Debates of May 13th, 1996

Employment Insurance Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motions Nos. 81, 188 and 192 defeated.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on concurrence at report stage and second reading, I believe you would find unanimous consent that members who have just been recorded as having voted on the previous motion be now recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea. We would like to add the presence of the minister of Indian affairs who will be recorded along with other Liberal members on this motion.

I use this opportunity to thank my colleagues, the whips of other respective parties, for their kind assistance in accelerating this process in allowing Parliament to function even better.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be recorded as voting in favour of this motion. Also, in listening to the different votes I must have missed something because I wanted to vote in favour of Motions Nos. 12, 15, 27, 68 and 94.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Can we by unanimous consent permit the member to vote as he has indicated?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote no on the last two motions.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party will be voting no on this last motion.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no as well.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill concurred in and read the second time.)

The House resumed from April 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade, be read the third time and passed.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-19, an act regarding the implementation of the agreement on internal trade.

In my address today I will describe to the House the impact of trade barriers on the economy and what effect these barriers have on real Canadians and their families. I will critique the agreement, its merits, its shortcomings, and I will conclude by pointing out how this agreement must be changed in order to be of real benefit to Canadians.

Interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadians jobs and money. Studies produced by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Fraser Institute, the C.D. Howe Institute and others estimate interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadian businesses between $6 billion and $10 billion a year.

According to information published by the Fraser Institute in its book Provincial Trade Wars: Why the Blockade Must End , if Canadian firms were enabled to operate freely across the country, average Canadian household incomes would rise by as much $3,500 a year. While conservative estimates place this figure lower, the point still remains these barriers cost Canadians jobs and money.

Removing barriers to internal trade is an issue which is so important to me and the leader of the Reform Party that we have created a new critic area to address this important issue. We will fight for Canadians so they can have their jobs and we will fight for Canadian business so they can deduct their business with the least government and systemic interference possible. This issue is second only to debt reduction in terms of issues which must be

dealt with to get Canadians back to work and to stop the 20 years of fall in workers' take home pay.

What is the magnitude of the internal trade barriers in Canada? The Canadian Manufacturers' Association estimates there are at least 500 trade barriers currently between provinces. It is not known exactly how much larger our internal trade market would be if goods and services could flow freely back and forth across the country, but clearly Canadian business would regain a portion of those markets currently lost to foreign countries and foreign companies.

I have not found a serious estimate of the number of jobs for Canadians this would translate into, but it would be tens of thousands, most likely hundreds of thousands.

A comparison of Canadian international trade and interprovincial trade in goods and services shows international trade to be about $160 billion per year and interprovincial trade about $146 billion a year. This comparison illustrates our interprovincial trade is only about $14 billion less than our total international trade.

Why then does the Prime Minister and his government not put the time and effort into this trade problem they do into international trade? Travelling the world may see more glamorous but does it produce jobs? Removing barriers to internal trade certainly will. According to Stephen Van Houten, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, provincial trade barriers have resulted in lost sales, lost investments and lost jobs.

How do these barriers stagnate growth and limit job creation? One might think these measures are intended to ensure growth and prosperity within a province. That is the intent, but the opposite is what happens. While these artificial perimeters protect the microcosm from outside competition, they are shifting the growth of domestic industry and establishing protective markets which lead to higher consumer costs. According to the Consumers Association of Canada, some provinces pay up to 10 per cent more for local products because of internal trade barriers.

Catherine Swift, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, describes the current trade in goods and services: "A totally uncompetitive situation which means consumers pay more or pay through the nose. People are forced to pay what bloated utilities like Ontario Hydro choose to charge rather than what is the best price in the domestic market".

I believe I have established that interprovincial trade barriers are costing Canadians jobs and money. What do the Liberals have to say about this issue? The answer is quite a bit. The problem is that so far talk has led to little action. The Liberal government has repeatedly recognized that barriers to internal trade cost Canadians jobs and money, but it has not done anything substantial to rectify the problem.

The government made promises in the red book on this issue, promises in both throne speeches on the issue, and recognized the harm of internal trade barriers in the finance committee's prebudget consultation report, but to date little has been done.

I remind the Liberal government of some of its own words in relation to internal trade. Page 22 of the infamous red book, the book of broken promises, states: "A Liberal government will be committed to the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers within Canada and will address this issue urgently".

Neville Nankivell writes in his Financial Post article on February 18: ``The legislation on freer domestic trade was supposed to have high priority for the Liberal government's economic policy. It had cleared the committee stage and was backed with some amendments, but passage was sidetracked in December by the need to push through the Prime Minister's controversial unity package''.

It is obvious the government is more concerned with perpetuating Quebec appeasement than it is about improving economic conditions for all Canadians, including Quebecers, Quebecers who are looking for jobs.

In the throne speech of 1994 the Liberals promised to reduce overlap and duplication between provinces and the federal government and to work with the provinces to eliminate internal trade barriers.

Before the federal government brought down the budget this year, the finance committee urged the government to take action on interprovincial trade barriers in its prebudget consultation report. The committee report described the current interprovincial trade situation in Canada as very much balkanized.

The report went on to state that in some cases it easier to do businesses in other provinces by going through a U.S. corporation that can use the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement than by doing business directly.

Within the same report the committee urged government to continue to seek further action with provinces on reducing interprovincial trade barriers: "Trade within Canada must be placed on an equal footing with Canada-U.S. trade in terms of the free flow of goods and services. We can no longer afford the extravagance of favouring foreign competition over trade among Canadians and discriminating against fellow Canadians".

It is shameful that our governments, both federal and provincial, have forced Canadian companies to fight an uphill battle against

their foreign counterparts. We should be ensuring more than just an equal footing with the United States and other countries.

If barriers to interprovincial trade were eliminated we would be doing more than placing Canadian companies on an equal footing internationally. We would be giving them the competitive advantage they want and deserve. Unfortunately neither the federal nor the provincial governments seem prepared to work with Canadians to reduce trade barriers.

The agreement on internal trade is the product of executive decision making. Twelve cabinet ministers from the respective provinces and territories along with the federal Minister of Industry hammered out a deal they could all live with, but what about business?

The Canada West Foundation released a paper in June, 1994 entitled "Internal Trade and Economic Co-operation: Down to the Wire on an Internal Trade Agreement". This paper addresses provincial interests and attitudes prior to the agreement negotiations.

Before the agreement was put in place, the Saskatchewan government stated: "Despite certain irritants, most interprovincial trade moves freely now. Canada's economic union works well for the most part. Our real economic problems in Canada do not come from the current structure of our internal market".

This statement clearly contradicts the concerns of independent Saskatchewan business which was surveyed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and published in its June 1994 paper entitled "Barriers to Growth".

In Saskatchewan, 93 per cent of respondents were in favour of the removal of trade barriers. Of the respondents who were affected by trade barriers, over 60 per cent were affected negatively, the key problem areas being provincial regulations and federal subsidies. Both resulted in higher costs and restricted growth. How can the business community feel assured that its interests are being addressed when there is such a lack of understanding by provincial governments?

What should the government do to bring down the barriers to trade and rectify the situation that Canadians currently face? It could start by acknowledging that previous Liberal and Conservative governments had an obligation to all Canadians under the British North America Act to ensure that trade barriers were never established in the first place.

The British North America Act, 1867 clearly states under section 121 that all articles of growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the union be admitted free into each of the provinces. Section 91(2) states that the legislative authority of Parliament extends to the regulation of trade and commerce. The people of Canada have paid a serious price for government inaction and the abdication of responsibility in this area.

I will take some time now to speak about certain parts of the internal agreement on trade that this bill implements. The agreement on internal trade is designed in principle to break down barriers in order to establish internal free trade. In an attempt to be all things to all provinces, impediments to this objective have been erected. One such impediment is article 404 regarding legitimate objectives.

A legitimate objective is an exemption from the agreement regarding (a) public security and safety; (b), public order; (c) protection of human, animal or plant life or health; (d) protection of the environment; (e) consumer protection; (f) protection of health, safety and well-being of workers; and (g) affirmative action programs for disadvantaged groups.

What does it mean? It means that any province can use the above stated criteria as a means of establishing the protection of its domestic sectors from competition where it can be demonstrated that (a) the purpose of the measure is to achieve a legitimate objective; (b) the measure does not operate to impair unduly access to persons, goods, services or investment of a party that meet the legitimate objectives; (c) the measure is not more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve that legitimate objective; and (d) the measure does not create a disguised reduction on trade.

When that is put together and one thinks about the legitimate objectives that are allowed, one can clearly see that provincial governments can protect pretty well whatever they want under this legislation. For all intents and purposes, these provisions can be used in nearly every sector involved in interprovincial trade. How is this going to break down barriers? The answer is that it will not.

It reminds me of the Ukrainian matrioska dolls. Every time one is opened, there is another one. It is a very frustrating process getting to the prize.

At a recent round table discussion hosted by the Certified General Accountants of Canada, I asked senior government officials involved in this agreement if they could identify a trade barrier that could not be considered a legitimate objective. They were unable to identify a clear example of a trade barrier that could not be at least considered as a legitimate objective. This spells out to me that there are very few instances where establishing a legitimate objective exemption is not possible.

It is obvious from the ample access to exemptions that disputes between parties are bound to arise. Included in each sector is a series of procedures intended to resolve disputes between the parties, except in the following sectors: energy, agriculture and the "MASH" sector, which is made up of municipalities, academic

institutions, schools and hospitals. These areas of exclusion are another story for another time.

When a dispute arises, the parties are to enter into consultations in order to attempt to rectify the problem. If that is not successful, then the parties apply for a request for consultations between governments. At this level any party who has a vested interest in the outcome of the consultations is able to participate.

If that procedure is unsuccessful, then the issue is brought to the committee. That body is comprised of ministers from the 13 signing governments that were responsible for drawing up this agreement. If the procedure is unsuccessful, then the parties may submit a written request for a panel of experts to preside over their dispute. The panel is comprised of five individuals chosen from a roster of 65 experts: that is, five appointed panellists from each government body. From this roster each party shall select two panellists who shall, in turn, elect the chair.

Will this dispute settlement mechanism work? We do not know. According to Stephen Van Houten, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the agreement on internal trade is highly bureaucratic. There is no binding enforcement measure. There is little chance of a successful outcome for aggrieved businesses. There are no awards for damages. There is no right of action without the consent of the attorney general. Decisions to withhold consent need to be explained or reviewed. In short, there is no effective dispute settlement mechanism.

The dispute settlement mechanism consists of two avenues of recourse: a government to government resolution process and the individual to government process. The second process is a positive addition which needs to be enhanced in order to heighten the access of individuals to the panel.

Currently individuals are required to be represented by their respective party. This constitutes either a provincial government or the federal government, depending on the jurisdiction in question. The individual must be able to convince that government to take up the cause for them. It seems to me that most Canadians do not feel comfortable in relying on a government bureaucracy to go to bat for them.

To summarize the dispute settlement mechanism, the emphasis of this form of settlement is on consultation and mediation between governments. If this consultation fails, the disputing parties are to resort to an ad hoc panel of appointed experts. There is no binding enforcement of the process through the awarding of damages, an injunction or some other form of penalty. The mechanism does, however, provide for private parties to launch a complaint against governments and for public consumption of panel proceedings.

The decisions of these panels are not binding. They serve as recommendations. The only means of enforcement available under the agreement is through public humiliation and public pressure. If the party refuses to comply with the panel recommendation their non-compliance is made public by the internal trade secretariat. This remains on the committee agenda for the period of one year. If at the end of that year the party has yet to comply, retaliatory action may be pursued.

Will this dispute settlement mechanism process work? I say that we should give it a chance. We should give it a try. However, it seems highly unlikely because retaliation will often cost less than the actions in question.

For the reasons I have addressed today and for the many others which I do not have time to address, I cannot support Bill C-19. The bill implements the agreement on internal trade which is flawed and incomplete. The government says it will fix the legislation in the future. The lack of action is costing Canadians now. The government often preaches that it is interested in Canadians having jobs, yet it refuses to act quickly to fix a problem which can be fixed if the proper commitment is there.

This agreement does not fulfil the need. It serves as an ideal or a goal which may some day be attained. The energy, the MASH, and agriculture sectors of the agreement have yet to be dealt with at all. The list of provincial exemptions is growing by leaps and bounds. The 13 governments need to get together again to construct an agreement which eliminates unreasonable protections for each of the governments' special interests.

I have described to the House the important role internal trade plays in the lives of Canadians. I have described a few of the shortcomings of this agreement: its lack of enforceability, credibility and accessibility. I have explained how to bring about change to make the agreement effective and accountable.

The agreement falls short of its objective. We have been encouraged to support the bill as a step in the right direction. We have been promised that the best is yet to come. This may be true. For the sake of Canadian jobs and business, I hope that it is. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has fallen short on its promises before. The fact that it has missed numerous deadlines set out in this agreement speaks for itself.

I want internal trade barriers removed. Canadian business wants internal trade barriers removed. Canadians looking for jobs want these barriers removed. This government and provincial governments say that they want internal trade barriers removed. Therefore, I say to the Liberal government: Do it and do it now.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join my colleagues today in speaking to Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade in Canada.

I am proud to participate in this debate, as this is a very important legislation, however arid and technical it may be. The bill affirms the principle, with which we agree, that internal trade should be liberalized as much as possible and that any kind of tariff barrier that exists should be removed as much as possible.

I must say that it was about time that Canada, as a political and economical entity, and that Canadians come to an agreement because it was becoming increasing obvious that Canada was getting along better with its neighbours than with its own provinces. Canada successfully negotiated a free trade agreement with the U.S. and, later, NAFTA, while it was having a great deal of trouble coming to an agreement on interprovincial tariff barriers.

We agree with the principle of the bill. Especially since, as you probably recall, there was a huge irritant in that clause 9 used to give the federal government enormous powers that it had more or less assumed. Without consulting anybody, at a meeting held in western Canada, the federal government announced its intention to make all legitimate efforts to persuade a province whose attitude is deemed less co-operative than that of another.

At the time, under clause 9, the government had given itself sweeping, excessive, disproportionate powers. As you probably recall, this prompted the then premier of Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, to describe this clause in particular and the bill as a whole, since it all hinged on clause 9, as "trade war measures taken by Canada against Quebec's government in particular".

Mr. Paillé, the then Quebec Minister of Industry, Commerce and Technology, made the appropriate representations to his federal counterpart, asking him to exercise moderation and see to it that clause 9 and federal powers in this area be cut down to reasonable proportions instead of being so ridiculously excessive. If I am not mistaken, that is how the Quebec minister described the attitude of the federal government, which was taking advantage of the situation to increase its powers.

As for us, we condemned as strongly as possible, both in the industry committee-of which I was then vice-chairman-and here in this House, the federal government's tendency to give itself inordinate powers. I do not want to brag but we succeeded at the time in talking some sense into the government and making it understand that the extent and ambiguous nature of the powers it was giving itself did not meet a real need and were out of line with what Canadians then expected in this matter.

We now have a clause 9 in which federal powers are more restricted, more reasonable, and in which all the parties, including the Quebec government, agree that an arbitrator is indeed needed in this area, thus giving the federal government some legitimate, consistent powers.

Even if we agree with the bill in its present form, there are still two provisions that we are deploring but which have been maintained despite the representations made and the amendments put forward by the official opposition.

The first of the two provisions we deplore is, again, clause 9, which provides that "pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council-that is to say, the cabinet-may, by order" and so on. This means that, in any tense situation or dispute between any two parties in Canada, the cabinet gives itself the right to settle the matter by issuing a direct order without going through the House. On the sly.

We would have liked-we even moved an amendment to this end, but it was unfortunately rejected by the government-the representatives of the 10 provinces and 2 territories in Canada that signed the agreement who sit in the House of Commons to be able to participate in the debate, either on behalf of the defendant or on behalf of the plaintiff, to publicly present the arguments of each party in the public interest and for historical purposes so that, at the end of the day, there is a debate before the federal government can come down with a sledgehammer or with sanctions, as it is now entitled to do.

We would have liked a debate to be held so that the elected representatives of the two parties involved-let us imagine, for example, that there is a dispute between Alberta and British Columbia-who sit in the House of Commons at the same time can participate in the debate and perhaps have some influence or ultimately put forward proposals. The dispute could then be settled in the best way possible and not by order, not on the sly, not in an arbitrary manner, as suggested by the current formula favoured by the government in this very important matter.

It must be understood that we are talking about a recourse against an injuring party. Traditionally, there has been a manpower mobility problem here, at the Quebec-Ottawa border, since workers from one side of the river could not work on the other side, and vice versa. These are sensitive issues.

The more discussions there are, the greater the chances of finding the most appropriate solution. Resorting to orders in council and acting on the sly or arbitrarily will certainly not improve the chances of finding the fairest possible solution.

We generally support the bill, but we are also disappointed with clause 19, the wording of which is very expeditious. It reads as follows:

1. Part III of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 is repealed.

This may be a short sentence, but it has enormous consequences for a group of Quebec workers who made a lot of representations. These workers appeared before the industry committee to give their point of view. They also contacted the offices of the transport and industry ministers. Unfortunately, their efforts were in vain. I am referring to Quebec's bulk hauling truckers.

After a long struggle, they managed to get a law finally passed in Quebec to regulate bulk transport. The province did a good job and things have been going smoothly in that industry for many years now. This is quite an improvement given the heated confrontations that took place before, including in the streets of Quebec City at one time, to develop public awareness regarding the issue of bulk transportation.

With the repeal of Part III of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of 1987, there will now be two jurisdictions in the same sector of economic activity. Currently, bulk transport permits are issued by the Government of Quebec and conditions are quite strict. This is why things are now quiet in that sector.

Part III of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 being repealed, Quebec will now have another type of permit coming out of the woodwork. In other words, some people will have a federal bulk hauling permit without being subject to Quebec regulations.

What is worrying some people, and justifiably so, is that there will be two types of shipper, with two types of permit, federal or Quebec. For your information, the Quebec permit is subject to very stringent regulations, and it has been eminently satisfactory to everyone since its inauguration several years ago. It suits truckers because it has restored tranquility, whereas from now on there can be people who are federally licensed and not subject to Quebec regulations. There is a huge risk of anarchy, because truckers subject to the Quebec regulations will be competing with others who are not.

We have, however-the trucking companies even more than ourselves-tried to make the government, the industry and transport ministers, see reason on this. The Minister of Health was not involved in this debate unfortunately. He would no doubt have understood the situation, judging by the openmindedness we have seen in him.

Unfortunately, we had to settle for dealing with the industry minister, the same one as today, as well as with the former Minister of Transport. These negotiations were fruitless and the bulk haulers will now have to live with this legislation, which-and we are only too pleased to repeat this again and again-will jeopardize the peace there has been until now in this sector.

There is a risk of anarchy, because there will be two types of operator: the ones subject to the unstructured and unregulated federal law and the ones with a permit from the Government of Quebec and covered by Quebec regulations, which to date have proven their worth. It most unfortunate once again that the government was not more open to representations from the official opposition on this.

We support this bill, because we sovereignists feel it confirms the existence of and acknowledges the need for good economic relations and the future need for a partnership between the economic entities of Quebec and Canada, after sovereignty is achieved.

The ties are so close, on this continent, between the economies of Quebec and Canada that it would make no sense not to equip ourselves to recognize the importance of these ties, first, and to make our economies competitive with the foreign economies we trade with and the strong economies challenging us, second.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will continue later on. I will try to show the superficiality of this coast to coast agreement. It does not take long once you have to consider the interest of this entire economic territory for you to run out of breath and it leads to policies like the one just proposed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the fee structure of coast guard services. With this policy, there is no hesitation dividing Canada into three and setting fees arbitrarily without basis or consultation of the parties involved.

Smile

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the SMILE program in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants. SMILE stands for Sensory Motor Instructive Leadership Experience.

Through this program 165 school aged children with special needs are paired with close to 200 student volunteers from Acadia University. The goal of the program is to enhance individual self-esteem by helping to improve the physical skills of the participants. The positive effects of improved self-esteem spill over in all aspects of their lives.

The SMILE program has been operating for 14 years and through tremendous efforts of both volunteers and participants everyone comes away with a positive experience.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in recognizing all those individuals who have made this program such a success.

Interest Act

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Real Estate Association in consultation with the Canadian Bankers Association and the Consumers Association of Canada proposed fair and equitable amendments to the Interest Act for both mortgage borrowers and mortgage lenders.

They say the act must be amended to: first, provide for mortgage prepayment, adopting a uniform prepayment penalty that consumers understand; second, define the interest rate differential formula based on the remaining term as the best method to achieve fairness; third, retain the three months penalty currently included in the National Housing Act; fourth, standardize the formula and right to prepayment with user friendly terminology to let people understand what they are signing; and finally, require lenders to reveal true mortgage borrowing costs to ensure the consumer clearly understands the terms and conditions.

Government should listen to consumers and representatives from the Canadian Real Estate Association who are in Ottawa this week to urge for measures to strengthen consumer rights by amending the Interest Act.

Fisheries

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate Mr. Fred Woodman on his recent appointment as chair of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council.

Mr. Woodman has been involved in the fisheries for over 40 years. He has held numerous important positions such as chairman of the Fisheries Council of Canada; chairman of the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador; and chairman of Newfound Resources Ltd. He has been an active member of the FRCC since May 1993.

The FRCC will give immediate priority to the development of a groundfish conservation strategy and the development of a criteria for the reopening of the fisheries on a sustainable basis. Mr. Woodman's leadership skills and solid background in fisheries and conservation will be a guiding force for the council in his upcoming term.

Hamilton-Shawinigan Sesquicentennial

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 1996 marks the 150th birthday of my hometown, Hamilton, Ontario.

Today in honour of Hamilton's sesquicentennial, His Worship Robert M. Morrow, mayor of the great city of Hamilton, and son honneur Lise Landry, mayor of the right honourable Prime Minister's hometown of Shawinigan, Quebec, announced the official launch of the Hamilton-Shawinigan sesquicentennial weekend initiative.

From June 29 to July 1, 150 families from Shawinigan will be invited to stay and visit with families in Hamilton, to renew and strengthen the cultural and social bonds between my hometown and its first twinned city, Shawinigan. The event will foster understanding, communication and mutual respect on a grassroots personal level between the proud Canadians living in Hamilton and Shawinigan.

It is my hope that this display of good natured Canadian fellowship will inspire similar projects throughout our great country.

It is with great pride and enthusiasm that I say long live Hamilton and vive Shawinigan.

Air Safety

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were sad to learn over the weekend of the crash of a DC-9 in the swampy Florida Everglades.

When it went down on Saturday, the plane was on a flight between Miami and Atlanta. Our worst fears have now been realized. None of the 104 passengers and five crew members has been found.

This air tragedy was one of the most deadly on the North American continent in over 20 years. This unfortunate event reminds us of the importance of improving and tightening air transportation safety measures.

The members of the official opposition today wish to join Quebecers and Canadians in offering their sincerest condolences to the family and friends of the victims.

Taxation

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we now know that as many as 20 per cent of international transactions involving Canadian companies involve the use of offshore tax havens. This means that as much as $60

billion in one year flows between Canadian companies and foreign affiliates without being reported to Revenue Canada. And banks we are told are among the worst offenders. Imagine, corporate tax evaders and banks which dodge the law.

What is most disappointing about this story though is not the tax dodgers employed by the corporate elite. After all, we have been talking about that issue for years. What is most disappointing is that the government has known for years about this problem-the report was compiled in 1991-yet it has mustered little more than a lame response.

Canadians are tired of paying more taxes, receiving fewer services, watching the banks and big resource companies have their best times ever while paying lower taxes or even dodging them altogether.

It is time the government acted on behalf of those Canadians who pay taxes and pay the freight. It is time the government closed the loopholes on its wealthy corporate friends, just as New Democrats have been saying for some time now.

Francophones Outside Quebec

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a francophone from outside Quebec, I would like to express the disappointment and anxiety I felt when I heard the comments made by a former Franco-Ontarian, who is now the hon. member for Québec-Est.

Strange how all of a sudden the Bloc Quebecois seems concerned about francophones outside Quebec. It recognizes us only as an excuse to criticize the government.

Franco-Manitobans have fought long and hard for the right to speak and live in French. We now have our own school board, the largest French-language university and community college in western Canada, a newspaper, radio and television stations, theatre and music in French, and much more.

I applaud the tenacity and dedication of all francophone communities outside Quebec, which are doing all they can to survive and being quite successful despite the pessimistic and destructive attitudes of a few.

Mining

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the start of National Mining Week today I am sounding alarm bells about the future of Canadian mining.

Last week the head of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada said: "Canada is losing market share of exploration capital at an alarming rate". As a prospector myself, I can assure the House that unless we fix our mining regulatory mess today, Canada will not have the new mines it needs tomorrow.

We must understand that we have had 15 years of declining mineral reserves from 1980 to 1994. The recent slight increase in investments results almost entirely from only two discoveries: diamonds in the Northwest Territories and nickel in Labrador.

Canada has the geology. We have reliable land tenure. But we do not have a simple, clear and timely system of government regulation. This government must deliver now on its promise of regulatory reform for mining or say goodbye to thousands of future Canadian jobs.

Louis Riel

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the less than flattering statue of Louis Riel in front of the Manitoba legislature was replaced yesterday by one that befits this great man and his role in the history of Quebec and Canada.

Now that the father of Manitoba has been so honoured, the Bloc Quebecois hopes the next step, an even more important step that this House should take, will be to unanimously agree to quash the guilty verdict against Louis Riel.

This would show that John A. MacDonald's mentality no longer prevails. In 1896, he told Quebec's Lieutenant-Governor, Rodrigue Masson, and I quote:

"He shall hang, even though every dog in Quebec barks in his favour".

In other words: "He shall hang, even though all dogs in Quebec bark in his favour".

Temporary Employment

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify recent statements I made on temporary employment.

Lately I have talked with the heads of several very fine temporary service firms. I wish to salute these fine honest firms, many of which are proud members of the Federation of Temporary Help Services.

Over the years this industry has developed a strong code of ethics and standards, to the point where today's legitimate operators display a high degree of professionalism. For instance, no portion of a temporary worker's wage is held by recognized temporary service firms which pay fair hourly wages, offer full statutory benefits and often provide job specific training.

As well, reputable temporary service firms do not charge a sign up fee to employers.

Bedford Junior High Band

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fine group of young students who form the school band at Bedford Junior High. They have just returned from a fantastically successful trip to Orlando, Florida where they took part in the All American Music Festival.

This band was the only junior high band at the festival. It was selected the most outstanding concert band, the most outstanding jazz band and the most outstanding ensemble for the jazz band trumpet section. They were the youngest musicians at the festival.

I hope all members will join me in congratulating Mr. Gary Adams, their teacher, and all these find young musicians for their tremendous success and hard work.

Senator Jack Marshall

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to pay tribute to Senator Jack Marshall, a former parliamentarian of this House who was recently inducted into the distinguished Order of Canada.

The Order of Canada recognizes Canadians from a variety of fields and backgrounds and pays tribute to their outstanding service and dedication to our country.

Senator Jack Marshall worked tirelessly as the MP for Humber-St. Georges-White Bay from 1968 to 1978. He then served Canada in the other place for 17 years.

The motto of the order means "they desire a better country".

There is no question that Senator Marshall was dedicated to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the people of Canada. Senator Marshall was and continues to be a powerful advocate for Canadian veterans rights. Today he continues to volunteer his service to Canadians from within the Parliament offices. Such is the calibre and the dedication of this man.

Today it is appropriate for us as parliamentarians to recognize the dedication of this great Canadian and his award of the Order of Canada.