Debates of May 3rd, 1996

Committees Of The House

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:

That the following change be made to the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Jim Silye for Bob Ringma.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre today.

The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation. Refusing to define this statement leaves interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.

Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that legislation cannot be misinterpreted.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the age of consent laws.

The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children from exploitation and abuse.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by concerned constituents in several ridings around British Columbia.

They urge the government to consider extending benefits or compensation to veterans of the wartime merchant navy equal to that of veterans of Canada's World War II armed services.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions.

The first is signed by concerned citizens of my riding and across Ontario. These petitioners call on Parliament to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code which permits parents, teachers and guardians to use reasonable force in disciplining their children.

They are very concerned that the term, reasonable force, has been interpreted very broadly by the courts and permits severe physical punishment of children.

The petitioners feel that section 43 contravenes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and that children in our society must be protected from physical abuse.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present some 300 petitions signed by thousands of concerned citizens from across Ontario.

These petitioners call on Parliament to create an environment of justice and equality for all Canadians by amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today.

The first petition is signed by Canadians primarily from the Calgary area. They ask Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed almost exclusively by residents of the town of Unionville in the area north of metropolitan Toronto.

They pray and call on Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first one comes from Burnaby, B.C.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession that has not been recognized for its value to our society.

They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against traditional families that make the choice to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Vancouver, B.C.

The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from people in my part of Ontario, Bobcaygeon, Dunsford and the surrounding areas.

The petition requests Parliament to ensure that people who drink and drive will be dealt with in accordance with the severity of the crime.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 8 will be answered today.

Question No. 8-

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Concerning the Western Grain Transition Payments Program (WGTPP), ( a ) which specific farm organizations were consulted by the Department of Agriculture about the program prior to and after the announcement of the WGTPP

on February 27, 1995, ( b ) which specific farm organizations have indicated support of the WGTPP in written form along with the date of that support and ( c ) which specific farm organizations have indicated opposition to the WGTPP in written form along with the date of that opposition?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

The issues surrounding the reform and upgrading of western Canada's grain handling and transportation system have been the subject of intense study and debate across the prairies for at least 25 years. Within days of the 1993 election, the newly elected federal government was required to begin dealing with these issues in the context of the Uruguay round of world trade negotiations because those negotiations were beginning the process of eliminating "trade distorting export subsidies", and grain subsidies under Canada's Western Grain Transportation Act, WGTA, were included, in part, within that definition. Consultations were appropriately undertaken at that time by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food through the grain representatives serving on the sectoral advisory group on international trade, SAGIT. These included the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the United Grain Growers and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, among others.

The consultative process has been intense and ongoing ever since. This has included a great deal of correspondence and, more important, dozens of face to face personal meetings and teleconferences involving virtually every major western farm organization, several national organizations with an interest in the western grain handling and transportation system, untold numbers of individual producers, grain companies and co-operatives, the railways, municipal organizations, and provincial governments.

It would be impossible to reconstruct an absolutely all-inclusive listing of all those consulted prior to the February 27, 1995 federal budget, but the more prominent groups included in these consultations were: Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Keystone Agricultural Producers, Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Unifarm, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, Western Barley Growers Association, Canadian Canola Growers Association, Canadian Dehydrators Association, Western Canadian Flax Growers, Western Canada Pulse Growers, Manitoba Pool Elevators, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Alberta Pool, United Grain Growers, Canada Grains Council.

In addition, at the request of the minister's address to over 90 industry stakeholders in November of 1994, more than 30 other groups provided written input on WGTA and grain transportation reform prior to February 27, 1995. These included, most prominently: Prairie Farm Leaders Group, Alberta Canola Producers Commission, Alberta Cattle Commission, Prairie Pools Inc., Saskatchewan Cattle Feeders Association, Manitoba Pulse Growers, National Farmers Union, Canadian Special Crops Association.

Prebudget consultations were, of necessity, general and broad ranging, but they clearly signalled the government's direction toward a western grain transition payments programs, WGTPP. The nature of the WGTPP, as announced in the 1995 budget, required ongoing postbudget discussions with farm groups about specific aspects of the program's design and delivery and related adjustment measures. The minister therefore continued to seek broad producer and industry input through further correspondence, teleconferences and personal meetings held through the spring, summer, fall and winter of 1995.

Through all these consultations in whatever form, opinions have been expressed both for and against the reform which have been undertaken. While there is general agreement that the reforms were necessary and unavoidable for trade, efficiency, diversification, innovation and fiscal reasons, it must also be noted that few organizations unequivocally approved of each and every aspect of the WGTPP. Advice and reactions were typically mixed. It is therefore very difficult to characterize any given organization as totally supportive or opposed. In most cases they were a bit of both. Not unexpectedly, everyone would have preferred to have more money available for distribution through this program. On the other hand, those consulted also acknowledged the compelling imperative of fiscal responsibility.

One point is clear. Few other initiatives in the history of Canadian agriculture have been subject to such open, lengthy and comprehensive consultations before, during and after implementation. The process continues.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is that agreed.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and Motions Nos 1, 2 and 3.

Employment Insurance Act

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am both happy and sad to rise this afternoon to contribute to the debate on Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada. I am taking this opportunity, at report stage, to join in the discussion on the work by the standing committee.

The day when, after third reading of Bill C-12, the government will ring the bell to call us to the House to vote, will be a day of national mourning. All Quebecers and Canadians should fly their flag at half mast. The government is so ashamed of its reform that it has used very special measures at each stage, when democracy was calling us to debate this bill here in this Parliament.

After first reading-a misnomer, at this stage, one looks, rises, and sits down, first reading is over-the government did away with second reading. Usually, at this stage, the official opposition has the opportunity to present, discuss, and debate all its objections to a bill. It has the opportunity to do so in the House since second reading takes place in the House.

What did the government do this time? It decided to do away with second reading, following instead a rather odd procedure called preliminary study; the opposition was allowed to make six ten-minute speeches, for a total of one hour, to explain and voice all its objections against a bill containing 190 clauses. It was then referred to committee. In committee, the bill was again under a gag order. Not one of the groups wishing to appear was unable to do so for lack of time.

Usually, committees travel across Canada when the game is worth the candle. However, this time, for an in-depth reform of the unemployment insurance program, the government deemed it unnecessary for the committee to travel and hear people's views on this reform. The government preferred to stay on the hill, completely disconnected from reality, and to go ahead with a bill that nobody wants. Perhaps the government got a little scared, given the strong and unanimous opposition to this legislation across the country.

I dare the Prime Minister to let members of his party vote freely on this bill, as he did in the case of Bill C-33, which sought to recognize a basic right. Should the Prime Minister do that, I think his party would bring the government down.

The committee only had 10 hours to do a clause by clause review. This is a big joke, given that there are 190 clauses in the bill. The government, with its arrogant majority, could not care less about democracy and Canadians.

Now, the minister on call wants to gag the official opposition. When the government wants to gag us it asks the labour minister to table a notice of motion; or at least he is the one who always did it for this bill. The minister responsible for the reform does not even have the courage to rise to gag us. He prefers to ask a Quebecois to do the job for him. Barely 10 minutes before I took the floor, we were told by the government that, on Monday, it would table a motion to gag us once again, to keep us from speaking in this House about a reform that does not make any sense and that Canadians do not want.

There are 190 clauses in this bill. Since it could not stop the train, the official opposition tried to propose amendments. Would you believe that a total of 221 amendments, more than the number of clauses, were proposed? A Liberal member decided to propose one. His party will probably support it, to reward him for having dared to say something. Eleven amendments were made by the Reform Party, 13 by the minister, including 6 that are insignificant and of a purely technical nature, and 196 by the Bloc Quebecois, including several which have the support of the New Democratic Party.

These 221 amendments were put in 15 different groups to facilitate their discussion in the House. The first group included Motion 9A, proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. That motion referred to the Quebec consensus concerning Quebec's reclaiming all manpower training programs and job creation programs, along with financial compensation.

Unfortunately, we shall not be able to debate this matter, because the Chair has refused to admit it, seemingly because it involves a royal recommendation, or so I was told. I myself must admit I do not know what that means. What are we doing here if we are refused the right to table an amendment because it needs a royal recommendation? Can anyone be more alienated than a people that requires a recommendation from someone else? Why are we not capable of dealing with the necessary amendments on our own? As a citizen, and even less as a member of Parliament, I have no idea what the expression "royal recommendation" means.

The government, however, in my understanding of the situation, is caught in a trap. Once again, it is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. When responding to questions in the House, or when speaking to the public, it claims to want to get along with Quebec, and that it is Quebec that does not want to get along with Ottawa. This is what we have been hearing for nearly 10 years, as this government is reforming this and that, since Meech anyway, that Quebec is supposedly never satisfied. Yet, when the government is invited to put its money where its mouth is, when there are meetings with the Quebec minister, meetings cancelled with no reason given, the minister not turning up, not submitting what he was meant to, not responding to the Quebec consensus, when we want to repatriate manpower training and employability enhancement programs in Quebec, hypocritically the government digs its heels in every time. What a farce. Mark my words, though, the farce is nearly over. This morning's survey, as reported by l'Actualité , was very clear. Every step this government has taken since the last referendum has added to the popularity of sovereignty. This morning we reached 56 per cent, the highest since Meech Lake. You better not forget it. This is only the beginning, the ascent to secession, as you call it, or to sovereignty, as we see it.

The people of Canada and Quebec will recall as well at the next elections that the old traditional parties have nothing more to offer. They are all cast in the same mould. Whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives, there is no difference. In official opposition, they criticize. On the campaign trail, they promise the world. In government, once elected, they do nothing. They take the issues of their predecessors and do what they had previously criticized.

For the benefit of those listening, I would just like to quote something I find quite admirable: "The point I am trying to make, which many of us will have to look at seriously, is the whole notion of trust and credibility. Canadians are prepared to share the burden, if they think it is being done fairly. Unemployment insurance, family allowance and old age pensions are a sacred trust. We must not allow the trust of Canadians to deteriorate to a point where they become cynical. I have listened to people talk about New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and about other countries and how they do it. There are basic standards, basic programs, universal programs, and programs that allow people to deal with their future with some degree of security". Who said this? None other than the hon. member for Gloucester, the father of the reform we reject.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.