in the past,
of this place's origin. The true test of any democracy is its
ability to give voice to all its members. Wealth and position
cannot be the criteria for participation in a democracy. The
power of democracy is in its articulation of the public interest
and its action to protect the common weal. Indeed, as our
colleagues from earlier times during the beginning of the
evolution of parliamentary democracy represented the common
person, not just the rich and not just the nobility, we too must
represent all Canadians.
As we look down, we see that the floor of the House is covered
in a green carpet which reminds us of democracy's humble
beginnings. Ordinary people would meet on the grassy green
commons of their villages to discuss and debate the concerns of
the day. We can trace a connection to nature all the way back to
the very birthplace of our parliamentary tradition.
What is it that our ancestors so wisely understood that we of
this House in so many ways have sadly forgotten? It is that we
are of nature. We have been given a public trust to protect the
commons, a commons that includes those who do not vote: children,
the unborn and the natural world around us. This is a duty we
cannot ignore. I call on all members of the House to ensure when
this bill goes before committee that it is properly amended.
1215
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1992, Canada played a leading role in Rio, to promote the
development of the Convention on Biological Diversity. As a
matter of fact, Canada was the first industrialized nation to
ratify this convention after the Principality of Monaco.
One of the underlying elements of the convention is precisely
the enactment of legislation to protect species at risk. The
convention requires that the member States pass such an act.
The Liberal government made many promises in that regard,
including the one made in the red book and confirmed in the 1997
election and those made in the Speech from the Throne for 1996
and that for 1999.
I am pleased that we brought before the House Bill C-33, which we
are debating today, to protect species at risk. This bill is
succeeding to Bill C-65, which died on the order paper in 1997,
when the election was called.
The purpose of the second reading of a bill is to try to
establish the limits and the criteria that we, as members of
Parliament, have set to improve the bill when it is sent to
committee. I think that this bill will require some fundamental
amendments.
[English]
We start with listing. Listings are made initially by a
committee called COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. It has been working for something
like two decades. It has identified 339 species at risk over
that time. Instead of using the existing list of 339 species and
incorporating it into the new act, we are going ahead as if the
list does not exist. We are starting with an initial list of
zero. Instead of being recognized as being the final list
produced by scientists of the highest repute who have worked
tirelessly over the last two decades, the list will now be
subject to the discretion of cabinet. I find that terribly
ironic.
Putting myself in the place of a cabinet member—and I used to
belong to cabinet—I am supposed to rule on a list produced by
scientists who have been studying the subject for years and who
are well aware of what they speak. We are supposed to accept the
discretion of cabinet ministers, most of whom are completely
unfamiliar with the subject and who will have the discretion to
list species at risk or decide not to, and the political
considerations of course will rule. The minister of agriculture
will say one thing, the industry minister will say another, the
minister of natural resources and so forth and so on. The
minister of the environment will have to fight for his territory
to say it is worth listing a certain species.
We are not even starting with the roll of the list of the 339
species identified by COSEWIC. That is a glaring fault in the
law. Without a listing there cannot be protection.
The protection of habitat and the listing are synonymous. They
are twins. One cannot go without the other. If we wait for
cabinet decisions, which take endless time to come forward, we
will not have any listing for a long time.
Now we come to habitat. All scientists, all people in general,
all Canadians realize that habitat and species go together. If
we do not have habitat we will not have species. If we destroy
or damage habitat, we destroy or damage species. It is very
obvious. Yet in regard to habitat, which is a critical element
of any law for the protection of endangered species, we have made
habitat again discretionary.
It will be cabinet that will decide whether habitat protection
may or may not be included in the act. It is even a retreat from
the previous bill, Bill C-65, which never left the discretion in
the hands of cabinet. In Bill C-65 the provision was to the
effect that cabinet shall list and protect habitat when there is
good cause to do so. Now it may. It is another glaring
omission.
1220
In this context it is worth citing certain provincial laws. Very
often we criticize the provinces for not having definite laws,
but I would like to quote a few of them.
The New Brunswick Endangered Species Act of 1996 states: “No
person shall wilfully or knowingly destroy, disturb or interfere
with the critical habitat of a member of an endangered species”.
The P.E.I. Wildlife Conservation Act states: “No person shall
destroy, disturb or interfere with, or attempt to destroy,
disturb or interfere with the habitat of an endangered or
threatened species”.
The Ontario Endangered Species Act states: “No person shall
wilfully destroy or interfere with or attempt to destroy or
interfere with the habitat of any species or flora or fauna
declared in the regulations to be threatened with extinction”.
The Manitoba law states: “No person shall destroy, disturb or
interfere with the habitat of an endangered or threatened
species”.
Our neighbours to the south have had an endangered species law
for many years, since 1973. It states: “With respect to
endangered species of fish and wildlife listed pursuant to this
act, it is unlawful for any person to—take such species within
the United States”. It also explicitly prohibits habitat
destruction in areas of federal jurisdiction.
The big difference is that in the case of all these laws that I
cited, the onus of proof is clearly a very important and onerous
burden on the person who destroys habitat. He or she is judged
to be guilty unless he or she proves otherwise. Whereas in our
new law, we would have to wait for cabinet to decide whether it
may or may not protect habitat and incorporate it within the act.
We fail completely compared to the laws that I have cited.
We then must view the question of federal jurisdiction and the
safety net. In our own areas of jurisdiction we are again so
timid as to apply discretion all over the place. There is an
opinion from Justice La Forest, whose reputation and stature do
not need to be underlined. He has said that Canada, the federal
government, has complete jurisdiction over birds that migrate and
also over cross-border species. We do not need to be timid, but
even then we have applied discretion.
We have applied all kinds of discretion, so that in effect we
would have to consult with everybody, consult with cabinet
ministers, one to the other, and consult with the provinces
before we even make a decision regarding the habitat of species
that is clearly within our jurisdiction.
[Translation]
When I was in Quebec, I had the honour of tabling the Quebec
legislation on threatened species. I know what it is all about.
At the department, we had worked with one of the experts, Lionel
Gaudreau, to whom I would like to pay tribute today. He had
explained to me why the habitat and the list of threatened
species had to be considered for automatic protection.
Unfortunately, this protection has been restricted and tainted
lately. I hope that the act will be maintained.
Once again, what we need here is to pass clear, convincing and,
above all, decisive legislation, as the United States and some
provinces did.
1225
This is why I urge my colleagues that, once this bill is
referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development, we improve on all its major principles.
Otherwise, the bill will be too weak.
It is essential that we improve the bill and strengthen it when
it is referred to the committee. This is the wish that I want to
express out loud to all the members in the House.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the previous two
speakers, both of whom I have the utmost respect for. I very
much appreciated their comments.
My question concerns species at risk that move across
international boundaries. Would the member inform the House if
he is aware of sources in the United States which have indicated
in a very harsh and critical way their views of this legislation
in terms of not being able to protect species that move across
international boundaries, either Canada and Alaska or Canada and
the southern states?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member no
doubt knows, not only all of the leading environmental groups in
the United States, but a lot of organizations representing people
at large have pointed out that Canada is lacking very badly in
this regard. Cross-border species must be protected according to
the convention, according to NAFTA and according to all binding
agreements between our two countries. For us to do this in such
a timid fashion as to leave it to discretion is unacceptable to
both the United States and Mexico, both of which have very strong
endangered species legislation.
We cannot consider that birds and other wildlife which cross
borders from the north to the south every winter are not under
federal jurisdiction. It makes no sense at all. Of course we
have to protect wildlife under our jurisdiction.
Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed this out in eloquent terms to the
House. It was sad to hear an American giving us a lesson in
Canada. He said that our endangered species legislation is weak
and must be improved, bona fide and strengthened.
I agree with the hon. member that one critical area is
cross-border species.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to congratulate the member for his very fine speech. I am
sure that all of us are aware of the leadership that he shows on
environmental issues and with his presence on the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.
I want to ask for a clarification or an expansion on some of the
points he has raised with regard to the involvement of the
parliamentary standing committee in the process of hearing
witnesses and the amendment process. A lot of us in the House
hear about how impotent some backbenchers are. One of the key
roles that members of the House have to play is on a
parliamentary standing committee. All of the members on both
sides of the House are aware that a parliamentary standing
committee reports to parliament and to you, Mr. Speaker. Could
the hon. member make a few comments on that?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, the committee is an
ideal place to strengthen legislation. It is completely
independent of thought, or it should. It represents all parties
in the House in a far more congenial atmosphere than exists in
this place, where the atmosphere is much more adversarial.
Committee members have a duty to try and see the flaws of
legislation.
There are very few in this case. There might be five items that
need to be strengthened. If we were to do this, we would do
parliament, cabinet and the minister a big favour.
1230
I hope members on all sides of the House will join together to
identify the few areas, some of which I have been spoken to, that
need to be strengthened. I do not think there are many of them
and I think we can do it by working together in a constructive
spirit of co-operation. We should rejoice that there is a law,
but there are certain critical flaws. Let us get together and
work within the committee to make sure the flaws disappear.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very happy today to speak to Bill C-33, but more specifically to
the amendment proposed by my Progressive Conservative colleague
from Fundy—Royal. First of all, I would like to say that the Bloc
Quebecois is in favour of this amendment which is proposing that
this bill be hoisted for six months.
Why? I think that we must give a brief history of the struggle
to save the endangered species. In 1995, there was a first bill
sponsored by the present Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Nevertheless, this bill caused such an uproar that it had to be
withdrawn.
Before the election of 1997, Sergio Marchi introduced Bill C-65,
which can be considered as the ancestor of Bill C-33. The
protests were as vigorous as for the preceding bill. The federal
government was then criticized by the provinces for the sweeping
powers that it gave itself as far as the protection of
endangered species is concerned. The Liberals allowed Bill C-65
to die on the order paper and are now bringing the matter of
endangered species up again with Bill C-33, which is supposed to
be better, according to them.
It is clear that we must ensure better protection for endangered
species. Still, we need to ask ourselves whether Bill C-33
really offers an additional, enforceable protection. Is this
bill really going to contribute to improving the protection of
our ecosystems and the endangered species in those ecosystems?
Since my speech was interrupted last time, I had an opportunity
to read the hansard and I would like to comment on some
interesting points raised by the hon. member for
Edmonton—Strathcona, of the Canadian Alliance.
He made a very interesting analogy, which is a good illustration
of what I want to say. He compared Bill C-33 to a wall rather
than a bridge between various stakeholders. Rather than tapping
into the scientific knowledge of researchers and the general
population, the federal government is trying to go it alone with
its bill. Instead of calling upon outside knowledge, the
government is acting alone, as if it had the monopoly on truth.
Several provisions of Bill C-33 show evidence of that.
Members can find many provisions in Bill C-33 that say “To the
extent possible, the responsible minister will seek the support
of provincial and territorial ministers”. That is right, “to the
extent possible”.
What I deplore in this regard, as the hon. member from the
Canadian Alliance did, is that there is nothing set in stone.
The obligation to seek support is not an essential condition to
the implementation of this act. The federal government might
very well act alone and not seek any support.
1235
In the same vein, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Environment said that “where voluntary measures do not work,
other governments are unwilling or unable to act, the federal
safety net will be invoked.”
This means many things. These words are, to say the least,
ambiguous coming from a government that limits itself to
rhetoric, as the Minister of Environment said before the
Standing Committee on the Environment 15 days ago. However, when
this rhetoric is put into a bill, the cat finally comes out of
the bag. The Big Boss, the Minister of Environment, complacently
believes that he is the only one to possess the truth.
For his benefit, I will quote Albert Camus, who once wrote “the
need to be right is the greatest of weaknesses”.
Last week, an answer given by the minister made me smile. Answering my
colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, he said “That party—the
Canadian Alliance—not that it understands the constitution,
should understand that there are certain areas of provincial
jurisdiction that we should respect. It does not, but we do”.
How ironic—and I would use another word without hesitation, if
it were not unparliamentary.
In the Liberal terminology, the definition of the provincial
governments' will to act could lead to confusion. In fact, they
do not define the word will as I do. The federal government
could tell the Quebec government that it will have to protect
without delay 150 species at an excessive cost that Quebec may
not be able to afford.
By putting Quebec in front of an impossible task, the Liberals
could tell people “See, Quebec refuses to act”. And then what
would happen? The federal government would intrude in a
provincial jurisdiction.
Even though the preamble says that jurisdiction over the
protection of species is shared, that is not reflected in the
provisions of the bill, which itself does not reflect reality,
which is that protection of habitats is essentially a provincial
responsibility.
In fact, everything leads us to believe that the minister has
the authority to impose his vision of the protection of species
at risk on the provinces when he sees fit. In other words, the
bill will have de facto precedence over existing provincial
legislation, even where habitats are totally under provincial
jurisdiction.
I would also like to point out the duplicity of Liberal members
who tried to promote and make us accept Bill C-33. They even
invited professor Robert Kennedy Jr. who shared his vision of
environmental policies, a centralizing vision giving all powers
to the federal government.
Needless to say, he was quick to refer to Bill C-33. I find it
regrettable that a foreigner, who incidentally is an intelligent
and respected person, was asked to interfere like that in
Canadian affairs.
1240
As I said, a policy requiring the various levels of government
to co-operate is much more appropriate to solve environmental
issues. Provincial governments are in a much better position to
know about regional issues than federal public servants.
I deplore the fact that the Quebec government's specific
character is not being taken into consideration when it comes to
the protection of species at risk. Moreover, this specificity is
not exclusive to Quebec, as other provincial governments already
have such legislation. Quebec's legislation on species at risk
has been in effect for nearly ten years and it works very well.
It would seem, although I hope with all my heart that this will
not be another clash between Quebec and Canada, that Bill C-33 is
not a response to Quebec's success. The federal government is
jealous of our progressive legislation and is trying to take it
over. Why is the federal government interfering in
jurisdictions where it has no business?
The federal government's petty attitude is all too apparent. I
remind the Liberals that, after the 1995 referendum, they passed
a motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. If they were
consistent, they would not be trying to interfere like this in
the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec.
In the words of the poet Paul Verlaine:
So much for the promises of the federalists. Like a dead leaf
buffeted by the autumn winds, they cry over lost dreams and pin
their hopes on spring.
If the stormy weather continues for the federal government, what
spring might bring is a new country called Quebec.
I would also remind government members that most environmental
groups are also opposed to Bill C-33. Those who should by rights
be the government's allies consider this a dangerous and
unnecessary bill.
In fact, the Minister of the Environment has been inundated by
protests and criticism since the bill was introduced. Most
stakeholders think that Bill C-33 does not have enough teeth.
Even organizations representing industry feel that the bill does
not provide increased protection for species, nor does it make
clear what they need to do to protect species living within
their areas of operation.
Representatives of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and
of the Mining Association of Canada have indicated that the government
should have adopted a firmer approach on the issue of federal
lands and natural areas where its constitutional responsibility
is not questioned.
It is worth noting that, in its present state, Bill C-33 scares
representatives of some industries who think the issues of
compensation are insufficiently defined and who find the fines
and prosecutions excessive in cases where the species has not
been killed deliberately.
1245
However, the main problem raised by environmental groups seems
to stem from the fact that decisions concerning the listing of
species will be taken at the discretion of the minister and the
Cabinet and not by scientists. For that reason, some activists
say that C-33 is a total failure and that it will not protect
Canadian species.
Some others, like the lawyers of the Sierra Club, qualify their
assertions but still deplore the weakness of the legislation and
the ignominy of giving to politicians such discretionary power
over the listing of species.
My criticism of the Minister of the Environment lies with his
piecemeal approach, evaluated at the discretion of Cabinet and
supported by legal and binding recourse if no agreement can be
reached, instead of an overall approach that favours
negotiation.
I repeat, the principle of providing greater protection to
endangered species is one the Bloc Quebecois supports readily.
However, Bill C-33 is not the best way of doing it. Because of
intrusions into areas of provincial jurisdiction, we oppose it.
While we recognize that responsibility for the environment is
shared between the federal government and the provinces, we
think the federal government is ignoring this fact.
Instead of assuming its important responsibilities, it prefers
instead to take over jurisdictions that do not belong to it.
Instead of dealing with toxic substances, MOX, GMOs, the
biosafety protocol and contaminated soils, it prefers to create
useless overlap.
For all these reasons, and I could cite others, we believe the
government should go and do its homework and propose a new bill,
in six months, that will lend itself more to a consensus with
environmentalists and the opposition.
The job of defending and protecting the environment has become
extremely difficult at a time of triumphant economism and
unbridled productivism. There has never been so much confusion
between growth and development. There was no call to add
Canadian nation building for the purposes of centralization.
Bill C-33 illustrates once again that only the appetite of the
most voracious predators equals Ottawa's appetite for power.
Therefore I am pleased to support the amendment proposed by my
colleague from Fundy—Royal. I invite all members of this House
to do likewise, in fact, I implore them to do so.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is a known
fact that the government of this Prime Minister is looking every
day for confrontation with Quebec.
As a matter of fact, last Saturday in Drummondville near my
riding, the majority of the Liberal Party of Canada riding
association presidents asked the Prime Minister to put an end to
this confrontation.
The case in point this morning is Bill C-33, an act respecting
the protection of wildlife species at risk.
1250
It so happens that the Canadian Constitution that was patriated
by this Prime Minister in 1982 clearly says that sedentary
animals, the hare, for example, which lives on a very small
territory of no more than one square kilometre, are under
provincial jurisdiction, while animals that roam across the
North American continent are under federal jurisdiction, and
Quebec accepts that. Why does the Minister for the Environment
want, once again, to grab powers that belong to the provinces?
I see Bill C-33 as a new source of confrontation. When will the
Prime Minister and the Cabinet respect once and for all the
provinces and Quebec?
I would like to ask my colleague, the member for Jonquière, who
is our critic for the environment, if she could tell us how she
intends to try to bring back the Minister for the Environment to
his senses, now and in the future.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for
Frontenac—Mégantic, my assistant on the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development, is very concerned
about the environment. It should be realized that Bill C-33 will
create a major confrontation, not only with Quebec, but also with
the other provincial governments that have their own legislation.
We must urgently tell this government—and I hope that all members
of the House, will do so; at least the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will—to go back to the drawing board. It is time the
federal government stopped passing laws that interfere in
provincial jurisdictions.
It is not perfect as the government member and former Quebec
Minister of the Environment said. The provincial laws are not
perfect, but at least the provinces have the merit of having
laws to protect threatened species.
But this government is saying “Move over. We are taking over.
What you have already done no longer exists”. Moreover, it is
not just the Minister of the Environment who will have such an
attitude. All the other ministers will define their priorities,
including the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Natural
Resources and so on. Enough is enough.
We are again witnessing the government' haugtines. It thinks it
knows everything and is above everyone else.
Personally, I think the provinces have already taken a big step.
It is the federal government that should follow the provinces'
lead. This is how, from the Bloc Quebecois' perspective, this
government should act with regard to its policy and its
legislation.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker,
before the House adjourns for the summer, the legislative
process is put in high gear for many bills. I was wondering why
the government wanted Bill C-33 passed before the summer recess.
I was driving to the riding of Berthier—Montcalm in my car when I
suddenly heard the answer on the radio.
It is a comment I am making, and I would like the member, who
has studied the issue and who follows the minister closely on
this issue, to tell me whether I am mistaken or whether I got it
right. On the radio, there was a short segment about Canada's
wetlands and all the animals that live there. It was a message
paid for by the federal government, so it was nothing more than
propaganda on what the government does in that area.
I thought, would it not be nice if the federal government could
add to that that it passed a bill on species at risk?
1255
Would it not be nice to go into the election campaign with such
a bill, and to be able to say so on this short segment or on any
other segment paid for by the federal government?
It is a way for the government to tell people that it is so
good, that it is so smart and that it protects species at risk.
Even though this is not its jurisdiction, even though this could
alienate the provinces and even though Quebec does extraordinary
things in that area, it does not matter. The federal government,
our big brother, has money and it uses our tax money, taxes paid
by Quebecers and Canadians, to pay for its propaganda. I think I
got that answer on the radio.
I would like to know from the member, who is very familiar with
this issue, which she follows closely, and who does excellent
work in the area of the environment, whether or not I am right
with regard to the federal government's motivation in wanting to
pass Bill C-33 at all costs before the summer recess.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague
from
Berthier—Montcalm and tell him that he is definitely a visionary.
He was bang on target with this. This is exactly what the
government wants.
This is the third time that the government is trying to bring
forward a bill respecting the protection of wildlife species at
risk. It did it first in 1995, then in 1997, and now, in 2000,
it is back at it again, although it knows quite well—and the hon.
member for Berthier—Montcalm is right—that habitats are under
provincial jurisdiction.
Thus, this segment the member heard is blatant intrusion into
provincial jurisdiction. The bill ignores that.
The Liberals even want to interfere with the habitats of
wildlife species at risk, which are recognised as a provincial
jurisdiction. There are federal lands, yes, and they are right
to deal with those lands. However, they have no business on
provincial lands.
I think that my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm is a visionary
and that the government is up to something. I regret to have to
say it, but I do not know what the government is up to. It is
looking for a place to be, an issue to take a stand on, or an
attitude to show off. I do not know what it is up to.
I believe all Quebecers and all Canadians think that, after two
mandates and three years into their second mandate, the Liberals
do not know what to do anymore. They are contemplating an
election.
We do not know why, because there is no reason for it. They are
looking for all kinds of bills that will give them an in with
the taxpayers.
Unfortunately, I do not think this is the way to go. This
government must learn that the important thing is to ensure that
the provinces' areas of jurisdiction are respected and that
endangered species are clearly covered by legislation while
respecting provincial jurisdiction.
We wish the bill were drafted in such a way.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois is supporting the Progressive
Conservatives' amendment calling for a six month hoist so that
the government may take the time to sit down and think it over,
to say to itself “That is right, the thing makes no sense. This
is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it must be done
co-operatively”.
That is not a concept that the Liberals appear to be familiar
with. I think that I will write the word co-operatively out for
them and explain how it is written and what it means.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to make clear at the beginning
that I will share this speaking spot with my hon. colleague from
Churchill River.
I must say that there are some mixed feelings as I stand to make
a few comments regarding Bill C-33 today. It is a piece of
legislation dealing with endangered species that we have been
requesting for many years. As a matter of fact I can remember,
going back almost 20 years, groups making representations to
committees and to us as individual members of parliament saying
that we need to have such legislation.
1300
The United States has had endangered species legislation going
back to 1973. People were making the case that we needed to have
it in Canada, particularly in areas where there is the migration
of animals or migratory birds going between Canada and the United
States. After years and years of lobbying we finally now have a
piece of legislation, Bill C-33, before us which is known as the
Species at Risk Act or SARA. It is a long overdue promise now
before us, but I must say, and I say it with some reluctance,
this is actually not a very good piece of legislation at all.
I suppose it is better than nothing but not much better. As a
matter of fact it may not even be better than nothing because it
gives the impression that the government has actually done
something to take some serious steps toward ensuring that species
at risk will be protected in Canada.
The throne speech said that the government would introduce
legislation to ensure that species at risk and their critical
natural habitat were protected. The reality is this legislation
does not do that. It does not ensure that species will be
identified and protected. It certainly does not ensure that
habitat will be protected.
The two fundamental elements of any kind of endangered species
legislation, that is the identification and protection of the
species and the identification and protection of their habitat,
are not included. They are absent.
It is puzzling that it is left to the Minister of the
Environment or to politicians to decide what species are at risk.
With all due respect to my parliamentary colleagues, I am not
sure we are experts in this field. Well known scientists have
documented the fact that there are 351 species at risk presently
in Canada. These scientists are eminently qualified to make that
determination. Now we will turn it over essentially to cabinet.
They are a nice group of people but they are not really equipped
to determine what kind of species ought to be identified at risk,
let alone whether or not the habitat should be protected.
To be fair, we might have a good Minister of the Environment or
there might one in the future who would lead this discussion in
cabinet, but what if we had a crummy minister of the environment?
What if a red neck anti-wildlife type of person who was made
Minister of the Environment and as a result—
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It will never happen.
Mr. Nelson Riis: It has happened. We could look at
Ontario, for example. Ontario has had as many ministers of the
environment as we change socks on an annual basis. Quite frankly
they are, by their own admission, not qualified to be ministers
of the environment. They do not know much about it. Let us
imagine if that were the case here. This legislation would be a
complete mockery. Therein lies a crucial weakness in the
legislation, the fact that we have to take away the aspect where
politicians will be the final arbitrators of this issue.
There is a role to play for politicians. There is a role to
play for elected representatives. However when the legislation
is passed, if in fact it gets passed in the next little while,
there will not be a single identified species at risk. In other
words, we will have to start all over again to develop this list.
What a crazy process.
What is embarrassing about it is that our two NAFTA partners,
Mexico and the United States, have had legislation in place, the
United States since 1973 and Mexico since 1992. Both acts are a
whole lot stronger than this one. They are concerned about the
fact that the government says that this has nothing to do with
species that migrate across interprovincial or international
borders.
If a moose is wandering around in the forest it does not realize
it is crossing a border. A border will not stop it from going
into Alaska or elsewhere in the United States. It will not stop
it from going between Saskatchewan and Alberta or wherever. Of
course moose do not behave in that way. When ducks or geese fly
around they do not stick to one provincial area. They are
crossing provincial boundaries and crossing international
boundaries. The legislation does not acknowledge that fact. It
does not provide that kind of protection.
The minister says that is not their jurisdiction.
If it is not federal jurisdiction whose jurisdiction is it? There
are very puzzling elements in the legislation.
1305
Back in 1992 hon. members will remember that Canada was the very
first western nation to sign the biological diversity convention.
That convention requires Canada to pass legislation protecting
endangered species and their habitat. That was back in 1992 and
nothing has happened.
Here we are now in the year 2000 and legislation has been
introduced, but I have yet to find a single person who likes the
legislation. I have yet to see a single group of people who like
the legislation. A vast array of environmental groups have
lobbied us. They have visited our offices here and our
constituency offices. Many of them are personal friends. They
say the legislation just is not on, that it has to be changed.
For example, even groups like the Canadian Pulp and Paper
Association and the Canadian Mining Association say the
legislation needs to be strengthened. When we have the mining
association and the pulp and paper or the forestry industry
saying such things, we have to ask who supports the legislation.
Before the government brings in legislation we would think
somebody somewhere would support it. Even one group or one
person. However so far nobody supports it except the minister.
We have to change the legislation when it gets to committee. As
some previous speakers have indicated, it is an all party
committee. I think we are all determined to improve the
legislation. I have identified a couple of problem areas. My
colleagues from Churchill River will undoubtedly reveal some
other concerns.
We should consider that the disappearance of habitat is
responsible for 80% of the species that disappear. We are all
aware from popular literature that as a result of the paving over
of the countryside, the vast amount of cutting in the forests and
the occupation of many wilderness areas as a result of tourism
and travellers that the habitat of many of our species is
disappearing. This is something we have to come to grips with,
as well as the issue of compensation.
In closing, when we protect a particular habitat there has to be
both a carrot and a club. The carrot would be to encourage
people to work to preserve habitat. If they fail to do so there
has to be some kind of club that will penalize them.
When we take productive lands out of use in order to protect a
habitat some compensation has to be there. I am thinking
particularly of the comments of the cattlemen's association to
this point and the people indirectly involved who would lose
their means of employment as a result of a protective initiative
being taken. They too have to be compensated in some form. These
are some of the clarifications we will pursue in committee.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I rise today to speak to Bill C-33, the much anticipated Species
at Risk Act. In our opinion this is an appropriate title for a
very weak act because it truly highlights that our species will
be at risk with the current form of legislation before us.
My hon. colleagues from the committee and my hon. colleagues in
the House on both sides have said that the bill by no means
addresses everyone's expectations and that there is a lot of work
to be done.
For the record I would like to state that our guiding principle
was a resolution brought to us at our biennial convention. It by
no means waters down any commitment for comprehensive federal
endangered species legislation. It must be in co-operation with
all other governments including provincial ones. Traditional
aboriginal knowledge and aboriginal communities could help. The
guiding principles has been the identification and listing of
species at risk by an independent committee of scientists. This
list would be based on scientific evidence as the primary
consideration and not on political interpretation of data.
1310
Our worst fears by far have come to light with the Species at
Risk Act. Bill C-33 is certainly not based on the listing and
identification of species at risk. It will not be done wholly or
confirmed by an independent committee of scientists. There will
be a role for the politicians and the executive council of the
federal government to play in identifying and sanctioning the
lists of species at risk. That is of great detriment to this
bill.
Another guiding principle that we highlighted was a
comprehensive and nation-wide natural habitat protection
initiative. This includes protection of species that range or
migrate over Canada's domestic and international borders. As my
hon. colleague mentioned, there is no protection in this act to
deal with international boundary migration or interprovincial
boundary migration. There is even question in terms of federal
boundaries or federal jurisdiction that will be further watered
down and susceptible to interpretation.
This major piece of legislation will be worked on in the legal
system. It will be translated and interpreted by legal minds in
light of legal challenges. We challenge the committee in its
deliberations to look at the draft and ensure the issue of
jurisdiction is covered. We must not be tying our hands on
federal jurisdiction or federal crown lands. We have species at
risk from coast to coast to coast.
It would not impede us in any way to work with the positive
initiatives, as the other members have mentioned, of other
provinces to identify species at risk or endangered species in
their jurisdictions. We must work with those provinces. We must
work with the communities and the industries that would like to
see a major departure from a lack of legislation to a strong
piece of legislation that will protect species at risk.
Another major guiding principle for us that was challenged on
behalf of our membership was the inclusion of stakeholders in the
development of species recovery plans, the provision of adequate
support for those whose livelihood is disrupted by a species
recovery plan and the provision for a just transition of workers
and communities which may be affected by recovery plans.
With regard to the whole issue of stakeholders and compensating
for any loss of land, livelihood or industry that may occur, the
government should take a respectful view. In light of the major
changes in protecting our biodiversity in the country and in the
world, we may have to take major steps and make harsh decisions.
We must ensure that we are compassionate to the people impacted
through loss of livelihood, lands, community and industry that
may occur.
These three guiding principles have helped us in our view. When
we analyze Bill C-33 we find that the Liberal government lacks
leadership on all three of these components in the Species at
Risk Act before us.
Any species at risk must be based on respectful consideration of
lands and landowners. This is certainly not reflected in the
act. It dwells on it, but there is certainly nothing substantive
that could make people sleep easier once the act is in place and
protects species. If it happens that any of those species were
found on their property they should have respectful
consideration. That respectful consideration is not entrenched
in this act. It must be spelled out clearly. It must point out
the protocols to be followed in relations between governments and
landowners.
Another issue the Liberal government has missed in the provision
of leadership is science based decision making. Canadians know
all too well the government's record in profit and politics. As
we read the headlines time and time again, politics sometimes
serves the best interest of the ministers' or the Prime
Minister's decision making, and sometimes to the detriment of the
environment.
1315
The environment is sometimes not viewed as an election winner at
voting time. Certainly people do not stand up to democratically
represent species or animals. They certainly do not stand up to
say they represent the land or the species that live on the land.
Most voters usually stand up to be counted for their interests
and those of their family and children.
The message for all Canadians is that we must make a direct
connection to the land, the water and the many species which our
lives depend on. Let us speak in their best interests and not
only for our personal or family's interests. Democratically we
represent Canada literally from coast to coast to coast. All
living things within it should be represented in the House of
Commons and it should be reflected in an act that is designed to
protect the species of the country.
The act must also include specific references, which is a very
crucial rule not only in scientific knowledge but also in
aboriginal traditional ecological knowledge. It has now been
recognized that this knowledge has weight and interpretation and
the translation of it should not be missed in terms of the
specific or immediate scientific knowledge.
Aboriginal traditional knowledge plays a major role in setting
the assessment of the ecological cycles. These are not necessarily
monthly nor according to food, financial, budgetary or calendar
cycles. Some ecological cycles last for 5, 7, 10, 15 and 20
years. That knowledge may not be readily available in the
scientific manuals or journals of the day, but it is entrenched
in the knowledge of many traditional land users, in our
communities and in our stories.
Industries have been created such as trapping, fishing and
hunting. A lot of people are aware that these are industries and
also are a very big part of the livelihoods of our communities.
Not only is hunting, outfitting and fishing a viable tourism
option, but it is also a very sustainable living. Acquiring some
foods in that way displaces the high cost of hamburger and
potatoes. A lot of traditional people depend on this.
Adequate funding mechanisms for biodiversity sciences and
cataloguing of information from across this great country is also
required. Research and development is needed for understanding
the lands and waters. The Hudson plain which surrounds Hudson
Bay, one of Canada's largest watersheds, is an example. There are
huge freshwater bodies in the Hudson plain but there is no
scientific picture in that area. There is no collection of data
from the traditional communities incorporated into a data bank.
The impact of climate change just on the water studies of that
region is an immediate necessity. There are also the
transboundary pollutants, just like persistent organic pollutants
that have been studied in the far north. The mid-Canada north
should certainly be respected in that area. That is why the
Hudson plain should be seriously looked at. It is a huge
spawning ground for many of our fish. Migratory birds are in
those regions at this time rejuvenating their species.
Members of the committee will certainly have to roll up their
sleeves in order to make a sound species at risk act for the
country. There are high expectations not only in this country
but there are challenges internationally. Canada has made
international commitments as is evidenced by the convention on
biodiversity.
We have to protect our species at risk. Let us do it in a
meaningful way, but let us create a piece of legislation that has
the power to make these promises as strong as possible for the
betterment of our future.
1320
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to Bill C-33, the species at risk legislation
which has been brought in by the present government.
Like the other members who have commented on the legislation, I
regret to say I am a bit critical of it. I am critical of it
because of some obvious flaws in the legislation and because of
the government's apparent lack of will and the half-hearted
attitude it has brought to this legislation, and its total
inability to bring all the stakeholders on side. Not only are
business and industry disrespectful and not supportive of the
legislation, but the environmental groups and lobbyists are also
disrespectful and not supportive of this legislation.
I would like to start my speech with some comments taken from
the speech of our party's environment critic, the member for
Fundy—Royal. I would like to quote a paragraph from his opening
remarks.
Canada has 351 species that are recognized as endangered or at
risk. There is no federal law to protect these species. The
government's proposed species at risk act, known as SARA, is long
overdue. It is a long overdue promise, but it is very
disappointing. This legislation is even weaker and less effective
than Bill C-65, the 1996 federal endangered species bill, which
died before the 1997 election. This new bill is unacceptably
ineffective in several key areas, particularly habitat
protection. The main threat facing endangered species is the
destruction of their habitat, the places where species breed,
where they feed and where they raise their young.
I read over the excellent speech of the member for Fundy—Royal.
I was quite intrigued with that comment, but I would add one
more point to the point he was making. Bill C-65 was brought
forward in 1996 and died before the 1997 election. I predict the
same type of demise for this legislation. It is not supported by
any of the parties in the House and is not supported by the
Canadian public in general. I suspect the bill could die before
the election in the fall of 2000, which the government has gone
to great task lately to say will not happen, which is a pretty
sure sign that it will happen.
It should also be pointed out that the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada was awarded an A grade on our paper,
“Carrots Before Sticks”, for our outline of an effective
endangered species legislation. The Liberal document which is
before the House was awarded a D.
Obviously the government has missed out on this bill completely.
It fails to understand what Canadian industry and
environmentalists are looking for. It fails to understand much
of what was alluded to by the New Democratic member who spoke
previously, that whole principle of stewardship of the land.
Most people, farmers, forestry operators, landowners, city
dwellers, first nations, Canadians anywhere, have some
understanding of stewardship of the land. I grew up in rural
Nova Scotia and I have a keen understanding of it coming from a
hunting, fishing and farming background.
If we are going to leave something in this country and on this
planet for our sons and daughters and their sons and daughters,
we have to have a different approach to the way we look at
species at risk and our interaction with the environment.
The Progressive Conservative Party endorses recommendations put
forward by the species at risk working group, a multi-stakeholder
association that involved both industry and environmental groups.
The group examined ideas for an ideal bill, not this bill. It
included representation from the Canadian Pulp and Paper
Association, the Mining Association of Canada, the Sierra Club of
Canada, the Canadian Nature Federation and the Canadian Wildlife
Federation.
1325
Those groups do not ordinarily get together in one room and
agree on anything. Obviously they are looking at this
legislation and saying that there is a need and how can they
formulate an approach they can agree with, that they can combine
forces and overcome some of the obstacles and put forward a piece
of legislation that will be helpful to wildlife, the environment
and Canadians in general.
If mining, pulp and paper and environmentalists can devise a
workable solution, then the Progressive Conservative Party will
certainly endorse their plan. We recognize that extinction is
forever. As a result, we believe that all Canadians want strong
and effective endangered species legislation.
The status of a given species is a matter of scientific fact,
not of political choice. It is for this reason the Progressive
Conservative Party believes there has to be effective legislation
that must take action based on sound science. We are also
committed to protecting the rights of landowners and users. We
believe that no single individual or entity should bear the
burden of recovery of any species when the benefits of the
species protection are for all society to appreciate.
That is a pretty simple theory. That is not a complicated
concept for the government or Canadians to grasp and they should
embrace that concept.
It was mentioned earlier that the legislation in the United
States has been very powerful in protecting species to a degree,
but it has also been a deterrent to protecting species. Anyone
who has followed the debate in the U.S. should know that among
many of the landowners there are two points which they like to
discuss. It is the two s points: first they shoot it and
then they bury it, or shovel it. That is not the approach we
want to take in Canada.
We do not want to bring in legislation which is so difficult to
abide by that when individuals, farmers, forestry operators, mine
operators, aboriginal groups, recreational groups and developers
come across an endangered species, we force them to get rid of
it. That does not work. We have to encourage them. That means
the government is going to have to open up its purse strings. It
is going to have to find some ways to encourage that, and it will
probably be a financial incentive, to protect the species at risk
and to build a comprehensive plan around it that will allow for
continued protection in the years to come. That is why the
Conservative Party believes that when designing a recovery plan,
the bulk of the decision making should be left to the
stakeholders and not the Liberal cabinet.
There are a few simple points which I would like to repeat. If
an endangered species is found in a given area, then the
landowner must be doing something right and he should be given
all the tools to continue. He should not be penalized. He
should not be told that there is a part of his quarter section or
his 250 acre woodlot that he will not be able touch from now on.
We have to find a way to compensate people to protect that
endangered species which happens to be there.
We need to know a few things about the species. Is it a species
that is simply passing through? Is it a breeding ground? Is it
habitat that they depend upon? Is that endangered species plant
or animal? Is it migratory? There are a number of issues and
points that we need to better understand.
We agree with and support the recognition for voluntary
measures. We fully endorse stewardship as a means of providing
protection for species and their critical habitat. We endorse a
graduated approach to stewardship with a full tool kit from
material designed to engage the stakeholders positively in this
process. This could include tax incentives, habitat grants,
scientific support and in some instances it may need to include
compensation.
The PC Party believes that simply making criminals out of
landowners will not save endangered species anymore than making
criminals out of law-abiding gun owners will make society any
safer.
1330
There are several core components of our species at risk debate:
to protect critical habitat; to use carrots before sticks; to
form partnerships with the provinces; to have a full and
comprehensive scientific listing of species; and, the protection
for endangered species and their habitat. We need recovery plans
and accountability mechanisms for citizens to ensure government
forces act on their behalf.
I will go back to point number six that I raised regarding the
recovery plan. We support legislation that commits to a firm
target and time lines for designing and implementing an
appropriate recovery plan for endangered species, whether they
are endangered, threatened or vulnerable. I would like to use
for comparison the wild Atlantic salmon.
The wild Atlantic salmon population is in critical decline and
the federal government needs to address this problem immediately.
People are already saying that it is a crisis situation and the
numbers back them up. The wild salmon stock has dropped from 1.6
million 25 years ago to only 350,000 this year. I would state
that the 350,000 is probably a generous estimate.
The Gold River in Nova Scotia, which I live beside, is a small
salmon river. We used to have a run of salmon come up in the
spring every year. It was not a run like the Margaree, the
Miramichi or any of the big salmon rivers in Nova Scotia or New
Brunswick but it was a great little run of fish. We would get
anywhere from 350 to 600 fish in that river. We would see them
in the pools 25 or 30 at a time. We do not see that today. It is
no good taking my kids down to the salmon pool to show them a
salmon jumping up over the falls or coming up the run because it
would probably take five trips before we would see one. It is a
matter of bringing these fish back.
The Atlantic Salmon Federation is looking for $50 million in
funding spread out over a five year period. This would allow the
federation to tag, track and monitor stocks and provide valuable
insight into the problems facing this species. Many different
factors could be contributing to the declining numbers, including
pollution and dams, but more research is needed if the wild
Atlantic salmon is going to be restored to its former abundance.
The government has had an opportunity to act on this species. I
am not talking about all the other species at risk. I am talking
about this particular one, the wild Atlantic salmon. The
government has failed to provide the much needed funding for
raising salmon smolts and the salmon parr for release into our
rivers.
We proved through our wildlife and salmon associations a decade
ago that river specific salmon did much better than just any
salmon dropped into our tributaries and our water courses. The
government has known about this but has completely stopped
advancing moneys for the hatchery program in Nova Scotia, and in
fact has closed it down. It tried to divest it to individuals
but most of those hatcheries have since failed. It put a little
money into a few of them this year just to get the fish out of
the hatcheries but there was no comprehensive plan. Meanwhile
the salmon numbers continue to dwindle and diminish.
The government talks about endangered species but, quite
frankly, talk is cheap. We have seen that for too many years
from this government.
The core components of our species at risk legislation has been
explained and debated and put forth at committee by our member
for Fundy—Royal. It is critical that we look at protecting
habitat. We have to find a non-intrusive way to do that. It is
critical that we use carrots before sticks. We have to
encourage, recognize and reward stewardship by offering more
carrots and resorting to fewer sticks.
1335
Adequate funding, which I talked about a moment ago, is needed
to implement activities designed to support the stakeholders in
their efforts to recover and protect endangered species.
The PC Party believes a new bill should apply to all lands
except where equivalent provincial legislation is in place. If
we listened to the debate from the members of the Bloc Quebecois,
that is exactly what they were talking about. They were talking
about jurisdiction overlap and whose responsibility it was for
certain species. Obviously this government has not figured that
out.
We do not need another Kyoto where the provinces are forced to
pay for a plan imposed upon them by the federal government. The
provinces themselves should be provided with sufficient resources
to address the issue and to ensure protective and effective
enforcement.
The PC Party supports scientific listing of a species at risk
and of the identification of the critical habitat required for
its recovery. The PC Party believes a committee of wildlife
experts should be charged with this task. It should be a matter
of science, not a matter of politics.
We go on to the protection for endangered species and their
habitat. The PC Party supports the immediate prohibition against
the harming of any endangered species or its residence, and the
protection of the critical habitat of species through either
co-operative agreements or legal measures following a
multi-stakeholder recovery plan.
What we do not believe is simply implementing some program where
there has been no reaching out to the stakeholders group, that
there has been no co-operative effort on and that is little
understood and little supported by the people who will be most
affected by it.
We need some accountability built into the process. We need a
mechanism for citizens to ensure that the government enforces its
own act. If the act is to include an accountability mechanism
then the PC Party believes that there should be an independent
process for the public to ensure the act is being effectively
implemented. This process should allow citizens to challenge the
federal government and not other citizens.
We do not need to make this act complicated. We do not need to
make this act somehow a confrontation between our forestry
operators, our farmers and our fishermen. What we need is to
bring in an act that encourages the protection of species at
risk. What we have is an act that fails to recognize that all
important tenet.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the comments by my
hon. counterpart from South Shore, Nova Scotia. Would he care to
comment on how he would reconcile several of the points he has
made during his debate on endangered species with legislation
recently passed by the Government of Nova Scotia, which is the
same party as his.
I would also suggest that he consider the high regard with which
that legislation is held throughout Canada. It is considered to
be a model. In so being considered, it is a rather stringent
piece of legislation. Could he share his insights with us in
that regard?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, I will go back to what
the hon. member from the Bloc party stated about jurisdiction. We
talked a bit about jurisdiction and the importance of recognizing
that in the federal legislation. What I was actually talking
about was that the fatal flaw in this piece of legislation is
that it really does not understand jurisdiction and, therefore,
will not protect species at risk.
The legislation passed in Nova Scotia is certainly important
legislation but it is provincial legislation. We need to look at
a federal comprehensive plan that will encompass all the
ingredients of species at risk legislation. This means that most
of it will be under federal jurisdiction but that we also have to
recognize where there is provincial jurisdiction.
1340
One of the critical flaws in this legislation is that it does
not recognize jurisdiction and it does not compensate nor fully
understand the obligations, responsibilities and needs of
landowners. I say that as a farmer, as a forestry operator and
as someone who has come into contact with species at risk. I
understand what it is like to have a contract to cut a couple of
hundred or couple of thousand acres of land and to all of a
sudden discover there is a heron's nesting ground or an eagle's
nest.
I do not believe there is an operator out there who wants to
abrogate the law, to break it or to put more species at risk in
danger. People are responsible but we need the legislation that
gives them the tools to do that.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to be here
to debate Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada.
Before I begin my comments, I want to point out that I am
personally involved in agriculture in my riding of
Selkirk—Interlake. I am a cattle rancher and holder of several
thousand acres of land, which is necessary for our cattle
operation in that area. As a result, I am not totally unbiased
in the debate today. However, I would like to point out that as
cattle ranchers and farmers in the Interlake area of Manitoba, we
are totally dependent on having an environment that is
sustainable for the wildlife around us and sustainable for the
agricultural pursuits in which we happen to be involved. In my
case that involves cattle. In order to produce cattle we need a
good environment with good grasslands, good forestry and a clean
water supply.
Having made my position clear, I want to go on with some
comments with regard to this specific bill. The summary, as put
forward by the minister, states that the purpose of this
enactment is to prevent Canadian indigenous species, sub-species
and distinct populations of wildlife from becoming extirpated or
extinct and to provide for the recovery of endangered or
threatened species. It also encourages the management of other
species to prevent them from becoming at risk.
People need to know that this legislation covers every
biological diversity in the country except bacteria and viruses.
For instance, it includes our continental shelves off the shores
of our coasts and the biological organisms that are contained
therein, such as fish species and shellfish.
When we talk about the minister having a certain amount of say
and authority over this, we can look back to when I was on the
fisheries and oceans committee where we saw that the government's
management of the cod fishery and the fishery off the coast was
less than desirable. The basic problem at that time was that the
government had a political agenda to deal with that was more
important to it than what was happening in the oceans.
What we saw was that the information, reports and critical
analysis that were being put forward by the scientists to the
minister were not being relayed to the general public where they
would have received attention from individuals, environmental
groups, fishermen and from all concerned people who would have
said “Hold on a minute, what you are ignoring here you should
not be ignoring. The reports from the scientists should override
political considerations”.
The bill establishes the committee on the status of endangered
wildlife in Canada.
It is to be an independent body of experts responsible for
assessing and identifying the species at risk.
1345
The idea is great. I believe that is what should be done.
However, we have to remember, as we do with all things involving
animals, trade and certainly the protection of species, that this
should be totally science based and should not go running off, as
I mentioned with regard to the fishery off the east coast, into
political decision making.
Science is fine and dandy, as long as the science, the reports
and the analyses that are put forward are accessible to the
public. They should be totally and unreservedly put out for
public scrutiny, not only by people with lay knowledge of the
issues, but also other scientists.
What we have seen with government paid for and sponsored studies
is that quite often this science based information is not
available for general public scrutiny. As a result, it gives the
minister an opportunity to deal with the information, to keep it
secret, or to put out little snippets that help support his or
her particular point of view. That will make this legislation
less than perfect.
I would like to see that the minister not have the final
authority with regard to the endangered species list, but in fact
that there be a requirement in the bill that all the information
be made public so that various NGOs, for instance the Canadian
cattlemen, the farm lobby groups and the environmental groups,
have an opportunity to come to each and every MP and say that
this particular species should or should not be on the list and
convince members of the House, all 301 of us. I think the list
could be brought to the House for approval as opposed to the
minister simply saying “I think these are fine, and this one
should not be on the list” for reasons that are not clearly in
the public interest.
The issue with regard to government scientists, which has been
brought forward quite extensively, is the fact of muzzling
reports which they put forward. I have mentioned this, that
there should be clear guidelines in the legislation to ensure
that those reports are automatically made public.
Wildlife in Canada is the property of the crown and is subject
to provincial jurisdiction. The animals, birds and fish species
that are not are the ones that migrate from province to province
or cross international boundaries, those of the United States and
Mexico in particular, but also right through the whole Americas.
As a result, there is a federal responsibility for these species.
Environment Canada, through the Canadian Wildlife Service, has a
mandated responsibility to conserve these migratory birds and
their habitat through the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the
Canada Wildlife Act.
Just as an example of man not being the know-all and the be-all
when it comes to the management of species, there has been
considerable depredation of habitat, particularly nesting habitat
in the Arctic with regard to the snow geese, the white geese,
that have become so numerous that the balance in nature has been
upset to the point where the species itself is destroying the
habitat, which will ultimately end up in starvation and death
among the newborn birds in the north.
Part of the problem is the efforts through various groups and
governments to restrict and prohibit hunting. With man being so
populous and numerous in the world today, hunting is part of the
overall management control of a species. I think there should be
less negativity put forward with regard to hunting which would
help keep these species in check.
1350
There has been talk and there will be some changes to the
hunting legislation with regard to the snow geese which will
allow for a greater harvest of those birds, which can be used for
food.
The Canadian Wildlife Federation, along with other farm groups,
has been lobbying and putting forward information concerning
predator damage and crop damage from migratory birds, as well as
other issues. I would like to point out on behalf of farmers
that they put out a broader message. They proposed in 1998 that
the national agriculture stewardship program provide critical
direction while we make the decisions we are currently involved
in. They anticipated that the program would prove to be a model
for other programs addressing environmental needs.
To show the broad thinking of farmers and their representatives,
they say, for example, that there should be funding for
endangered species recovery plans and we should be providing
broader incentives to landowners to maintain and enhance habitat
and biodiversity. That brings out the point quite clearly that
our farmers, ranchers and other people engaged in agriculture do
think of the bigger picture and are not simply thinking of
production and profit.
One issue put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture
with regard to essential components was that it wanted to ensure
that conditional 100% compensation would be provided. Among the
11 recommendations, it wanted to see that there be permanent and
flexible fiscal management from year to year.
Working with agriculture, with the landowners, with the forestry
industry, with the fishermen on the oceans, on our Great Lakes
and on the freshwater lakes of the prairies, co-operation is the
key and the essence to making any endangered species legislation
work.
The legislation put forward by the minister is lacking in that
it does not state specifically that the federal government has a
total commitment to working in co-operation with the provinces
and the landowners. The provinces are mentioned in the
legislation, as well as landowners, but the specifics of how and
when and under what circumstances compensation would be paid is
important. As we have seen so many times, co-operation with the
provinces does not work.
The last couple of points I will make are with regard to the
specific policy of the Canadian Alliance. We are committed to
protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and its
endangered species and to the sustainable development of our
abundant natural resources for the use of current and future
generations.
The Canadian Alliance maintains that for any endangered species
legislation to be effective it must respect the fundamental
rights of private property owners.
In my riding, on the very lake where my ranch is located, North
Shore Lake, it is my understanding that we have a species which
is at risk at this time called the piping plover. North Shore
Lake has risen to such high water levels that the shoreline where
they nest and feed is actually under water, with only a small
portion remaining. This brings to the forefront the fact that
all of us are affected, no matter where we live in this country.
The federal government has the responsibility to do what it can
to preserve habitat. In order to do that it has to have the
co-operation of the landowners. It also has to provide the
necessary funding in the case of North Shore Lake for an outlet
to that lake, which is non-existent at this time, to maintain the
water at a lower lever so that these endangered piping plovers
can nest and reproduce.
1355
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I have a serious question to ask the member who just
spoke. He did a great job in his presentation. However, before
I ask the question, I remember reading not long ago on the
Internet a dilemma: What does one do if one finds an animal that
is an endangered species eating a plant that has been defined as
being endangered? It is one of those deep thoughts to ponder.
My serious question pertains to a question that one of my farmer
friends in my constituency asked. He wanted to know, if he could
somehow be shown, either directly or indirectly, to be
responsible for the danger and perhaps the killing of a member of
an endangered species, and if he could lose his farm over that,
because the proposed fines are of the magnitude that would
basically put the farmer out of business, what would be his
recourse?
He said that perhaps there would be a series of unintended
consequences from the bill, that when farmers make sure that the
margins of their sloughs and so on become totally uninhabitable
so that those endangered species do not even go there, there will
actually be less available land for endangered species than there
is now.
I would ask for my colleague's comments on that, if he has some
knowledge of it.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, with respect to one
endangered species eating another endangered species, I would say
that we in the House have the audacity of man. We think that we
are all-knowing, wonderful and can figure everything out. Mother
Nature runs Earth. Many people believe that global warming has
more to do with nature than it does with man.
To a certain extent, species have always become extinct, will
always become extinct, and while we are on this Earth we have to
get along and preserve what we can while we are here. However,
we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we can preserve
every species forever, with unlimited resources being thrown at
them, while there are children who are starving.
With respect to habitat, in many provinces there are wildlife
management areas that have been set up, operations like Ducks
Unlimited, which in my riding foster areas known to be the main
wildlife tourist destinations in Canada. Farmers and
agricultural people are providing habitat, including the saving
of sloughs on the prairies.
The Speaker: The hon. member will still have seven
minutes of questions and comments when we return to debate after
question period, if he so wishes.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since
it took office the Ontario government has slashed the budget of
its ministry of the environment by 42.5%.
Regional enforcement staff were cut from 2,400 to 1,500. Water
quality monitoring facilities in the province were reduced from
700 to 200. The closing of three regional labs further reduced
the ministry's analytical abilities.
Furthermore, the Ontario government cancelled 400,000 tests it
had been conducting yearly, downloading this service to
municipalities. The axe of the Ontario government also fell on
the drinking water surveillance program which reported regularly
on municipal drinking water quality.
The result is that the network of water testing laboratories,
water scientists and laboratory technicians who knew how to
manage clean water in Ontario has been broken up. What a shame.
* * *
PROSTATE CANCER
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday morning I participated in the second annual
Vancouver run and walk to raise funds in support of prostate
cancer research.
I am rising today to thank members of parliament from both the
Canadian Alliance and the Liberal caucuses, as well as some of
our staff members, who through their generous contributions
helped me to raise the third highest amount in pledges for that
event.
1400
One man in eight will get prostate cancer during his lifetime
while the number of men who die from prostate cancer each year is
about the same as the number of women who die from breast cancer.
Yesterday's event was an important part of the countrywide effort
to raise public awareness about prostate cancer and to raise more
money for research.
Once again I thank everyone on the Hill who contributed to the
total on my pledge sheet, with a special thanks to those who put
aside their partisan differences when they dropped their cheque
in the mail. Together we can make a difference.
* * *
[Translation]
AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that
June is amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, awareness month.
This form of sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, is a
rapidly progressing neuromuscular disease that leads to total
paralysis and eventual death, generally within three to five
years of diagnosis. In Canada, some 2,000 people have this
devastating disease.
[English]
Since 1977 the ALS Society of Canada has been supporting
research, developing and distributing educational materials,
promoting public awareness, and in partnership with regional
units providing ALS patients and their families with medical
equipment and support.
Today the ALS Society of Canada is concluding its annual
conference in Ottawa. I encourage members to welcome the society
and hear its message.
[Translation]
I pay tribute to this volunteer society.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
study on the transportation of goods in Quebec conducted in the
context of the work being done under the aegis of Transport
Canada will take stock of the Canadian transportation network.
Canada is divided into six regions, one of which is Quebec. Two
thirds of the funding for this study comes from the federal
government and one third comes from Transport Québec. There
were two main findings.
The road network in the Montreal area is incomplete, which is
probably the most acute problem right now for the Quebec
transport industry. The railway in Quebec is underutilized and
therefore could transport goods.
Intermodal rail transport is used little in Quebec, whereas it
is growing rapidly elsewhere in North America.
The governments of Canada, Quebec and municipalities will have
to give priority to the funding of conservation projects and
developing of rail and road networks, which could be done in
conjunction with the private sector.
* * *
[English]
ALS SOCIETY OF CANADA
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, June
is ALS awareness month. ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease,
is a fatal neuromuscular disorder that kills two to three
Canadians every day. Ninety per cent of ALS patients die within
five years of their diagnosis and most rely on family members for
care.
The ALS Society is here today on the Hill to ask the government
to ease the pain by investing in home care and granting
compassionate leave to caregiving family members. It hopes that
the new CIHR will mean increased funding for ALS research to
ensure that we build on recent breakthroughs and find a cure for
this devastating disease.
* * *
SYRIA
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have sympathy for the people of Syria
during these days of mourning following the death of their
president Hafez Assad. Bashar Assad, son of the late leader,
will be faced with the task of bringing stability to his country
and the region in the event he assumes the leadership of Syria.
We hope he has the strength and vision to reform and modernize
his country's government and economy.
We want to encourage Syria to go forward with economic,
political and social reform. We wish all the parties well and
urge all the countries involved in the region including Syria to
be realistic and generous in the peace process.
At the onset of the 21st century the world is looking to
strengthen efforts to eliminate terrorism. There is an
opportunity for the new leader of Syria to help make major
strides in this regard. The world will welcome such efforts and
the rewards will be plentiful, not only for Syria but for the
international community in coming years.
* * *
CADETS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
should like to make a few comments about the efforts and
enthusiasm of thousands of young people in hundreds of
communities across Canada.
On Saturday more than 70,000 cadets, their instructors and
supporters actively demonstrated their concern for the
environment by working to improve and beautify their corner of
our great land. Armed with rakes, shovels and brooms, the cadets
showed their appreciation for the communities that have given
them so much.
Cadets Caring for Canada is one of the largest activities of its
kind. Through their initiative and hard work these young
Canadians are making their mark.
Despite their youth, or maybe because of it, they understand the
importance of good citizenship and co-operation.
1405
I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating the
cadets for their dedication and ingenuity. They are planting the
seeds for a proud future.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I call
attention to a bylaw recently passed by the city of Woodstock in
my riding. The city has enacted an idling bylaw that restricts
non-essential vehicles from idling for more than five consecutive
minutes. Woodstock's goal is to reduce harmful air pollution and
illness that arise from this pollution while also ensuring that
we have a cleaner environment.
It is measures like those taken in the city of Woodstock that
will assist Canada in reducing emissions and reaching its Kyoto
commitments. I congratulate the city council for those measures
and Mr. Doug Steele from the CAW Local 636 for his work on this
issue.
I also urge other communities across our country to enact
similar bylaws to protect our environment. Woodstock is setting
a fine example of how to think globally and act locally in
solving our environmental problems.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has a certain, shall we say, flair
for words. Remember when he joked with the protesters who had
been blasted with pepper spray:
Usually it is the rubber chicken dinner, but when we come out
west we have beef, sometimes pepper steak.
He left them laughing with that one, so he took his show on the
road where he told an appreciative audience:
I don't know if I am in the West, South, North or East Jerusalem
right now.
That was a special moment for his media handlers, I am sure.
Then there was that very sombre moment when he told those high
school kids:
There's one place I go to in Ottawa regularly and every day there
is a man who is unfortunately and obviously sick. We just sit
with a chair at the corner of the street.
It seemed a little less sombre when we found out that homeless
person did not actually exist.
This past weekend the Prime Minister, our very own Ann Landers,
encouraged a reporter to get herself pregnant, telling her:
You know, you might have benefited from that. No? Gee, it's
time! Because you're a nice girl, you know.
It is up to families to decide when and how many children to
have and how to take care of them. It should not be dictated by
misdirected government policy, not by unfair tax regimes and
certainly not by a prime minister's musings.
* * *
EDUCATION
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
greatly concerned about parts of the Ontario bill 74, the
so-called education accountability act. This omnibus legislation
contains sections which seriously undermine good education in
Ontario schools. I am shocked by the parts which make
extracurricular activities like sports, arts and field trips
compulsory teacher duties.
In sports alone this will cost our children thousands of
volunteer hours. Think of the time involved in weekend
tournaments and fundraising to make them possible. How effective
is a reluctant coach? How effective is a reluctant field leader?
Good teaching depends upon enthusiasm and personal commitment.
One cannot legislate volunteerism. Bill 74 is undemocratic,
draconian legislation by an anti-democratic Queen's Park
government.
* * *
[Translation]
HUNDREDTH BIRTHDAY OF SISTER BERNADETTE DEBLOIS
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Servants of the Holy Heart of Mary, in Beauport, have a
special reason to celebrate, since Sister Bernadette Deblois
turns 100 this month.
Bernadette, who was born in 1900 in Saint-George-de-Beauce, became
a nun because of her faith and her desire to help her fellow
human beings.
In 1920, she decided to spend her life teaching young people.
She was a teacher or a school principal for close to 30 years,
at the elementary level.
Later on, she fulfilled various duties within the congregation,
while maintaining a special interest in teaching young people
with difficulties. She also spent 10 years supporting the work
of the St. Vincent de Paul fathers, at the Patro.
Sister Bernadette is very spry. She swam until the age of 98,
she is funny and she faces each day with serenity. Even though
she is now more fragile than she used to be, she remains free
and liberated, and maintains absolute confidence in the
Providence.
What else could we wish you, Sister Bernadette, if not health
and the love of those who surround you? You have heard it one
hundred times, but I will say it anyway: happy birthday Sister
Bernadette.
* * *
[English]
WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, one step forward, two steps back. That is how women
feel today. Just on the heels of the UN special conference on
women, where women have been working so hard to move the equality
agenda forward, up pops the Prime Minister with his flippant
remark about nice girls getting pregnant.
What kind of progress is that? How can the country's highest
ranking politician be so cavalier and insensitive to women's
daily struggles for basic equality, justice and fairness?
Whether it is the Prime Minister sticking his foot in his mouth
or UN officials denying women the right to breast feed at a
women's assembly, it is clear that women have a long way to go.
1410
The CLC Women's Conference kicked off today and it is a good
thing too. Its theme, rise up, act up, takes on new meaning in
the face of the Prime Minister's silly comments. The Prime
Minister should head on over to that conference and get a little
gender sensitivity training.
As we prepare for the World March of Women 2000, the rallying
cry for this event has never rung more true. In more ways than
one it truly is time for a change.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, June 11 to 17
is National Public Service Week. This is an opportunity to
celebrate the professionalism and sense of duty of the women and
men who chose to be at the service of Canadians, thus
contributing to our quality of life.
This week is also an opportunity to pay tribute to the wisdom,
skills and talents of the members of the Public Service of
Canada.
I am pleased to join the Prime Minister in thanking the members
of the Public Service of Canada in each department and
organization across the country.
Their dedication benefits us all. Thanks to these competent
women and men, Canadians can rely on quality services everywhere
in Canada.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today once again to make the House aware of the
problems associated with the proposed EI boundary changes. Under
the proposed changes people will have to work 595 hours as
opposed to the 425 hours currently required. These same people
will receive benefits for 18 weeks, a reduction from the present
28 week benefit period.
Seasonal employees and responsible employers will be hurt under
the new system as proposed by the minister. I am not for a
minute suggesting that we go back to the days when unemployment
insurance was a good alternative to working, but I am suggesting
that the minister take a close look at what the department is
attempting to do and reconsider it. It will cause many
difficulties in the workplace.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the beginning of National Public Service Week.
It is important to pay tribute to the untiring efforts of the
208,000 men and women in the federal public service who, in one
capacity or another, are helping to improve the quality of life
of Quebecers and Canadians.
In recent years, the federal public service has undergone many
changes and is engaged in a daily effort to improve the quality
of the services it provides. It has seen its share of the many
government cutbacks. And it has waged and won some major
battles, such as the one on pay equity.
Being a public servant is no easy matter. These men and women
face many challenges, and the pressures under which they work are
perhaps underestimated. The qualities they must demonstrate
include integrity, flexibility and innovation in serving the
public, and they must exercise these qualities as part of a huge
organization.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to offer its sincere
congratulations to the men and women in the public service on the
excellence of their work and the co-operation they show.
* * *
[English]
STROKE AWARENESS MONTH
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
June is Stroke Awareness Month. This year's theme is creating
awareness about the warning signs of a stroke.
Strokes are the fourth leading cause of death in Canada. Some
40,000 to 50,000 new strokes are reported annually. Symptoms
include sudden weakness, numbness, paralysis, dizziness, severe
headaches, vision and speech problems. Early detection and
treatment are extremely important for stroke patients.
Mr. Walter Gretzky is a recovering stroke patient and a
spokesperson for the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. He
is currently delivering his message to Canadians: “Know the
signs of an oncoming stroke, get treated and take advantage of
new treatments”.
In recognition of Stroke Awareness Month, the Heart and Stroke
Foundation has unveiled a public service campaign with Mr.
Gretzky that aims to raise awareness about this very serious
illness. I encourage all members of the House to become aware of
the signs of stroke and to spread the word.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have always known that HRD grants
and contributions are more about political benefits to the
Liberals than they are about grants of genuine benefits to
Canadians. A briefing book to the minister really puts it black
and white. Let me quote from it:
If they really are not about scoring political points, why are
MPs and a Liberal senator keeping tabs on them?
1415
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to have the hon.
member make the same kind of announcement in her own riding but
of course, we know that party is not interested in these grants
and contributions. It does not want to help Canadians improve
their levels of literacy. It does not want to help Canadians who
are disabled to find work. We know that is the case but if the
hon. member would like to do it, I would be thrilled to provide
her with the information.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talked about this when
they were in opposition because they did not get any of the
glory.
This briefing book was not prepared just for the fun of it. It
was the result of a specific request by the minister in August of
last year. Instead of having her department clean up the billion
dollar boondoggle mess, she had it put together lengthy briefing
notes on how to get more publicity for her handouts.
Why was the minister so concerned about publicity and so
unconcerned about the billion dollar bungle?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, do you know what else we did? We
provided 10,000 pages of all the grants and contributions in
every single riding.
I would ask the hon. member, when she received that information,
did she think to call those organizations and ask them about how
the money was being used? Did she think to talk to the
individuals who are benefiting as a result of these investments?
I think not.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to further suggest that
the minister asked that the special ministerial briefing book on
grants and contributions list a number of HRDC programs and the
role MPs play in every one of them. For example on youth
employment initiatives it says, “on a monthly basis, regions
will inform national headquarters of successful projects that
would offer good visibility for the minister”.
Is that not really what the grants and contributions are all
about, visibility for the minister?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the grants and contributions
programs are all about is helping Canadians who are in need to
get the services that they need so they can participate in
society.
If it were not for that party, we would not have to defend
against the attacks it is making on Canadians, on the individuals
who are benefiting from these grants and contributions and who
quite frankly feel they are being chastised as people who are not
worthy of our investment.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in early August 1999 the minister asked for a special
briefing book on MP involvement in 25 grants and contributions
programs giving important detail such as, “In Newfoundland the
former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced all term job
creation projects regardless of the constituency. That process
may now change with the new minister assuming her
responsibilities”. That is what she said.
How can the minister deny that political visibility lies at the
heart of these HRDC grants?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, what lies at the heart of these
grants and contributions is recognizing there is a role for the
Government of Canada to play not only in supporting communities
that want to participate fully in our country, but most
particularly in supporting individuals.
What we know to be true now after five months of its ranting and
raving is that party is not interested in Canadians who need
help, Canadians who want to improve their literacy skills, who
want to as Canadians with disabilities participate in the economy
of this country, young people who want to get that important
first job. Let those members come clean with their real agenda
here.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a little more from the grants and contributions
briefing book that the minister had prepared. We learn that all
federal government announcements for the grants under the
employment benefit and support measures, a series of programs
worth $2.1 billion a year by the way, are “at the discretion of
the minister”.
Was the minister demonstrating her discretion by creating
publicity for the Liberals instead of preventing another billion
dollar boondoggle?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member gives me the
opportunity to remind the House and Canadians that $1 billion is
not missing. In fact, $1 billion has been invested in
communities right across the country to help Canadians in need.
What is very interesting here is time and again members of that
party opposite focus on grants and contributions.
What they are really saying is those men and women who have been
supported by these programs should not be supported. What they
talk about is the waste of government dollars. We do not see
that to be a waste at all.
* * *
1420
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
confrontational attitude adopted by the Prime Minister in
connection with parental leave has been criticized by his own
people, who have expressed concern about his attitude.
One woman member of his party has advised the Prime Minister to
adopt an attitude of co-operation, mutual recognition and good
will.
Is the Prime Minister going to give in to the arguments of the
Bloc Quebecois, as well as of his own party faithful, and
support Quebec's actions in connection with parental leave?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, starting this year, the Government of Canada
has made a commitment to double the length of parental leave
available to all Canadians.
If the Government of Quebec wants to add to this good news and
improve the Canadian government's program, we applaud them for
it.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, she
should hold her applause and instead try to understand, because
the two projects as formulated cannot be complementary.
This is why Jean Charest, the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, is
supporting the position of the Government of Quebec. This is
not a squabble between sovereignists and federalists. The
future of Quebec's young families is at stake here.
How can the minister remain unmoved by the considerable support
the Quebec project is receiving, from the Quebec Liberal Party,
the federal Liberal party faithful in Quebec, the Government of
Quebec, trade unions, employers' associations, from everyone?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to have our new
process in place this year.
With our program, Quebecers will not have to make any additional
contributions in order to draw these benefits, and low income
families will receive 80% of their insurable earnings.
As I have said, and say again, the Government of Quebec is
welcome to improve the Canadian government's program if it so
desires.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in setting
parental leave up as a point of discord with Quebec, the federal
government is on the wrong track.
Does the minister realize how many young families will be
deprived of parental leave if the federal government does not
change its attitude and continues to promote its program, which
is tied to employment insurance?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not our approach at all. What we
know to be true is that there are very clear difficulties between
the workplace and family balance. For us it is important to have
our new program in place this year for all Canadians, including
those living in Quebec. From our point of view, if the
Government of Quebec wants to add to those benefits, we applaud
it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that
the federal government is on the wrong track in wanting to set
up two distinct programs, one Ottawa's, one Quebec's.
Will this not unnecessarily complicate the life of young
families, since the majority of them will not benefit from
parental leave? That is the question.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, can it be wrong for us to recognize that
we can do a better job supporting families with children in the
workplace-family relationship? Is it wrong for us to build on a
30 year tradition that is and has been supporting Canadian
families right across the country? Is it wrong for us to improve
our benefits this year for all Canadians? I do not think that is
wrong. I think it is the right thing to do. I also think it is
right to encourage the provinces should they wish to add to that
benefit base to do so.
* * *
STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday the Prime Minister made sexist and hurtful remarks
directed against Canadian women.
Rather than answering a woman reporter's question, the Prime
Minister went on about how she probably benefits from the
parental leave program. Finding out that she had not, he said,
“Gee, it is time because you're a nice girl, you know”.
1425
Will the Prime Minister now apologize to the women of Canada? Is
there anyone over there who will apologize on behalf of the
Canadian government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one has to look at the Prime Minister's remarks in the
context that they were given. The Prime Minister's position is
that if these lighthearted remarks offended anyone, then he is
very sorry about it and in effect extends his apologies.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is
not about the reporter. It is about the government's attitude,
its attitude toward women, the treatment of women and the
concerns of women.
Let us take another example, child poverty. UNICEF reports that
Canada has abandoned the fight against child poverty. Canada now
ranks 17th among 29 OECD countries.
Why has the federal government placed so little priority on
eliminating child poverty? Is the government content with a
record that brings upon us international shame?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is preoccupied by issues
of poverty. We are glad to see in most recent reports that the
level of overall poverty and child poverty has decreased on a
year over year basis.
One thing that is clear is that the best defence against poverty
is a job. That is why we are also glad to see that this month's
unemployment numbers are the lowest they have been in 24 years,
with unemployment resting at 6.6%.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Liberal government leaks
like a sieve, yet another government audit has shown that a
significant amount of defence department contract information was
slipped to two Canadian companies bidding on parts of a $10
billion frigate program. The audit implicates a senior official
and clerical staff and speaks of documents being removed without
authorization. If true, criminal acts may have been committed.
In the interest of regaining public confidence which is waning,
will the minister disclose the names of the companies which
received this sensitive information so that an independent
investigation can occur?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a number of allegations were made and
most of them were found not to be true. There are some that are
still under investigation. In fact, the two companies, and I do
not know which ones they were, which are alleged to have had
information did not get contracts.
I think it is fair to say that overall we should put this in the
context of saying this is one of the largest and one of the most
complex procurement projects ever undertaken in this country.
Out of it we got 12 state of the art world class frigates and it
was all done under budget and on schedule.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, that does not restore confidence about the system
itself. Years of cuts to the defence budget have hobbled the
military and made it very difficult for it to conduct
investigations of security breaches.
Concerns of office security for the frigate project became the
subject of a 1995 segment of W5. Since that time the audit
has found that five complaints against the department merit
investigation.
We have a pretty good idea who was responsible for the breach,
yet the department does not want to pin it on anybody and again,
no names have been released. Will the minister call in the RCMP
to ensure that a full independent investigation occurs?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): A full investigation has been occurring, is occurring
and will continue until we get the information that we require to
take the appropriate action. It is not true that any cutting of
resources has resulted in any less of an investigation. That
would not be an appropriate thing to do and that is not what we
are doing at all.
These frigates have provided great service to the Canadian
forces since they were brought in in the early 1990s.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the provincial and territorial premiers' report on sustainability
of health care is a damning commentary on the government's
performance. The report shows that the cost of sustaining the
taxpayers' share of health care at current levels could rise from
$54 billion today to $85 billion in 10 years.
This government has not even lived up to its present commitment.
1430
How can Canadians have any confidence that this government will
honour its future obligations and provide them with the health
care they deserve?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, I want to say how much we welcomed the report we received
from the provincial and territorial ministers last week. It is a
very helpful contribution, but it does point to the fact that the
health care system is under cost pressures that are only going to
rise. It is all the more important for us to get this system
sustainable by making the kind of constructive change that is
needed.
I look forward to working with my provincial and territorial
partners to that effect. We are off to a good start. Yesterday
the Prime Minister met with Premier Klein who said, and I quote,
“I think all premiers can agree that we need to establish goals
and objectives nationally. With national consensus on goals,
working together we can maintain quality care”.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this government has slashed $24 billion out of health
care since it came to office. The report states that health care
expenditures are expected to increase a whopping 247% over the
next 25 years. It is a question of priorities. This government
now spends $15 billion on health and social transfers and $17
billion on boondoggle prone grants and contributions.
Why are boondoggles more important to this government than the
health care of Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over the last two years there has been a 25% increase in cash
transfers to provinces for health. When we came to office in
1993 the total transfers to provinces were $28 billion per year.
This year they will exceed $30 billion.
Apart from providing more money, and more money we will provide,
the other thing we have to do as a Liberal government is to stand
guard over the Canadian public health care system.
The Canadian Alliance would rescind the Canada Health Act and
replace it with an American style private for profit health care
system. That is not what Canadians want and we will never allow
it.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if there is
one issue on which the federal government should avoid all
confrontation with the Government of Quebec, it is that of young
families and parental leave.
Could the federal government not drop its old habits, for once,
and think only of the wellbeing of young families?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious that we are working for young families and poor
families.
We set up a program of parental leave some thirty years ago. We
are prepared to add important values to it and in so doing we
will work together with all the provinces. However, the
provinces must want to work with us, which does not seem to be
the case with the separatist government of Quebec.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, parental
insurance was established in 1996 as the third part of Quebec's
family policy.
Why is the government persisting in its thinking that Quebec has
reacted just after the federal government, when in fact it
announced its parental insurance program, the third part of its
family policy, in February 1996?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that our
program of parental support has been in place for 30 years.
What we see today, and as a result of the last budget, is that
we want to expand that benefit to all Canadians, including
Quebecers.
What we also want to say is that if there is a province or
territory that wants to add to those benefits, we would
absolutely applaud them in doing so.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada said that
Bud Sparrow had an aboriginal right to fish for salmon at the
mouth of the Fraser River because his ancestors had done so from
time immemorial.
In Van der Peet, the supreme court established the test for the
aboriginal rights such as Mr. Sparrow's. It said that for such
a right to be recognized the activity had to be a practice
integral to native society prior to contact with Europeans. Does
the minister believe that the food fishery for lobster that he
has permitted on the east coast meets the test in Van der Peet?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the Sparrow decision
allowed a food fishery, and this is a food fishery both on the
west coast and east coast. It is clear that under Sparrow, we
were required to provide aboriginal people with access to a food
fishery for food, social and ceremonial purposes, which is
exactly what we are doing.
1435
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister is ignoring the Van der
Peet decision. Earlier this year, Professor Stephen Patterson,
the chief government witness in the Marshall case, provided
evidence on behalf of the minister to the federal court. He said
that he was not aware of any historical record of the Mi'kmaq
catching lobster nor of Mi'kmaq stories or traditions relating to
the catching and eating of lobster.
Given there is no evidence of Mi'kmaq harvesting or eating
lobster, there can be no basis for recognizing an aboriginal
right to a lobster food fishery. Since the court is not driving
the minister's food fishing agenda, what is?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is driving the agenda is,
first of all, the court's ruling, whether it is the Sparrow
decision or the Marshall decision.
The problem with that party is that when it does not like a
decision, it wants to use the notwithstanding clause. We saw it
under the Marshall decision when those members stood up. The
only solution they had was to use the notwithstanding clause. We
rejected that. We said that we would abide by the supreme court
ruling and we will continue to do that.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA DAY
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems that
the Canada Day budget is divided as follows: Out of $7 million,
Quebec will receive $5 million; Ontario, $554,000; the Atlantic
provinces, $432,000; the western provinces and the territories,
a little less than $825,000.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us if this strange
imbalance is why, last week, she refused to answer all our
questions on this issue?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not refuse to answer. I invited all members of
parliament to celebrate both Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and Canada
Day with us.
I am glad that the member raised this issue, because it gives me
an opportunity to do a bit of promotion for the Old Port of
Montreal. On June 29, Jesse Cook and Joé Armando y su Banda
Picante will perform. On June 30, it will be Marc-André Gauthier,
Perry Canestrari and The Tea Party. On July 1, we expect Bruno
Pelletier, Chantal Kreviazuk, Jodie Resther, Gino Vanelli and
250,000 other Canadians—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Portneuf.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we can
see, western Canada will receive six times less money than
Quebec for the Canada Day celebrations. Ontario will receive ten
times less and the Atlantic provinces 12 times less.
Is the government desperate to the point of thinking that
spending three quarters of the Canada Day budget in Quebec will
make Quebecers change their deep convictions?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe it is the first time that I hear Péquistes
and Bloquistes complain about money coming from Canada.
It may be because they do not believe in Canada. However, last
year, 250,000 people came to the Old Port of Montreal, and more
than 250,000 are expected this year to celebrate with Bruno
Pelletier, Chantal Kreviazuk, Gino Vanelli and Jodie Resther. I
invite the hon. member to come to celebrate Canada Day—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Lethbridge.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, judging from the Prime Minister's latest announcements,
it is becoming clear that an election is just around the corner.
This government has returned to the time-honoured Liberal
tradition of trying to buy votes with Canadians' own money.
However, as the Prime Minister promises more pork barrel
spending, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reports
that user fees and red tape are hurting the productivity of
Canadian farmers.
Instead of promising more pork barrel politics, why will this
government not get serious about helping farmers and rural Canada
and immediately reduce the burden of high taxes, user fees and
over-regulation?
1440
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will remind the hon. member again of
the considerable amount of support that this government has given
farmers.
We have frozen cost recovery fees. Last Friday I announced $10
million for the agriculture environment strategy initiative to
help farmers address the issues of soil management, water
management and erosion. The government has been and will
continue to be there for farmers.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, some of the user fees that the minister mentioned have
gone up 300% since 1995. They are nothing more than thinly
veiled taxes.
How can the government justify spending billions of dollars on
unnecessary election promises when our primary producers are
fighting just to stay on the land?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I again remind the hon. member and his
party of the incredible cuts that they would make to the
agricultural industry. We just need to look at the campaign
material Canadian Alliance members had before the last election.
Canadian farmers are very pleased that they are not in power.
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned
from the weekend edition of La Presse that, according to a
report by the official languages commissioner, French and
English are far from sharing equal status in the Canadian sports
system. This flagrant linguistic inequality is depriving
national teams of gifted athletes.
Will the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport finally admit that
the best way of helping francophone athletes would be to create
a program for elite sport trainers to learn French?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, according to procedure, the official languages
commissioner will table her report on June 14.
I will wait for the report to be tabled so that I can examine
its contents, as well as how it is received. I would also point
out that I have not waited for questions from the member or
anyone else, but have gone ahead and taken action in the last
ten months.
Not only have we signed a formal agreement with the Canadian
Olympic Association to respect and promote official languages,
but I have met with all federations. On the ground, one thing
is clear and that is that this government is serious about
official languages.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of
Health made an announcement that will improve the health of
Canadians living in rural areas.
Can the minister tell the House how the world health program and
the Canada Health Infostructure Partnership Program will bring
better health services to Canadians who live in rural areas?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning, in the presence of the government rural caucus in
the beautiful Ontario riding of
Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, we announced $130 million for
programs and efforts that will strengthen access to quality
health care in rural Canada.
The first of these is $50 million for demonstration projects
throughout the country, increasing access to doctors, diagnostic
services and quality care.
The second is $80 million for electronic patient records and
telemedicine.
We believe these investments will strengthen access to quality
care for rural Canadians throughout the country.
* * *
HOUSING
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Over 50,000 British Columbia homeowners have been devastated by
the leaky condo crisis, yet where we see disaster the Liberal
government sees an advantage. The government is taxing
individuals who are forced to use their retirement savings to pay
for repairs and to prevent foreclosures.
These individuals have no choice. They are depleting their life
savings to keep a roof over their heads.
When will this Prime Minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, when will this Minister
of Finance exempt them?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Public
Works and Government Services.
1445
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
aware that we have been working with the organizations and the
province of British Columbia to address this very serious issue.
CMHC has been there from the beginning, not only giving advice,
but also approving loan insurance for everyone who has to do
repairs but may have difficulty getting loan approval. Mortgage
insurance is available.
There is a new minister in British Columbia. We are trying to
see how we can work co-operatively on this issue.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Finance.
The government is heartless. Many of the owners of leaky condos
are low income earners and senior citizens. They are using their
entire life savings to keep roofs over their heads, yet the
government is saying “No, no, we have to tax these people”. It
is sheer greed by the government. All of the members on that
side of the House should hang their heads in shame.
Will the finance minister exempt them from paying taxes on their
RRSP withdrawals?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question has
been discussed and debated over time with the stakeholders and
with the provincial government.
The tax system is a national tax system. We cannot change the
tax system every time something occurs. There are other things
we can do, which we are doing to help the people who are in need.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, banks have closed hundreds of branches and
laid off thousands of employees, services have gone down in the
banks while service charges have gone up, and profits have
reached obscene levels. We now learn that the Minister of
Finance is planning to give the banks a half a billion dollar tax
break.
In light of the fact that the Minister of Finance said there is
no money available for social housing, would he say that this tax
break to the banks is simply not on?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the government's priorities
are very clearly health care, education and taxes. In the tax
area, the government said in the budget—and in fact I repeated
this last week before the House of Commons finance
committee—personal income taxes.
The best proof is that of the $58 billion minimum tax cut that
we will be providing over the course of the next five years, $54
billion is for personal income tax and employment insurance
premium reductions.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we
also know that the truth is the government's priority has been to
help out the big banks.
I wonder, when the finance minister delivers his gift to the big
banks, will he have anything to say to Canada's children? Not
only is Canada failing internationally, as pointed out by the
leader of the NDP, but to add insult to injury, now Statistics
Canada, with a stroke of a pen, wants to change the low income
cut-off.
Why is the finance minister still willing to help the banks but
cover up poverty in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member had looked at the budget, what she
would have seen is that a large part of our tax cuts was the
reintroduction of indexation, which helps low and middle income
Canadians.
We cut the middle income rate from 26% to 24%, on its way to
23%. We are increasing the child tax benefit, the very people
the hon. member refers to, from $1,800 to $2,400 a year.
We have brought in massive tax reductions and we are increasing
the amount of money we are giving to middle income and low income
Canadians. We will continue to do that.
* * *
CHST
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister recently suggested that the CHST be
divided into three separate packages—health, education and
welfare—instead of the blanket transfer we now have.
Does the Minister of Health support this idea? Is there any
chance that it is going to be implemented by the government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not what I said.
I was asked a question about whether the government would be
open to such a consideration. What I said was that there will be
ongoing negotiations, as there always will be, with the
provinces. If the provinces put that forth, I am sure the
government would be prepared to listen.
* * *
1450
REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
A constituent owes Revenue Canada some money as a result of a
reassessment. Although he has asked for an accounting, he has
not received it. In the meantime, Revenue Canada has made a
formal demand of his investment firm to deregister his RRSP and
send his pension funds to Revenue Canada.
Is it the policy of Revenue Canada to collapse RRSPs and take
away the only pension funds that some Canadians have?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last part of
the question is, obviously, not. Never would that be the
intention of the government. If the hon. member wants to bring a
particular case to the attention of the minister, he is quite
free to do so. Failing that, he is quite free to give me the
information and I will contact the minister so that we can assist
the individual, if such assistance is possible.
Clearly, the government always operates in such a way as to
ensure the integrity of the tax system, while at the same time
exercising compassion when we can provide assistance to
individual Canadians.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Following the Israeli army withdrawal after a 22 year occupation
of South Lebanon the land is littered with land mines. Mines
have killed several children in the past few weeks alone.
Considering Canada's successful record in the promotion of land
mine control, what efforts are being made by the Government of
Canada to see that this military threat will be removed from
Lebanon soil once and for all?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Mine
Action Service recently concluded an assessment mission to
evaluate mine action needs in South Lebanon. Canada is anxiously
awaiting the official conclusion of the assessment mission.
We anticipate that one of the first needs will be to establish a
mine awareness campaign to proceed with our contribution.
Canadian involvement in mine action in South Lebanon is in
keeping with the objectives of the Canadian land mine fund and
our goal to integrate mine action through the Middle East peace
process.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the justice committee of the last parliament spent a
year travelling this country, at great taxpayer expense, hearing
from Canadians about youth justice. Just before the last
election the committee submitted its report to the government.
After the election the minister said that youth justice was
among her top priorities.
Three years have now past and still Canadians have nothing. Her
Bill C-3 has stalled. Does the minister intend to have new youth
justice legislation in force before an election is called?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, as a
minister of the justice committee, it has been through no lack of
trying on my part and on the part of members on this side of the
House to move Bill C-3 through the legislative process. I
suggest that the hon. member attempt to lobby some of his
colleagues on that side of the House to ensure that the
legislation becomes law in a timely fashion.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN LESAGE AIRPORT
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this past
weekend, the members of the Conseil régional de concertation de
développement de la région de Québec criticized the federal
government for leaving them out of the Jean Lesage airport
question.
What is keeping the minister of public works from bringing
together the regional stakeholders to implement an action plan
that will truly ensure real development for the Jean Lesage
airport, in keeping with the priorities of the region?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am taking careful note of the
hon. member's representation relating to the Jean Lesage airport
and its regional development aspect.
I will ensure that the Minister of National Revenue, who holds
responsibility for these programs in Quebec, as well as the
Minister of Transport, are informed of her representation.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
The report of the health ministers released last Friday was yet
another urgent 911 call to the federal government on our ailing
health care system. It follows the 911 call after the last
budget with its two cents on the dollar for health care
provision.
The Minister of Health is not answering this urgent call. Will
the Minister of Finance answer this 911 call and cut a cheque to
replace the $4.2 billion this government ripped out of our health
care system?
1455
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was a good report Friday. We welcome it, and we welcome the
opportunity to work with provincial and territorial governments
to improve health care for all Canadians.
We have already reinvested in health care transfers to the
provinces very substantially. The member knows that. More
federal money is needed and will be provided.
We want to have a cogent plan to work with governments to make
sure we have not only a more extensive health care system, but a
better health care system. That is our objective.
* * *
REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the government House leader, and I
appreciate his undertaking to address this situation.
I sent over a copy of the formal demand for payment by Revenue
Canada. This is an alarming situation in which somebody's RRSP
can be deregistered, which means that money will be taxable and
he will owe more money. Further, he will not be able to replace
the money taken from his RRSP because of the contribution limits.
Would the House leader clarify for all holders of RRSPs that
Revenue Canada will not dip into RRSPs and deregister their
funds?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer for an
individual case, much less for a group of individual cases, by
making a general statement that no particular holding of any
individual Canadian would be seized for non-payment of taxes.
Obviously I cannot do that.
I have received the information from the hon. member. I thank
him for that. I will provide it to officials at the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency so that they can examine the
particular case to which he is alluding in a way that will ensure
at the same time that the integrity of the tax system is
protected while of course collecting the tax—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
* * *
FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I had a dream last night. I had a dream that our
federal public service, from top to bottom, was a reflection of
Canada's great racial diversity.
Can the President of the Treasury Board give us the government's
response to the action plan of the task force on the
participation of visible minorities in the federal public
service, entitled “Embracing Change in the Federal Public
Service”?
Will she tell us that dreams can come true?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. I want to hear the answer to
the dream.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the pleasure to announce that the Government of Canada
endorses completely the plan of action for visible minorities for
the public service, including the establishment of benchmarks.
[Translation]
It is our hope that, within a few years, our public service will
represent one of the strengths of this country: diversity.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, clearly Bill C-3 is stalled, and that shows no signs of
changing in the near future.
The minister committed to Canadians that the government would
have new youth justice legislation in this parliament. I ask
again, will we have new youth justice legislation before an
election is called?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, those
of us on this side of the House are doing everything we can to
ensure that the legislation gets out of committee and comes back
before the House.
I would encourage the hon. member to work with some of his
colleagues on this side of the House to ensure that happens.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in 1997, the crown prosecutor called on the sister-in-law of a
vice-president of CINAR to validate the evidence accumulated
against this firm by the RCMP.
In response to these troubling revelations that would indicate
someone wanted to pad this affair on the eve of elections, the
Minister of Justice simply said that this new information had
been passed on to the RCMP.
How can the crown prosecutor turn to the sister-in-law of a
vice-president of a company under investigation in order to
decide whether charges should be laid against her? Does the
minister not agree that an internal investigation is absolutely
necessary in order to discover who made this decision?
1500
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said last week in
response to the hon. member's question, there is very little that
I can say about this matter because it is under active police
investigation.
However I want to reassure the hon. member, as I did last week,
that new information did come to the attention of the crown
prosecutor on June 6 of this year. As soon as that information
came to her attention she turned it over to the RCMP.
* * *
NAFTA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade. One day
while the minister was away on his travels, his parliamentary
secretary indicated to the House that the government was seeking
to redefine and reinterpret the chapter 11 investor state dispute
mechanism in NAFTA.
Given that the minister has already indicated in committee that
he does not intend to seek this kind of investor state dispute
mechanism in any other free trade agreement that the government
may be contemplating entering into, why does he not seek to get
rid of chapter 11 altogether instead of simply redefining or
reinterpreting it?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, chapter 11 is part
of the NAFTA that we signed with two trade partners, Mexico and
the United States. We are confident that it has helped the
Canadian economy a great deal. The NAFTA is a very solid
agreement that has helped to promote Canadian exports a great
deal in North America.
Chapter 11 is part of the whole treaty. We cannot isolate it
completely. I tasked my deputy minister at the last meeting he
had with his counterpart in the United States and Mexico to
clarify certain aspects of chapter 11 with which we have some
difficulties of interpretation.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has received many interventions in the
House on the proposed EI changes in New Brunswick. These changes
will impose hardship on the fisheries, agriculture and tourism
sectors.
Is the minister now in a position to respond to those concerns?
What is the minister's position in respect of those proposed
changes?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House and the hon. member know, we
are looking as a part of statutory requirement at the employment
insurance economic zones.
We have been in a 30 day gazetted period. The information has
been brought forward from different parts of Canada. The
commission will now look at the interventions and the
recommendations that have come from communities and it will make
its final proposals in a timely fashion.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Today we have three distinguished
visitors in our gallery and I would like to introduce them.
Members may applaud after I have introduced each one of them.
I would like to introduce His Excellency Arturo Ulises
Vallarino, First Vice-President of the Republic of Panama, and
two ministers of his cabinet.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to introduce His
Excellency Gerrit Ybema, Minister for Foreign Trade of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Also I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in our gallery of Her Excellency Maria De Belém
Roseira, Minister of Equality of Portugal.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, during question period the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans suggested incorrectly that I had called
for the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Marshall
decision. It does not apply. What I did ask for was a stay of
judgment in a rehearing.
The Speaker: That clarifies it a bit.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
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 15 petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 36th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the provisions
of Standing Order 87(6), the 100 signature rule.
On behalf of colleagues I would like to extend the gratitude of
the House to the private members' business subcommittee of the
procedure and House affairs committee, chaired by the hon. member
for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, for dealing with
this difficult and technical subject. The main committee has
essentially adopted the subcommittee's report and reports it to
the House now.
* * *
PETITIONS
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition to present signed by many constituents who would like to
see parliament amend the Divorce Act to allow the grandparent of
a child to have access to the particular child without having to
go through very difficult and lengthy procedures.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table a petition signed by several constituents from
my riding.
The petitioners are calling on the government to quickly pass
legislation making it mandatory to label all foods that are
totally or partially genetically modified.
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36. These petitioners from Kamloops
point out that the federal government pays just 13.5% of health
care costs, which has led to the incredible crisis in our health
care system. They are worried about the fact that we now seem to
be opening the door to a two tier American style health care
system in the country.
They want parliament to take whatever action is necessary to
stop for profit hospitals and restore federal funding for health
care.
1510
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to table a petition signed by hundreds of people, including some
from the federal riding of Repentigny.
This petition is aimed at stopping world petroleum cartels in
order to bring down overly high gasoline prices. It also calls
for adequate funding for research on alternative energies to
ensure that, in the near future, Canadians will be free from the
obligation to use petroleum as the main source of energy.
I am pleased to table this petition on behalf of the people of
my riding.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, on behalf of 2,400 people from the federal
riding of Charlesbourg, a petition calling on parliament to take
all the necessary measures to identify and recommend, as soon as
possible, effective ways of fighting predatory gasoline prices.
I am tabling this important petition on behalf of my
constituents.
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present the following petition on behalf of members of
my local Royal Canadian Legion, Battlefield Branch 622. It is
with regard to an issue that is being discussed at the annual
conference in Halifax, that section 337 of the criminal code be
amended.
It is currently an offence for an individual other than a
veteran to wear a military medal, ribbon or badge, or any
decoration or order that is awarded for military service.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to support an act
to amend the Criminal Code of Canada that will allow relatives of
deceased veterans to wear on the right side of their chests any
military medal, ribbon or badge.
VOLUNTEER EMERGENCY WORKERS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present six petitions. The first four are with regard to one
subject matter. The petitioners would like to draw the attention
of the House to the fact that the present tax deduction of up to
$1,000 in the 1999 federal budget offered to volunteer emergency
workers on income received for their services discriminates
against rural volunteer emergency workers.
There are several hundreds of names on this petition from Indian
Point in the Mahone Bay area of Nova Scotia in the South Shore
riding. The next petition is from the Rose Bay, Riverport and
West Rose Bay areas in the South Shore riding. There is another
one from the New Ross area where I happen to live. The last
petition on the same matter is from New Brunswick. There are
several hundred names altogether in these four petitions.
1911 CENSUS
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the next
petition is with regard to geneology. Geneology is the fastest
growing hobby, pastime and business in North America. It has
been estimated that more than 7.5 million citizens of Canada
engage in the pursuit of their family history.
The petitioners ask for the release of the 1911 census figures.
I am pleased to table the petition in the House.
BILL C-23
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition deals with Bill C-23 and is from Shelburne County
in Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition
signed by over 200 people in my riding protesting excessive
gasoline prices.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to pass a resolution
aimed at blocking the world oil cartels in order to bring the
exorbitant price of gasoline down. I believe that this is
extremely appropriate as we approach tourist season.
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present this petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians, including some from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that one in five Canadian children live in poverty. They remind
the House that on November 24, 1989, the House of Commons
unanimously resolved to seek to achieve the elimination of child
poverty by the year 2000.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to introduce a
multi-year plan to improve the well-being of Canada's children.
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the people of
Quebec, and those of my riding in particular, pointing out that
plutonium is a potential threat to human health, that the federal
government unilaterally authorized the importation of MOX
plutonium in Canada, and that it did so without public
consultation on the principle of bringing this plutonium into
Canada.
The petitioners consequently call upon Parliament to take all
necessary steps to ensure that the public and its representatives
are consulted on the principle of importing MOX plutonium. These
two petitions have been signed by a total of 710 people.
1515
[English]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have four petitions to present today.
The first three petitions are on the same matter. They pertain
to parental leave under the extended EI benefits commitment.
Given the recent silly comments by the Prime Minister about nice
girls getting pregnant, it is important for the real concerns of
Canadians to be put on the record pertaining to much needed
parental leave.
The petitioners call on parliament to amend the extended
parental benefits to include and qualify all parents of children
born or placed in the parents' care in the year 2000. This would
allow their existing benefits to blend into the new extended
parental benefits with no penalty to women already pregnant or to
families who are adopting.
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my final petition pertains to another urgent matter
before parliament, and that is the future of our health care
system.
The petition has been signed by hundreds of Canadians who call
on the government to act immediately to restore transfer
payments, to work with the provinces in a co-operative fashion
and to end the erosion of our health care system as threatened by
Alberta's bill 11. They call on the government to take immediate
action to save public health care in Canada and stop two tier,
American style health care from coming to Canada.
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition
signed by 107 petitioners, who are citizens of Quebec, and of
the riding of Verchères—Les-Patriotes, which I have the honour
of representing in this House.
The petitioners point out that the rural route mail carriers
cannot negotiate a collective agreement for themselves in order
to improve their pay and working conditions. Too often, these
workers earn less than minimum wage. Their working conditions
are of an age we thought long gone, whereas their colleagues in
the private sector, who also deliver mail in the rural areas,
have the right to bargain collectively as do all employees of
the Canada Post Corporation.
The petitioners therefore ask parliament to repeal subsection
13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which deprives rural
route mail carriers of their right to collective bargaining.
It seems obvious to me that the government must intervene as
quickly as possible to put an end to this discrimination against
those delivering rural mail.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present, on behalf of my constituents in the riding of
Manicouagan, a petition with over 2,500 signatures, for a total,
with the petition that I tabled on Friday, June 9, of over 7,000
signatures.
These petitioners are calling on parliament to maintain the
status quo, so that the federal ridings of Manicouagan and
Charlevoix continue to be part of the previous administrative
region of northern Quebec, so as to keep employment insurance
eligibility requirements at 420 hours for 32 weeks of benefits.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Gruending: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition
signed by approximately 200 people in Saskatoon, most of whom are
from my riding.
The petition relates to early childhood education. It says that
in 1993 we were promised 50,000 new child care spaces, and that
has not happened. In the new children's agenda child care is
barely mentioned.
The petitioners go on to ask that parliament support a national
child care program that recognizes child care as the backbone of
any federal early childhood development initiative.
The petition was made according to the House rules but a slight
mistake was made. The petitioners put in a figure and, I was
told by the clerk's office, that was not acceptable. I was
instructed to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table
the petition in any event. I hope members will give me that
consent.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit
the tabling of this petition?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in this House a petition signed by 50 people,
who are asking the Canadian parliament to take all necessary
action so that the public and its representatives are consulted
on the import of plutonium based MOX fuel.
1520
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to present a petition signed by some 550 residents
of the Mauricie region, which includes the ridings of
Trois-Rivières, Champlain and Saint-Maurice. A very large number
of these residents come from the riding of Saint-Maurice, which
is represented by the Prime Minister.
The petitioners are asking this House to pass a resolution
against world oil cartels, so as to trigger a reduction in the
excessive price of crude oil.
They also ask that adequate funding be provided for research
into alternative energies, so that Canadians and Quebecers can
soon be freed from the requirement to use petroleum as the main
source of energy.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another
petition.
The Deputy Speaker: It is not usual to be allowed to rise twice
to present petitions, and I think that the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm has already had his opportunity today.
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to present another
petition?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, next
time, I will present all my petitions at the same time. I
wanted to give others a chance before continuing, but I see that
it is more complicated. Next time, I will present them all at
once.
I am pleased to present a petition calling on the House to pass
a resolution aimed at stopping the monopoly of the international
oil cartels in order to reduce predatory pricing of crude oil,
and to allocate sufficient funds for research into alternative
energy sources.
That is the first petition I wish to table at this time.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition I am tabling is signed by constituents of the
riding of Berthier—Montcalm, who are calling on the government to
withdraw subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act so
that letter carriers can form a union and earn a decent wage.
I am pleased to table these petitions on their behalf.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr.
Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN TOURISM COMMISSION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, an act to
establish the Canadian Tourism Commission, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Industry,
Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Industry,
Lib.) moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be
able to stand in the House to talk about successes. I am
referring to successes that we achieve when we all work together
in partnership for a common goal.
The proposed act before us will confirm the advantages to Canada
that flow from co-operation among partners working together to
address issues of national importance.
Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian tourism commission,
is another example of this government delivering on its promises.
Hon. members are being asked today, for example, to approve the
creation of a new crown corporation. If the House agrees, much
more than a new corporation will be established. By supporting
this bill, members from all sides will be telling Canadians that
the federal government has the ability to work co-operatively to
produce significant economic benefits for every region of our
country.
Tourism is a very unique sector. Although it is led by the
private sector, it contributes to Canada's public policy
objectives and melds national, regional and, of course, local
interests.
Improved partnering between the private sector and governments
will result in a greater impact on our target markets in the face
of much sharper international competition, for example. Already
one of our country's largest industries, tourism, generates
thousands of jobs and economic growth in every part of our
country, in every province and territory, in aboriginal
communities and and many municipalities.
Let me point out that last year alone the sector brought in more
than $50 billion and employed well over half a million Canadians
right across our country.
1525
I would also like to point that out that this sector is
essential to regional development plans of governments at all
levels. As hon. members can see, the success of tourism sectors
and public policy are very much intertwined.
Next, let me comment on the Canadian Tourism Commission and its
successful partnership between the private sector and government.
It was the tourism industry's call for improved partnerships
that was a key factor in the Prime Minister's decision to
establish the original commission in 1995. The private sector
contributed so significantly to financing and marketing
activities that the original projections for partnership
contributions to match federal core funding were very soon
exceeded.
The partnership has endured and matured, and the proposed act to
turn the commission into a crown corporation will solidify this
partnership and provide the conditions for which it can continue
to prosper.
The creation of the crown corporation is the result of
consultation, negotiation and agreement, let me point out, among
all the partners, many of whom sit on the commission's board of
directors.
As hon. members know, the purpose of creating the crown
corporation is to equip the commission with the legal, financial
and management tools that it needs to carry out its mandate even
more effectively. Currently, as a special operating agency, it
cannot fully operate as it must, using for example private sector
management and accounting practices.
First, crown status will give the commission the increased
financial flexibility it needs as a marketing agency with strong
international competitors.
Second, crown status will give the commission greater
flexibility in managing the human resources required to respond
to the marketplace and its partners needs.
Third, as a crown corporation the commission will have an even
more effective board of directors. The management of the
commission will no longer be split between Industry Canada and
the board. Under the proposed act the board will manage all the
affairs of the commission.
Hon. members can see what can be achieved when there is a
willingness to work together and co-operate. Here is an example
of government making a vital contribution while respecting and
expediting the work of the private sector partners who are taking
the lead on this.
We have a winner on our hands here: The small and medium sized
businesses that make up the tourism sector benefit. The
government's job and growth strategy is continuously advanced to
create jobs for Canadians. The new corporation will further
demonstrate our commitment to the renewal of federalism.
Of course, all Canadians support tourism. Domestic travel
accounts for 70% of the sector's revenue. Every year, in ever
greater numbers, Canadians are discovering their home, thanks in
large part to the broad marketing efforts of the commission in
collaboration with its partners. Beyond the mere addition of
dollars and cents, we are richer for this, as we learn more about
the geographic and cultural diversity that our country has to
offer in the various regions. This should be encouraged on all
fronts.
In closing let me say that I am confident that my colleagues
here will understand and know the effectiveness of Bill C-5. I
look forward to their support on this bill.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak today on Bill C-5, an act
to establish the Canadian tourism commission.
I and my Canadian Alliance colleagues are opposed to the bill
because it would establish one more unneeded and unnecessary
crown corporation. In fact, we want to see the vast majority of
the crown corporations that currently exist privatized and out of
government hands. I therefore disagree with the parliamentary
secretary when he says that people in the House will be pleased.
We are not pleased with it and we do not want to see it turned
into a crown corporation.
The Canadian Alliance has deep philosophical issues with crown
corporations. We believe that most of the functions performed by
our current crop of crown corporations are unnecessary and should
be carried out by those who can best perform the task most cost
efficiently, with the greatest accountability to the owners and
with the least likelihood of incurring public debt.
1530
That simply does not match up with what the government is
proposing in terms of establishing another crown corporation,
this one the Canadian Tourism Association. From this viewpoint,
there are very few good reasons to create and maintain another
crown corporation. In fact there is overwhelming evidence that
in the vast majority of cases, private sector ownership and
control is better than government dabbling in business.
EDC is another one of those. We have looked at EDC a number of
times and have seen a lot of shortcomings with it. I will be
using that example in many parts of my speech today.
The Canadian Alliance believes that crown corporations should be
converted to the public sector institutions, left as a division
within a government department, or discontinued altogether. This
time we are told it is the Canadian Tourism Commission that
requires crown corporation status to better serve the Canadian
tourism industry and thus the Canadian economy.
We have been studying this issue at the industry committee for
some time. We have heard from a lot of witnesses, but I have not
been convinced and I do not think that even the parliamentary
secretary was convinced of the overwhelming need to turn this
tourism association into a crown corporation.
I do not think that case has been made. In fact most of the
arguments from the witnesses that I heard at committee seemed to
support the privatization of the Canadian Tourism Commission if
anything. They told us that it needs to be taken out from under
the arm of the Department of Industry because it needs
flexibility, regulation and speed in decision making.
I suggest we cannot have it both ways. It cannot be both a
government department and have the flexibility of a private
business. If it wants to be under government and have government
rules, it should stay just as it is now without converting to a
crown corporation.
The advocates of the transformation claim that the new crown
corporation will be able to advance the cause of tourism more
efficiently and effectively, more rapidly than is the case with
the Canadian Tourism Commission as it currently operates. Of
course, as a division of Industry Canada, CTC is directly
accountable to the Minister of Industry. The minister therefore
is accountable to parliament. That may gum up the system a
little, but that is the way it should remain until the commission
is privatized. Either it stays as an arm of industry or it
should be privatized. That is our view.
The CTC, the Canadian Tourism Commission, is a relatively young,
special agency created during the economic downturn in 1995. Only
five years ago the government told us that this was the be all
and end all. The Canadian Tourism Commission should be just
that, an association between the private sector and the
Government of Canada. Now it is telling us that did not work and
what is needed is a crown corporation.
The commission was set up with a mandate to promote Canadian
tourism both domestically and abroad. The Canadian Tourism
Commission receives about $65 million of taxpayers' money every
year. Approximately one-fifth of that goes to salaries and
operating expenses; the rest goes to the promotion of marketing
activities.
We were told in committee that in 1995 when the commission was
first established, government revenues were about 70% of the
total and 30% was from the private sector. But we know the
economy has turned around and that the tourism industry has
turned around. We were told in committee that that formula is
exactly reversed and 70% of the revenues now come from the
private sector and only 30% from government. I welcome the day
that the Canadian Tourism Commission can be privatized and just
be an agent of the private sector.
By the way, Canadian Pacific hotels is one of the major
shareholders in the organization. One would wonder why it cannot
do its own tourism promotion and why government is needed in it
at all.
The Canadian Tourism Commission has a 26 member board of
directors, 16 of whom are directly appointed by the Government of
Canada. This is hardly an arm's length relationship. There are
representation requirements for the various parts of Canada, the
provinces and regions. The way the distribution takes places as
to which parts of the tourism industry ought to be represented is
spelled out under the current arrangement.
Bill C-5 which would turn the commission over to a crown
corporation will not change any of that.
1535
Now the Canadian Tourism Commission wants to enter into business
arrangements to sell its logo and other revenue generating
schemes. It wants to have the authority to open bank accounts.
It no longer wants to go through the complicated bookkeeping
style or tendering process required by treasury board. Finally,
it wants to hire and fire according to the Canada Labour Code and
not the federal public service employment act. It seems to me it
cannot have it both ways. Either it has to have the disciplines
of government that are currently in place or else it should be a
private institution and have the kind of flexibility it wants.
If government rules are too slow and inhibiting, which is
probably true, why not go the whole way and let it operate on its
own as a private commission? It seems to me that empire building
with the help of the taxpayers' money is what this is really
about. What is really behind this push to a crown corporation at
the Canadian Tourism Commission is empire building and the
Liberal propensity for state ownership.
As I did during the second reading debate on the bill, I refer
the House to an Industry Canada paper entitled “Canada in the
21st Century-Institutions and Growth-Framework Policy as a
Tool of Competitive Advantage for Canada” to show the different
points of view. The Industry Canada report argues for the rapid
divestiture of crown assets and seems to directly contradict the
arguments behind the creation of a crown corporation under Bill
C-5.
Why would it hire people to do a very long study entitled
“Canada in the 21st Century” which tells the government to get
out of many areas in the economy and get out of crown
corporations but on the other hand it is now trying to go to one
in the Canadian Tourism Commission in Bill C-5? It does not seem
to make any sense. Maybe they are a little dyslexic in Industry
Canada.
We cannot say that there is no role for the federal government
in tourism promotion; there probably is. Tourism is Canada's
12th largest revenue generating industry. It directly and
indirectly employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians, but I and
my Canadian Alliance colleagues are firm, not in the form of a
crown corporation. Why would I say that? Our experience is that
there are still a number of crown corporations, although the
Conservative government under Brian Mulroney asked that a number
of those be turned over to private institutions and that
happened.
There are still two crown corporations which I am familiar with
that have given me a very bad experience. They are the Export
Development Corporation and the former Canadian Wheat Board,
which is now a mixed corporation and is still a bit of an
oddball. It was a crown corporation of government. As a farmer
in Alberta, I had lots of experience with the Canadian Wheat
Board. There was absolutely no transparency. It was a system
where we had to sell our product to the Canadian Wheat Board even
though many people did not want to do that. It was kind of a
state run agency like we saw in the Soviet Union. Many farmers
in western Canada want to get out from under that.
Members might ask why government would want to continue. It is
a very good question. I suggest that the lack of transparency is
one way the government can look after quite a few friends in this
process.
We have asked a number of questions in the House about the
Export Development Corporation. The government keeps telling us
that it cannot disclose that and that there is a confidentiality
issue for the countries it lends money to.
We understand that it has a $2.6 billion contingency reserve for
bad loans. Why would it do that? We understand that through the
Paris club Canada has written off a number of loans. It has a
very strange arrangement through the Canada account which Export
Development Corporation administers for the Government of Canada.
Export Development Corporation gets credited with the forgone
interest even though it did not make that loan.
I suggest that of the $800 million in revenues it has had in the
last 10 years, most of that has come from another pocket in the
Government of Canada. Treasury board and finance are rebating
the Export Development Corporation. In fact, it is not making
any money at all but we cannot tell for sure because it will not
disclose that to parliamentarians.
When I ask the Export Development Corporation and the Canadian
Wheat Board for information, they say they cannot tell me that
even though I am a member of parliament. They say they report to
the minister.
In the case of the Canadian Wheat Board, it was the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food. In the case of the Export Development
Corporation, it was the Minister for International Trade.
1540
We asked the minister involved for the information. What we got
from the minister is, “No, I am sorry. It is an arm's length
agency between us and that crown corporation, therefore we cannot
give it to you”. It is a very convenient arrangement that
should not be continued.
Let us examine what happens when crown corporations are finally
liberated from the heavy reins of government. There have been a
few that have finally made it out from the famous spider's web.
Canadian National used to lose about $3 billion a year every
year for decades. During the time I have been here in the last
seven years, CN finally made it out on its own. It finally
became privatized and it has absolutely blossomed. It is in the
process of acquiring property in the United States, other
railways, to make a continental railway system. It is making
lots of money for its shareholders. Why could it not make money
when its shareholder was the Government of Canada? I suggest
that government does a poor job in business and should get out.
Another crown corporation that made it out was Air Canada. Look
what has happened to Air Canada. It has acquired Canadian
Pacific as a result. Now it is making lots of money. It is
essentially a monopoly in the airline industry in Canada.
Petro-Canada is another one that used to lose money. What
happened when it came out from under government? It is making
money and competing effectively.
Those corporations had a magical transformation from perpetual
money losers and drains on the public treasury to productive
members of the private sector. And when they do that, they start
paying taxes to the Government of Canada and taxes to the
provinces. When they were crown corporations they never had to
pay taxes, nothing that draconian of course.
In keeping with tradition, I suspect that the cost of running
the Canadian Tourism Commission as a crown corporation if Bill
C-5 goes through will be higher in five years than it is now.
When I was first briefed about the bill it was suggested that
moving the operation to Toronto was a distinct possibility. That
is the kind of empire building I am talking about. I can just
see the empire building logic behind that move. Where is it now?
It is in Industry Canada at the C.D. Howe building just down the
street.
I suggest that the commission will not be there very long. It
will not be acceptable for the new Canadian Tourism Commission as
a crown corporation. It will require some new, prominent,
downtown Toronto location, top dollar real estate of course, to
reflect the new status of a crown corporation. It will also
probably mean that salaries will have to go up so that the
current 62 commission employees can afford to live in Toronto,
not to mention the cost of relocating all those folks.
That is just another major problem we have with crown
corporations. They are not accountable. Sure they must answer
to the responsible minister, but the rest of us, especially the
MPs in the opposition, are forced to wait until the end of the
fiscal year or when they table their annual reports to get the
information, if there is any information we can get at all.
Whenever we try to get that information we get the runaround in
the House of Commons and from the crown corporations themselves.
MPs have gone through an exercise in futility in dealing with
crown corporations. Therefore why would we want to vote in
favour of creating another one?
It is clear that Canada needs to promote tourism and market our
beautiful country as an ideal vacation destination for ourselves
and for those from abroad. It is not clear however that we need
another crown corporation to do this for us. That is why we are
opposed to Bill C-5 and will not be supporting it.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to speak in the
House today, a packed House thanks to the people in the gallery
and my colleagues on this side.
Unlike my friend who just spoke, we will support the
legislation. It is not often that I have some positive things to
say about the government but I am forced to say some positive
things today because Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian
Tourism Commission turning it into a crown corporation is
something we support.
1545
I want to explain the reasons we support it and then make a few
critical comments that are aimed to result in some positive
change.
The Canadian Tourism Commission was founded in 1992 after a very
extensive consultation process with tourism operators across the
country. Something had to be done. Basically, people did not
know much about Canada outside Canada. There was not much of a
marketing effort around the world to encourage people to visit
Canada, so this commission was set up. Because the government
wanted to get something under way quickly it was easier to create
an agency of government than to set up a crown corporation.
The reality is, this agency is working quite well. It works in
partnership with the private sector. We have a whole number of
private sector tourism operators involved, we have provincial and
territorial governments involved, and of course the federal
government is involved. This partnership of different levels of
government plus the private sector has resulted in a very dynamic
organization which is promoting Canada around the world in the
sense that we get people to come to Canada and then it is up to
other groups, both the private sector and provincial governments,
to attract them to Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, P.E.I.
or wherever.
Something had to be done. If there is one criticism I have at
this early stage it would be that this crown corporation to
promote Canada abroad needs to have a larger budget. To take an
ad out in one of the big Japanese newspapers, for example, is
very costly. To run a series of advertisements in some of the
big airports around the world is very costly. If we are going to
do this, then let us do it properly, and that is going to require
money.
When it was operating as an agency it was very cumbersome. It
required a whole number of departments to have input, and to make
the changes that are required today in promoting tourism means
that we have to move very quickly.
For example, what was in place was a massive marketing program
targeted to attracting people living in the Asia-Pacific region to
visit Canada. We know how quickly that economic collapse
happened in the Asia-Pacific region. Overnight, bang, it was all
over, there was an economic collapse and obviously not many
people were visiting Canada, so they had to shift.
Because it was such a cumbersome organization it took weeks and
months of fiddling around before it could actually shift to
target a different market. This will be facilitated somewhat
because of the crown corporation status that it will now have.
I look to two provinces which have mirror legislation. British
Columbia, the area from which I come, has Supernatural British
Columbia. It has been a magnificent crown corporation. It has
done wonders. We have people coming from all over the world by
the tens of thousands into what has to be probably the most
attractive airport anywhere in the world. You have been there,
Mr. Speaker. I think you would agree that the Vancouver airport
is world class, second to probably no airport in the world, and
people are coming by the tens of thousands, every month,
travelling to beautiful British Columbia, based on the
advertising and the promotion that the crown corporation is
doing, to say nothing about the province of Saskatchewan and the
Land of the Dancing Skies organization, which again has been very
successful.
The evidence we have would indicate that moving to the status of
a crown corporation is a positive move based on what we are
seeing provincially.
I think all members agree that tourism is certainly one of the
growth sectors of our economy. We know what we have. When
people find out what we have, whether those people are coming
from Switzerland, China, Indian or Mexico, they come to Canada
and they are amazed at what we have to offer.
We know because we live here, but I suspect even we could
benefit from these programs to learn what it is like in other
parts of the country: people from the west going to the east,
people from the east going to the central part, people from the
central part going to other parts of the country. I had the
pleasure last year of spending some time in Canada's north. I
must say that it left a lasting, lifelong impression on me, in
terms of what that part of Canada has to offer.
I have two quick points. One is about revenues. My friend from
the Canadian Alliance referred to it, but I think it bears
repeating.
1550
In 1995, 70% of the revenues for this operation came from
government and 30% came from the private sector. When I talk
about the private sector I am talking about Air Canada and some
of the big hotel chains that obviously stand to benefit from
people coming to Canada on their vacations and so on. In 2000
the percentages have flipped around. There is now 70% private
sector financing and 30% government financing. We can see the
popularity and how well this is moving in terms of taxpayer
money.
There is a critical point that I want to address this afternoon.
I do not want to detract from some of the positive comments I
have just made because we will support this bill at third
reading. However, the other day the Liberals were talking about
a program called Public Works Festivals. If a festival is
going on in a community or a region, the Government of Canada
will sponsor it to a point to help local organizers.
I note that 72% of the money went to festivals in Quebec and
approximately 20% went to festivals in Ontario. British
Columbia, with 13% of the population of Canada—and the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans will really be keen to hear this
statistic—received about 2.5% of all of the festival
sponsorships.
Questions were asked in committee about why this imbalance
exists. We were told that not many applications were received
from western Canada. When I asked how people in western Canada
knew about the program, if it had been advertised in western
Canada, the answer was no. If a program is not advertised, how
do we expect people to apply for something under the program? It
is bizarre, but it points out one of the weaknesses in our
system.
If we are going to have a system in place to promote and support
festivals across the country, it should be equally accessible to
Canadians regardless of where they happen to live. The fact that
70% of the money went to festivals in one province, obviously at
the expense of other parts of Canada, is simply not fair. We
have to ensure, and perhaps the board of directors of the crown
corporation will be helpful in ensuring, that there is some
equality across the country. There has to be some resemblance of
fairness and equity in these programs in Canada.
I see that my friend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is
here. I know how keen he is on some of these issues, so I would
like to throw out a bit of a challenge to him. Over the years
that I have been a member of parliament I have been very aware of
the various federal programs that apply to provincial
jurisdictions; in other words, federal programs that receive
applications from provinces right across Canada, including the
territories. This is what I have found, and I know members will
be astonished at this. British Columbia has approximately 13% of
the population of Canada, and yet I am unaware of a single
federal program from which British Columbia receives 13% of the
funding. I have made it a hobby over the past 20 years to study
this issue. For 20 years we in British Columbia have been
getting skewered. We always get the short end of the stick.
An hon. member: What about fisheries?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Fisheries is a little different because
we are on the west coast in British Columbia. Saskatchewan and
Manitoba, being more central, do not get big chunks of fisheries
support. I am talking about a program that should have some
equality across the country.
I could tell my hon. friends in cabinet sitting across the way
and members of the Liberal caucus that sometimes I hear questions
like: Why do Liberals not do better in the west? Why do
Liberals not do better in British Columbia? One of the reasons
is because British Columbia never gets its fair share of
anything. It is frustrating.
The other day a number of Liberals from British Columbia
admitted that something is wrong with the picture. They admitted
that B.C. never gets its fair share. Members of the opposition
have said this and we now have members of the government caucus
saying it as well. Perhaps something will change. It is a
wake-up call.
While we support this piece of legislation, we in British
Columbia hope that steps will be taken to ensure that if programs
are laid out across the country to support festivals or to
advertise various parts of Canada people should remember that
there are different parts of Canada and they should all get at
least fair consideration in the international promotion that will
go on as a result of this crown corporation.
With that I will conclude my remarks. Perhaps some of my
friends across the way would like to ask me a few questions.
1555
The Deputy Speaker: Unless there is consent, there will
not be that privilege because the hon. member had the advantage
of rising on a 40 minute speech, which obviates the need for
questions or comments.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, today I am
delighted to speak to Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian
Tourism Commission. This is a particularly significant bill
because it involves an issue that is of utmost importance to the
Canadian economy: the future vitality of the tourism industry.
For the information of hon. members, just to give an indication
of the magnitude of the tourism industry in Canada, consider the
following facts.
Tourism spending in Canada reached $51 billion in 1999. The
industry employed in excess of 500,000 people in 1999, clearly
proving to be one of the leading growth industries within the
Canadian business community.
Additionally, according to the Buchanan report on tourism, it is
estimated that for every $1 billion of tourism revenue generated
in Canada a further $230 million is generated for the federal
government, $160 million for provincial governments and $60
million for municipal governments, all in tax revenues.
The continued vitality of the tourism industry is crucial for
our country. Anything that can be done to improve Canada's lot
in the share of the worldwide tourism industry can only be a
positive step.
Bill C-5 will see the Canadian Tourism Commission transformed
from what it currently is, a special operating agency, into a
crown corporation. The PC Party believes that this is a
positive, desirable change that merits our full support.
The Canadian Tourism Commission was originally established by an
order in council in April of 1995. Its mandate was and continues
to be to plan, manage and implement programs that generate and
promote tourism in Canada. The bill before us, which calls for
the CTC to become a crown corporation, represents the natural
evolutionary step in the developmental process of this successful
agency.
In Bill C-5 we find a number of suggested changes to the
Canadian Tourism Commission. Many of the proposed changes will
result in fundamental differences for the commission, but all of
them are designed to provide greater flexibility, thus allowing
the CTC to better serve the Canadian tourism industry.
Perhaps one of the most persuasive reasons to support graduating
the CTC from a special operating agency to a crown corporation
lies in the fact that this move will result in increased
flexibility and a greater role in the promotion of tourism for
the CTC. First, moving the CTC forward from an SOA to a crown
corporation will make the CTC more like a business, which is
good. Under Bill C-5 the CTC will have greater administrative,
contracting, financial and personal flexibility. This will bode
well as the Canadian Tourism Commission strives to meet the new
challenges in the Canadian tourism industry.
The new challenges in the tourism industry will be numerous. I
will mention four of the primary challenges that the tourism
industry will face in the coming years. First, there will,
doubtless, be an economic challenge to the industry. This will
be a challenge that will require a greater role for actors in the
industry and national and regional economies. As a crown
corporation the CTC will be free from undue administrative
burdens that impede the necessary progress in the industry. This,
along with the national reach of the CTC, will enable it to
answer the economic challenge.
Second, the major players in the tourism industry will have to
convince their respective private sector partners that they are
viable in the long term. Clearly, as a crown corporation the CTC
will meet this challenge.
Third, the tourism industry in Canada will face stiff
competition from the likes of our giant neighbour to the south
and from other prime destinations.
Fourth, and perhaps one of the most challenging of all
challenges for the Canadian tourism industry, players in the
tourism industry in Canada will have to battle the stereotypical
foreign view of Canada. I am referring to the stereotypical view
which pictures Canada as safe and clean, but equally as cold and
boring. Certainly, answering these challenges will be difficult.
As a crown corporation whose mandate it will be to market Canada
as a great tourism destination, I am confident that these
challenges will be met with success.
1600
The Canadian Tourism Commission will have as its purpose the
marketing of Canada as a desirable tourism destination. Toward
this end it will be supportive of co-operative marketing
relationships between the private sector and governments. It
will also provide state of the art information about Canadian
tourism to the private sector and to government.
I am convinced of the ability of the CTC to meet the challenges
to compete against other appealing world destinations and to
battle some of the mistaken images foreigners have of Canada as a
destination for tourism.
I am equally convinced that the CTC as a crown corporation will
be better equipped and better motivated to serve the Canadian
tourism industry. The characteristics of crown corporations are
such that they should be on firmer ground as they seek to produce
results.
Crown corporations function like the private sector firms with
which they compete. This will motivate the CTC to maintain
excellence in its service delivery because it will be in
competition with other firms. Just as important is that under
this bill the CTC will have to balance and consider the benefits
of its public policy objectives with the cost efficient delivery
of goods and services. The PC Party believes that this notion of
fiscal responsibility, and to a very real degree frugality, is
best achieved by having the CTC exist as a crown corporation.
Hon. members of the House do not have only my word to support
the bill. In fact a number of stakeholders appeared before the
Standing Committee on Industry, on which I sit as a member, as
witnesses in support of Bill C-5. For instance, we heard from a
representative from the Tourism Association of Canada. This
association represents the various sectors within the tourism
industry, be they small, medium or large tourism businesses,
destinations, attractions, transportation providers, adventure
tour operators or any other sector. Clearly it is a group with
wide ranging membership, not compromised of just any one player
in the tourism industry. This group is home to all major and
minor players in our national tourism industry.
It says a lot when this group, the Tourism Association of
Canada, has characterized Bill C-5 as pivotal. The bill is not
only pivotal for the future success of the CTC but for the entire
tourism industry in Canada according to the Tourism Association
of Canada. Those are strong words and even stronger support from
the industry's key players.
The testimony of this association is representative of the bulk
of witnesses we welcomed to our meetings as our committee
discussed and considered Bill C-5. Their judgment was entirely
positive, as hon. members have certainly surmised by the result
of our clause by clause consideration of the bill.
In closing, I will add only a few points. It is important to
note that there is general support from the provinces and
territories for Bill C-5. The provinces and territories play a
vital role in the tourism industry and without their support Bill
C-5 cannot be successful. This is why I am particularly pleased
to see that there is support from their end.
The other factor in the equation is the private sector. Is the
private sector on board with this initiative to transform the CTC
from a special operating agency into a crown corporation? In one
word the answer is yes. Throughout the private sector there is
very strong support for Bill C-5.
As a businessman I realize the importance of strong linkages
among stakeholders. The fact that the provinces, the territories
and the private sector have signed on to this initiative is
encouraging for two reasons. It is an indication that the
Canadian tourism industry will continue to grow and expand as a
successful component of the economy. The wide ranging support
for this bill is such that it can only result in success for the
Canadian tourism industry and for the tourism players. With the
help and co-operation of the major players in the tourism
industry, the Canadian Tourism Commission will be better equipped
to serve our tourism industry. The PC Party will support Bill
C-5.
1605
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we
are debating Bill C-5, which has been around for a while and
which deals with the Canadian Tourism Commission. The purpose of
this bill is to transform the CTC from a special operating agency
into a crown corporation.
I must tell the House from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois
will not be supporting this bill for a number of reasons, which I
will state during my speech.
First of all, we must ask ourselves what are the objectives
pursued by the government in passing such a bill. There has been
a growing tendency over the last few years within government in
general, but even more so within this federal government, to take
public funds and put them into an agency of some kind outside the
government, an agency which is often run by friends of the
government and which, for all intents and purposes, is not
accountable directly to parliament.
In the case of the Canadian Tourism Commission, the federal
government puts $65 million into that agency each year. The board
of directors will be appointed by the minister, who will maintain
that power. However, if there is ever a problem or if there is a
policy with which parliament as a whole disagrees, we can
anticipate what the minister's answer will be when he is
questioned about that. He will say “Look, they are independent,
they are the ones in charge of managing this Crown corporation”.
The government will just wash its hands of all that.
Let us not forget that the money going to this organization
comes from the taxpayers and that parliament will essentially
lose control over the management of public funds.
What was the reason given for taking such an approach since the
beginning of the debate on the Canadian Tourism Commission over a
year ago, especially during the last weeks in committee?
Flexibility.
Commission and government officials say “More partnership with
the private sector will be possible. It will be simpler and the
rules will be more flexible”. As if it were impossible to
figure out why a special section of a department is not able to
give itself more flexible and faster rules for partnerships with
the private sector.
One example has been given. It was the only one, because
concrete examples have been very rare, as if mere mention of a
vague principle were enough to make it true. We were told that
partnership would be easier and flexible. Oh really, and why? No
witness had an answer for that, except for the one who said “For
example, selling advertising or soliciting revenue is easier for
a crown corporation than for a special service of the government.
If, for example, there is an internet site looking for business
or selling advertising, that will be easier”.
There is a risk of this happening more and more in future. Why
not look at the internal rules that make this partnership
complicated to set up? All the other departments might benefit
from this. The government as a whole could be made more
efficient. We are not required to create a crown corporation in
order to do so.
If the federal government wants to be more efficient, let us
talk about tourism in its broadest sense. Who is involved in
this area? There is the Canadian Tourism Commission, which
receives $65 million yearly. There are the economic development
agencies. In the case of Quebec, it is Economic Development
Canada. There are also other agencies for the other regions.
These too spend money to fund projects locally, whether
infrastructure, promotional plans or any other program.
In Quebec, Canada Economic Development is spending money. The
Canadian Tourism Commission has money to promote Canada in broad
terms. That said, part of its budget still goes for promotional
purposes within Quebec. We were told it represented 7% of its
budget.
I will discuss this a little later in greater detail. There is
also Attractions Canada, which spends $4 million annually. Who
manages Attractions Canada? The Minister of Public Works, the
one managing the CIO and administering another $40 million
budget, the federal government's sponsorship budget, whose
presence is strongly felt at festivals and tourist events.
This same minister, who might be described as being in charge of
patronage, or nearly, has two tourism budgets in his control. If
the federal government wanted to be more effective, it could
first put this money into a single agency. I am saying this
without getting into a debate over whether the provinces would be
in a better position, or, in some cases, the municipalities that
do this. We would much prefer a Quebec tourism promotion plan,
sold under the aegis of Quebec, with our own events, our own
festivals and our own label. Our tourism product is sold
differently from Canada's.
1610
In case the Liberals forget, even if they are the ones reminding
us from time to time, though as little as possible, we are
distinct and different. So we do not sell Quebec as they sell
Canada internationally. We would prefer to have that money along
with our taxes in order to manage it ourselves.
That said, as we know about their obsession with visibility and
their desire to manage, let them clean up their own yard. Let
them dig in the pockets of the minister of public works to see if
there is anything there.
I am going to give the example of Attractions Canada. Because,
after a long battle in committee, we managed to have these
obscure people from the Attractions Canada program testify.
Just look at how things work. These $4 million are given to the
Everest group, the buddies of the party, so that it will manage
that money on behalf of the federal government. The Everest group
is not subject to the same constraints, to the same transparency
rules and so on. The government gave $4 million to buddies. They
must get a cut on that. I do not know how much, but we will
eventually find out. And these people sponsor or display
advertising on huge Mediacom billboards, and it is signed
Attractions Canada.
Strangely enough, the government did not create a crown
corporation for that purpose. It would rather create partnerships
with the private sector. It has such partnerships with Cadbury,
Via Rail—although Via Rail is not quite a private company and
the government gives it a lot of support—and others.
With the money he has in his pockets, the Minister of Public
Works is capable of creating partnerships with the private
sector. But it did not seem to be the case at Industry Canada.
So, a crown corporation was established.
The pattern will be the same. Money will again be given out, and
who is to say that it will not also become some kind of a
propaganda agency? So, the minister of public works will award
contracts to his buddies, while appointments will be made at the
agency. We are very concerned by all this.
I do not doubt that there are people within the commission who
are full of good intentions. But once the directors have been
appointed or approved by cabinet, on the recommendation of the
Minister of Industry, might they not conveniently forget that
they are accountable to the minister?
I too am concerned about the principle of accountability in the
management of public funds.
I have in my hands the 1998 report of the Canadian Tourism
Commission. I will not show it to the House, because props are
not permitted. I challenge the House to find in this annual
report the public money contributed. The $65 million from
taxpayers is mentioned nowhere in the report.
We see how they spent all the money they collected—the
partnerships with the private sector and so on—but nowhere is it
mentioned that this money comes from taxpayers, to the tune of
$65 million for the federal contribution. There are also
contributions from provincial governments and municipalities, and
other public agencies. So there is a real problem.
There is also the case of the Office du tourisme et des congrès
du Grand Montréal, a group that appeared before the committee.
These folks appeared, claiming to be private partners. I was
very surprised and I asked questions.
Of this organization's $15 million budget, $1 million comes from
each level of government—the municipality, the Government of
Quebec and the federal government. That accounts for $3 million.
Another $4 million comes from private enterprise, and $8 million
comes from a tax on hotel rooms in Montreal of $2 a night.
Mr. Lapointe, the former Liberal minister who now directs the
office, told me in committee that this $8 million was private
funding, as though no legislation had been necessary to give him
the right to levy a tax of $2 a night. I am not kidding—that
was what I was told.
Sorry, but when the figures are added up at the Commission on
interventions by a body such as that, and the bulk of them are
classified as private interventions, I say wait a minute. We
must make not mistake about the Canadian Tourism Commission: it
is funded largely by public funds, whether federal, provincial
or what not. But for the taxpayer, that is all the same.
Obviously, there will always be a certain number of events and
partnerships the commission will be publicizing. Let us look at
the whole thing here. In our regions, what organizations or
events really benefit?
There are the major events, the major festivals, which manage to
get included. A highly select few at the top. As for the
others, they do not manage to gain anything from the spill-over
effect, and still less so from small direct patronage programs
such as Attractions Canada.
What events in Quebec regions such as Abitibi—Témiscamingue or
others even know such a program exists?
1615
When we asked the public servants in charge, their answer was
“All people have to do is to consult our internet site. They
will perhaps find that there is some information available”.
Yet they did not seem to be very clear themselves on how Everest
determined its criteria for handing out money.
There are a lot of problems. Before taking the $65 million in
public funds from the commission and making it into an
institutionalized crown corporation, some internal housecleaning
would be in order.
Representatives of the Professional Institute of the Public
Service also came to testify at the hearings.
For the rest, for the most part, those who came to defend their
viewpoint were former members of the board or people still close
to the commission. I do not blame them. They did their job.
These people were all connected with the commission.
The Professional Institute of the Public Service appeared near
the end. At the same sitting in which we were to begin voting on
the bill, we heard these people in the morning, the first to
speak out against the bill, and the bill was expected to pass
before the end of the session, as if it served no purpose to take
a step back and consider their arguments. The government took
care to have them testify at the end.
I will read a few quotes from their brief:
The government makes much of the success of the commission since
1995 in promoting and enhancing tourism. Since this is such a
success story now, why is there a need to change the crown
corporation status?
A very good question. A little further on:
As proposed, the Canadian Tourism Commission will provide
nothing new, except for the extra implementation cost. Bill C-5
is a measure that is so vague that employees' rights are not
stipulated.
They went on a little further in their brief:
It is the institute's position that an internal adjustment of the
special operating agency's powers is the way to continue and add
to the success story that began in 1995.
They were therefore saying “Since we are told everything is
fine, a few small changes would help us to improve things,
without having to create a crown corporation”.
A bit further on, they say:
Therefore, there is no need at this point to engage in any
creation of a crown corporation, since the agency can continue to
undertake the dialogue, research, and marketing that are
necessary in the tourism industry.
Their brief concludes as follows:
The institute feels that the extension of crown corporation
status to the Canadian Tourism Commission is a completely
unnecessary move, based on the fact that no particular advantage
vis-à-vis the tourism industry will be gained.
This is an initial brief. There are also other people who
appeared before the committee and questions were asked which, in
my view, show how confused the federal government's approach is.
When Mr. Francis, the commission's chairman, appeared before the
committee, I asked him about Attractions Canada, which I
mentioned earlier. I asked him whether Attractions Canada was
part of the Canadian Tourism Commission. He told me it was not.
I asked him what then was it was part of and he told me that he
thought it was part of the Canada Information Office. That was
close; he had the right minister, but it was not the Canada
Information Office; it was the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
I then asked him how the various departments got along together,
and this is what he said:
[English]
“It is an ongoing challenge, something that we have been
attempting to do over the last two or three years”.
[Translation]
People say “We are looking at all this. We do not have much of
an idea of how it works, but we are looking at it”. So they
came to sell us on the merits of creating a crown corporation out
of the commission, but without even having done their own
homework within the federal government.
I raised a lot of interesting questions but, in the final
analysis, they said they were fully in agreement with what was
going on.
I asked some witnesses to give me concrete examples of how
partnership with the private sector would be easier if they were
a crown corporation. These were people who were very close to
the action, people who had sat on the board, or those working in
tourism. They had no examples to offer.
I asked Mr. Lapointe of the greater Montreal tourism bureau
“Are you familiar with Attractions Canada?” His answer was
“Vaguely”. I then asked “Are you familiar with its mandate?”
He started to explain to me that there were billboards, and that
his understanding was that the purpose was to do this or that
type of promotion.
How is it that people involved year in and year out in tourism
are not fully familiar with the mandate of Attractions Canada,
which spends dollars to promote tourism?
1620
How can it be that they are not familiar with the rules for
intervention by the minister through his sponsorship budget
which, I might point out in passing, ensures that Quebec gets the
lion's share? Yes, there are some programs where Quebec gets
more than its share of propaganda, whether in billboards or in
Canada Day spending. In this area Quebec gets more than its
share.
However, when the time comes to ask the Minister of Industry,
for instance, to do his part for a project such as the creation
of a semi-conductor plant in Montreal, then the answer is: that
takes time, it is complicated, they do not want to set a
precedent by using a different approach in Quebec.
But when it comes to flags, or what approximates a flag, or to
nurture the friends of the government, it is a different matter.
I invite anyone who is interested to reread all that was said
during the brief week we studied the matter in committee to see
that nothing specific was put before us to enable us to conclude
that this step of turning a special service into a crown
corporation was necessary.
Naturally, there are the clichés “It is a normal stage of
development”, “Partnerships will be easier”, “It will be very
flexible”. But in practice, there is no specific proof. When
we scratch the surface, we see that there are problems left and
right. And I have not spoken in detail of Economic Development
Canada, because its representatives did not appear before the
committee.
However, in order to hear the others I mentioned, whether it be
Attractions Canada, or opinions on sharing jurisdiction, it took
a real battle in committee to get the minister himself to come
and present his bill. They wanted, on the pretext that it was
the end of a session, to hustle it through at committee stage,
so as few people as possible would be heard on the potential
problems.
Economic Development Canada, this federal government agency
whose intervention criteria we will never clearly know, had long
been an issue with me. Last year, they toured the various
regions of Quebec, and in all the press releases, it was obvious
there were funds available for tourism.
In certain regions, ours for example, we have learned that they
are putting money into one project in particular in order to
help fund a regional development or marketing plan, but the
criteria are not known in advance to those in the area.
We are told that $1.2 million is available, but we are not told
how it will be allocated. When government funding is involved
and there is a desire to manage it transparently, how can those
in the business be expected to know that they are eligible and
apply?
Economic Development Canada tells people to send in their
applications and it will examine them. What criteria will
apply? Nobody really knows. And then, to justify refusals, all
we are told is that it did not meet their priorities. Oh? What
priorities?
Perhaps my region is an exception, but I do not think so. I
think that this goes on in many regions in Quebec and I am
certain that it also happens elsewhere with regional development
agencies.
There is therefore a serious problem. For a minister who says
he is concerned about promoting tourism, he should look at what
is going on in his agencies, and do a little housecleaning so
that his interventions are a bit more effective.
We know that the federal government will not withdraw from a
sector such as tourism. The furthest it has gone is to say in
the throne speech that it would try to establish new models of
partnership with the provinces. Given its obsession with
visibility, that is what it will continue to do. But it should
at least start by striving for effectiveness and co-ordination in
what it does. That would already be a big step forward.
In short, for reasons of efficiency and out of respect for those
who pay taxes and who want transparency in the management of
public funds, we cannot support a bill like this, especially when
we look at the parallel interventions by the government in
sponsorship and tourism, we see that public funds tend to be
spent on other things and, under the guise of promoting tourism,
provide encouragement to friends, such as those in the Groupe
Everest.
Drawing parallels, the same minister manages the Canada
Information Office or the federal government Liberal Party office
of propaganda.
1625
It may be rather alarming to see that there is still a lot of
money: $44 million annually in the case of the minister of public
works—this is a lot of money—, $65 million in the case of the
Canadian Tourism Commission. Taxpayers pay out a lot of money,
and we might as why it is used to fund the promotion of an
industry that is currently flourishing.
We must not ignore the fact that the weakness of the Canadian
dollar helps a lot to improve tourism both in Quebec and in
Canada. I am not saying that the tourism market has not improved,
but we must realize that the main factor was the quality of what
we have to offer and the fact that our dollar is very weak,
making other currencies stronger.
We will vote against this bill. I invite all members of this
House to bear in mind the fact that we risk turning this agency
into another federal government propaganda agency, yet again.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip the recorded division is deferred until tomorrow
at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders.
* * *
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-24, an act to
amend the Excise Tax Act, a related act, the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, the Budget
Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget Implementation Act, 1999,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement
Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs
Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise
Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the
Unemployment Insurance Act, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Finance,
Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Finance,
Lib.) moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
speak to the House today at third reading of Bill C-24, the Sales
Tax and Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999.
1630
By way of introduction, the measures contained in this bill,
while wide ranging, all fall within the broad sphere of the
government's ongoing commitment to an effective, efficient and
fiscally responsible government. The intent of the legislation
before us is to make our tax system more simple and more fair not
only for individual Canadians but for Canadian businesses as
well.
[Translation]
It is also in line with our government's commitment to sustain
and improve our federal taxation system so as to encourage
harmonization and federal-provincial co-operation.
Bill C-24 is aimed primarily at improving application of the
goods and services tax, the GST, and the harmonized sales tax,
the HST. It also contains some important proposals relating to
specific taxes on certain products.
[English]
As hon. members are familiar with this legislation, I will
briefly reiterate some of the key measures contained in the bill.
The government is committed to reducing smoking in Canada
particularly among young Canadians. Bill C-24 contains measures
with respect to the taxation of tobacco products that reaffirm
the government's commitment to work in concert with the provinces
and territories in order to reduce tobacco consumption in Canada,
while at the same time maintaining vigilance in combating the
level of contraband.
An important component of Bill C-24 reflects the government's
responsiveness to the health and social needs of Canadians. For
example, Bill C-24 proposes to provide a sales tax exemption for
respite care for Canadians who are providing care for family
members, very often an elderly parent or a disabled child. In
past budgets the government has introduced numerous measures to
assist individuals with disabilities. The bill builds on such
actions by extending sales tax relief to the purchase of
specially equipped motor vehicles for transporting individuals
with disabilities.
[Translation]
In this same area, other measures contained in this bill relate
to GST and HST exemptions on speech therapy, osteopathy and
psychotherapy.
Bill C-24 reflects the government's commitment to making the
taxation system fairer for Canadians. That commitment is
translated into a number of different provisions.
[English]
The bill provides charities whose main purposes include the
provision of care, employment, employment training or employment
placement services for individuals with disabilities the capacity
to compete on an equal footing when selling goods or services to
GST registered businesses. Bill C-24 also refines the rules for
the streamlined accounting method for charities.
A number of amendments contained in Bill C-24 are aimed at
clarifying and refining the application of our sales tax system.
In response to representations from the tax and business
communities, these amendments will ensure consistency and
fairness in the application of the GST and HST in a number of key
areas.
[Translation]
For instance, further to the process of co-operation between the
federal government and businesses in the energy sector, this
bill proposes certain amendments simplifying the application of
the GST and the HST in this sector.
These amendments will help Canadian businesses to remain
competitive internationally.
[English]
With respect to other international commercial transactions, the
bill also proposes to make air navigation services provided to
carriers tax free in relation to international flights, and to
refine the rules for exports of goods by common carriers.
Bill C-24 proposes a number of enhancements to the design and
delivery of the visitors rebate program to further promote Canada
as a destination for tourists and a place to hold conventions,
for example by reducing the GST and HST costs associated with
providing conventions to non-residents. These proposals will help
to promote Canada as a tourist destination and to support the
tourism industry in the creation of employment.
1635
The federal government will continue to consult with the
business community to improve the operation of our sales tax
system. In that regard Bill C-24 contains a number of proposals
to improve the rules relating to certain business arrangements
and ensures that the legislation accords with the policy intent.
[Translation]
Our government is also continuing its efforts to improve the
application and enforcement of our sales tax system. Bill C-24
amends a number of provisions in these areas, in some cases in
order to bring them into line with existing administrative
practices and, in others, in order to increase the effectiveness
of assessment, appeals and collection provisions in general.
[English]
As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-24 also contains measures
relating to taxes and tariffs on specific products. In
accordance with the 1997 decision of the World Trade
Organization, the bill contains the amendments that repeal the
provisions relating to the excise tax on split-run editions of
periodicals.
With respect to tariffs, Bill C-24 implements proposals to
increase certain duty and tax exemptions for persons returning to
Canada after a minimum period abroad. These proposals will make
it more convenient for travellers to clear Canadian customs.
[Translation]
Our government remains committed to increasing aboriginal
self-government and has frequently reiterated its desire to
conclude tax agreements with first nations interested in
exercising fiscal authority.
This bill proposes technical amendments to improve harmonization
of first nations sales taxes with the GST, and to ensure that
the definitions in implementation legislation are consistent
with those used in other federal statutes.
[English]
In conclusion, the measures contained in Bill C-24 which I have
outlined here today propose to improve the operation of our tax
system while at the same time responding to the social issues
that are important to Canadians.
[Translation]
I therefore urge hon. members to give their full support to this
bill.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. 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 York North, Infrastructure; the hon. member for
Mississauga South, Health; and the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester, Airports.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to add some comments to the debate on Bill C-24 as
reported to the House by the committee.
The parliamentary secretary has just finished giving us a quick
summary of some of the main points of the bill. Most of what he
has said sounds pretty reasonable. What I find absolutely
incredible is that he can say in such nice smooth language what
the bill does not say at all. I need to reword that. He
described the bill in nice, smooth language but the bill itself
is convoluted legalese which I defy even an accountant to
understand. It is absolutely incredible.
I have read a number of things in the bill. I will give one
little example. One thing the bill does which the parliamentary
secretary did not allude to is it clarifies the tax situation
with respect to HST and GST when it involves barter exchange. I
read it twice and I still cannot clearly understand it. I would
have to get a tax lawyer to help me interpret this. I cannot
understand whether bartering is out of the tax loop or in. I
think it is out as a result of the bill. I will read a little
bit of it because it is so incredibly interesting. It reads:
(6) For the purposes of this Part, each of the following is
deemed not to be a financial service:
(a) the operation, maintenance or administration of a system of
accounts, to which barter units can be credited, of members of a
barter exchange network;
(b) the crediting of a barter unit to such an account;
(c) the supply, receipt or redemption of a barter unit; and
(d) the agreeing to provide, or the arranging for, anything
referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
1640
That is clear, is it not? It goes on to state that this section
is is deemed to have come into force on December 10, 1998. That
was a year and a half ago. It goes on:
(3) If a designation of a barter exchange network under section
181.3 of the Act, as enacted by subsection (1), takes effect on
the day on which this Act is assented to, that section applies to
the giving of any property, service or money at any time before
that day, by a member of the network or the administrator of the
network, in exchange for a barter unit that could be used as full
or partial consideration for supplies of property or services
between members of the network as if the designation and that
section had been in effect at that time, provided that no amount
was collected as or on account of tax in respect of the supply of
the barter unit.
That is perfectly clear. And it goes on and on like that. It
is endless.
I stand to be corrected but the bottom line is that if people
arrange to have a barter unit established with an administrator,
they can so register it. If they then exchange goods and
services in return for these so-called barter units, which is
perhaps a new currency to be introduced in Canada outside of the
Bank Act, then they can exchange those barter units for other
activities, services or products and they are not considered
taxable.
I would venture to guess that if this is actually implemented in
this way, then competing with the loonie will be the boonie, the
barter unit. People will be using it in great amounts in order
to avoid the GST. Why? It is very clear.
One of the things the parliamentary secretary said was that in
order to encourage the use of Canadian facilities for conducting
conventions and meetings of international organizations, the GST
rules would be altered so there would be a GST exempt portion for
those people who are from outside the country. That is a clear
admission on the part of the parliamentary secretary that where
GST is applied it makes Canada less competitive. The government
is ready to remove the GST on that part of it in order to make it
more competitive. That makes sense to me.
Generally it is true that the more an activity is taxed, the
less there is of that activity. The less the government taxes
it, the more it will get of that activity. If international
organizations are encouraged to have their meetings here, which
of course would bring a lot of money into the community and the
country, then reduce the tax.
How I wish we could persuade the federal government to apply
that principle to our own citizens. We are taxed to death. The
GST is one of those taxes. And this bill does a lot to change
the way the GST and now the GST and HST rules are applied.
It is interesting the government would choose to bring in these
amendments to the GST. We know the Liberals were first elected to
government primarily on the promise that they would eliminate the
GST. There are a whole bunch of really good quotations by the
Prime Minister when he was in opposition. He said, “I am
opposed to the GST. I have always been opposed to it and I will
be opposed to it always”. Back in 1990 when the GST was being
introduced he said he would always be opposed to the GST. The
Liberals at that time were sitting on this side of the House and
the Mulroney Conservatives were on the other side and were
proposing this wonderful new GST.
1645
After all these years of GST the government in a piecemeal way,
one little group at a time, is saying that it should take the GST
away because it is unfair, inhibits economic activity, is bad for
business, costs the government too much money, or whatever. Now
it is introducing some amendments in this bill to change some of
the GST rules.
Here is a quotation from the individual who is now the Deputy
Prime Minister. On December 21, 1992, he said “The thinking is
that we want to get rid of the GST”.
A little less than a year before the 1993 federal election when
the present Prime Minister was leader of the opposition he said
“We will replace it. No doubt about it”. In retrospect I
guess he has a bit of doubt. He also said “We will replace the
tax. This is a commitment. You will judge me by that. If the
GST is not gone, I will have a tough time in the election after
that”.
He further said “The only specific promise I am going to make
is to replace the GST”. I guess we have it replaced all right.
It is now the GST-HST in those provinces that have bought into
it. Instead of being 7% it is 15%. Yes, it was replaced. Was
that a great commitment?
Interestingly just weeks after the 1993 election when asked by a
reporter what he would do about the GST because of his election
promise, the Prime Minister said “It will be gone in two
years”. That was 1993. According to very simple arithmetic,
much beyond the ken of mathematicians on Liberal side, two years
after 1993 is 1995. We would have expected by 1995 that the GST
would be gone. Is it gone? I do not think so. It is still
here. It is as big as ever.
Let me refer to the Prime Minister speaking in the House
Commons. We can look it up in Hansard. In 1994, again
just six months after the election, he said “We hate it and we
will kill it”. That is what he said in the House of Commons,
still thinking about his election campaign, but he never really
did it.
Here we are some six and a half years after that election and
the Prime Minister and the Liberals have done nothing to change
their so-called election promise to get rid of the GST but they
are removing it.
How can I stand in the House and either speak or vote against a
reduction of GST as applied to vehicles needed by people who are
handicapped? One would have to be very thoughtless to say no. If
someone is handicapped and needs a special vehicle to haul them
around, it would be wrong to say that we think the federal
government should get some GST money out of that vehicle or the
extra fittings required to make it work for them.
I will have a little dilemma because I will vote against the
bill due to all its flaws. Despite that, it is like eating
tapioca pudding that has some gravel in it. In this case some of
the good tasting parts are the reduction of the GST for people
who have special needs because they have disabilities. To exempt
them from GST is the right thing to do, but how about all the
other people who have needs?
How about students who have to pay GST on books? To add insult
to injury, they are now paying it two, three and four times. Let
us take a look at our pages in the House, young people who are
students.
When they buy a used book they end up paying GST on a book that
has already had GST paid on it. I know all of them would love to
keep the books they used when they were students in their youth
as an ongoing building of their personal libraries. However they
will not be able to because of the high cost of education. They
will put their books up for sale. Those books, which have had
the GST paid on them when they were new and first bought, will
have the GST paid on them again the third time, the fourth time
and however many times they are recycled.
1650
If students who are trying to obtain an education are charged
GST on books every time the books are moved from one owner to the
other, the word I use is greed. It was invented by the Prime
Minister. It was used by him just a couple of weeks ago. He
talked about people who want to keep some of their own earnings
as being greedy.
I say it is a greedy government that does not have consideration
for young people trying to get an education. It insists on
taxing them to death on their earnings and then when they use the
earnings that are left over for the books they need for their
education they are charged GST on them. There is nothing in the
bill about reducing the GST to zero on reading materials and on
books. To me that is a huge flaw. That alone is a good reason to
vote against the bill. It is totally inadequate in that regard.
A number of other things in the bill are commendable and a
number of them are very questionable. As legislators in the
country we have an obligation to stop the huge tax bite. The
little things that the government does from time to time by
changing a little tax rule here and a little tax rule there do
not make it any simpler. In fact it greatly increases the
complexity. It does not relieve Canadian taxpayers of their
crushing tax burden in any substantial way. It is just a little
dithering and nothing substantial happening.
I cannot stand in the House to talk about a budget
implementation bill, some of which goes all the way back to 1990,
believe it or not, without also mentioning that the Canadian
Alliance has a very good tax plan that has the approval of many
Canadians and many notable economists including Dr. Mundell, a
Nobel Prize winner. He said that our plan was workable, that it
would give a substantial kick to the economy and that it would
give real tax relief to Canadian families who are struggling to
make ends meet. That is the type of tax overhaul the country
needs.
Of course we have critics who say a flat tax is only a tax cut
for the rich. They try to make political hay out of that. I do
not apologize for the fact that under our plan everyone pays less
taxes. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals always
misrepresent this aspect of our plan incorrectly. The Minister
of Finance particularly loves to talk about it. He gives a
totally false message that it is for rich people only.
Contrary to the Liberals, we would take some two million
Canadian taxpayers off the tax rolls completely, those people who
make less than $20,000 for their families per year and are
deprived of at least $6 billion of their earnings by this
government. Six billion dollars of tax revenue comes from
Canadian families whose family income is less than $20,000 a
year. It is shameful, absolutely shameful.
1655
Our tax plan would give them a 100% tax break. It is true that
when people earn more money they would pay the same rate of tax
on all their earnings. That does not mean that people who make
more money pay less. They pay proportionately more. It is a
truly progressive system. Anyone who says otherwise is not
staying with the facts but is distorting them.
I emphasize that this is the way to go. It has the approval of
no less than the WEFA group, which has done financial studies for
the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance in the
production of his budget and his income projections for the
government. By using that same model and running our proposal we
showed that every year tax revenue to the government would go up.
That is even before we take into account the boost that a massive
tax break would give to our economy.
Government revenue would go up. There would be more money
available for health care and education. There would be less
money under our plan for boondoggles and for building fountains
in Shawinigan. The money would dry up for fountains very quickly
if we were in power because we simply do not believe it is
correct to use the hard earned money of long suffering taxpayers
to try to bolster the re-election chances of anyone including the
Prime Minister.
We would straighten all those things out. With us at the helm
of government, Canadians would find some real tax changes and
changes to the system, not just the tinkering around the
government is prone to doing. It sort of dilly-dallies and never
really gets around to doing anything substantial.
I would like to say a little about some of the other matters
that are involved. There is a whole bunch of provisions in the
bill on changing different things including charities. The
parliamentary secretary alluded to that point, but there is one
that is really interesting. It would exempt second language
training in French or English from the GST if that training were
provided by vocational schools or individual contractors.
That is a step in the right direction, but once again the
Liberals are guilty of tinkering. What they have done is said
that students studying math or science have to pay the GST on
that. However, French speaking people learning English or English
speaking people learning French will be exempt from GST on that.
They just cannot do that. They cannot just pepper away—I guess
the Prime Minister likes pepper—at wee spots in the Income Tax
Act and exempt this group, exempt that group and double the tax
on this group and so on.
We need a massive overhaul, one that is consistent, one that is
logical, one that makes sense, one that helps the economy, one
that leaves more of the money people have earned in their own
pockets and puts the country at a competitive edge such that it
has never seen.
I would like to see the country run ahead in terms of its
economic activity per capita vis-à-vis the United States and
other G-7 countries and our trading partners. We have the
potential to achieve that. We have a vigorous, well trained
population. We have a wealth of resources unmatched in the
world.
Despite the fact that Liberal members are all sort of shaking in
their pants these days, we have a relatively stable political
country. Our political regime is relatively stable. We change
our governments by election. I always say we do it with ballots
instead of with bullets. That is something we want to preserve
in Canada.
We have all these positive things going for us, but what do we
have? We have a country that is struggling, a country where our
young people find it impossible to get jobs. They are lured to
the United States because of lower taxes and higher salary
offers. We keep on struggling in this country because of our
excessive tax regime.
I think we need to pay attention to the facts here and not put
our heads in the sand any longer.
1700
I know there are many Liberals in the House who would just love
for me to carry on for a long time, but I will have to disappoint
the vast majority over there. I will stop at this stage and say
that I will be voting against this bill for the reasons I have
mentioned. I will also continue to press forward for a new
system, a new regime in this country, a system that is fair, that
bolsters our economy and that leaves more of the people's hard
earned money in their pockets so they can provide for their own
needs and the needs of their families.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I will be splitting my
time with the lugubrious and illustrious member from Kamloops.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent for
the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few
words on the GST bill, but I will first respond to the member for
Elk Island who talked about the Alliance Party's new tax policy
being a fair one, which is 17% across the board.
I want to tell everybody that its tax policy would give a big
tax cut to the wealthy and the rich, because someone who makes an
awful lot of money, as supposedly my friend from Alberta on my
left does, making $300,000 or $400,000 a year, one can just
imagine the kind of tax break he would have if he had a 17% tax
break compared to what we have today in this country.
I was on an airplane a few hours ago. I picked up a newspaper
and noticed that one of the candidates for the leadership of the
Alliance Party, Tom Long, had a fundraiser in Muskoka. I think
when we look at where political parties get their money from, it
tells us a lot about political parties. I remember the reform
party, since I come from the west, talking about being grassroots
and representing ordinary people who come and put money in a hat
and it picks up a few dollars here and there.
Tom Long had a fundraiser in the Muskokas. What do members
think they charged for this fundraiser? First, it was not a big
dinner with steak and wine; it was finger foods and the sipping
of champagne. What do members think they charged? The member
from Kamloops has guessed $100, while someone else has guessed
$200. They charged $5,000 a person to go to a fundraiser for a
leadership candidate of the Alliance Party, some grassroot party,
some party in touch with ordinary people. It has become the
party of Bay Street, the party that has been hijacked by the Bay
Street barons. That is what has happened to the reform party of
Canada, and then it pretends that it is speaking for the ordinary
people of this country.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I normally would not interrupt my friend, but he
obviously has made a mistake in his speech when he said they were
charging $5,000 per person to attend that fundraiser. I wonder
if he could—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is not a point
of order.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, according to a very reliable
newspaper, the Hill Times, it was $5,000 a person. Around
100 people attended this function in the Muskokas. They raised
around $500,000 for the leadership campaign of an ordinary
grassroots Canadian named Tom Long.
Mr. John Williams: Fine fellow.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: A fine fellow, I am told by the
reform MP next to me. We now have a party that really is the
party of the rich, the party of the powerful, the party of Bay
Street, the party of the insiders, the party of the backroom
boys. I am talking about Tom Long here. I am not talking about
the old reform party that at one time said it was speaking for
the ordinary citizens. This is the new party that wants to
appeal to Ontario. It is the new party that is trying to imitate
Brian Mulroney, despite the fact that he called it the reform
party in pantyhose the other day.
That is what has happened to the Alliance Party of Canada. I can
tell the House that there are a lot of people in my riding,
ordinary folks, who voted reform—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): On a point of order,
the hon. member for Elk Island.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, normally we would have an
opportunity for debate after a speech. I think this is the last
of the speeches where we do not. I would not raise this point
but I really think he is quite irrelevant vis-à-vis Bill C-24.
1705
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I was listening to
the debate and I am sure the hon. member was just about to make a
link between his propos and the bill we are debating.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I began my remarks by saying that the
17% flat tax proposed by the reform party, or the Alliance Party,
would favour the wealthy people of the country, people who make
$300,000 to $600,000 a year or more. I said that indicative of
that of course was a fundraiser by Tom Long. Maybe I have to
repeat that. An invitation was sent out inviting people to a
fundraiser at a cottage in the Muskokas where they could eat some
caviar and sip champagne. The cost was $5,000 a head. I am sure
a lot of people sitting in the House, who are members of
parliament from the Alliance Party, could not go.
I do not think my friend from Vancouver could afford $5,000 for
an evening with Tom Long. I do not know if my friend over there
from Elk Island could afford $5,000 for an afternoon with Tom
Long, but that is now what the party is targeting. It is
targeting the wealthy people in the country which is why it is
proposing tax reform in Canada.
A flat tax of 17% would see a major reduction for the wealthy, a
major reduction for the privileged and more taxes for the
ordinary citizen, the ordinary middle class working family, and
of course major cutbacks in government services such as health
care and education. People should be fully aware of what the new
Alliance Party stands for. That is the kind of tax reform we do
not want at all.
I want to turn my attention to some of the reasons why the bill
was brought in today. It was to amend—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): On a point of order,
the hon. leader of the government in the House.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wonder if the House would
give me consent to propose the following motion without debate.
I move:
That the House shall continue to sit after 6.30 p.m. on June 12
and June 13 for the purpose of considering the Government Orders,
provided that during that time the Chair shall not receive any
quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent,
except for a motion to adjourn proposed only by a minister of the
crown;
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of
the House, the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons shall immediately introduce and first
reading shall be given to a bill entitled “An Act to amend the
Parliament of Canada Act and the Members of Parliament Retirement
Allowances Act” which shall be disposed of as follows:
1. The House shall proceed to the second reading stage of the
said bill when it has disposed of the third reading stage of Bill
C-24 or at 6.30 p.m. this day, whichever is earlier, and, when no
additional member rises to speak, all questions necessary for the
disposal of the second reading stage shall be put without further
debate or amendment and, if a division thereon is requested, it
shall be deemed deferred until 5:15 p.m. on June 13;
2. After the said bill is read a second time, it shall be
referred to a committee of the whole House, provided that, after
no more than one hour of consideration by the said committee,
every clause or other question necessary for the disposal of the
committee stage of the said bill shall be deemed to have been
carried, without amendment, on division; and
3. The third reading stage of the said bill may be taken up at
or after 6.30 p.m. on June 13 provided that, when no additional
member rises to speak, all questions necessary for the disposal
of the third reading stage shall be put without further debate or
amendment, and, if a division thereon is requested, it shall be
deemed deferred until the expiry of the time for consideration of
Government Orders on the next sitting day.
1710
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. Leader
of the Government in the House of Commons have the consent of the
House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would like to
inform the House that under the provisions of Standing Order 30,
I am designating Wednesday, September 20 as the day fixed for the
consideration of private member's Motion No. 160 standing in the
order of precedence in the name of the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast.
This additional Private Members' Business hour will take place
from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. after which the House will proceed to
the adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, in the motion just read,
there was a reference to giving immediate introduction of a bill.
I think you will now have to proceed with the introduction of
the bill that was in the motion just read. It says to
immediately introduce for first reading a bill entitled an act to
amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Members of Parliament
Retirement Allowances Act.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37, an act
to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Members of
Parliament Retirement Allowances Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): When shall the bill
be read a second time? Later this day?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, an act to
amend the Excise Tax Act, a related act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, the Budget
Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget Implementation Act, 1999,
the Canada Pension Plan, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act,
the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the
Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Act, the
Income Tax Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Unemployment
Insurance Act, be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, before we broke for unanimous consent, I was responding
to the Canadian Alliance and its new tax idea of a 17% flat tax.
That was suggested by one of its spokespeople as an alternative
to some of the taxes in the country.
This bill really deals with the goods and services tax and with
a whole series of technical amendments to the GST that were
introduced as a result of the budget that came into the House in
February. It also makes permanent a 40% surtax on profits of
tobacco manufacturers, and a number of things of that sort. We
have in here a whole series of things, some positive and some
negative.
What we should also be doing in this debate is going back over a
bit of the history of why we have the GST in the first place. I
remember very well back in 1990 when the idea was suggested by
the Conservative government of the day led by the former prime
minister Brian Mulroney. The GST became law in January 1991. It
was a 7% tax brought in by the Mulroney government.
It was about 1990 when the Conservatives first suggested
bringing in the GST and replacing the old manufacturers sales
tax. My recollection is that this was never discussed in the
federal election campaign of 1988. It was something that
happened after the campaign.
It is something that stirred a great deal of controversy and
animosity in the country, as most Canadians were opposed to the
GST. The GST in effect is a flat tax, with a 7% rate for
everyone, regardless of whether one is rich or poor. If people
are going to have a haircut or buy a certain product or a certain
commodity on which the GST is applicable, it does not matter what
their income is, they still pay the GST.
1715
For the poor people there is of course the GST tax credit, but
even with the tax credit it does not make it an equitable tax.
When we get to the middle income bracket, compared to the
wealthier income people, it becomes extremely regressive because
it becomes in effect a flat tax. Everyone pays the same tax rate
on the same commodities, which are in many instances necessities
of life.
I remember very well the Liberal Party of Canada taking a strong
stand against the GST. I remember the all-night committee
hearing in the Railway Committee Room when the Liberals said that
if they were elected and formed the government they indeed would
abolish the GST. They said they would get rid of it. “Elect us
and the GST will be gone”. That was part of the 1993 campaign.
We all remember a couple of years after that when the then deputy
prime minister, now the Minister of Canadian Heritage, resigned
her seat because of a commitment she had made to the voters of
Hamilton East that if elected the Liberal Party would indeed get
rid of the GST.
That of course has not happened. The GST is still here. A
campaign commitment that was made has disappeared. It is
interesting that Brian Mulroney, when he made his first political
speech on Friday, in addition to talking about the the Alliance
being the Reform Party in pantyhose, talked about the present
Liberal government accepting many of his policies, including the
free trade agreement, NAFTA and the GST, policies that the
Liberals had campaigned against, policies that they had opposed,
policies that they had filibustered against in the House of
Commons. Speaker after speaker rose in the opposition to say
that if they were elected they would get rid of the GST. If they
were elected they would not bring in a NAFTA-type deal. If they
were elected they would certainly not go along with the free
trade agreement with the United States. That is a bit of the
history.
We also have the harmonized sales tax which was implemented in
some of the Atlantic provinces in 1997. Before that, of course,
Quebec introduced its harmonized sales tax in 1992. That is some
of the background on the GST.
As I said, the Liberals promised to scrap the tax. They broke
their promise. That is one of the reasons more and more
Canadians are cynical of the political process, and are more
cynical of politicians as every year goes by. Liberal
politicians are seen as having broken their promises.
The whole tax system has to be made fairer and more progressive.
I think the GST is among the most regressive of all taxes,
except for the GST tax refund for some of the poor people in the
country. It is a very regressive tax because it becomes a flat
tax. Of course, as I have already said, the Alliance wants to
carry it even further by having a flat tax of 17% right across
the board.
In this country we have a long history of a progressive tax
system. That tax system has gradually become less and less
progressive with the passage of time. I remember before the
Mulroney days that there were seven or eight different tax
brackets on the federal side, which were reduced to only three
brackets, 29%, 26% and 16%.
As announced in the last budget, we are gradually going to see
that made a bit progressive within the narrow band where the
middle bracket will eventually go from 26% to 23%, so we will
have 16%, 23% and 29% brackets. What we have suggested many
times is that we make the system more progressive. I would
personally like to go back to about five different tax brackets
so that we could have a more gradual scale, where we would tax
people more progressively based on their ability to pay. I think
that is only fair. If someone makes more money than someone
else, the long tradition in this country has been that they
should be taxed in accordance with their ability to pay.
We are moving away from that. The Reform Party wants to go the
extreme distance by having just one flat tax in the country,
which would be extremely unfair.
1720
Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I notice the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has referred
to our party as the Reform Party several times. I wonder if he
could use the correct term for our party.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I remind the hon.
member to please call the Canadian Alliance by its proper name.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, before I was
interrupted by the member from the Canadian Reform Conservative
Alliance Party, I was saying that that particular party wanted to
make the tax system even more regressive, more unfair and even
more of a burden for ordinary middle class Canadians. That is
the policy of the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance Party.
That is what it stands for.
I submit that is why 100 people showed up a few days ago in the
Muskokas at $5,000 a head to eat caviar and sip champagne with
Tom Long, one of the candidates for the leadership of that party.
They are excited about a more regressive tax system. They are
excited about putting more of a tax burden on ordinary, middle
class people. They are excited about tearing down government and
putting less money into health care, education and regional
economic development. That is what the Canadian Alliance stands
for. It is the party of the wealthy, the rich, the insiders and
Bay Street.
Canadians note those things. They are not stupid. They
understand where this new party is going, that it is trying to
become the party of Brian Mulroney and the old Conservatives from
a few years ago, the very party which the original leader tore
apart in 1993 for the foundation of the Reform Party. Like
amoebae they are changing their skin and trying to form a party
of big business and Bay Street. They are basically doing that by
advocating a flat tax and a radical reduction in the role of
government. The Canadian people will see through it and will not
allow that kind of extreme right wing ideology to have any more
influence.
In my opinion, the GST should be scaled back as a first step. I
see that the member for Red Deer just entered the House. I
wonder whether he went to Tom Long's little picnic for $5,000 the
other day in the Muskokas. It was a great fundraiser for his
leadership campaign.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I really do not believe that who attended what function or how
much they paid has any relevance at all to Bill C-24. I ask you
to bring the member back on topic.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not believe that
is really a point of order. Relevance is a point of order and I
would remind the hon. member to please keep his speech close to
the bill.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I want to remind my
friends in the alliance party of something that Ernest Manning
once said.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The name of the group represented is the Canadian Alliance.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would remind the
member again that the Chair has ruled that we refer to that party
as the Canadian Alliance.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, in the House of
Commons we call it the Canadian Alliance. The chief electoral
officer, I think, calls it the Canadian Reform Conservative
Alliance. It is rather confusing to a lot of us what it calls
itself. The former Prime Minister of Canada called it the Reform
Party in pantyhose. It becomes more confusing day by day.
I want to remind the House that a very distinguished gentleman,
Ernest Manning, and another very distinguished western
politician, Tommy Douglas, a number of years ago always said to
us “He who pays the piper calls the tune”. We should always
watch to see who pays the piper, who contributes to political
parties and who pays the bills for political parties.
We are now seeing on our left a party that is going through a
metamorphosis. It originally started as a grassroots party. Now
we are seeing the extremely wealthy people in the country paying
$5,000 for an afternoon of sipping champagne and eating caviar
with Tom Long. It is a party that has changed its rudder and its
direction. That tells us an awful lot about what it really
stands for.
1725
What we are seeing is a direction in which the Canadian people
do not want to go. The majority of Canadian people, the polls
have shown, want the GST to be cut back. The most popular tax
cut in the country would be to get rid of the GST, to scale it
back.
We suggested taking the GST off things like books. We suggested
taking the GST down one point, from 7% to 6%, as the beginning of
a process to get rid of it. That is what the Canadian people
want. In fact the federal government's own polling, done by the
Earnscliffe group, which is very close to the Minister of
Finance, reported just a few months ago that the tax cut of
choice—and we do not hear this from the Canadian Alliance—would
be to scale back and eventually eliminate the GST, a tax which
last year picked up some $23.1 billion from the Canadian people.
It is the most regressive tax that we have.
Not only is the GST unfair to ordinary citizens, it is a tax
that is unfair and very difficult for business, particularly
small business. When we go up and down the main streets of our
small towns and cities—and I am sure that even the premier of
Prince Edward Island would be willing to admit this—we hear many
business people talking about the paper burden of being a tax
collector for the Government of Canada. It becomes a real burden
for the small business person who has only a handful of
employees, or the farmer who, compared to a large business,
because of the economy of scale, can do this with much less
difficulty. Indeed, it is a very bad tax for small business.
Again, the Canadian Alliance members are silent on this. The
silence is really deafening when we do not hear them complain
about the GST, when we do not hear them calling for the
elimination of the GST and when we do not hear them asking to
roll back the GST. The GST is a very regressive tax that hits
ordinary Canadians and middle class Canadians the hardest. It is
a bad tax for business. It is a bad tax for farmers. It becomes
a paper burden. Of course, that is something which Canadian
Alliance members do not complain about whatsoever.
It is also not a good tax for medical doctors. The physicians
of this country cannot, contrary to what some other professionals
can do, claim the GST tax refund. That makes it a difficult tax
for them. In fact the Canadian Medical Association has spoken
out against this and has asked for some changes in terms of how
the GST applies to the medical profession.
The reason is that the designation of medical services is tax
exempt under the Excise Tax Act, which means that physicians are
in the position of being denied the ability to claim a GST tax
refund. That of course is for input tax credits, which many
other professionals and many other organizations can claim.
These are some of the inequities about the goods and services
tax, some of the things that should be changed and some of the
things that reflect what the Canadian people want.
The member from Kamloops is very anxious to say a few words, so
I will conclude by saying that the main thing we need is a more
fair and a more progressive tax system that is based on ability
to pay.
If we knock on doors or if we walk down the main street with
ordinary people, the people who go to Tim Hortons, to McDonald's
or to the corner cafe, the ordinary people who shop on a Saturday
morning at Canadian Tire or who go to the wheat pool elevator in
Winyard, Saskatchewan, those ordinary people do not go to Tom
Long's $5,000 per person affair in the Muskokas with the wealthy
people. The ordinary people of this country—
Mr. John Williams: The wealthy people have a vote too.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: The member of the Canadian Alliance
said something that is actually accurate. He said that the
wealthy people have a vote too. Of course they have a vote. The
Stronachs of the world have a vote. Peter Pocklington has a
vote. Wealthy people have votes. Now we have a political party
that caters to the wealthy people, that stands for the rich, that
stands for the privileged and that stands for the wealthy people
on Bay Street who make a lot of money and support a backroom boy
called Tom Long.
He used to be on Brian Mulroney's staff who brought in the GST,
who helped bring in the free trade agreement and who helped bring
in all kinds of regressive policies.
1730
I will be very excited if Tom Long wins the leadership of the
Canadian Alliance. Then finally those guys will be out of the
weeds. There will be a party here that will stand for the
wealthy, the rich and for a redistribution of income where more
goes to the wealthy people and less goes to the middle class and
the poor. That is what that party is all about.
We are going to have a great debate about the tax system. It is
an ideological debate about where we want to go in this country.
Very clearly we want a tax system based on progressivity, based
on fairness, based on the ability to pay and not a taxation
system with a flat tax where everybody is taxed at the very same
rate regardless of income. That is not where the Canadian people
want to go.
I look forward to the next campaign when we can take on the
forces of the far right that want to turn back the clock and
return this country to the age of Fred Flintstone and Barney
Rubble.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I too look forward to making a few
comments on Bill C-24. The comments of my friend who just spoke
made me think about an issue. These days there is a level of
cynicism in the land attached to politicians. One wonders where
that cynicism comes from, what is it that makes people—
Mr. Ken Epp: From the member who just spoke. It was 20
minutes of lies. That is where it came from.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I was not going to refer
to my friends in the Canadian Alliance but since they have been
calling us liars, I feel that I have to make some comment.
Mr. Ken Epp: That is the truth.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, let me start off with an
observation about the Canadian Alliance.
Members of that party said when they came to Ottawa their leader
was not going to be driven around in a big fancy limousine
because it would send the wrong message. It was to be a
grassroots party and being escorted about in a nice big black
limousine with a personal driver was not the imagery the then
Reform Party wanted. Today is the leader being chauffeured
around in a black limousine? The answer is yes.
Then the leader said he would not want to move into Stornoway
because that big mansion would send the wrong impression. He
said that it should be turned into a bingo hall but lo and
behold, the leader of the Reform Party moved in and occupied
Stornoway.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Where the Leader of the Official Opposition lays his head at
night is irrelevant to Bill C-24. I call for relevance in this
debate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will ask the hon.
member to try to be relevant for the rest of his speech, even
though personally I did not think that such a remark was out of
order.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, you are absolutely right.
My friend is also right.
Perhaps I was trying to make my point in a roundabout way. The
leader of the Reform Party said that he would not live in
Stornoway. Then he changed his mind and said, “Excuse me. I
made a mistake. I actually will move into Stornoway”. That was
the point. To be fair, it actually does not have much to do with
this legislation.
Then I noticed a number of my friends in the Reform Party—
Mr. John Williams: I rise on a point of order, Madam
Speaker. It is the Canadian Alliance party.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, a number of my friends in
what was then the Reform Party said that one thing they would
never ever do was opt into the MP pension plan. Some people here
did. I am not going to name the members but a number of MPs
said, “We changed our mind. I guess some of us are going to opt
in now”.
An hon. member: The member from Kamloops did not.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, the member from Kamloops
was always in the plan. I was honest about it. I was in the
plan and I paid for it. I did not say I would not take it and
then slip in.
The point of these comments is to simply say it is no wonder
people are cynical about us. When one thing is said and another
thing is done—
Mr. Ken Epp: Relevance.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I am getting to the
point. My hon. friend is calling for relevance. Let us go to
the Liberals.
1735
Bill C-24 is a little bit of fiddling around with the GST. We
are anxious and glad that the fiddling took place. We support
this fiddling, but let us face it. What the government should
have done was phase out the GST, and make a little change here
and a little finicky switch there and so on. And we applaud
that, but for goodness sake, what did the Liberal members do when
they campaigned across the country?
I heard from countless candidates in the election campaign that
the minute they were elected they were going to do away with the
GST. I do not know if they actually said that, but they said
they were going to deal with the GST. The Liberals said the GST
was unfair. They said the GST was biased. They said the GST was
unjust and if people elected the Liberals, they were going to
change all of that. Where people made the mistake was they
thought the Liberals meant they were going to abolish it. The
Liberals did not. When they got elected they said they would keep
this tax.
Once again a certain cynicism builds. Quite frankly I wonder
why it is not even greater because again, going back to my
friends in the Liberal Party, they even campaigned against the
NAFTA. The Liberals said that if they were elected, they were are
going to do away with NAFTA. Of course, not only did they not do
away with NAFTA, they have become the free trade cheerleaders of
the world. They are trying to get us into NAFTA now with almost
every country going. We could debate the merits of NAFTA, but the
point is they said they were going to abolish NAFTA. The
Liberals said they were going to get out of NAFTA but they did
exactly the opposite.
No wonder people are cynical. No wonder people ask if anyone
can actually believe what the Liberals say.
That same group said if they were elected they would introduce a
national child care program. Have we seen a national child care
program? Whoops. They forgot about that. The Liberals promised
that if they were elected they would introduce a national child
care program. They did not say, “If you elect us, we are going
to have negotiations with the provinces”. They said, “A child
care program is a national priority for us”. We are still
waiting.
There is a long list and I could go on but I think I have made
my point. No wonder people are a little cynical about this
business. If we are going to deal with the GST, as my friend
from Regina said, the only way to deal with it is to reform the
tax system from top to bottom. A complete overhaul of the tax
system is needed. The tax system right now is out of control. It
is meaningless. I do not think a single member or Canadians
anywhere in the country could say, “I understand our tax
system”.
Mr. John Williams: Read our proposal.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend says to read the proposal from
the Canadian Alliance party. Its proposal is a flat tax. I know
that my friends are going to campaign on the flat tax. The
Republican Party in the United States rejected it. The
Republicans said there was no way they could go ahead with the
flat tax idea because it is a tax that is going to benefit the
wealthy people. The Republicans said to forget it, they were
going to drop it. George Bush has never used the term flat tax.
Then Mr. Harris and Ernie Eves in Ontario said there was no way
they wanted to touch this flat tax business because again, it
favours the rich and the wealthy of the country. We can
probably guess who the multimillionaires would vote for, because
if they were making millions of dollars and only had to pay a 17%
flat tax, my goodness, that would be a real windfall.
The NDP does not support a flat tax.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Like the leader of the NDP.
Mr. Nelson Riis: We have nothing against millionaires. I
was just saying that millionaires like the flat tax because it
means they pay a lot less income tax.
The reality is that the NDP supports the idea of improving the
GST. However, the ultimate solution is not to tinker with it,
with a little switch here and a little shift there, but to
abolish the GST as we were originally promised.
If there was a signal it would be that any political party that
said it was going to abolish the GST would be very successful in
the next general election. I have been listening carefully and I
hear only one party saying that, the New Democratic Party of
Canada. It says that this is a regressive tax. The GST is an
unfair and biased tax and it should be phased out. That is our
fundamental point.
1740
We have some clear differences here. The Liberals like the GST.
The Canadian Alliance wants to bring in a flat tax. The New
Democratic Party wants to phase out the GST, do away with the GST
and have less tax.
I think I have said enough. My friends are nodding in agreement
so I think I will sit down.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24.
As my colleague in the party formerly known as reform said, it
was my party that actually brought in the GST. I am proud to say
it was my party which had the foresight to replace a
counterproductive tax called the manufacturers' sales tax with
one called the GST. In fact, it has been recognized as not only
one of the fairer taxes, but as one of the least negative in
terms of its impact on the economy.
Members of the party formerly known as reform, the party that
dare not speaketh its name, and the Liberal Party seem to have
embraced that previously opposed tax because it was and is the
right policy.
It took a party that was willing to take a significant amount of
risk and which had a high level of vision and focus on the future
of Canada, not simply a focus on next week's polls but instead on
the challenges and opportunities facing Canadians well into the
21st century. That was the Progressive Conservative government
of Brian Mulroney. It is to his credit that that policy has
ultimately aged very well.
It is clear that Canada needs a significant level of tax reform.
There has not been a significant level of tax reform since the
time of the GST going back to I believe 1989 when the tax
proposals were first discussed and debated. Ultimately the GST
was implemented in the early 1990s. That was a major shift in
tax reform in Canada, primarily because it enabled the country to
move from a purely income based tax system to a consumption based
system. That in itself is recognized by most free market
economic theorists around the world as being more sensible in
taxing income.
The fact is we have to raise revenue. Oliver Wendell Holmes
once said that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized
society. The question is how we tax people and the amount to
which we tax people. Those questions determine largely the
degree to which we have a productive and viable economy capable
of producing the level of economic wealth and prosperity to
sustain the very social programs, benefits, health care and
education that we value as Canadians. It is very important to
consider the degree to which tax reform can be a great vehicle in
creating economic growth.
Other countries have leapt ahead of Canada in this very critical
area. Ireland for example has had a 92% growth in its GDP per
capita over the last 10 years, largely based on an aggressive and
innovative tax reform strategy. Ireland's tax reform was based
largely on creating a corporate tax strategy which attracted a
significant amount of investment from around the world.
When the finance committee studied the issue of productivity
last year, it was clear from a number of economic minds that
there was a significant link between investment and productivity
in the new economy. Clearly productivity gains are critical and
exceptionally important in creating economic wealth and
prosperity in the new economy.
1745
The question is: How do we do that? Clearly there is a strong
linkage between capital and productivity. The types of
productivity enhancements that are necessary to create economic
growth today require significant levels of capital and
investment. Tax policy that encourages investment, that attracts
capital, will ultimately lead to greater levels of productivity.
Greater levels of productivity will ultimately lead to greater
levels of economic growth and competitiveness for Canada.
Our productivity growth or lack thereof, or the degree to which
our productivity growth has lagged behind our trading
competitors, particularly the U.S., threatens the standard of
living that we value as Canadians.
We have seen during the 1990s a significant decline in our
disposable income relative to the U.S. We have had about an 8%
decline during the same period that Americans have enjoyed a 10%
increase. Our productivity growth has lagged behind the U.S.
while other countries—and I cited Ireland a few minutes
ago—have had extraordinary growth, 92% growth of GDP per capita.
In the last 10 years the U.S. has had around 15% to 20% growth in
GDP per capita. Canada has had about a 5% growth in GDP per
capita.
As other countries and individuals and businesses in other
countries are getting richer, Canadians in a relative sense are
getting poorer. That in part is the reason we have seen our
dollar lose almost 10 cents under this government since 1993. A
dollar that lost only a penny during the nine years of the
Mulroney government has lost under this government almost 10
cents.
The Prime Minister's response was that a low dollar is good for
tourism as it reduces the cost for Americans to come to Canada.
His theory is that Canada can devalue its way to prosperity. The
logical corollary of his illogical argument is that ultimately if
we continue on this trend we could reduce our dollar to zero and
thus would become the greatest trading nation in the world
because we could give all our products away and things would be
very productive and beneficial from that perspective. Obviously
the Prime Minister's theory on monetary or fiscal policy is as
sound as his theory on most policy issues.
This is a government that is a government of sound and original
ideas. Unfortunately its sound ideas are seldom original and its
original ideas are never sound. The degree to which the
government has relied on the sound fiscal policies of the
previous government and the structural changes made to the
Canadian economy by the previous government to fuel its economic
growth has been unprecedented. There has never been a government
that has fought as vociferously against the very economic
policies it ultimately ended up embracing as this government.
As we discussed, those policies included the GST, free trade,
deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy.
Liberals members opposite fought every one of those structural
reforms tooth and nail until they were elected, at which point
they embraced the policies because they were the right ones.
In some ways we should commend Liberal members opposite for
swallowing themselves whole upon being elected in 1993,
sacrificing their principles at the altar of reality, doing what
was right for Canada and embracing the sound policies of the
previous government. For that I commend them and thank them
because they were willing to put aside principle in the interest
of doing what is right for Canada, which is adopting the right
policies that they vigorously opposed in opposition.
My colleague from the New Democratic Party spoke at length of
the soundness from an economic perspective of eliminating the GST
or reducing the GST with a goal of eliminating it. There would
be nothing worse in terms of our tax policy reform than
eliminating or reducing the GST at this point. The GST raises
about $22 billion worth of revenue, which is a greater level of
revenue than what we draw from corporate taxation in Canada.
Raising that revenue actually has a less negative impact on the
economy than any other form of taxation.
I did not have the opportunity to ask the member for whom I have
a significant amount of respect about it. I disagree vehemently
with many of the policies of the New Democratic Party, but I do
respect its consistency as opposed to the flip-flop party in the
government opposite or the party formerly known as Reform. Its
members have adopted one policy of the Liberal Party to change
its policies at whim to try to appeal to the populist winds that
blow not just across the prairies but anywhere in Canada where
they feel they may be able to buy the odd vote.
1750
Even though I vehemently oppose the economic naivete that
permeates NDP policy, I do respect its principles that remain
fairly consistent in opposing things like the GST. The New
Democrats to their credit were opposed to the GST and continue to
be opposed to the GST. The New Democrats to their credit were
opposed to NAFTA and continue to be opposed to trade.
I am supporting their consistency in maintaining what I believe
to be bad policies. However I would prefer a party and
individuals in a party that for principled reasons maintain
policies that I disagree with than parties that simply embrace
the latest political whim or populist leaning out there.
Government by populism is an abdication of leadership.
Leadership means not just simply doing what is popular but it
means doing what is right. Leadership means not just responding
to today's polls but in fact looking ahead of where Canadians are
today and trying to determine where the country is going relative
to other countries. Leadership means looking at global trends
and putting in place a policy framework that responds very
strongly to the future opportunities and challenges facing
Canadians.
With the abdication of leadership to a large extent that has
occurred in political service, there seems to be almost a vacuum
of vision, foresight and courageous leadership in today's
political environment. On the other hand the Progressive
Conservative Party continues to bring forth visionary tax reform
policies, including the elimination of the personal capital gains
tax. Certainly this is not because the elimination of personal
capital gains tax is a populist idea that would resonate across
the main streets of Canada necessarily but because it is the
right policy.
If we want to create the greatest level of economic growth and
prosperity for Canadians sometimes we have to say and do what is
right. In terms of its impact on the economy there is no tax
that has a more deleterious impact on the new economy, on wealth
creation and on capital formation for the new economy than the
capital gains tax regime.
We have a 13% disadvantage over the U.S. in areas of capital
gains taxation, even after the recent budget which was a step in
the right direction but a baby step when other countries are
taking gigantic leaps. Elimination of the personal capital gains
tax would give us a 20% advantage. For the first time in a long
time Canada would actually have an advantage in a very important
area of taxation. In the most critical and fundamentally
important form of taxation in terms of its impact on the new
economy Canada would have an advantage over the U.S. We would
become a magnate for investment in the new economy as opposed to
the repellent we have become under the listless, rudderless
leadership of the government.
In another area of tax reform we need a redefining of the middle
class in Canada. Clearly our current tax brackets penalize
success in a very unfair way. Americans do not hit the top
marginal tax rate until $420,000 Canadian. In Canada we
currently hit the top marginal tax rate at about $60,000. After
full implementation of the recent budget that figure would be
$70,000. At $70,000 Canadian, even after the full implementation
of that budget, we would still see Canadians hit the top marginal
tax rate.
1755
A family today making $70,000 per year is not rich. It is naive
to think that someone making $70,000 per year in Canada, and
particularly a family with dependants, would be rich. This
creates a huge disadvantage when Americans do not hit that top
income threshold until $420,000.
This means that a technology worker, a software engineer for
instance in Vancouver who is making $72,000 per year, is paying
52% of his income in federal and provincial taxes. The same
individual at the same level of income in the same industry an
hour and a half away in Seattle would be paying about 26% of his
income in taxes. We need to redefine the middle class in Canada.
We need to adjust our tax bracket significantly to recognize that
there are many people in that very critical area.
I see my colleagues from Quebec here. Quebec's policies on the
new economy have been very successful in creating a greater level
of economic growth whether it is in biotech, e-commerce or
knowledge based industry. Quebec has done a commendable job in
terms of growing the economy in these areas, but it has been
without the assistance of the federal government and with a lack
of leadership in terms of the types of tax policies that would
attract knowledge based industry to Canada in general.
I would hope that my colleagues from Quebec would share with us
their vision of the new economy. It is extraordinarily important
for all regions of Canada to develop policies that attract the
innovators, not just keep the innovators in Canada which is
probably the wrong headed place to start. Instead of the notion
of trying to keep the people here, why do we not develop policies
that actually attract the best and the brightest?
Whenever we shoot for a fairly low goal we end up achieving a
lot less. We should be developing the types of policies that
attract innovators to Canada. Quebec has been quite successful
in developing provincial policies that have been helpful in terms
of doing so.
The federal government made a recent announcement of another
$400 million for ACOA to invest in a technology fund in Atlantic
Canada. There is some discussion about that, as nebulous as it
might be. Governments and government agencies have been
inconsistent and continue to be notoriously bad at picking
winners and losers. There is a no more complicated area of the
economy in terms of the difficulty in separating winners and
losers than the new economy.
As much as I think ACOA has done some very good work at various
times, we would be far better served to see a reduction in
corporate and capital gains tax in Atlantic Canada by the amount
the government is proposing to increase the ACOA allotment for
new economy investments. Reducing taxes in Atlantic Canada,
particularly those taxes that have the most negative impact on
the new economy, would be far more sound than increasing the
budget of an agency for direct lending and grants to the new
economy. That is my feeling.
In a general sense we need to reduce and ultimately eliminate
the personal capital gains tax in Canada if we want to speak to
the new economy entrepreneurs and create a greater level of
economic growth in the sectors we need to be competitive in. We
need to reduce our corporate tax levels to at least OECD levels.
While the government has made a pathetic, anemic, little baby
step in the right direction, other countries are leaping ahead of
us far more quickly.
We need to redefine our middle class by adjusting our tax
bracket significantly, but not to the extent that is being
suggested by the party formerly known as Reform in its flat tax
proposal. Steve Forbes fought two U.S. elections on the flat
tax. He was unsuccessful in both cases because the flat tax was
too right wing for U.S. Republicans. The flat tax is too right
wing for the government of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. It has
been cited by individuals including Mr. Eves, the finance
minister in Ontario, as being unfair overall and not being
appropriate.
I would argue that for very sound reasons it will be less
saleable in Canada than it has been in the U.S and, from a
principle perspective, it is not an appropriate policy.
1800
We should be building our tax policies around growth and not
greed. We should be focusing on reducing the types of taxes that
most negatively impact on our ability to compete in the new
economy. We have to recognize that lower taxes in some cases do
not necessarily result in lower revenue. In fact, reducing
capital gains taxes would create such a significant level of
unlocking of capital in Canada that we would ultimately raise
significant levels of revenue in other areas.
Alan Greenspan, the federal reserve chairman in the U.S., has
recommended the elimination of personal capital gains tax from
the perspective that it would unlock a significant level of
capital and help entrepreneurialism and economic growth in the
U.S. That is the very same priority we should have in Canada.
In closing, the legislation is a collection of tiny little baby
steps on tax policies by a government that is incapable of the
broad sweeping changes and courageous vision that the previous
government had. After the next election, I look forward to,
being in position as part of a Progressive Conservative
government, making the types of changes Canadians need.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion for
third reading of Bill C-24. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
[Translation]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I have been asked by the government whip
to defer the division on this motion until tomorrow at the end of
Government Orders.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Prior to proceeding to the next order, pursuant to the motion
earlier this day, I was wondering if the House would consent to a
small rectification. We did not provide for an adjournment
debate at the end of the day today.
I would propose that the order made earlier today provide that
when a minister adjourns the House, pursuant to the order made
earlier this day, that this adjournment be made to be followed by
the regular Adjournment Debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed to proceed in that
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved that Bill C-37, an act to amend the
Parliament of Canada Act and the Members of Parliament Retirement
Allowances Act be read the second time and referred to a
committee of the whole.
1805
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-37,
an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, and the Members of
Parliament Retirement Allowances Act, which I had the honour to
introduce in the House earlier today.
The bill provides for the correction of an anomaly in
legislation that was passed in 1995, which, as we all remember,
ended double dipping with respect to severances. However, it
should be noted that it responds to concerns expressed by various
members. It is a non-partisan bill that should be welcomed by
all of us in the House.
I will explain why the current situation is unfair. It is
unfair to over 100 MPs who are under the age of 55 and who have
been shortchanged as a result of pension changes made in 1995.
The 1995 legislation provided for a severance allowance of six
months salary to MPs under 55 who entered the pension plan after
July 1995. However, an MP elected before July 1995 does not
receive any severance because the MP gets a small pension for
contributions made before July of that year. In the case of some
members, that pension is as low as $1,400 a year, and that $1,400
stipend—because that is all it is—in fact prevents people from
having any kind of severance, and of course those members, were
they to cease to be members of this place, are not even eligible
for unemployment insurance. We would not tolerate that of a
private sector employer, certainly not one of the size of the
Canadian government.
This situation has created two groups, almost two classes of
MPs. MPs under 55 who were elected after 1995 get a severance
allowance, while those elected before that date get no severance.
For example, an MP under age 55 who was elected in 1993 would
receive an annual pension of $5,600 a year and no severance. In
one case, as I said, this could be as low as $1,400. There are
actually two MPs in that situation. This pension would increase
to $21,000 when the MP in question reaches 55.
Need I remind all of us that the pension is not free. People
pay premiums, and the premiums, even by many standards, are quite
high; $7,000 to $8,000 or, in the case of ministers, as much as
$10,000 a year in premiums on the pension plan. That amount is
subtracted from what one is usually entitled to contribute to a
retirement savings plan, so that is not free either because other
investment opportunities are also denied.
An MP who was elected in 1997 and retires after six years would
receive a severance allowance equal to six months' salary, or
$34,000 a year, and at age 55 would receive the full pension that
one gets after six years. Of course one only gets the real full
pension after 19 years of being a member of parliament, another
fact not too well know, particularly by those who want to portray
members of parliament in an unkind way.
[Translation]
The bill we are addressing today remedies the injustice to which
I have referred, in the present pay arrangements, by providing a
reasonable severance allowance for all MPs.
Those under the age of 55 who were elected prior to July 1995
and belong to the MPs' pension plan will receive an allowance
equal to six months salary, at the time they leave their
position, less any immediate annual annuity. Thus, the allowance
and the pension are not combined. The one is subtracted from the
other, and MPs may only receive the difference between the two.
Members under the age of 55 who were elected after 1995 will
continue to receive the allowance of six months salary after six
years of service.
In both cases, the allowance would not exceed six months salary
after six years of service.
So, it remains the same for both groups, with the amendment I am
suggesting today.
1810
As a result, this change does not affect members under 55
elected in 1997, as I said earlier. Nor does it affect members
who have opted out of the pension scheme, because they will
continue to receive the six month allowance when they leave
their position.
[English]
The severance allowance proposed in the bill is reasonable. It
is comparable to severance allowances provided to provincial
parliamentarians. As a matter of fact, it is even less generous
than what is offered in a number of Ontario provincial
legislatures. It is not that high either when one compares
allowances in the private sector, in particular large private
sector concerns. Of course none of them are as large as the
federal government, but in many medium size sectors their
executives and people in higher echelons have severance packages
that are far more generous. Even the municipalities have quite
generous severance packages, as we have noted from reports in the
media, for those who are leaving their services.
Providing all MPs with a severance allowance is also appropriate
because MPs do not have access, as most people do, to
unemployment insurance to support their families while they are
looking for another job. Again that is something that is not too
well publicized. I suspect there has been more than one case of
someone leaving this high office only to find out that there were
no benefits at all, not even a transition, not even unemployment
insurance that every worker would get.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, in case you are wondering, yes we do
pay unemployment insurance premiums even though we cannot
collect. We certainly pay Canada pension plan premiums even
though technically we do not receive a salary, we receive an
emolument.
Let us consider the example of a former MP, a 45 year old parent
of two who is eligible for a full pension at 55. I think it is
perfectly legitimate for that person to receive a six months
severance package to enable him or her to find another job and to
try to earn a living.
I also believe that the House should be regarded and should
function in such a way as to attract people from all walks of
life.
At the risk of boring members with details that I have shared
with the House before, I obviously did not come here from a
family that was very wealthy. As a matter of fact, I came from
the bottom rungs of the ladders of parliament. I started here as
a busboy. I was the child of a sole support parent. I had not
even completed my high school education, as members of the House
now know from subsequent educational training that I have
received and which did get considerable attention in this place,
for which I am grateful.
The one thing that remains true is that I do not object to the
fact that very wealthy people have rights if they are elected to
serve in this parliament. What I am saying is that serving in
the House should not be contingent upon being wealthy. People
who have families and who earn regular salaries, people who come
from all walks of life, should have the right to participate in
the process and to seek to hold this high office in a way where
they know that the day they leave here, they can go home and at
least provide for their families and provide for a transition to
either going back to what they were doing or to finding something
else to do for a living.
It was only a few weeks ago that a report was published and got
considerable media attention. The report said that it was
getting to be more and more difficult to attract candidates for
public office and particularly to sit in the House of Commons.
1815
I am sure that has always been true. There are vast distances
for many people to travel. There is, of course, the sacrifice of
office with which we are all familiar. We do not complain about
it generally. It is there and it is part of the job, but just
the same I believe the climate should be conducive to attracting
people to become members of parliament and to want to sit in this
place to represent their fellow citizens in the highest court of
the land, the Parliament of Canada.
The 1998 Blais commission report on MP compensation stated:
Departing members are entitled to a relatively financially secure
transition from parliament to the work force or to retirement as
the case may be.
That was the Blais commission reminding us that someday we all
will leave here and that it should not be a sinecure nor an
experience to make one rich, but it should not be the way to the
poor house either.
This transition is provided to MPs under the age of 55, and not
only to MPs elected after 1995, which was the case until this
bill came along. Now it will be available to everybody.
The second provision of the bill is that it provides that all
members of parliament will become members of the MP pension plan
as of the date the bill comes into force. This is consistent
with the view that the MP pension plan is a reasonable plan for
members of parliament. The Blais commission said that the MP
pension plan “while appearing generous, is not necessarily out
of line with public and private sector plans that recognize the
impact of the mid-career hire aspect of the career path of their
senior executives”.
The bill also gives MPs who have opted out of the pension plan
the choice to opt into the plan retroactive to the date of their
election. In other words, now that we have the bill it will be
possible for someone who was not in the plan to buy back their
years of service. Again, this is very logical and I commend it
to the House.
It is the same for an MP who served in a previous parliament,
left this place and then came back some seven, eight, ten years
later. That MP would have the right to buy back previous
service. Why should we give that right to someone who sat here
10 or 15 years ago and deny it to MPs sitting in the House today?
MPs sitting in the House today should be given the same
opportunity to buy back that service. I believe that to be
totally logical and I believe the opposite would be illogical.
MPs do not have to buy back previous service, but then again
neither do members who served in a previous parliament who have
returned and who must contribute to the pension plan. They are
not forced to buy back previous service either. Again, it is
consistent with what we are doing for others.
This also provides, in a way, a transition to participation in
the pension plan. If an MP—and of course we all will, effective
immediately—contributes to the pension plan, that does not make
an MP who was elected in 1993 eligible for a partial pension now
unless the member buys back his or her previous service. The
member who does not do so would only be partially pensionable in
2006, two terms from now. Furthermore, those who do not buy back
previous service would only have a full pension in 2019. That is
19 years from now. In fact, it is a form of phase-in back into
the pension plan.
Those who do not opt back in retroactive to the date of their
election would continue to receive the supplementary severance
allowance which we passed in 1998. That is only fair. Of
course, MPs who decide to opt back into the plan to the date of
their election will have to reimburse their contributions
retroactively to the date of their election.
Again this is consistent with the case of an MP who previously
served in parliament some years ago and is returning to the House
of Commons.
1820
[Translation]
I would like to cite a passage from an article by Claude Picher,
which appeared in La Presse two weeks ago:
But, generally speaking, it is clear that the salaries of
Canadian politicians are in no way commensurate with their
responsibilities....In reality, given what we expect of our
elected officials, there is no comparison between their salaries
and what they would be paid for doing a comparable job in the
private sector.
Whether or not we agree with Mr. Picher, I think we would all
agree that our system of pay should put all members on an equal
footing. This is not presently the case. It will be with this
bill. Right now, some members receive severance pay when they
leave, and others do not.
[English]
This bill, which is designed to correct an unfair situation in
the current compensation package, responds to concerns expressed
by many MPs in the House.
This place is not supposed to be government of the rich, by the
rich, for the rich; it is supposed to be government where all
Canadians can expect to be represented by one of their own, if
that is their wish. That is the case as it applies to political
orientation.
Many people in the House, of course, disagree profoundly on
political issues, and that is perfectly legitimate. However, it
should also apply to people of various socio-economic levels. I
believe that correcting these anomalies will make it such that it
will make parliament work better because it will assist in
attracting good candidates for the future.
The way the motion to discuss this bill is structured makes it
possible to have a recorded division at the end of the debate. I
am going to make a plea to colleagues. I have nothing to gain in
this personally, as everyone will know. I have been a member for
a long, long time. None of these changes apply to me. I would
ask my colleagues to rise above the temptation that there would
be to embarrass one another as we are passing a bill like this.
It is easy to do. It is very hard to undo afterward. It is a
temptation that some of us might have from time to time.
If we think of who we want to sit in the House in the future,
not just the next term of office but maybe two or three terms
down the road when my children and grandchildren decide whether
they want to seek office to see if they too could participate in
directing this very fine country and democracy, I hope they will
be able to do so whether they are well off, which I hope they
will be, or whether they start off at the other end of the
socio-economic ladder, as I did.
Our country will be better served if we rise above some
temptations that we might have, particularly in these times that
are no doubt challenging for some of us.
[Translation]
In closing, the argument I wish to make to the House this
evening is that we will all come out of this experience perhaps
slightly better people, having ensured that the legislation will
be better for Canadians, especially those who wish to represent
their fellow citizens in the highest court in the land, the
Parliament of Canada.
[English]
I want to conclude by saying that the bill corrects initially
that mistake which I have described, that glitch in the system
whereby some MPs had a severance package and some did not. It
fixes that.
The second thing that it does is obviously to make everyone
contribute and be part of the pension plan for members of
parliament.
I have said consistently in the past that it was wrong to be out
of the system. It was wrong to be out of the pension plan. It
is just like getting the benefits of a collective agreement or
anything else.
It is a group plan. If I said in the past that it was wrong to
be out of the plan and I am co