House of Commons Hansard #106 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was devco.
George Baker LiberalMinister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)
Mr. Speaker, the collapse of the stock in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1992 was caused by the Tory government's policies in Ottawa that allowed foreign nations to come in and to rake the bottom of the ocean, destroy the food chain of the cod, and remove all other species that were attached to the ground.
That is the real truth. In other words, the real cause for the collapse was the hon. member's party, the Tory government.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these order in council appointments are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
Robert Bertrand Liberal Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 1999-2000 annual report of the Chief of Defence Staff entitled “Building on a Stronger Foundation”.
Robert Bertrand Liberal Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is also my privilege to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment.
Judi Longfield LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, the International Labour Organization requires its member states to introduce the new ILO conventions and recommendations to competent authorities.
I am pleased to submit two copies, in both officials languages, of the Canadian position with respect to the conventions and recommendations adopted at the international labour conference in Geneva in June 1997 and June 1998.
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, May 16, 2000, respecting Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999.
The committee has considered Bill C-25 and reports the bill with amendments.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-480, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with legalizing prostitution. It would allow a municipality that wishes to legalize prostitution to do so. In fact it would allow a municipality to license establishments as places of business where prostitutes may legally perform their trade.
Prostitution per se is not illegal but communication for the purpose of prostitution is illegal. This amendment to the criminal code would make it easier for municipalities that wish to legalize prostitution to do so.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-481, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for mental or physical impairment).
Mr. Speaker, this bill would make it easier for those who take care of an individual with either a physical or mental impairment. It would create a provision within the Income Tax Act for a portion of the remuneration paid by the taxpayer to another person who is performing those activities to be a deductible amount.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-482, an act to establish the office of Oil and Gas Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to the business practices of suppliers of oil or gas.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of a lot of frustration across the land when it comes to gasoline prices. Consumers across Canada are feeling helpless.
The bill would create an independent body whereby an ombudsman would be put in place with the authority to investigate and look into allegations of price fixing or wrongdoing within the industry. It would have a wide ranging mandate and would report to parliament on a regular basis as well as to the Competition Bureau.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-483, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (dependent beneficiaries).
Mr. Speaker, this is a fairness bill dealing with people who have passed away that worked for the government or in the private sector. If they do not have a spouse, their pension would in this situation go to an individual who is dependent on them.
In a logical sense this is a fairness bill whereby if people do not have a spouse or a child, they would be able to identify one dependent person to be their beneficiary. It applies to both the private and public sector.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-484, an act to amend the Statistics Act and the National Archives of Canada Act (census records).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Perth—Middlesex for his support in seconding my bill. I am pleased to introduce a bill to allow the public release of post-1901 census records.
The intent of the bill is to amend the Statistics Act and the National Archives of Canada Act to allow for the transfer of census records from Statistics Canada to the National Archives of Canada where the records would be released to the public subject to the Privacy Act.
The bill is a reasonable compromise. Canadians would have an opportunity to review the census returns 92 years after the census was taken, providing an individual does not provide a written objection to the release of his or her records within that timeframe.
The bill finds a balance which ensures confidentiality while it maintains access for genealogists, historians and medical researchers.
The census returns are a valuable link to our family heritage, community history and telling about Canada's collective past and present. I join with genealogists worldwide in saying that the only true picture of the lives of our ancestors lies within Canada's census records. I hope hon. members will support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure today to present another petition with regard to the legalization of the possession of child pornography in British Columbia by a lower court decision.
This petition adds to the hundreds of thousands that we presented in the House over the last few months on the same issue. Another approximately 400 names have come in and been approved, and it is my pleasure today to table them in the House.
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present. The first one calls upon parliament to announce a timetable for the elimination of the 5% surtax.
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, the next petition calls upon parliament to ensure that Canada's debt to GDP ratio remains on a permanent downward track.
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition wherein the petitioners call upon parliament to continue to support research and development.
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, the last and final petition calls upon parliament to continue to reduce the employment insurance premiums.
Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present this petition on behalf of several of my constituents from the Cold Lake area and the Elizabeth Metis settlement area.
The petitioners call for the decision by the lower court which legalizes possession of child pornography to be dealt with in a firm way through the full use of the charter of rights and freedoms, particularly the notwithstanding clause, so that child pornography will no longer be considered to be legal. I appreciate the petitioners' presenting this petition to me.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I move that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the assets of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders
NDP
Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to finish my comments on Bill C-11, the federal government's legislation to divest itself of the assets of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
In my earlier remarks I was pleased to give some of the background of coal production in Cape Breton and the benefits which have been accrued by all Canadians from this production.
As I said, Cape Breton has been producing coal for 300 years, long before Ottawa bureaucrats existed to criticize the enterprise. The coal produced in Cape Breton fired the steamers which helped build the British Empire. They were critical components of industrial expansion in the early days of Canada.
The contribution which Cape Breton coal made to our war efforts in both wars cannot be underestimated but unfortunately are underestimated. I would say that the entire contribution of our Cape Breton coal industry has been underestimated by the government.
I have heard both the Liberals and the Reformers whine about the money pit of Cape Breton and why we require drastic legislation at this point. However I have never heard them talk about the money saved by businesses and residents of Atlantic Canada because of cheap Cape Breton coal being used to create electricity. I have not heard members opposite credit Devco with making $6 billion.
I would like to talk a bit about that. Bill C-11, as it is currently constructed, I believe would create a money pit in Cape Breton. The bill could see 6,000 jobs lost in relatively small communities, 15,000 direct layoffs, with up to three times that many lost due to downward spinoffs. The impact would be astounding. Along with what I have already mentioned, we would see the loss of roughly $79 million per year in wages and salaries. It would also mean the loss to Ottawa of roughly $28 million a year in Canada pension plan, employment insurance and income tax contributions. It would also mean a total estimated annual economic loss, direct and indirect, of as high as $300 million for this region.
I firmly believe that economically destroying a community is really what creates a money pit, not working to preserve it. It not only fails to make economic sense, it fails to make moral sense.
There used to be an understanding that part of the public responsibility of government was to help Canadians and not just guard corporate rights in an unfettered marketplace, but not any more. There used to be an appreciation and a respect for the importance of certain national institutions in this country, but obviously not any more.
Today I learned that the reprieve of local news shows at the CBC, which is another sock from the Liberals to Cape Bretoners and maritimers, and which I have already called a sham to get the government through the next election, is not even what the government has taken credit for. The national programs will get millions to produce slick, commercial free, 30 minute national news programs. They will have the time to develop the ideas and they will receive the resources to do it right, an approach which local shows should obviously receive as well. However, due to the Liberals' brokerage compromise, the local shows have scant days to come up with millions in cuts in the local show cities, including Fredericton, Charlottetown, Halifax and St. John's, so that they can throw together a 24 minute broadcast with 6 minutes of commercials to reflect these communities to themselves.
Like Devco, the focus is on cutting a national institution which supports the regions. This is the Liberals' approach to Atlantic Canada: more for the centre and, quite frankly, screw the regions.
It is time to revisit this government's minimum wage commitment to this beautiful people and this beautiful island. I join with my colleagues in the NDP to demand revisions to Bill C-11 to respect the needs and the contributions of the people of Cape Breton.
Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
I am sure my colleagues will all be very judicious in their choice of words in this debate.
Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders
Reform
John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Devco bill.
I believe there are many elements of the government that have a bias against the Canadian coal industry. That is a very unfortunate circumstance. It derives, to a fair degree, from an image problem. There is a conceptual thought in many people's minds that somehow coal is dirty and that coal and greenhouse gas emissions are related. That is a very unfortunate circumstance for this important resource.
I want to talk about the development of the bill from a parliamentary standpoint. I met with department officials last year to receive a briefing on the bill, and I am not satisfied with the way the system works. I realize that we are talking about Group No. 1 amendments, but one of the amendments today virtually mirrors an amendment I made at committee. Therefore, it is a good amendment. I thought that amendment would come from the government. I refer to Motion No. 3, which is one of the amendments in Group No. 1.
The reason I believed that was because I thought we had somewhat of a meeting of the minds when department officials and people like myself, who had political considerations, met for early discussions on the bill before it went to second reading. I had the belief that an amendment would be forthcoming from the government.
That never happened. Nothing changed and there was no bureaucratic follow-up.
I see this as something that is structurally wrong. When there appears to be a legitimate opposition concern, particularly about expenditure controls or the way government disposes of assets, or about protecting taxpayer interests, we should not be put in a position as opposition members of bureaucratic convenience, indifference or political interference. I do not know what to attribute it to. However, there is absolutely no follow-up on what appears to be a legitimate problem.
In any case, none of that happened. I certainly was not happy with that at committee. I am once again not happy today. What we have is the very same bill presented today which was presented last fall, and there has been absolutely no entertainment by the government to change a word in the bill.
I am sure the government is concerned about getting it through parliament before we recess. However, it was the government which decided it did not want to bring the bill forward until very recently. It has had the legislation, as we all know, for quite a long time.
It should not have been a surprise to me to go to committee this week to find that the opposition members from all parties were basically redundant from the standpoint that the government would not entertain a single change.
I tried to put myself in the shoes of a government member, protecting whatever the interest is that they believe they are protecting. I could not determine why the government would not look seriously at a lot of the amendments and try to negotiate something with the opposition. That simply is not the way this government likes to operate. The process in many respects is very much a sham.
That does not only apply to this bill. However, it became very apparent to me that that was what was happening. As there will be many people affected, as has been pointed out quite well by the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, I do not think that is the way to do business.
The Group No. 1 amendments, I believe, are quite supportable for the most part, and we will be supporting them. I want to talk about Motion No. 3 because that motion reflects the motion I put at committee.
In the asset divestiture process this bill will suspend the Financial Administration Act. From the government side, there is some logic to doing that because business confidentiality must be maintained, and if that act were fully in place that would be impossible. We understood that concern.
We also had a major concern, in that there has been a government divestiture of taxpayer assets. There is a track record, a legacy, of political favouritism, political payoffs and other things because the proper arrangement was not in place to ensure it did not occur. We have seen it in some of the Department of National Defence base divestitures and that sort of thing. It is in everyone's interest to ensure that does not happen.
The motion is a strong attempt to have oversight by the auditor general, who is already the auditor for Devco, to ensure that the auditor general's report comes to parliament in a timely fashion. That would put the political masters on notice that they could not express this kind of favouritism to their friends without scrutiny on a timely basis. If the scrutiny is too far down the road, it amounts to non-scrutiny because too much time has elapsed.
This is a really useful amendment. I hope we can convince the government to adopt it. We could not convince it at committee. We could not convince it at the briefings before that. Now we are at the last stage and we have an opportunity to do it at report stage. I am very hopeful that the government will see this as reasonable.
The government response is that this is redundant because it is already going to happen. I do not think it is redundant. Even in the very worst case if it were totally redundant, perhaps with a different timeframe, there is enough concern from all members of the opposition to warrant it. As a taxpayer I would want more than government assurances.
Government members should adopt Motion No. 3 and take another look at how they have treated the whole divestiture of assets. They will wear it if they do not take another look.