Debates of Dec. 7th, 1995

Food And Drugs Act

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very misguided in his attempts to discredit the minister and the government.

Certainly members on this side of the House know that the platform of the third party has been to use specious and irrelevant petty arguments and half truths for partisan gains which really have nothing to do with the Canadian forces and the issue at hand.

Let us look at the facts. It was a Liberal government that called for an inquiry. It was this government that ensured the inquiry would be public and open. At least the hon. member gave me credit for asking for it two and a half years ago.

It was this government that encouraged people to come forward with the information and to go forward to the inquiry. It was this government that ensured that the Somalia inquiry was provided with complete and accurate information and that relevant documents were made available to the commission.

Not all these actions have been easy. We could have been goaded into precipitous action. I will give one example. Where others may have been attempted to score political points, we stayed the course and waited for the Westray Mine decision so that justice would be done and done properly, without the possibility of it being undone later because of a technicality.

That is one example. These actions point toward good leadership, integrity and willingness to get things done. Now is the time for the commission to do its work and we look forward to its recommendations.

The Canadian forces have a long and proud heritage which we are not prepared to throw away, despite the antics from the other side of the House in the third party. I suggest the third party share the sentiment of all members on this side of the House, especially at a time when we have just embarked on a new program, the first

in the history of peacekeeping. I hope they will continue to lend their support for Canadian forces abroad.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a week ago, on November 30, I rose in the House to question the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on a recommendation he had received from a senior executive officers committee that he had struck several months ago. It was looking at some of the ideas concerning ownership of hopper cars, the future role of the wheat board in allocating cars in the grain handling system in western Canada and other similar matters.

I tried to make the point with the minister that the recommendation coming from that group was that farmers would be asked to pay an extra $1 per tonne to raise money to purchase between 12,000 and 13,000 hopper cars the federal government now owns. They have an assessed value of $400 million, but the proposal is that the railways each take half the cars for a sum of $100 million which they can raise by imposing an extra fee of a dollar per tonne on the farm sector for everything farmers ship. In the end, after having collected the extra money from farmers, the railways would own the cars.

This seems to be the ultimate bad deal for farmers. If they are paying for the cars, why do they not end up owning them? This is something farmers are arguing. They think the senior executive officers have presented a proposal that is self-serving in the ultimate. We must remember that at least two of the people on the senior executive committee represent the two major railroads.

The basic justice of the proposal is something I was arguing. The minister in his response said he had not made up his mind yet, but I should remember the senior executive officers recommended that there be a ceiling placed on freight increases, other than the $1 per tonne, for 10 years.

I have listened to responses from farmers in western Canada to this remark. They are very quick to remember that it was a Liberal government approximately 97 years ago that promised the Crow rate in perpetuity, and that means forever in anybody's language. It lasted for 96 or 97 years.

The question the farmers have is a very good one. They are saying if perpetuity lasts 96 and 97 years, how long will 10 years last? The answer in coffee row is until the next budget.

They will not buy that and I do not see why they should. It is incumbent on me as a member from out west to remind the minister that his credibility and the government's credibility on promises for grain rates and promises into future activities of the government or any future government is zero after what they have done to the Crow rate and other things considered to be part of the constitution, almost, for Canadian farmers. That is not acceptable.

What is acceptable is to put those 13,000 cars under the control of the wheat board, even if farmers have to pay for them. At least it would let them know they own them afterward and that their agency, the board, can control them.

The board does an excellent job of distributing rolling stock. As I have pointed out, the ownership of rolling stock was thrust on them because of the railways' refusal in the 1970s when the current minister was assistant to Otto Lang. The railways simply refused to buy or rent rolling stock. Farmers and provincial and federal governments were forced to buy rolling stock to keep Canadian grain rolling.

As I have said, the board has done an excellent job of using the rolling stock. It has extremely high turnaround times, meaning that a car is loaded, delivers its load and is returned to the country elevator system faster than any other grain cars in the system. I will give an example using comparable grains. Durum wheat makes 17 turnarounds in a year using wheat board cars, compared to oats which are operated by the open market and only make 12 turnarounds. This gives an idea of how much more efficiency there is under the board controlling those cars and of the savings that result both to farmers and to railroads from that activity.

I recommend the government take very seriously turning these cars over to farmers. Yes, we will pay for them if we have to, but they should be left in the control of the wheat board.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, a working group of senior executive officers and farmer representatives in the western grains industry has arrived at a basic consensus about what should be done with respect to government owned hopper cars, car allocation procedures and the role of the Canadian Wheat Board in transportation.

The report will be discussed at various farm organization meetings over the winter. Until farmers have had an opportunity to understand and comment on the recommendations, it would be premature to make a full or final decision with respect to the government's response to the report.

The consensus achieved by this group is certainly remarkable in itself. Only a few years ago many people would have thought it would be impossible for such a consensus to be reached by such a divergent group. It is a package involving a balance of tough but creative compromises and it has to be looked at as a whole, as a package.

The government will respond to this report in early 1996 and is proud of its record of consultation with stakeholders. This is the way we operate and this issue will be treated the same as all the others.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleagues and I have been concerned for some time that the Liberal government would not do the right thing in responding to the fine work of the Standing Committee on Environment on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Since the release of the committee's report last June there have been numerous media reports about how the government would respond. There have also been fears expressed that the Minister of the Environment, who is said to be a supporter of the recommendations of the committee, is being pushed out of the decision making picture by the interests of the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Natural Resources who are said to oppose the same recommendations. In fact, some officials within the industry department said openly that the committee's proposals are a threat to the country's investment climate, costly to implement and grounded on shaky science.

At the same time the Minister of Natural Resources, speaking in the House of Commons on the government's CEPA response in relation to concerns raised by the mining industry said: "At this point I am willing to go on record that, working together, we will ensure a regulatory regime that supports the mining industry".

When we take those comments into account and add to the mix the fact that the government has blatantly ignored the committee's request, indeed Parliament's direction, that a response be provided within 150 days, it is easy to see why concerns about the government's ultimate intentions remain in the minds of all those who care about the future of the environmental regulatory process.

Members of Parliament will remember that on November 21 I criticized the government for failing to table its response. The only answer I received was that the response would be coming within two weeks. It is 10 days later and we are still waiting.

It is possible that the Minister of the Environment is having difficulty getting a favourable response through cabinet. This is the government's most important environmental decision to date.

Few would argue that the 365 page committee report entitled "It's About Our Health" with its 141 recommendations dealing with virtually every aspect of the federal government's role in the protection of Canada's environment is not significant.

May I remind members and the public that is listening that the committee made recommendations for amendments in the areas of toxic substances assessment and pollution prevention, the assessment and regulation of biotechnology products, ocean dumping and coastal zone management, the role of First Nations in environmental protection, the ecosystem approach to environmental protection, environmental management within the federal government, public participation in federal environmental decision making and federal environmental law enforcement.

In a recent article in the Globe and Mail Paul Muldoon of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Mark Winfield of the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy said:

The federal government's response will be a bell-wether indicator as to whether it will take its responsibilities regarding toxic substances and other aspects of environmental protection seriously.

Based on the weight of evidence known to date, the standing committee recommended that strong action is needed regarding the most toxic substances.

The departments opposing CEPA reform demand absolute proof of harm prior to any substantive action.

They are willing to roll the dice with the health of Canadians. The Liberal government must now decide whether it is prepared to do the same.

On October 24, concerned about the comments of the industry officials mentioned earlier, I asked the Minister of Industry if he was going to take the advice of those officials or would he welcome the opportunity to turn Canada into an international leader in green legislation as detailed in the impressive recommendations of the environment committee.

I ask that question again tonight, in the hopes that the government is prepared to confirm its support and indicate to us when its response to the CEPA report can be expected.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his close interest in the CEPA review. He worked on the committee during the CEPA review. He has shown a continuing interest in it throughout the committee's deliberations and after the report was issued. It is very commendable that he has brought up this issue so that Canadians will be aware of the status of the government's response.

I am sorry the response is late. The minister is in Vienna at the ozone layer convention, which occasioned a further delay. However, the response will be ready extremely soon.

I can assure my colleague that the response will reflect, very honourably, on the recommendations and the thrust of the report of

the standing committee and all the principles which have been put forward by the committee. The main program of the committee, as suggested in the report, will be reflected in the response.

I can assure the member that the Minister of Industry, whose law promotes sustainable development, is very much on side in co-operating with the Minister of the Environment to ensure that the report reflects what is the preoccupation of Canadians toward sustainable development and the integration of the economy and the environment, including pollution prevention.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 4, 1995 I rose in the House to request the Minister of Foreign Affairs to use his good offices for the Government of Vietnam on behalf of nine religious, academic and cultural leaders under imprisonment in Vietnam and waiting retrial.

I had this matter brought to my attention by members of our Vietnamese Canadian community in Vancouver and also in Ottawa and elsewhere. I had followed up with meetings with the Vietnamese ambassador in Ottawa, with communications with our Canadian ambassador in Hanoi and with written representations through our government and others.

I was happy to be able to inform the House in a statement made on November 22, 1995 that the Vietnamese government had acted to release two of the religious and cultural leaders and that they had already left Vietnam and were now in North America.

Canadian foreign policy in its golden era in the immediate post-war period developed and applied the skills of quiet diplomacy, involving patient but firm negotiations and never resorted to gunboat diplomacy 19th century style, which would have been beyond our military logistical capacities anyway.

In the contemporary post-cold war era, when trade and commerce have replaced political military power as the basis of the world public order system, I would ask the minister how he can best continue to promote the development of democratic constitutionalism and the advancement of basic constitutional rights in our new neighbour countries of the Pacific rim.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Vietnamese Canadian community across Canada is very appreciative that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra raised this issue not only in the House of Commons but in other fora.

As the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific stated during question period, Canada's position and our relationship with Vietnam is one of supporting engagement rather than isolation. This is in concert with the rest of the international community. Having a dialogue on human rights remains an important part of our relationship.

When the Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Hanoi in the middle of November, he raised human rights issues with his Vietnamese counterpart, Minister Nguyen Manh Cam. The secretary of state also raised his concerns about human rights in Vietnam during his visit to that country. Furthermore, he had a lengthy discussion about human rights with the Vietnam deputy prime minister during the latter's visit to Canada last year. We also maintain an ongoing dialogue through our embassy in Hanoi and with the Vietnamese embassy in Canada.

Our policy is to speak honestly and forthrightly in appropriate multilateral fora such as the United Nations' third committee, which deals with questions of human rights.

In his speech on Friday, December 1, Ambassador Bob Fowler mentioned Canadian concerns related to religious and political prisoners. In our judgment, maintaining a position of quiet diplomacy bilaterally while continuing to speak honestly in multilateral fora is more effective than a confrontational approach.

We are pleased to see that two prisoners have already been released. I am certain that the hon. member's interventions at the ambassadorial and other levels went a long way toward this release.

We hope our current policy and the hon. member's skills of quiet diplomacy will continue to have positive results.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to address a reply to my question from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. It is about how the government plans on tendering moving contracts in the future.

Currently, only the four major Canadian van lines can bid on moving projects with DND. The others are given a chance to match the lowest bid. The successful bidder receives a volume bonus. Work is then farmed out to companies across the country.

The government proposed to change this system, so that any company from any country would be allowed to bid and the lowest bidder would get all the work. That meant that DND would move toward a one bidder take all system that would create a monopoly in the moving business. It would destroy an industry of over 800 companies across this nation and put thousands of people out of work.

Now the government, thankfully, has changed its mind and is proposing another plan, where a moving company with the lowest bid will receive 40 per cent of the government's business. The next three lowest bidders will receive proportionately less as long as they match the lowest price.

The government currently works with something called GLAC, the government list of approved carriers. If you are not on that list, you are not eligible for government moving contracts. Under the new proposal, that list would be scrapped.

The hundreds of independently owned and family owned moving companies that make up the moving industry provide quality service. They are on that GLAC list. They own the warehouses and the moving vans. They have invested millions of their own dollars in infrastructure.

Last week, Randy Hoyt, president of the Hoyt's Group of Companies from Atlantic Canada, told the public accounts committee that the volume of government business available to each of the GLAC carriers has varied according to their track record. For poor quality, movers are removed from the list or suspended.

This system is serving Canadian taxpayers well and is good for government employees and independent movers. Because they were assured a share of the volume, movers have invested in facilities and trained staff at locations in Canada where service would otherwise not be available. Atlantic Canada is a case in point. There are many towns where these companies have operations and so the public gets competitive quotes when they move.

The government's new proposal will destroy this system and the benefits that go with it. It will also result in thousands of job losses.

Ontario businessman Pat Baird told the public accounts committee that he wants to bid under the proposed new system. Mr. Baird has no trucks, no warehouses, no infrastructure. He has two to three employees and has no financial investment. He made misleading statements to the committee. He told the committee that if he wins the bid, he wants to use rail lines to move government employees. He forgot that we do not have rail lines in many parts of Atlantic Canada. He said that he has a joint venture with CN Rail and CN will be building 300 to 400 new 53-foot containers made up as moving vans. He also said that CN's investment was going to be $26 million.

I have spoken to CN and according to CN it has a verbal agreement with Mr. Baird. If the bid is successful it is prepared to modify, not build new, but modify some old 48-foot containers, not build new 53-foot ones, as Mr. Baird said, at a cost of $4,000 to $5,000 each. According to CN, its commitment will only be $1.3 million maximum, not $26 million as Mr. Baird has stated.

These inaccuracies in Mr. Baird's testimony should serve as a warning. The proposed new tender process should be put on hold. I appeal to the parliamentary secretary and the minister to review this matter. It is a serious matter. All I ask is to put it on hold and look at it because of these discrepancies and inaccuracies.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the interdepartmental committee on household goods removal services, which I will call the IDC for short, recently conducted a review of the household goods removal service process. It had three goals when it did this.

The first was to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of an admittedly overregulated arrangement with the industry. The second was to encourage the entry of new competitors into the process. Third was to secure greater savings through the application of economies of scale and consolidation of service.

The committee reviewed the feasibility of using a single supplier, as the hon. member said, for its moving business. The committee's evaluation of the concept after meetings with parliamentarians and others in the business concluded that there was a potential for saving, but insufficient grounds exist at this time to introduce a major change in the process. The information was too soft and the risks were too high.

The committee met with current contractors and other interested parties to seek industry feedback and to include their views in order to ensure that the process was open and transparent.

A new approach to acquiring these services has been developed which represents strong potential for savings, addresses the concerns of the bureau of competition and moderates the implementation risks involved.

The basic elements of the changes are: a one year competitive tender fully accessible by any interested party; the lowest bidder will receive 40 per cent of total government business, while the remaining compliant bidders, maximum of three more, would receive 25 per cent, 20 per cent and 15 per cent respectively; the lowest bidder's rate would be used; contractors would not have the right to refuse government moves; contractors rather than the government would determine the infrastructure requirements; and exclusivity rules would be rescinded whereby any carrier could align itself with another carrier, van line or government moves. These changes will take effect in April 1996.

Finally, I want to assure the hon. member and this House that this government is committed to fairness in awarding government contracts while at the same time ensuring that the best possible value for the Canadian taxpayer exists. I assure her that her concerns will be taken into consideration.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursu-ant to Standing Order 38, a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands ajour-ned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)