Debates of Feb. 19th, 1998

Division No. 89

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry the Chair did not hear it. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I must admit, but it was a term of endearment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair did not hear terms of endearment or otherwise. I am afraid I am in the dark about this and will remain so unless I am illumined. I will consider the matter closed.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I take issue with the hon. member but it does matter where a bill originates. It is important. This is the elected House of Commons. We, the members of Parliament who sit in this Chamber, were elected and given a mandate by the people of Canada to represent them.

Those people down the hallway were not elected. They were not given any form of legitimacy by the people in Canada. In fact I would suggest that they do not have the moral authority to continue to sit in that Chamber. It is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of Canadians want to see the Senate abolished.

The hon. member talked about the cost involved in having a vote in the House of Commons. I would simply ask her to compare the cost involved of running the Senate, the tens of millions of dollars involved. I do not support Senate reform because I do not believe the Senate should continue to exist. The Andrew Thompson case is but an example of a very serious problem with the Senate.

The work undertaken by the Senate is work that should be done by committees of this House, by elected members who are accountable to the people of Canada. It seems that at some point we have to take seriously the question of the future of the Senate. It is not enough to simply say that it would require a constitutional amendment and that it is unlikely the constitutional amendment would be allowed.

The Prime Minister and the government must show some leadership and begin the process. I believe abolition of the Senate is the will of Canadians. However, if reforming the Senate were the will of the people of Canada, we should at the very least begin the process. If not, the Senate will continue to carry on, continue to be discredited by the people of Canada. Not only do the actions of the Senate discredit itself, but they also discredit the House of Commons I would submit.

I believe that this bill should have been initiated by the government or by a member in this House. If the bill has the merit that the hon. member says it has, then perhaps an explanation is in order as to why we had to rely on unelected senators to introduce this bill. Why could the bill not have been introduced by the government?

If anything, it is a reflection on the people in this House if we do not have the foresight or the knowledge or the ability to recognize the merit of the bill. I think it does matter where a bill originates. All bills should originate in this House. It should be the elected members of this House who determine public policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. friend for whom I have a great deal of respect, I just want him to know that it did go throw the process. It went through the House here and it was referred to the Senate, which is the normal process as we already know. Perhaps hon. members feel that should be looked at and assessed, but it did go through the House and it went through the normal process. The Senate looked at it and it will go through it again and it is over when it comes back from the Senate. There will be others that will come, but it goes through a normal process.

There was a time in the last Parliament when I personally had an opportunity to see the role they had to play when we did not have an official opposition that represented the whole of Canada. There was an opposition there that worked extremely hard. I would say they did not play party politics in the Senate all the time. They did what they thought was best. So there is a time when there is a need.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard talk today about heartstrings, and let me tell you my heartstrings are pulled as well when I think about Bill S-4. Except that they are pulled in a little bit different direction maybe than what the hon. member referred to when I asked questions before.

I refer to section 53 of the Constitution Act that provides that only the House of Commons may table money bills, bills which require the expenditure of public funds or involving a tax or impost.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to the Chair, it may be a point of information for the Chair on this point of order, but when debate is occurring on this particular bill, and we are talking about S-4 and how it applies to marine liability, some may question whether this is part of the debate.

However, when the hon. member rises to speak on whether or not the Senate should have initiated this particular bill, I think the Chair has to keep in mind that the Speaker of the House of Commons has already ruled on S-4 and its legitimacy on whether or not it came from the Senate. I would submit to the Speaker that any references as to whether the bill originated here or there is out of order and we can stick to the issue at hand, which is marine liability.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I certainly know that the hon. member for Calgary West will want to ensure that he does not reflect on a ruling of the Chair, which as he knows is contrary to the rules of the House. Reflecting on a ruling where the bill has been held to be properly before this Chamber and on which the Speaker has already ruled as I understand it, would be improper. So I know he will want to move his remarks along very smartly and avoid any suggestion that he is reflecting on the ruling of the Chair and discuss the merits of the bill itself.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the comments in terms of the smart comments on behalf of the member for Calgary West. I would never indeed question the good judgment of the Chair. We all value your position, Mr. Speaker, and the contributions that you have made to the House.

I must however talk to the whole idea of this bill not having been considered by five official parties as represented in the House. In its place of origination since the election on June 2, it has only had the representation of two parties, and those not being in this Chamber.

I think that really speaks to whether or not this bill is actually an accountable one, whether or not it circumvents government accountability because indeed, there are five parties represented in the House. If the other three have not had a voice in this piece of legislation and if it did not originate here when it does involve something that has to do with money, then it is a very difficult matter indeed. It strains the democratic accountability of both houses and of Parliament generally.

We think this bill needs to be accountable to the constituents of five respective parties as opposed to just two parties, one of which only represents 7% of the population as it stands here in the House of Commons today.

We do not want Bill S-4 to be reflective of an archaic, unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative body. We believe that this is a slow erosion of the power of the House of Commons.

I would like to refer to a member who sits in the other Chamber, somebody I talked to just this afternoon. Last year the Senate had 67 sittings of which many of the people in that place only sat for roughly 50% of the time. I would like to go through the math of this for a second. I think it is pertinent. At 67 sittings a year with a salary in excess of $64,000 a year that would work out—

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The debate is not germane to the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I must say that the Chair is having trouble determining how it is that the number of sitting days in the Senate has any relevance to Bill S-4 which is before us. I would invite the hon. member to move more quickly than he has been moving to get his comments on to the subject matter of the bill.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly wrap up my point with regard to the originators of this bill, the one last point being that the originators of this bill get more than $1,000 a day. I wrap up by saying that this bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Questions and comments. Resuming debate. On a question, the hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to seek clarification with regard to the motion that has been tabled. The intent of the motion appears to be motivated by whether or not there is jurisdiction of the Senate to do this. Indeed the House has already dealt with that and it is proper for the Senate to have initiated the bill.

In view of that and in view of the fact that it has been requested that the bill be referred to the committee on procedure and House affairs, I would ask the Speaker to rule on the admissibility of the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has ruled that the motion appears to be entirely admissible. The motion does not state any reason for the referral. It simply says that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the committee on procedure and House affairs. In the opinion of the Chair, the motion is admissible.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, we have a huge shipyard that is as big as the one in the riding of the hon. member for Saint John. I pay attention any time the issue of shipping is raised because of its connection with shipbuilding.

My riding is right across from Quebec City, on the opposite shore of the St. Lawrence River, on which there is a lot of shipping. So, we in Lévis want to see as many ships as possible. But at the same time, we want to make sure that, should an accident occur, these ships will not harm the environment. Bill S-4 deals with liability for shipping accidents and oil pollution damage.

Personally, I was not in favour of looking for ways to delay passage of this bill, essentially because this bill should have been passed a long time ago. Why has it not been passed into law yet? Because last year, Prime Minister Chrétien decided to call an early election because he feared the impact of the Employment Insurance Act reform on people in the maritimes. That was not a bad idea, since the government majority fell significantly from what it was in the last Parliament, and had he waited until the fall, he would probably have ended up with a minority government.

It may have been a good move for the Prime Minister, but not for this bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, which was first passed in 1932. The changes will be implemented in stages because the government is not quite ready to put all the new provisions into effect. The government has decided to make the changes required in two stages, and this part covers only what the government is almost forced to do as a signatory to the 1976 international convention, which was to come into force in 1990, but whose implementation was later postponed to March 31, 1996, at the latest. But the government negotiated an extension which took us to this year.

In the end, having signed an international convention, the government can no longer delay passage of this legislation. When someone does something because he can no longer postpone it, it shows how little he cares about it. The government does so because it is obliged to, because other countries on the international scene have already done so, and it is among the last stragglers, so now it is acting in order to save face. I am shocked by this. The people of Lévis whom I represent, the workers at the Lévis shipyards, are also shocked by the low priority this government gives to shipping. The message it is sending to them is discouraging.

In 1993, the Liberals were so hot to gain power that the Prime Minister's current chief of staff was a Liberal candidate in Quebec City. All the candidates in that region signed an undertaking stating that they found this issue so important that they were going to hold a summit on the future of the shipyards and of shipping as a whole. He was not elected, of course. Perhaps that is why nothing has happened in the area of shipping since then. The government stalls. Then, if the polls seem favourable, an election is called and shipping is forgotten altogether.

This is the most neglected sector in the area of transport. It seems to be the last to get any attention, so much so that the former president of the Canadian shipowners, Mr. Bell I think, waited until after the election to reach his decision, not wishing to get involved in politics.

He had been in that position for a dozen years or so. He commented: “Things are going so badly. They change ministers just about every two years, in transport and for shipbuilding. We cannot figure out where we stand. Things are going so badly that I have decided to step down, because the message I am getting is that this is not an important issue for the Liberal government”.

Almost a year into the second Liberal mandate, the Senate finally turns up with this. I am like everybody else. I will not go on any longer on this point, or the parliamentary secretary will be rising to bring me back on topic.

Generally things are not at their fastest in the Senate. When the Senate is faster than the House of Commons and the Liberal government, that means the latter are very slow indeed. It would be almost impossible to get any slower. When the senators push the government to pass something, things are happening. Things are going awry. It has come to that. This is almost a distress call.

We will of course support this bill and help it through as quickly as possible so there are no problems and to avoid any incidents. We know what the Irving Oil disaster cost taxpayers. There were other incidents in the St. Lawrence. There was the Exxon Valdez . Twice ships have run into the Quebec City bridge. Fortunately, hulls were not damaged and there was little oil spilled. We managed to avoid any catastrophes. Is the government going to wait for an environmental catastrophe to happen before introducing a bill?

The Senate is sending the Liberal government a wake-up call.

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

You have to be pretty low.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Very low indeed, as the member for Trois-Rivières has pointed out.

Some people are citing the Brander-Smith report, which proposes, because of the shoals in the St. Lawrence, that ships with double hulls be built as quickly as possible. With its usual lack of speed, the Liberal government intended to pass this legislation in 2007, in ten years. In the meantime, what we see sailing past are old tubs, most of them under foreign flags. And we should not be worried.

This is the time to be building new ships. For ten years now they have been warning foreign ships about the 20-year limit, but they are still letting them in. Fortunately, in this instance, we have the senators. For once in their lives, at least, they will have proven their usefulness. The senators are trying to get the government to wake up.

The government also turned a deaf ear when other key players spoke. Last August, at the federal-provincial conference held in St. Andrews, the former premier of New Brunswick told his fellow premiers that action was urgently required. He urged the federal government to take action in the shipping industry. Since his resignation, we have not heard him say anything more about the issue, but still, nothing has been done.

I personally do not approve of using delaying tactics to hold up this bill. What I want is a real bill on a real shipping policy, a real shipbuilding policy. This is what workers want, especially but not exclusively in Quebec.

The hon. member for Saint John moved a similar motion last fall. Each party had one speaker address the issue. Everyone, including the opposition, was in agreement, whether in western Canada or in Ontario. After all, the Great Lakes region is also interested in shipping. The parliamentary secretary comes from that region. I know that he is interested in this.

But what is the government waiting for to establish a true shipping policy, a true shipbuilding policy? It should do like the United States, where $400 million is earmarked every year to replace the U.S. merchant fleet. It should do like most countries of the world, where shipyards get some support because they are considered important.

Shipping is actually the cheapest mode of transportation. If this activity is conducted properly, if measures such as double hulling are taken, we can avoid accidents or incidents, particularly those involving oil. It is the least expensive mode of transportation, and the least dangerous one from an environmental point of view.

However, using old ships to carry oil can have a major environmental impact, if they sink like the Irving Whale . This is why the world fleet must be renewed. Ships entering Canadian waters must be safe. Otherwise, they should get stiff penalties, so that they will think twice before entering our waters and threatening the environmental safety of Canada and of Quebec.

These are the main points I wanted to make on this issue. I will be pleased to answer any questions.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the maritimes. I want to thank him for giving me that lead-in to say that we in the maritimes are very supportive of anything that will assist the marine works and shipping industry.

This bill is aimed at dealing with the financial aspect of catastrophes that may take place. There is an important point to be made on preventive action. It has recently been mentioned that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is going to be cutting back or terminating a lot of the lighthouses in the maritime region.

In my constituency concern has been expressed to me about the safety issues that are presented with that move. We would see that as an important aspect which has to be considered when we talk about marine safety, the preventive aspect as well as the response afterwards. We hope that would be taken into consideration.

One final comment with respect to the terms of endearment used for my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, as I have said in this House before, we need to use respect for each other when we are in this House. The fewer terms of endearment used, the better. That way we will accomplish things in the interests of all.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member for Halifax West is also concerned about shipping.

In fact, he comes from a region that is greatly affected by it. Although the bill does not address the issue of navigational aids, he is right to be worried about what is being done in that regard.

On this topic, we in Quebec deplore the fact that icebreaking is now the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Since the Liberals have been in office, we have lost a lot of icebreakers and now we can no longer ensure marine traffic in winter. This winter, it was not too noticeable, because the weather was warmer than usual, but I agree fully with what my colleague said about safety.

I did not, however, understand his reference to birds. I do not know what he meant.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are seven minutes remaining in question and answer period and we will get back to this after Oral Question Period today. We will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Mathieu Da Costa

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the contribution of Mathieu Da Costa to the building of this country.

Mathieu Da Costa was the first recorded black person in Canada, renowned today for his work as an interpreter and the role he played by bridging the gap between the cultural and linguistic languages between 17th century French explores and the Mi'kmaq people.

Tomorrow we will meet the award winners of the Mathieu Da Costa awards program. This initiative is a partnership between the multiculturalism program of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Canadian Teachers' Federation and the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

By encouraging students from some 15,000 schools across this great country of ours to learn about the contributions of Canadians of diverse backgrounds, the Mathieu Da Costa awards program fosters a sense of Canadian identity and bridges the gaps between Canadians of all origins.

The Senate

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate seems to be having some difficulty trying to rid itself of absent Andy, so I may suggest 10 innovative ways to clean out the patronage trough at the other place.

1. Make all airline tickets to Mexico one way only.

2. Just do an honest job evaluation.

3. Cut off the supply of Geritol.

4. Cut off the supply of alcohol.

5. Stewed prunes.

6. Take away the senators' crayons.

7. Allow the bells to ring during nap time.

8. Make them try to justify their existence to an ordinary taxpayer.

9. When we are talking about “attends” we are not talking about a brand name.

And the No. 1 way to clean up the Senate: elections, elections, elections.

White Cane Week

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the white cane means freedom, and communities across Canada celebrated freedom during white cane week recently.

This awareness week, organized by the Canadian Council of the Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, aims to raise awareness about the significance of the white cane.

A person using a white cane is no different from anyone else. Their white cane is an essential tool for travel so that they can get around safely.

There are thousands of Canadians who know firsthand the significance of the white cane. All across Canada people are learning more about blindness and vision loss. I encourage all Canadians to find out what is happening in their community in this regard. Canadians can do so by contacting their local Canadian Council of the Blind office or the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in their area.

Volunteer Firefighters

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on two occasions since I was elected to this House in 1988, I have brought forward to the House motions recommending that the government raise the tax exemption levels for volunteer firefighters.

In June 1994 my motion to raise the tax exemption level was given overwhelming support by all parties. It should be noted that the last time an increase was given was in 1980. Since that time, training and equipment costs have gone up. Those who have purchased the equipment with their own money and who give their time serving their communities have not benefited from the increase in inflation.

I agree with the Minister of Finance that during these times of fiscal restraints we must be careful not to overextend ourselves. However, I would think that all members here would agree that tax breaks could help promote volunteerism in our communities.

I believe one of the top priorities should be to encourage volunteerism—