37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 164
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 9, 2002
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Order in Council Appointments |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Battle of Vimy Ridge |
|
|
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris--Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC/DR) |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Bill C-15B |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Excise Act, 2001 |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Suspension of Sitting |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.30 a.m.)
|
|
|
Sitting Resumed |
|
|
The House resumed at 2.03 p.m.
|
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Harry MacLauchlan |
|
|
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) |
|
|
Vimy Ridge |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris--Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Vimy Ridge |
|
|
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.) |
|
|
Vimy Ridge |
|
|
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.) |
|
|
Vimy Ridge |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma--Manitoulin, Lib.) |
|
|
Vimy Ridge |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Saku Koivu |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
Culture Link |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Sports Awards |
|
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.) |
|
|
Vimy Ridge |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Holocaust Remembrance Day |
|
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Minister of Canadian Heritage |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Denyse Beaudry-Leduc |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC/DR) |
|
|
Passing of the Queen Mother |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Middle East |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton--Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton--Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour--Petitcodiac, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Radio-Canada |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor--St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Leadership Campaigns |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
The Environment |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) |
|
|
Education |
|
|
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Highway Infrastructure |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Excise Act, 2001 |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland--Colchester, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton--Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan--Shuswap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton--Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Excise Act, 2001 |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
Pest Control Products Act |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris--Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris--Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia--Matane, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Division 266) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
|
(Division 267) |
|
|
(Division 268) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
|
(Division 269) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
|
Mr. Paul Steckle |
|
|
(Division 270) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Statistics Act |
|
|
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
Mr. Serge Marcil (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Emergency Debate
|
|
|
The Middle East |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Hon. Gar Knutson (Secretary of State (Central and Eastern Europe and Middle East), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan--Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton--Strathcona, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland--Colchester, PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor--St. Clair, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West--Mississauga, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma--Manitoulin, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener--Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton--Lawrence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 9, 2002
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Order in Council Appointments
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.
* * *
(1005)
Battle of Vimy Ridge
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today is as very special day in the annals of Canadian military history and in the life of our country.
On this day, 85 years ago, April 9, 1917 to be exact, the Battle of Vimy Ridge was fought and won by Canadians where all previous attempts by other allied forces had failed.
May I note at this juncture that Canada's veterans lost a dedicated and treasured friend with the passing of the Queen Mother. She was laid to rest this morning and I would ask members to join me in a moment of silence in her memory.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The fateful battle: It was 5.30 in the morning. The ground would tremble and surely each man felt fear and thought of home. The assault turned out to be the swiftest and most complete victory of the war. Within three days Canadians had captured the entire ridge.
The Canadian success at Vimy marked a profound turning point for the allies. General Byng, commander of the Canadian corps and later a Governor General, would write:
| There they stood on Vimy Ridge [on the 9th day of April 1917]...and there was forged a nation, a nation tempered by fires of sacrifice-- |
However the cost of nationhood was high. Three thousand, five hundred and ninety-eight would lie still forever on French soil. For the families of the dead, the price of victory would also be very steep.
Allow me to share some lines from one letter written by Percy Winthrop McClare on Monday, April 16, about a week and a half after his first exposure to battle.
| I can only write a short letter this time....as I have been in the trenches for nine days.... You have no doubt heard...of the capture of Vimy Ridge. I was in the whole of that battle and it was Hell-- |
The letter went on to say:
| --Mother Dear, please don't do any worrying as it does no good. But remember me in your prayer.... Your loving son, Winnie. |
Thirty days later, Private Percy Winthrop McClare, age 19, was killed in action.
The story of Vimy is more than a major triumph for Canada. It was also the story of courage and valour of the families back home.
Those young men came of age under very brutal circumstances: in the tunnels and trenches and on the barbed wire fences.
It is these images, as awful as they are, that we must keep in our hearts and memories and pass on to succeeding generations. That is the promise of remembrance we have made to all our veterans.
At 11 o'clock this morning, a number of us will gather at the National War Memorial to honour that pledge of remembrance to all who served and to all who gave their lives in the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
I had the honour this past Sunday to lay, on behalf of the Government of Canada, the wreath of reverence at the Canadian Vimy Memorial in France.
Thirteen high school students from across Canada joined me, as did veterans and many others: officials of Vimy and officials of the government of France.
Standing in front of the Canadian Vimy Memorial was truly an experience I will not forget. For truly the Canadian memorial at Vimy tells it all. It symbolizes supreme sacrifice and heroic deeds. Human values, peace, freedom, justice, truth and knowledge are reflected in the statues of the memorial.
These human values are universal in space and time. They are about life and dignity.
As we salute our Vimy veterans, let us also salute Canadians in uniform who have been called to take up arms to serve the cause of peace and freedom in a far away land.
The Battle of Vimy Ridge will continue to inspire a nation.
(1010)
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris--Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as I left the coffee shop this morning I glanced down at one of the papers. It read “April 9, 2002, 85 years ago the birth of our nation”. As the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs has alluded, this indeed was a turning point in the history of Canada.
It is hard to imagine that Canada was not quite 50 years old when the battle of Vimy Ridge took place. It was there that Canadians distinguished themselves in battle. On that day, very much like the weather today only it was colder with snow and sleet in the air, the order was given. It was hell but the Canadians three days later had performed what the other allied forces could not have done and were unable to do in capturing Vimy Ridge.
This day, April 9, 2002, is also a double remembrance day because, as the hon. minister alluded, today we buried our Queen. I would like to join these two remembrances together because they do have a commonality.
On this day we said goodbye to Queen Mum. I watched part of that on television this morning. I was reminded that as a boy, I stood on Dewdney Avenue in Regina and watched the Queen go by. That was in 1939, about 22 years after the battle. I remembered that trip. There was no pavement. There was a Model A. There was Mom, Dad and seven kids. All I remember about that was that my dad could reach through any part in that Model A and somehow find the back of my head. That day was revered in my memory because before the parade there was a line of veterans some who had experienced Vimy Ridge, so the two went together.
I would like to read into the records this morning a poem that I taught in school. I do not think it is in the literature books anymore but I remember this well. This poem is entitled “London Under Bombardment” and was written by Greta Briggs. It was the personification of the city of London. As we revere this day, this could well be the Queen Mum speaking. It reads:
I, WHO am known as London, have faced stern times before,
Having fought and ruled and traded for a thousand years and more;
I knew the Roman legions and the harsh-voiced Danish hordes;
I heard the Saxon revels, saw blood on the Norman swords.
But, though I am scarred by battle, my grim defenders vow
Never was I so stately nor so well-beloved as now.
The lights that burn and glitter in the exile's lonely dream,
The lights of Piccadilly, and those that used to gleam
Down Regent-street and Kingsway may now no longer shine,
But other lights keep burning, and their splendour, too, is mine,
Seen in the work-worn faces and glimpsed in the steadfast eyes
When little homes lie broken and death descends from the skies.
The bombs have shattered my churches, have torn my streets apart,
But they have not bent my spirit and they shall not break my heart.
For my people's faith and courage are lights of London town
Which still would shine in legends though my last broad bridge were down.
This morning as we look at Vimy Ridge and at the passing of Queen Mum, I am reminded that on the day of the battle of Vimy Ridge our Queen Mum, who we laid to rest today, was 17 years old. Through all that noise on Vimy Ridge, they told me they could hear faintly in London all the guns, bombing and blasting of artillery.
(1015)
John McCrae wrote in his poem, which has been immortalized and which most Canadian students still learn by memory, the following:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
We have not always held that torch high. However this is not a day to deal with the negative. This is a day to deal with the positive. This is a day to deal with this great military day in our history. This is a day that we too can add with this remembrance our respect to the Queen.
November 11 last year was a great renewal. We noticed that across Canada attendance at November 11 services was up. I am very pleased, as a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, that the government recently moved toward funding work on the nation's cenotaphs, particularly that great white monument that stands in the sky, the Vimy Ridge monument. In the travelling society there perhaps is no other site in all the world that Canadians recognize so clearly.
I am very pleased that we hold this memory and we hold that torch high. We need to tell this story and we need to keep telling it.
(1020)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Monday April 9, 1917, at precisely 5.30 p.m. was a landmark moment for Quebecers and Canadians.
EIghty-five years ago, while still a colony of the United Kingdom, Canada engaged in the first world war, without the experience some other countries had already had with war.
On that night of bone-chilling cold, four Canadian divisions, that is 20,000 Canadian soldiers, including several Quebecers, surged out of the trenches and up the shell-strewn southwestern slope of Vimy Ridge. They succeeded in pushing a six kilometer segment of the front line back four kilometres. This mission, considered secondary when it was assigned to them, was transformed into a success that was all the more remarkable because it was unexpected.
Vimy Ridge was one of the dominant points on the plains of northern France. The German hold on it had already been challenged by the French and the British in 1915 and 1916. It constituted the main objective of these first offensives, but was not to be retaken until the third, in April 1917. In 1915, the French were nearly successful, but were beaten back by the Germans and sustained heavy losses. During the subsequent attempt, the British set off enormous mines within German lines in an unsuccessful attempt to open up a path for their troops.
The offensive by the troops from Quebec and Canada led to Vimy Ridge finally being taken and contributed to the Allied victory.
The losses were extremely heavy. VImy Ridge was taken at the cost of 10,000 dead or wounded. These were volunteer soldiers, it must be remembered. Conscription was instituted after Vimy Ridge. Quebecers were, it must be pointed out, unwilling to fight in a war they did not feel was theirs. They did not want to see conscription imposed. There were demonstrations in Quebec City which were harshly put down. Even Wilfrid Laurier took a stand against conscription. Several Quebec leaders, however, encouraged the Canadian effort and were in favour of Quebec's and Canada's contribution to the victory of France and Britain.
Even though a number of Quebecers were forced to take part in World War I, we can only be proud of the contribution made, first by volunteer soldiers, and then by those who were drafted. It was also following the capture of Vimy Ridge that Canada gained recognition and began playing a greater role internationally. In that sense, the battle in which Quebec soldiers valiantly took part had a much greater impact than those who gave their lives might have thought.
The strength and courage of the soldiers who fought at Vimy and in World War I must be recognized. We must ensure that the memory of those who gave their lives, who did not want to go to war but answered the call nevertheless, is honoured.
Canada's two nations both contributed in a very significant and painful way, through the loss of lives, to the allied victory over the German invader. The moral duty to commemorate the wars of the past century brings us to meditate and respectfully remember those who died during the capture of Vimy Ridge and in World War I.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to pay tribute to the soldiers from Quebec and elsewhere who fought at Vimy and helped end World War I more quickly.
(1025)
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to speak on behalf of the NDP today in commemoration of the 85th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
Ten years ago I was part of the pilgrimage to the Vimy Memorial on the 75th anniversary, at which time I had the wonderful opportunity to get to know the 14 Vimy vets who were part of the delegation. They ranged in age at that time from over 100 years old to 93 years old. The 93 year old, whom the others called the kid, was a man by the name of Frank Bourne who lived in Vancouver but was also at one time from Winnipeg where he worked for the railway and supported the CCF. We got along well. I especially enjoyed his recollections of Winnipeg just after the war, including his memories of the Winnipeg general strike in 1919.
I will always be grateful for the gift of getting to know him and the other Vimy vets who belonged to the generation of my grandfathers, one of whom served at Vimy Ridge but neither of whom was blessed with the same longevity as those who were able to mark the 75th anniversary of their participation in that nation building but nevertheless tragic event in which so many of their comrades died.
I note with sadness that, as the old hymn says so well, time like an ever-flowing stream bears all its sons away, and that this year there was for the first time no Vimy vets at the ceremony in France. At the going down of the sun we will remember them as I am now remembering my grandfather, Robert Nisbet Blaikie, Sr., who was a piper and a soldier, along with his older brother Jim, a drummer, in the 1st Canadian Montreal Rifles, recruited in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. They were part of the 3rd Division, 8th Brigade.
By coincidence, the tunnels preserved at the Vimy Memorial Park are those that were used by this group, tunnels that would later be viewed by visitors from all over the world, sometimes guided for a time by a great-granddaughter of Robert Blaikie, my daughter Rebecca who worked there as a guide in the late 1990s.
Each new generation needs to be aware of the sacrifices of those who have gone before and I commend the government for taking young Canadians on the pilgrimage this year. The Vimy vets I knew would have been pleased.
On a final note, may I say what a coincidence it is that I should have this opportunity to remember my Grandpa Blaikie on this day, the day of the Queen Mother's funeral, who herself lost a brother in World War I. Twenty-two years after the Battle of Vimy Ridge, in 1939, my grandfather played the pipes for the King and Queen as their train stopped in Biggar, Saskatchewan to meet with the assembled throng. As a piper myself, I note with satisfaction the role that pipes played today in bearing the Queen Mother, a descendent of Robert the Bruce, to her final resting place.
When I visited the Vimy Memorial in 1992, I searched the over 11,000 names on the memorial for the name of a man known only as a name to a family in Transcona that I know well. His name was George Esselmont. He and his brother Bob built a duplex on Whittier Avenue in Transcona just before the war, to live in together with their families after the war. George would never do so. He was and is among those Canadians who were killed at Vimy and have no known grave. He grew not old as his brother who was left grew old. Age did not weary him nor the years condemn, but he never got to live out his dreams and live life to the full, like 66,000 other Canadians who died in the first world war.
May we always remember their sacrifice and honour it not only with courage in war, as Canadians have been ready to do when called upon, but also with the courage that it sometimes takes to fight for peace in a world given over to the temptation and the power of war.
May God grant that our remembrance today and in days to come be a source of wisdom and discernment as we make our way in a present and into a future that is still not free of the tragedy and the evils of war.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for his kind words of remembrance. I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to honour an important day in our national history.
We are not only paying our respects to those who gave their lives at Vimy, but also to the Queen Mother. Being in the House of Commons as the representative for Canada's first incorporated city by royal charter, the only one in Canada, it is very dear to my heart to be here today and go to the Vimy memorial service as well as to the Queen Mother's service.
Eighty-five years ago it was the military men of an emerging nation, a Canada still in its infancy, who obtained a crucial allied victory where the ancient powers of Europe had failed.
I had the distinct honour of going to Vimy to bring back the remains of the unknown soldier. I believe it was the most moving experience in my life when, as the hon. member from the NDP mentioned, we went down into some of the trenches. I could not believe that our men had to go there for you and me to be here today, Mr. Speaker, and for all of our colleagues and people of Canada to have the freedom that we have today.
I remember pieces of a YMCA mug that were found in the trenches dating back to those days. I took a picture of it because the young people who are there and look after all of the area around the Vimy memorial found those pieces in the trenches and put them together.
It was a moment that defined us as a people, where our men in uniform were once nation builders and national heroes. The victory at Vimy Ridge solidified our military credentials and gave clear notice that Canadians would be the guardians of peace and freedom in the world, and they still are. The territory seized and occupied as a result of the Vimy offensive gave the allies an invaluable tactical advantage. Above all else it is the courage of our Canadian soldiers that history has remembered most vividly, and rightfully so.
The same dedication to duty and selfless risk that was present on that battlefield 85 years ago has found itself repeatedly clothed in the uniforms of our armed forces in the decades that followed. Even today our soldiers, in the defence of those values Canadians share with the majority of the world's people, have been a source of grave and constant pride to all of us.
The debt we owe to our veterans is a debt we will never fully repay. The sacrifices they made in the great wars, both for us and for future generations, have left us in awe of them.
This past weekend I had an opportunity to visit our veterans hospital in Saint John, New Brunswick. It is amazing to see those veterans as they sit in wheelchairs. I always smile because when I come in they seem to know that I am there to see if there are needs to be addressed for them. God bless each and every one of them. They have earned our respect and they deserve our praise, not just on November 11, but every day.
When we brought back the remains of the unknown soldier the dominion president himself at that time was here. When the remains were placed in the Hall of Honour the next day we were told that the President of the Dominion Commander of the Royal Canadian Legion had passed away. It was he who fought to have the recognition for those who served and gave their lives at Vimy for us.
(1030)
The spirit of that April day has been forever etched in the French countryside as the names of the fallen have been etched in the stone of that great white monument at Vimy.
In a moment I will leave this Chamber along with minister and other colleagues to join with a group of veterans at the national cenotaph to mark in a more formal way the accomplishments of the Vimy victory.
On this solemn anniversary we remember all who have offered their lives in the service of our country and we pray for those who are, as we speak, carrying on that great military tradition in the defence of liberty.
We will remember them.
* * *
(1035)
Petitions
Bill C-15B
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by over 1,000 people in my riding which is the most recent manifestation of interest in Bill C-15B which the House is considering. This legislation deals with cruelty to animals, particularly pets.
These petitioners point to several recent highly publicized examples of animal abuse and neglect. Sadly, some of those were in the general Peterborough area. For example, the cruel drowning of a German shepherd which resulted in the establishment of the Lost Shepherd Society which is behind this particular petition, and a dog that was dragged behind a pick-up truck and badly injured as a result.
This petition includes the signatures of many frontline workers: veterinarians, people who work and volunteer in humane societies and so on. They know Bill C-15B is before the House and they call upon parliament to expedite Bill C-15B in the process of enacting it into law and ask all members to act in good conscience in voting for the legislation.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker:
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement government orders will be extended by 26 minutes.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Excise Act, 2001
The House resumed from March 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am continuing an interrupted speech. The speech was interrupted about two weeks ago when 1.30 p.m. rolled around on a Friday afternoon in the middle of my riveting presentation.
I do not know whether I hold the record on the interruption of speeches but I do remember one in which my speech was interrupted in early December. I do not remember which year but I completed the speech the following year in November. I remember that because it was an 11 month interruption of a speech.
The bill we are debating today is a bill on taxation. I am sure all members present have taken the time to read Hansard from two weeks ago Friday and have re-read the first part of my speech so they have the continuity. In case some have not I will reiterate again that the theme of my speech is the insatiable appetite of the government for tax dollars. Bill C-47 is about taxation.
I talked about the three different ways in which the government can tax individuals and corporations. There are actually four different ways in which the government can earn revenue, directly and by taxation. The three different ways of taxation are: first, taking a portion of everything that a person owns, property taxes for instance; second, taking a portion of everything that we earn through income tax; and third, taking a portion of everything we spend, the much loved GST is an example of that. Many provinces have provincial sales taxes as well.
I live in a province in which there is no provincial sales tax. To my knowledge we have never had a sales tax in Alberta. Until that hated GST came in it was actually wonderful to go to a store. If someone bought something that had a price of $5.99 and gave $6.00 in payment, a penny was given back. There was no computation of a tax. There was no sales tax. I would propose that perhaps the lack of a sales tax was one of the things that helped to make Alberta so strong that it is now one of only two provinces that is a net payer into the scheme of equalization.
I went to school in Portland, Oregon for a year and was interested to find that at least at that time Oregon was one of only two states that had no sales tax. Somehow I am attracted to governments that do not have sales tax.
Economists tell us that sales taxes are a better form of taxation than income tax and that reducing income tax actually has a greater positive effect on the economy than the reduction of sales taxes. However, there is a huge psychological difference to that. When one earns money, especially if the income tax is deducted at source, one never notices it in a way because one just does not ever get to see it. If we pay too much tax at the end of the year at filing time, we find that there is a bit of a rebate and everyone is happy that they got money back.
I do not know how many people stop to think that it is money the government has taken away from them. It is part of their earnings. The government took more than it was entitled to and is now giving it back. We should be happy that it gives it back in the same sense that we would be happy if someone robbed us and gave us back the money.
It is our own money and it is important for us to never forget that when it comes to taxes the money belongs to the person who earns it. Governments who take part of that money away, either through income taxes or sales taxes, need to always be cognizant of the fact that they are trustees of the money, spending it on behalf of the public for the public good.
(1040)
I am very incensed when I find the present government taking taxpayers' money and way too often spending it for the government's good and not for the public good. I will give the House an example of that. The Minister of Industry happened to be in my riding about a week ago, where he made a great speech and held a meeting at one of the new hotels. All the local dignitaries were there. Everybody was very impressed way out there in rural Alberta in the community of Sherwood Park, which is Canada's largest hamlet with a population of around 45,000. It is still considered a hamlet because it has never been registered.
At the meeting he made some announcements about federal government spending. What was curious was that these were not new announcements. They were announcements that had already been made in the budget. The government is great at announcing and announcing. It seems as if the government multiplies the use of these announcements for political reasons.
The minister basically said “Are we not wonderful?” because the federal government was giving out some money to be used for research. He said that this would be a great boon to our economy, our competitiveness, our creativity and our productivity. He used all the nice buzzwords. He gets a lot of mileage out of announcing $150 million. It takes just the snap of a finger for a Liberal to announce $150 million. A couple of Challengers and all sorts of other things can be bought with $150 million.
There he was announcing it, but I contend simply this: If that money is to be spent for the public good, why does he not just send a cheque? If the money is to go to the university, a cheque should be sent to the university along with instructions on how to use the money and how to report on its accountability. Instead we find the minister making a big announcement.
In another example, I remember the Prime Minister announcing the opening of a call centre in, I believe, Prince Edward Island. The government, through HRDC, helped to fund the introduction of this call centre. The reason I mention this is that we are talking of taxpayers and using their money in trust on behalf of the citizens of this great country of ours. There was the Prime Minister announcing to the people of Prince Edward Island that a grant would enable them to have a new call centre and would provide employment in their community.
On the surface that sounded pretty good, but the reason I remember it is that the response was incredible. I heard about it on the car radio when I was driving. The person who was given this money, and I cannot remember if it was the local mayor or the entrepreneur of the business, told the Prime Minister that he had come through for them when they needed him and they in turn would show the Prime Minister they would be there for him in the next election. That was the gist of the statement.
It ought not to work that way. If the money is needed, it should be spent. If it is not needed, it should not be spent. It is not right to tie it together with the expectation of votes in return. I think the Prime Minister would have been right on if he had told that individual that giving him the money had nothing to do with votes. This was taxpayers' money and for some reason it was taken away from people who earned it and brought there so others could earn some money. I know there is an argument there. We could say it created a new business and jobs for those people who then would generate revenue and pay income tax. They would be paying into the system instead of drawing out of the system.
(1045)
I know we can make those arguments. Maybe some of them are even justified, but I object strenuously when taxpayers' dollars are used for political purposes, as in my riding with the Minister of Industry making an announcement that had nothing to do with Liberal politics or like the Prime Minister in Prince Edward Island making that announcement.
Here we are talking about increased taxation. Make no mistake about it. Bill C-47 increases the revenue of the federal government by about a quarter of a billion dollars. That is what this is about. It is about increased taxation. It is a rationalization of some taxation. In the case of cigarettes, for example, in different provinces the rates are increasing incrementally. As I said in the previous part of my speech, based on the amount by which those taxes were decreased previously, they are now being restored.
I think I have made my case very strongly. I am sure that all the members here, having listened to my argument, will now have a new resolve in their hearts to never, ever misuse the money that has been given to the government in trust by the taxpayers of Canada to be used for the public good. I hope that is true.
It may surprise the House to know that my present inclination is actually to vote in favour of the bill, a bill that would increase government revenue and taxation. My primary reason for voting in favour of it is that it will increase the price of and thereby hopefully reduce the consumption of cigarettes. I have given speeches on this topic in various contexts before. Whether it is my colleagues in the House, my friends back home or one of my staffers who may be watching this speech right now and who is currently on a quit smoking program, I encourage them to carry through with quitting smoking. Perhaps this tax helped that staffer to make that decision, although I have not actually discussed that detail with him. I would like to encourage him to carry through with that resolve for health reasons and for economic reasons. The best thing we can do is to discourage young people from smoking, thereby ruining their health.
There are also the costs of smoking. I have related before how when I taught mathematics I encouraged my students, as part of the work they did in learning to use their calculators and computers, to compute how much they would have in the bank if instead of smoking they were to put that money into an RRSP over their lifetimes. I used to have them evaluate the mathematical formulas, math and finance exponentials and things like that.
After they evaluated that, which came to around $1.3 million as I recall, I asked whether they knew what they had computed. I went through it and showed them that the 45 meant 45 years from the age of 20 when one started working until 65 when one retired. The .1 at that time was 10% the rate of return that one could get on an RRSP and the $1.3 million was the balance in the RRSP on retirement. They could retire with $1.3 million in the bank if in their lifetimes they would put their smokes money into an RRSP instead of blowing it up in smoke, so the economic argument was strong. I am proud to say that I had a number of students who actually quit on that account. That is my primary reason for voting in favour of Bill C-47. I regret that my time has now elapsed, but I hope that the Liberals will hear my message and act on it.
(1050)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this second reading debate on Bill C-47. I will say in advance that the Bloc Quebecois is going to support this bill. We have two reservations, however, and, over the coming weeks, we are going to try to convince the government that we are right about two particular aspects of this bill.
Why are we supporting this bill? Because it simplifies matters in connection with wines, spirits and tobacco, specifically by harmonizing sales taxes, excise taxes with the general taxation system, and by creating compatibility among the commercial accounting periods. This is a clear improvement from a tax administration point of view. However, through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the government's attention to two problems related to this bill.
The first has to do with the beer sector, microbreweries in particular. The second has to do with small vineyards, which have been appearing in increasing numbers in recent years, such that in Quebec and in Canada, this has become a very flourishing industry which is winning international product quality awards.
In the case of beer, there is a major problem, a problem of fairness, as it were, internationally. In other countries, such as France, Belgium and even the United States, microbreweries are exempt from excise tax. Internationally, this is accepted under WTO rules. There is a special exemption for microbreweries so that they can perform, develop and support numerous regional communities, most of them small, as well as compete with large national breweries.
This is the case everywhere else, but not here. It is unfortunate that, in Bill C-47, the government has not taken into consideration the fact that microbreweries in Quebec and in Canada generate some 3,500 direct and indirect jobs; I would say that three-quarters of them are direct jobs and approximately 1,000 are indirect jobs. It is unfortunate that the government has not taken into consideration this important contribution by microbreweries. As opposed to the United States, for example, where the excise tax is 9 cents a hectolitre, in Canadian dollars, here there is still a tax of 28 cents a hectolitre.
Clearly, advocates of economic liberalism, even in the United States, are looking out for microbreweries and recognizing their contribution. Such is not the case here. But it is the case in France, in Germany, in Belgium, and in the United States. In Canada, however, microbreweries are treated the same as the big breweries that have much greater financial and technological resources to provide stiff competition for microbreweries.
Is this government able to understand that affirmative discrimination, permitted under trade rules, permitted in a world that is moving toward globalization, and permitted within the framework of globalization, could help microbreweries expand and provide fair competition for large breweries from virtually every country around the world? Would it not be a good idea for the government to get in line with all of the major industrialized countries and help its microbreweries?
We will be presenting an amendment to provide microbreweries with a partial excise exemption for the first 75,000 hectolitres, this is approximately the same level of taxation applied to microbrewery beer in the U.S. This would amount to a 60% reduction in the excise tax for the first 75,000 hectolitres produced by microbreweries, whether it be Unibroue or other microbreweries in Quebec and Canada.
(1055)
This would be of great help to them and would constitute fair treatment. As I said, Unibroue's competitors benefit from this exemption, moreover. It is recognized and allowed under international rules.
So, as I said earlier, we are going to introduce an amendment to this bill at report stage, in hopes that the federal government, with its sizeable surplus accumulated over the past five years, could contribute some $15 million annually. This is not something that would cost the government all that much.
I would remind hon. members that the microbreweries contribute about twice as much in terms of taxes to the various levels of government, a little more than half of this to the federal level. Even with application of such a measure, the federal government would still come out on top. It would still be receiving net taxes from the microbreweries and would help maintain, even increase, employment in a sector that has undergone phenomenal expansion over the past 15 years. This measure would cost between $10 million and $15 million. That is not much to ensure that the existing 3,500 microbrewery sector jobs continue to exist, and even that this sector could become a promising and dynamic one in the years to come as far as job creation is concerned.
There are certain problems in this bill, including one concerning small wineries. As hon. members are no doubt aware—and some Liberal colleagues are involved in wine making, moreover—there has been a considerable expansion as far as small wineries are concerned in Quebec and in Canada over the past 25 years. When I was an economist for the Union des producteurs agricoles, I witnessed the birth of some of the great Quebec wineries. Back in 1986, investment in this sector was just beginning, for instance in l'Orpailleur, in Montérégie.
I was there in the early days of this sector, which has developed from its early, more amateur days to the respectability it enjoys today because of the award-winning, quality products to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. Quebec and Canadian small vineyards have been raking in the medals in recent years on the international scene for the quality of their vintages
Small vineyards are subject to a tax of 51 cents per litre. This is significantly more than elsewhere, including in France, Belgium, Italy and even in the United States. Again, we are asking that small vineyards be treated fairly.
Let us take the example of a vineyard that produces 200,000 bottles. This is not much, considering that, at the international level, large vineyards' production is 10 and 20 times larger on average, including in the United States. What the government could do—and we will again propose an amendment to this effect—is an provide exemption from this 51 cent tax per litre on the first 200,000 bottles.
Again, this exemption would be acceptable from a trade point of view and it would meet all the requirements of international treaties, including the one with the World Trade Organization. Such an exemption would also meet the requirements and provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and it would help small vineyards give additional momentum to their performance.
The cost of this exemption to the federal government would be ridiculously low, but it would really help small vineyards. It would cost the government less than half a million dollars per year, $350,000 in fact. This is very little, but for small vineyards in Quebec and in Canada, it would mean a lot. It would help them tremendously. Why? Because the competition is very fierce for small vineyards. It is very fierce with large international vineyards, and also with exports from small vineyards in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
(1100)
Once again, we are going to bring forward an amendment so that small vineyards with sales under approximately $2 million annually could be exempt from this tax.
Small vineyards are now working hard on quality and the development of complex varieties of vine. They are making incredible efforts to break into the international market. The quality of wine in Quebec and in Canada is therefore good, and there has been incredible improvement in recent years.
In my view, even more could be done. I am thinking of l'Orpailleur; I mentioned l'Orpailleur, in Montérégie, earlier. I am also thinking of Clos Saint-Denis, in Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu. These are two small vineyards whose owners I know which have been making amazing progress, year after year, in research and development to improve the quality of their products. They enter all the international competitions and win awards.
It would be worth improving Bill C-47 by incorporating these two amendments. It would not cost the government very much, but it would give a tremendous boost to two flourishing industries of which we are proud. Throughout Quebec and Canada, people are very proud of the efforts being made by the microbreweries, of the quality of their products, and the same goes for small vineyards.
Again, we will be supporting Bill C-47. However, we hope that, at the various stages, the government will understand that it is to the advantage of all Quebecers and all Canadians to approve the two amendments put forward.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I will say a few words about the bill before the House today as well.
Bill C-47 it is a technical bill. It is a bill we in the House support. It would impose a levy on spirits, wines and tobacco products. It would defer payment of duties on spirits and wines to the wholesale level, place domestic and imported products on equal footing, impose tight controls on possession of non-duty paid products and so on. It is a technical bill that would implement some tax changes. There has been a review of the bill. We in my party have no real problems with its technical proposals.
I will comment on a couple of things in the bill. One is the tax on tobacco. I agree that there should be a higher tax on tobacco products in Canada. The biggest health care expenditures we have in Canada are a result of smoking and all the ailments and health problems it causes.
There has been an unofficial agreement between the provinces to raise the tobacco tax. It has happened in Alberta. It happened in the Saskatchewan budget two weeks ago. I suspect the same thing will happen in Manitoba shortly and in other provinces across the country where the price of cigarettes is in roughly the $9 range. The revenues could be used to promote a non-smoking campaign to show the hazards of smoking, particularly for young people. In most cases high cigarette prices are a deterrent for young people to start smoking.
There is a problem on the other side of the issue. A lot of people who smoke are lower income people. When the price of cigarettes gets high it becomes a hardship on them because they are addicted to cigarettes and tobacco products. We get caught in a difficult situation. We are doing the right thing in terms of health and principle, yet at the same time we are catching people who are already addicted to tobacco.
It is a long term process. People need to be educated about the hazards of tobacco. We must make every effort to get people off cigarettes. This involves federal and provincial government campaigns through schools and the like. This is one of the things Bill C-47 talks about.
I will mention two or three things that are not in the bill but which are important when it comes to taxation policy. We have had a government over the last while that has decided to make lowering taxes a huge priority. Before the last election campaign in the fall of 2000 it brought in a budget that would lower taxes over five years by some $100 billion. That was an attractive thing for a lot of Canadian people.
On the other side of the ledger we have seen a tremendous rip-off of employers and employees through employment insurance premiums being much too high. We have seen increased restrictions on who qualifies for employment insurance benefits. The eligibility period has been reduced for those who do have benefits. We now have a surplus of about $43 billion in the EI program. The surplus is predicted to hit $50 billion sometime in the calendar year of 2003.
We are debating a tax bill today but at the same time we are turning a blind eye as a parliament to a great injustice. Workers are being taxed excessively for their employment. The $43 billion EI surplus goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The surplus is there to provide a balanced budget for the Minister of Finance. It is there to provide money for other programs. It is there to pay down the national debt.
(1105)
Last year $17 billion was put toward the national debt. The $17 billion came directly from workers because of the excessive payments they made into the employment insurance fund. That is very unfair and actually should be a national scandal. The insurance fund should be roughly balanced at all times. I do not mind seeing a surplus of a few billion dollars because at a time when unemployment is low, we can build up a bit of a surplus and when the unemployment rate increases, without increasing the premiums or increasing them only marginally, we can have a deficit running for a while and come out balanced over a five or ten year period.
That was the whole purpose behind EI in terms of funding. Today about two-thirds of the surplus in the employment insurance fund is being generated by low income Canadians not by Canadians who make a lot of money. We tax the poor and people of modest incomes. That is not fair or just.
Many people have lost access to the EI fund because of the tighter qualifying restrictions brought in by the federal government. About one million families have lost access to the fund since 1993 when the Liberal government took office. About 41% of the people who have lost access to the benefits make less than $15,000 a year. Another 23% who have lost access to EI benefits make between $15,000 and $20,000. That is 64% of the people who have lost access to these benefits make less than $20,000 a year. Although they have lost access to the benefits, they still pay into the EI fund. They have provided the federal government with almost a $43 billion surplus today and will provide $50 billion over the next calendar year. It is a very unfair tax from a government that calls itself liberal. That is of course something that is not referred to in the bill that we are debating today.
I want to talk now about the airport security tax which was debated in the House and went into effect on April 1. It was no April fool's joke. It is a tax that will not fly in this country. It is a flat tax of $24 on a return ticket. People will pay $24 tax whether they fly from Saskatchewan to Prince Albert, Regina to Saskatoon, Edmonton to Grande Prairie, Edmonton to Calgary or Toronto to Ottawa. The tax is the same if one flies from Regina to London, Paris or New Delhi. There is no relationship whatsoever to the price of the ticket.
The tax will hurt small communities and short haul flights. It will harm the small airlines such as Athabasca Air in Saskatchewan which has short haul flights between Regina and Saskatoon. The $24 on a $100 or $150 ticket is a huge percentage on a short haul flight. That is another example of a very unfair and unjust tax.
The tax will apply to everybody from the age of two and up. Infants up to the age of two who travelled with an adult could fly free and children between the ages of two and 12 received a large discount but not today. The $24 tax applies equally to every Canadian citizen from the age of two and up. I see that as an example of an unfair tax.
Another reason the tax is unfair is that it was supposed to be implemented to pay for enhanced security at airports. No one in the House would oppose the idea of increased security at airports after September 11 but the tax will collect $1 billion or $2 billion more than is needed to provide for security at airports. In some cases the tax will collect as much as it costs to run the airport. In Saskatoon the city and airport authorities who studied this security tax estimated that Saskatoon will raise some $5 million a year from passengers who fly through the Saskatoon airport. Meanwhile, it costs $5 million a year to run the entire airport, which includes the costs of heating, cleaning and everything else.
(1110)
Regina will raise $4.5 million through the security tax paid by people leaving Regina. The cost of running the airport in Regina is about $4.8 million. The money coming in from the security tax is enough to run the entire airport but it is supposed to cover security. No wonder people get cynical of politicians and governments when we have this kind of a regime and this kind of tax.
The security tax was implemented without an economic impact study being tabled by the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport. The most fundamental thing we do in parliament is taxation. The whole philosophy of parliament is representation. We do not have taxation without representation. We have representation in the House of Commons from all the people of the country yet we have a bunch of puppets in the House of Commons who get up and say yeah to the Minister of Finance for implementing a new tax without tabling a study or a document in the House showing the impact it will have on the Canadian people.
It is like having a benevolent dictator sitting over there. Sometimes he is being very benevolent when he brings in the bill without a study.
What do we teach kids? Normally we teach them to do their research and their homework when they go to school. They need to have some data and facts on which to base an argument or write a term paper. However here in the House of Commons we bring in an airport security tax without an economic impact study. That does not make any sense. It would be like the member for Edmonton North going off and riding her motorcycle without learning how to ride a motorcycle.
Miss Deborah Grey: That would be very unwise.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: That would be extremely unwise. However here we bring in an airport tax without an economic impact study to see what the impact of that tax will be on communities, on the country and on the travel industry. I do not think it makes any sense.
The last point I want to make concerns a new vision of taxation in the country or in the world. I refer to the whole area of the Tobin tax. The Tobin tax was an idea suggested by Professor James Tobin who passed away about four or five weeks ago. He suggested a very small tax on the trade of currency in the world. Today in the world we have about $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion a day of currency being traded and exchanged. About 90% of the currency trading that is going on is strictly for speculation and mostly done by the large investment banks.
What Professor Tobin had suggested was a very small tax of 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.25% which would slow down some of the speculation in currency that creates havoc in currency around the world. It was done with the Mexican peso and the Japanese yen and many other currencies of the world over the years.
As these investment banks play around with people's currencies they in effect play around with people's lives, throw people out of work and cause all kinds of poverty and despair in the world.
If we had some kind of small international tax it would not affect the ordinary people of this country at all. We could have an exemption on that of $10,000, $20,000, $50,000 or whatever we wanted. If we had a tax of 0.1% it would only be $1 out of $1,000. We would slow down some of the speculation and create a bit more order in the financial markets.
A consequence of this kind of tax would be to create a huge international development fund of several hundred billion dollars to fight world poverty, the AIDS pandemic in Africa and to do environmental cleanups. A lot of that money could go back to the countries that collected the tax to help pay for health care, social services and the fight against cigarettes and smoking that I referred to earlier in my comments.
Three years ago in March I had the honour to introduce a motion in the House of Commons asking parliament to endorse the principle of the Tobin tax or the tax on the speculation of currency in concert with the world community. It passed in the House of Commons by a vote of 164 to 83. We became the first parliament in the world to endorse the idea of a Tobin tax. We had people from all five political parties who actually supported the bill.
(1115)
Since then we have seen a lot of movement in different parts of the world. The French have actually introduced legislation to participate in a Tobin tax or a currency tax regime once we reach a critical mass in the world community to make this tax effective. Studies are now going on in the European community. The idea of the Tobin tax is being endorsed by many different countries and politicians around the world. There is a growing movement for a global approach toward taxation.
We now have trade deals that are basically charters of rights for international co-operation or charters of rights for investment in the globalized world. These are now very lopsided. What we need is an international global vision where we also would have some rights for the ordinary people in terms of international labour and social standards and goals and objectives, environmental standards and financial institutions that would have the ability and the power to levy a tax against the speculation of currency.
That is the kind of international vision that I think more and more people are supporting, certainly the churches, many of the NGOs and many of the people who live in various parts of the world.
These are some of the things that I believe we should do. We need this new international vision, a new and a modern day global plan to develop many parts of the world that are today suffering from hunger and famine.
Sadly speaking, hundreds and hundreds of people have died of starvation in the last 15 minutes. I think about 20,000 people a day in the world die of starvation. Every hour of the day, hundreds and hundreds of people die of starvation, yet we have this great disparity of wealth around the world. We have the ability through a currency speculation tax to build up an international fund where people of the world could be fed, where there could be the development of agriculture, food production and processing around the world. The technology is there to feed the people of the world, to develop the world and to clean up the environment. We have those abilities. What we lack is the vision and the political will to make it happen.
When we debate a bill like Bill C-47, when we support a bill like Bill C-47, which I do, which I certainly do, we should also look at other parts of taxation such as the unfairness of the levy of employment insurance, the EI fund, which is sitting now with a $43 billion surplus of ordinary people's money. All the time fewer people qualify from the fund. Some 64% of the people who now do not qualified for the fund earn less than $20,000 a year, yet they have to pay premiums.
We should be looking at the unfairness of the airport security tax, this new GST that has been imposed on us and that the government now is using as a tax grab on ordinary citizens. We should look at some new vision in the future in terms of international stability and funding of international programs. The idea here, which is getting momentum around the world, is that of a small tax on the speculation of currency which is causing havoc in so many countries of the world.
(1120)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and was quite interested in the fact that he spent quite a bit of time talking about the airport tax which of course is not in this bill. It was in a previous bill. The hon. member raises some important points with respect to taxation.
In pretty well every speech the member talks about the Tobin tax. I do not know whether he has thought through the idea of having a money movement transaction tax that would siphon billions of dollars out of the economy and put it into the hands of the government or the governments of the world to redistribute as they want.
Is the member really convinced philosophically that that is the way to solve the problems of poor people? Would it not be a lot better if instead we had entrepreneurs go into these areas, start up businesses, manufacturing plants and other things, give these people an education, help them to work in the knowledge industry or whatever and have them develop jobs instead of perpetuating the idea of a government taking money away from those who earn it and giving it to those for simple survival?
I would like to do so much more than just provide for survival for these people. His Tobin tax idea is really very short sighted. I would like him to comment on that.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
Mr. Speaker, I also want to do more in terms of international development. I want to make sure we have industries in all parts of the world including the developing world. I want people to have well paying jobs, security, food and agricultural development. It is all part of the vision of a new global society.
However we need to fund it in some way. One way is through a tax on international currency. It is not a radical idea. In Canada we have taxes that are based on the ability to pay. We have a progressive tax system. It is not as progressive as I want it to be but it is a progressive system. We have redistribution of income through the taxation system. We have transfers to people in terms of old age pensions. We have transfers to provinces to provide equal access to health care with national standards. We have transfers to the so-called have not provinces in terms of equalization payments. Equalization is enshrined in the constitution.
[Translation]
Equalization is enshrined in the Canadian constitution. It is a good Canadian principle.
(1125)
[English]
We have all these things to try to provide equality of condition and equality of opportunity. We should start applying the same philosophy internationally. The question is how to pay for it.
There may be other ways of paying for it. We could impose other kinds of levies to pay for international development. One of the fairest ways is a small tax on the speculation of currency. It would not affect ordinary people. It would affect some of the huge investment banks and money traders. Some 90% of the money traded during the day is for international speculation.
I have spoken about the issue at conferences around the world. I have spoken about it in Brussels, London, Brazil, at the United Nations and at other conferences. The idea is gaining momentum around the world. The European community is doing a major study on the idea of a tax on currency speculation. France has passed legislation on the issue. Belgium is close to passing legislation.
Most currency trading in the world is done in seven huge centres like London, New York, Frankfurt and three or four others. We need a critical mass to make the idea effective. I hope the hon. member will take a second look at it. Members of his party voted in favour of such a motion in March 1999.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle for whom I have a great deal of respect as a colleague on the House of Commons finance committee.
First, he ought to clarify that the Tobin tax has nothing to do with former industry minister Brian Tobin. We are all aware of that individual's capacity to promote himself. We do not want him taking credit for the idea. The support garnered for the Tobin tax by the Minister of Finance about a year ago when he supported the government's--
An hon. member: Three years ago.
Mr. Scott Brison: It was three years ago. Time flies when we are having fun.
It was quite enlightening. I think the finance minister supported the Tobin tax at the time was because he thought it was a Tobin attack. He did not realize it was a tax. Perhaps he thought it was an attack on Tobin as opposed to a Tobin tax.
Second, there is a fundamental flaw with the proposed Tobin tax. It is a tiny tax that would apply to all currency traded. It requires speculation for a floating exchange rate mechanism to work. Not all speculation is bad. If we did not have some level of speculation we would not be able to have individual floating exchange rates at all.
The margins on the good kind of speculation on which we depend are so tiny that applying a tax to it would have a significantly negative impact, particularly on currencies like Canada's which have become increasingly marginalized as the U.S. dollar and the Euro have become more important.
The margins on the kind of negative speculation the hon. member would like to reduce are so great that a tiny tax would not reduce the incentive to pursue such speculation. It would reduce the incentive for the good kind of speculation on which we depend. I would appreciate the hon. member's feedback on that.
The Deputy Speaker:
Respectfully, this will go under the category “to be continued”.
* * *
Suspension of Sitting
The Deputy Speaker:
It being 11.30 a.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, April 8, the sitting is suspended until 2 p.m. this afternoon.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.30 a.m.)
* * *
Sitting Resumed
The House resumed at 2.03 p.m.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
Harry MacLauchlan
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all Prince Edward Islanders mourn the loss of one of our most honoured sons, Harry MacLauchlan, who passed away on March 28.
Harry was a driving force in the economy, being the inspiration and founder behind many leading island businesses. Hundreds of islanders have worked for his companies over the years and they were always treated with respect and dignity, often approached with his trademark line “It's a great day”.
His business efforts were honoured by his induction into the Business Hall of Fame, but Harry was much more than a businessman. He was committed to the island community through volunteer work, the Queen Elizabeth hospital foundation, amateur sports and recreation, and tourism initiatives.
His love of his family was evident always. Harry MacLauchlan personified all that is best in people: generosity, hard work, and deep affection for the well-being of others. His life's work is over but his legacy will continue.
* * *
[Translation]
Vimy Ridge
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris--Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my presentation, I would like to welcome the French students from Wawota, which is in my riding, who are here today.
[English]
This is a day of remembrance. Not only is this the day we say goodbye to the Queen Mum, but also we remember the battle of Vimy Ridge 85 years ago. From today on, April 9, 2002, will have a dual memory in Canadian history.
The great white monument at the site of Vimy Ridge that stretches high into the sky is probably the most Canadian sight in the world. In today's world of travel people from all countries recognize that great memorial, and we honour today and indeed every day perhaps the greatest event in all our military history.
Let us not break faith with those who gave their lives for freedom and democracy.
* * *
(1405)
Vimy Ridge
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today we commemorate the 85th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge. One of Canada's most famous military engagements, Vimy has become synonymous with sacrifice and heroism. Today we pause and remember the brave acts of those Canadian soldiers who 85 years ago made history when they gained control of Vimy Ridge and captured more ground, prisoners and guns than any previous British offensive.
The battle of Vimy Ridge was a major step toward the end of World War I. It earned Canada its own place at the armistice table and helped define us as a nation. Today we remember all those who fought and all those who gave their lives at Vimy Ridge for that nationhood. Indeed, it came at a high price. Three days of battle resulted in over 10,000 Canadian casualties and 3,598 soldiers never returned home.
Vimy Ridge occupies an important place in our history and in our hearts. Today gives us the opportunity to reflect on the bravery and sacrifice of those Canadian soldiers at Vimy Ridge 85 years ago today.
* * *
Vimy Ridge
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today marks the 85th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge, one of the greatest battles in Canadian history. Vimy Ridge proved to be a turning point in the Great War. Canadians were an important part of the epic battle. They fought exceptionally and were awarded four Victoria Crosses for that single battle, the country's highest award for bravery. The entire Canadian contingent was commended as being an elite fighting corps, and it has been said that Canada became a nation on the battlefields of Vimy Ridge.
As a tribute to this historic event the Royal Canadian Mint has announced the official unveiling of the new Vimy Ridge commemorative coin. The new five cent coin was introduced during a ceremony earlier today hosted jointly by the Royal Canadian Mint and Veterans Affairs Canada.
The Canadians at Vimy Ridge demonstrated our character at its best and reminded us of the strength of our proud heritage and what is possible for human beings to endure. For the courage and bravery the veterans have shown, Canadians nationwide sincerely thank them.
* * *
Vimy Ridge
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma--Manitoulin, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on this day we honour the life of the Queen Mother and pay special tribute to the Canadians who fought in the famous battle of Vimy Ridge. The then commander of the 28th battalion, Alexander Ross, delivered the now famous words:
| It was Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific on parade. I thought then that in those few minutes I witnessed the birth of a nation. |
Eighty-five years ago on April 9, 1917, for the first time all four divisions of the Canadian Corps attacked the German held Vimy Ridge under a unified Canadian command led by Lieutenant General Sir Julian Byng. During the previous 3 years, 200,000 British and French soldiers had died in failed attempts to take the ridge. Through meticulous planning and extraordinary execution the Canadian Corps were able to take the ridge, but not without great cost. There were over 10,000 Canadian casualties, nearly 4,000 of them fatal.
The Canadian victory at Vimy is considered a turning point in the first world war and won Canada a separate signature on the treaty of Versailles. Vimy marked the first time Canadian soldiers fought shoulder to shoulder as Canadians.
* * *
Vimy Ridge
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today marks the 85th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge. The true significance of that battle lies in its contribution to our evolution from colony to nation.
Canada has a cherished military history, one that our country is in danger of losing. What would Major General Arthur Currie, the senior Canadian officer at Vimy, have to say about the government's treatment of our military that disgraces the memory of all those brave soldiers who fought and died on our behalf?
Canadians paid a terrible price to establish our independence on the battlefield and the right to be a nation. History will repeat itself and that spilled blood will have been in vain if the government carries out its interoperability plan to once again surrender the overall control of the Canadian military to foreign commanders. Canadian sovereignty depends on a strong, well equipped military that can pay its own way to the next world conflict.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Saku Koivu
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this evening in Montreal the presence of a young player on the Montreal Canadians line-up will be an inspiration and reassurance to many, not because of any goals he might score, but because of his personal victory over illness.
Not that long ago, the professional career of Saku Koivu seemed to be in jeopardy, and his life expectancy shortened. Now, however, after a determined battle, supported and encouraged by many, this player is back with us, with a clear message: there is hope.
Saku Koivu's return this evening is a happy event, not just for all hockey fans, but for all those affected by this terrible disease.
I hope the day will come when I will have the opportunity to applaud my son for all the goals he has scored, and to tell him that, at last, he no longer has tumours on his optic nerves.
Thank you, Saku Koivu, for showing us that, with hope and courage, the most important goal of life can be scored.
* * *
[English]
Culture Link
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the recipients of the Toronto's Commitment to Diverse-City Award 2002 recipients announced on March 19 by Culture Link. Culture Link is a non-profit community based organization located in my riding that facilitates the settlement of newcomers to Toronto.
I congratulate Supporting Our Youth, recipient of the award in the youth category; Ezat Mossallanejad, recipient of the award in the newcomer settlement sector category; Tim McCaskell, recipient of the award in the general community category; and George Brown College, recipient of the award in the institutional or commercial category.
I again congratulate all the winners and Culture Link for their continued commitment to nurture a healthy understanding and appreciation of the rich diversities of our many local communities.
* * *
[Translation]
Canadian Sports Awards
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all of the winners and those who were nominated for the Canadian Sports Awards, held in Toronto on March 26.
They include Mark Oldershaw for canoeing and Marie-Ève Drolet for speed skating, who were chosen as the best junior athletes. Ashley Cowan, who swam 20 kilometres across Lake Erie in 20 hours and 14 minutes, received the Spirit of Sport Story of the Year award. Roland Green, MTB World Cup champion in 2001, was named Male Athlete of the Year and Catriona LeMay Doan took home the title of Female Athlete of the Year.
I would also like to pay tribute to all the other athletes, coaches and volunteers who were recognized with nominations. To close, I would like to say that it was no surprise—but a true pleasure—to watch our ambassadors, David Pelletier and Jamie Salé receive the Pair of the Year award following their marvelous recent performance.
I ask you all to join me in congratulating our champions and volunteers for their commitment to sport and to thank them for making Canada so proud.
* * *
[English]
Vimy Ridge
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today the stark majestic white spires of Vimy, bathed by sunshine and wafted by a gentle breeze, belie the terror of old.
When shells burst all round and brave men died Canadians moved forth in a hell of man's own making, testing their mettle and mortality of soul. One hundred thousand were advancing on unconquerable Vimy. Canada's finest young men won the contest that day, a victory for all the world to see.
The greatest victory of World War I, Vimy Ridge would enter Canadian history on April 12, 1917. Many would say that Canada took birth that day, born into the world of nations with respect, born by the blood of our young, born through their determination, skill and daring. Their spirit lives on with us today.
* * *
Holocaust Remembrance Day
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today we commemorate the 85th anniversary of the bravery of Canadians at Vimy Ridge. It is also international Holocaust Remembrance Day where Jews in concert with our fellow citizens remember the worst genocide of the 20th century, crimes too terrible to be believed but not too terrible to have happened.
It was a genocidal anti-Semitism where, as Elie Wiesel put it, “not all victims were Jews but all Jews were victims”. The murdered 6 million Jews and 11 million non-Jews were not just an abstraction, a statistic, but unto each person there was a name, there was an identity. Each person was a universe.
As scholars of the Holocaust recently warned, we once again see an eliminationist anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head. As the supreme court reminded us, the Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers. It began with words.
We trust that the legacy of Holocaust Remembrance Day, of never again, of justice for all, will be the universal testament and legacy for all peoples everywhere.
* * *
(1415)
Health
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express our concern and outrage that the lives of Canadians are being put needlessly at risk because of the government's failure to take the lessons of our tainted blood scandal and apply them to our organ and tissue system.
The Fifth Estate has documented a lucrative international trade in body parts taking place right under Health Canada's nose on which it has chosen not to act. Body parts are allegedly being obtained in Canada for sale. Hazardous unregulated tissues are being harvested abroad and sold here for profit. Already Canadians have died from CJD contaminated brain tissue transplants. Instead of taking a proactive, precautionary approach the government has dumped its responsibilities onto the shoulders of individual physicians.
Canadians want to give organs and tissues to save lives. Yet Health Canada's irresponsible approach may discourage donors. We call on the government to act now to guarantee donors that their gifts are protected and guarantee recipients that they are receiving organs and tissues regulated by the highest standards of safety.
* * *
[Translation]
Minister of Canadian Heritage
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on March 20, at the opening of the Salon du livre de l'Outaouais, the Minister of Canadian Heritage made inappropriate comments regarding the chair of the book fair, Estelle Desfossés. She reproached Ms. Desfossés for not including Franco-Ontarian writers enough at the fair, and what is more, she reproached her for being sympathetic to the PQ and BQ causes.
For the minister's information, Franco-Ontarians are quite involved in the book fair, not only as members of the board, but also as exhibitors and honoured guests. This is proof that the minister does not know what she is talking about and is playing cheap and petty politics.
How can she continue to boast that we live in one of the most tolerant countries in the world? How can she attack these many volunteers by demanding that they remain silent and especially refrain from taking any type of stance?
The minister of heritage owes an apology to the chairperson and to all of the members of the board of directors of the Salon du livre de l'Outaouais for her inappropriate comments.
* * *
Denyse Beaudry-Leduc
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, recently, the great water colourist from Sainte-Dorothée, Denyse Beaudry-Leduc, showed a large number of her paintings at the Galerie Georges Darvill in Paris.
Ms. Beaudry-Leduc also represented Canada at the biennial in Florence, Italy, a large event at which over 600 professional artists representing 52 countries showed their work.
Marcel Barbeau and Denyse Beaudry-Leduc won the prestigious Lorenzo il Magnifico award at the Biennale Internazionale Dell'Arte Contemporanea. Ms. Beaudry-Leduc is the first Canadian to win this award.
I join with the inhabitants of Laval in congratulating this highly talented woman and wishing her many more years of success in the exercise of her art.
* * *
[English]
Fisheries
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the 200 mile limit gave Canada the right to impose and enforce fisheries conservation measures within that zone. Fish stocks, however, range over the entire continental shelf.
The Flemish Cap and the nose and tail of the Grand Banks are outside the 200 mile limit, and this is a loophole that allows many NAFO countries to overfish with impunity in these areas. Canada can report overfishing outside the limit but is dependent on other NAFO countries to enforce NAFO conservation rules, which they rarely do.
The many devastated coastal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and the maritimes know all too well the results of overfishing. Canada has a moral obligation to preserve the fish stocks of the North Atlantic as a vital world food resource.
I therefore call upon the Government of Canada to unilaterally declare custodial fisheries management of our continental shelf outside the 200 mile limit.
* * *
[Translation]
Passing of the Queen Mother
The Speaker:
Order, please. As today is a day of national mourning, I would ask that hon. members rise for a minute of silence in honour of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
* * *
(1420)
[English]
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Wolfgang Thierse, President of the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Middle East
Mr. John Reynolds (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is still not clear that the government is doing anything sensible to bring peace and security to the Middle East. It is clear that Syria and Iraq are in fact stirring up as much trouble as they can, either inside or near Israel and the Palestinian authority, to suit their own needs. If these two troublemaker regimes were brought to heel, both the Palestinians and Israelis would be safer.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain why Canada has not put any pressure on Syria or Iraq to back away from supporting organizations or others who are waging a war of terror in this region?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and the House that the government has been in regular contact with all governments in the Middle East and is urging restraint on all governments.
We are perfectly aware that this violent conflict has the possibility of spinning out into other areas. We agree with all members of the House that we as Canadians must do our part to make sure that it does not. That is why we urge respect of the security council resolution to cease the hostilities, cease the fighting and bring the parties back to the bargaining table.
Mr. John Reynolds (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we realize the government can only do so much, but it would appear to Canadians that it is doing very little or is sitting idly by.
The crisis may soon be hitting Canadians in the pocketbook if Iraq decides to stop the flow of oil in support of the Palestinian side in this crisis. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain what, if anything, Canada is doing to ensure that this crisis does not stop the flow of oil?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that Canada's continued and persistent role has been to urge that parties respect United Nations resolutions. That is the case certainly with respect to Iraq.
We have also continued to urge all the parties that are involved in conflict that it is time now for a ceasefire. The recognition of the calamity that has been suffered by both Israelis and the Palestinian people demands that we should now have a ceasefire and the opportunity to review the causes of conflict to find the solution that leads to peace.
Mr. John Reynolds (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
That sure answered that question, did it not, Mr. Speaker?
Yesterday we asked if Canada was supporting President Bush's efforts to have the Israelis withdraw from the territories. President Bush has also demanded at the same time that Yasser Arafat denounce terrorism as a tactic.
Canada has some clout with Arafat and the Palestinian authority. I would ask the foreign affairs minister to tell Canadians if we are using any of that clout to persuade Chairman Arafat to denounce terrorism as President Bush has requested.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member, but he has been here in the House and has heard the answers that the government has consistently given on this question. We have consistently stated to Chairman Arafat that all violence has to stop, that they must cease encouraging violence. We have been consistent with that. We spoke to the speaker of the Palestinian authority when he was visiting the House and gave him that message.
I have passed on that message to my counterparts in the Middle East. We have consistently said to stop the terrorism, that it is not getting them anywhere and that they also must do their best to stop the violence. I assure the member that we will continue--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton--Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is wrong that the government is allowing Hezbollah to raise money in Canada. Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated:
| There is a dimension of Hezbollah that actually has representatives elected to the Lebanese House...We will continue to work with all parties with whom we can get peace. We will continue to do that. |
Is the minister saying that because Hezbollah has members in the Lebanese parliament and does some charity work that it is therefore not a terrorist organization and its fundraising operations should not be banned in Canada?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think we have made it clear. This question has been asked before in the House. It is very clear that Hezbollah's military arm and any activities that it is conducting in Canada which have anything whatsoever to do with raising money for military activities are totally banned and repressed by the government.
There are, however, activities by Hezbollah which are of a social nature, and there are 12 members of the Lebanese legislature elected by Hezbollah to the legislature, and we are not going to declare them terrorists and stop dialogue with them in our efforts to get peace.
(1425)
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton--Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, these are very fine lines. Let us be clear on who we are talking about. In 1983, Hezbollah blew up the U.S. marine and French army barracks in Beirut. It blew up the U.S. embassy annex in Beirut in 1984. It attacked the Israeli embassy in Lebanon in 1992. It continues to attack Israeli settlements.
Canada claims to be standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the war on terrorism. The United States has banned fundraising by all branches of Hezbollah. Why has Canada only banned the military wing?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are also standing side by side with our colleagues in the United Kingdom who have adopted exactly the same stance that we have. The members of the United Kingdom are aware from the Irish experience that there is a difference between Sinn Fein and the IRA and that if we want peace we must deal with those who have a political dialogue. That is what we want. We do not want to just point fingers. We want peace. That is what we do in all our policies.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the situation in the Middle East is getting worse with every passing day, and the government should realize that, given this escalation in violence, the time for platitudes is over.
In order to get the peace process back on track and prevent the conflict from spreading throughout the region, Canada must be responsible, take a creative approach, as it successfully did in working to get anti-personnel landmines banned.
To keep the international community from contributing to a worsening the conflict, will Canada try to convince arms producing countries to cease their exports to the Middle East?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have always communicated the message to countries such as Iran, that arms shipments to Palestinians in these circumstances are not helpful. So, we are on the same wavelength as the member.
There are legitimate arms sales around the world, but we are asking everyone involved to show restraint and not prevent peace in the region. This has always formed the basis of our policy.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, when I spoke of preventing arms exports to the Middle East, I meant all countries, not just shipments from Iran to Palestinians, but all countries, including exports from western countries to Israel and Arab countries.
Will Canada consider proposing an embargo on arms exports to all countries in the Middle East?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada is doing everything needed and everything possible to call for restraint in the Middle East.
We ourselves cannot impose an arms embargo. We have our own embargo that we are enforcing. It is our actions that count when it comes to others, not talk.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, in 2000, Canada shipped $1 million worth of arms to Israel.
Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said it would be premature to send an interposition force to the Middle East, because the parties to the conflict are not prepared to accept such a force.
In the search for solutions—and we are on the same wavelength on this issue—could the minister promote the holding of an international conference under the aegis of the United Nations, which would be attended by Israel, the Palestinian authority, the European Union, the United States, Russia and the leading countries of the Arab world?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this evening, during a debate in the House, we will have the opportunity to look at all sorts of options such as the one proposed by the hon. member for Mercier.
For the time being, we must conclude that the participants to the conflict would have to agree to an international conference. We must first persuade the Palestinians and the Israelis to accept such a conference, and we will do our best.
I am telling the hon. member that we must try to be realistic and that we must focus on ending the violence by Israelis and Palestinians.
(1430)
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, for the violence to end, there must be hope for a solution, and this is why we must find possible solutions.
The Bloc Quebecois has already suggested sending an interposition force, imposing an embargo on the provision of weapons and the holding of an international conference. If none of these possible solutions is agreeable to the minister, can he tell us what he proposes to do?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I propose that we continue our efforts, particularly with the United States, to put an end to violence. Then we could look at all sorts of options, including humanitarian assistance and the sending of troops from other countries. However, for that type of action to be realistic and to have a chance of succeeding, it must be accepted by the parties involved.
This is what we are focusing on right now. Our government is working relentlessly to promote conditions that will lead to peace.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to question the foreign affairs minister. Canadians are beginning to wonder whether the government is committed to doing anything concrete to advance peace in the Middle East.
As part of creating the conditions for peace, both sides deserve to know what specific help members of the international community are ready to offer.
My question is this: Will the government state clearly today its readiness to commit troops when it is appropriate as part of a peacekeeping effort in the Middle East?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think as the foreign affairs minister has indicated, it is premature, but if there comes a circumstance where that is appropriate I think the Prime Minister and others in this government have said in the past that of course Canada would look at that matter very carefully, but it is a premature question at this point in time.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I would again like to direct my question to the foreign affairs minister, whose favourite response to questions about what this government is prepared to do to advance peace in the Middle East is to say that Canada supports the U.S. position. Today Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated that the United States is prepared to put U.S. observers on the ground as part of a truce settlement.
Will the foreign affairs minister publicly state today that we will at the very least commit to sending Canadians to join an international team of observers, a monitoring team, in the Middle East?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but this government has consistently stated that if the time becomes opportune and if the parties are willing to accept it, we are prepared to participate in putting monitors in place to help move the peace process. We are willing to consider all possibilities, but as I said yesterday when asked, it is premature at this particular time because the parties themselves are not in that position.
We would certainly support, and I have said publicly that we are supporting, the efforts of Mr. Powell. I am confident that our European allies also will support that. We would definitely look at putting monitors in place when the time is appropriate and it is possible.
* * *
Fisheries
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, overfishing in the Grand Banks is ruining communities in Atlantic Canada. In the past year the amount of fish taken illegally by foreign nations would have kept open fish plants in Trepassey, Burgeo, Canso and other fishing communities.
We need a moratorium with teeth. We need major fishing states on side, including Russia. The place to start is at the G-8 environment ministers meeting this week in Banff. Will the Minister of the Environment present a new Canadian proposal for an enforcement system that works or will he continue to sit back while Canada's fragile fish stocks are taken by foreign countries? What will he propose at Banff?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is the feeling of the Government of Canada that working through NAFO is our best chance for managing the stocks on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks as well as the Flemish Cap. We recognize that there have been problems in the last year, but there are many less problems than there were in 1995 before we started actions at that time.
I will be meeting with ministers from European countries asking for their support at the annual meeting of NAFO. We will protect Canadian fish stocks.
(1435)
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC/DR):
And, Mr. Speaker, more fish plants close.
This do nothing government is still offering no hope to the forest communities devastated by the government's failure to stop punitive American duties on softwood.
In Atlantic Canada fishing communities are being devastated by foreign overfishing and a moratorium that does not work. Is the government going to abandon Atlantic Canada's fishing communities too or will the Prime Minister announce a comprehensive policy to be endorsed at the G-8 summit that will cause our allies to obey the law and stop savaging Canada's fish stocks?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government will not take a sensationalist approach. It will not try to scare the people. It will not grandstand. It will take a reasoned, balanced approach.
The government will do what is good for fish, not like the previous government where decisions were taken for political purposes and ruined our fishery.
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Macleod.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order. I realize the hon. member for Macleod is a popular member, but we have to hear his question.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I will be so popular in a second.
The Liberals have a double standard. For the military we have 40 year old helicopters with replacements only planned. For the Prime Minister it took a weekend to get him brand new VIP executive helicopters. For the military there is a process, public tendering. For our Prime Minister no public tendering.
I want to know, how do they explain this double standard for our military?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have said this before. I think the surprising thing is that the opposition party does not ask us why the Canadian Prime Minister does not always fly everywhere he goes in a Canadian built aircraft. Does the member think the president of France flies in a Boeing? Does he think the president of the United States flies in an Airbus?
Of course the Prime Minister of Canada will fly in a plane made by Canadians.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, here is the problem with the logic behind that question: The four executive jets that the Prime Minister has today are Bombardier jets made in Canada. Explain this to me: Why then is he replacing good executive jets that have no problem with $101 million brand new ones from the same Canadian company?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, because nobody else makes jets in Canada.
Perhaps the member has not travelled with any ministers on these planes. Some of his colleagues have. Perhaps he was not there when the Prime Minister's plane was depressurized over Sweden last year and had to land in emergency circumstances.
Perhaps he has never travelled to Europe and he does not realize that the existing planes cannot fly all the way from Canada to Europe and that the new planes will be able to make that trip non-stop. Perhaps he does not believe that Canadian leaders ought to fly in the best Canadian product available.
* * *
[Translation]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Baie-Comeau, representatives of labour and the lumber industry indicated to us that they felt they had been tricked by the Minister for International Trade. Having shown solidarity with his strategy, they now find themselves left to their own devices to cope with the 29% tariffs imposed by the Americans. Some fear for their companies and their jobs.
Does the minister realize that solidarity is not one-way, and that an assistance plan for the industry and its workers is necessary in the softwood lumber sector, as the Bloc Quebecois has proposed?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian industry, and the industry all over Quebec, has worked closely with our government. The Quebec government itself has worked closely with us. We are going to continue to maintain this dialogue.
The opposition may claim that some people feel they have been tricked. I can assure the House of one thing: the industry, the workers and the communities know that this government intends to work in solidarity with them and to solve the softwood lumber problem, not by getting down on our knees as some would propose, but by winning our case in this very important matter.
(1440)
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, what we want now is not intentions but actions.
This past February 21 in the House, the parliamentary secretary to the minister spoke of an action plan, and we are still waiting for it. The unions reminded the minister of this, moreover, when he was in Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean.
By doing nothing, as he is now, the minister is giving Canada and the United States the impression that he does not want to fight to the end to obtain unhampered access to the U.S. for our softwood lumber.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can offer the assurance that our government will work with the affected workers and communities.
We have a large number of available programs. We know that several are also in the hands of the provincial government, assistance to workers in particular.
As hon. members are aware, we have transferred close to $600 million to the government of Quebec over the past year, through the manpower agreement, precisely so as to help workers in this economy and in this industry.
We are going to continue to work with a sense of responsibility that will help Canada.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister forgot to say that the chief of defence staff in a report in January said our current fleet of Challengers is perfectly safe. It does not need to be replaced. Yet the government has chosen to put the comfort and convenience of its ministers ahead of the safety of our soldiers. That is shameful.
Yesterday the defence minister said that the safety of our soldiers is important to him. After serving five years as minister he still has not required replacements for the 40 year old Sea Kings or the 35 year old Hercs. Why is it that after only two months the minister of public works can get brand new executive jets for the Prime Minister and the cabinet, but he is so weak in cabinet that he has not been able to get our soldiers the aircraft they--
The Speaker:
The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the purchase of these Challengers affects in no way the purchase of Sea Kings. The money was provided by the government for the Sea Kings a long time ago, long before the Challengers. The procurement process is proceeding to replace them.
Meanwhile they are operating quite well because we have upgraded them. In fact some 23 countries, including the United States, continue to use Sea King helicopters. They can provide an efficient and effective service and they are.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the procurement process is going so well that in fact it started two years before the Challengers were purchased 19 years ago. The Liberals have egos that are so big, maybe it would have been wise to buy larger planes, say C17s, so they could use them to carry their egos around.
Just last month the Prime Minister told our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan that they can rent planes to get around. Meanwhile he and his Liberal ministers will be flying around aboard these $101 million twin flying Taj Mahals. Does the defence minister not think that this money could have been better spent--
The Speaker:
The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is very disingenuous because repeatedly members of the opposition have travelled with ministers on board Challengers and they know the purpose that they serve.
This is the kind of thing they have done repeatedly. Now the Challenger aircraft are Taj Mahals. They are the people who turned over the keys to the limousine when their leader was first elected. They are the people who were going to turn Stornoway into a bingo hall. They are the people who were never going to take parliamentary pensions. I think they should put the hair shirt in the closet and leave it there.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Speaker:
Order, please. It is impossible to hear the hon. member for Laurentides.
* * *
Softwood Lumber
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, forestry workers on Quebec's north shore are worried, and they are suffering from the lumber crisis. Not only are they the victims of that trade war, they are also suffering from the harsh restrictions imposed by this government on the employment insurance program.
In order to help Quebec forestry workers, should this government not consider very seriously the suggestions made by the Bloc Quebecois to improve certain aspects of the employment insurance program and thus help workers make it through the softwood lumber crisis?
(1445)
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I should tell the hon. member opposite that the employment insurance program is already in place to help workers who are laid off. The Council of Forest Industries was informed by the Department of Human Resources Development that the department is prepared to provide to the council the information it needs to support its members all across Canada.
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an urgent issue.
Could the government act quickly and effectively to support the workers who are the victims of the lumber dispute by increasing the level of benefits and by extending the period during which a laid off worker can collect benefits?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to underline the fact that, as the hon. member is well aware, the employment insurance program can adjust to variations in local unemployment rates. As unemployment rates go up, eligibility criteria become less strict and benefit periods get longer.
I should also point out that 88% of wage earners would qualify for employment insurance benefits. The opposition is well aware of this and these measures have already been taken by the government to help workers.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, both U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick and Montana senator Max Baucus have attacked Canada on the softwood issue in the last week. Their letters and editorials are full of wildly inaccurate accusations.
Why has the government's response been silence?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the very words of ambassador Zoellick and everyone else who has been talking was rapid reaction to the very strong words that the government has been saying on the softwood lumber issue.
I have been loud and clear in saying what I think of the punitive measures that the Americans are imposing on our communities and on our workers in softwood lumber. I have said what I thought of the national American trade laws, which I am very pleased will be negotiated in the next round of the WTO, because Canada has always said that those American trade laws were punitive and unfair.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Pollyanna again. The Leader of the Opposition has responded. The government has not.
Last summer the government planned a public relations campaign to get the correct information out to the American public on softwood. This was cancelled. Two weeks ago the minister reannounced this plan but we have seen nothing.
The minister has dropped the ball on Canada's most important trade issue. When is the minister going to pick it up and run with it?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think the member should enlighten us as to which opposition leader he is referring to exactly in his remarks because there are a number of them who pretend to be in that job right now.
However, I can say one thing. This morning I had a meeting with the premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell. We are continuing our work on that very important priority of ours.
I have said that the softwood lumber dispute with the United States has been my number one priority in the last year. It continues to be the number one priority for me and for this government.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour--Petitcodiac, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has taken a strong position with respect to foreign overfishing outside Canada's 200 mile limit. We are aware of serious violations by vessels from Russia and the Faroe Islands.
Could the minister give us an update as to what specific steps he has taken to combat this serious abuse?
[Translation]
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for his excellent question.
[English]
First let me say that I am pleased with the action of the Russian government in suspending the licence of the Olga for violating NAFO fishing agreements.
However other member countries have been deliberately ignoring international conservation measures. The Government of Canada will not tolerate this. As a measure of our resolve, I have announced today that Canada is closing its port to fishing vessels from Estonia. Further, I intend to meet with my European counterparts in the coming months to seek support for Canada's position prior to NAFO meetings in September.
* * *
[Translation]
Radio-Canada
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada employees in eastern Canada have been locked out since March 25. Management of this crown corporation does not want to return to the bargaining table as long as employees refuse to go back to work with what they were offered.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage make a commitment to contact the president of Radio-Canada to convince him that the coporation should return to the bargaining table in good faith and conclude a collective agreement that respects workers' demands as well as the right of the francophone audience to programming services?
(1450)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the lockout has lasted two weeks, and I know that the francophone audience is really missing its programming.
I encourage both parties to resume productive negotiations immediately.
* * *
[English]
The Environment
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor--St. Clair, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a recent Decima poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Canadians support ratifying Kyoto. Even in Alberta there is support of over 65%.
Last week prominent business leaders like Robert Schad and Stephen Bronfman were campaigning to get the government to meet its commitment to Kyoto. The environment minister is still waffling. Even his fellow cabinet colleagues openly question the support.
The Canadian people want the Kyoto protocol. Business leaders want it. Why can we not just ratify it?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, the government's position is clear. We will have consultations with the Canadian public, with industry groups that are affected and with the provinces and territories on ratification and its potential impact on Canada. We will also devise a plan in consultation with those groups, which will not penalize any region of the country or any province. After we have done that, we will make our decision on ratification.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, 54 post-deployment reports on the use of the Sea Kings mention at least one of the following: mission cancelled for aircraft maintenance; mission downgraded by aircraft's lack of serviceability; major snags that cause significant downtime; and aircraft that were grounded.
Why does the government not pull the flying carpet out from under the Prime Minister, cancel the $100 million order for the flying Taj Mahals and buy new helicopters for our troops, or has the little guy from Shawinigan become the sultan of Shawinigan?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are buying new helicopters. The government has entered into a procurement process.
I indicated that by the end of the year we will be able to announce the new helicopter that will replace the Sea Kings. Meanwhile, the Sea Kings have been given upgrades. They are operating quite effectively in the Arabian Sea in the Afghanistan campaign. They have an over 90% success rate in terms of their missions. Twenty-three countries are flying over 600 of them. They are very good aircraft.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the answer does not fly any better than the Sea Kings.
The Minister of National Defence says that the new luxury jets are an upgrade to make sure that the government is better able to do its job when it is required to travel. The only thing the cabinet does fast is fly.
Why is the minister not more concerned about providing his troops with the equipment they need to do their jobs than he is about providing the Prime Minister with a Canadian version of Air Force One to feed his imperial-sized ego?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the replacement aircraft, the Challenger, is much the same model except that is an upgraded version. It has better avionics and better fuel efficiency. It can go to more airports. It can do non-stop trips which again will help the government to operate in a more efficient and effective fashion when it comes to travel.
* * *
Leadership Campaigns
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance invoked the ethics counsellor's ruling when I asked about Calgary lawyer Jim Palmer, who was raising money for the minister's leadership campaign while working for the Department of Finance. That simply is not good enough.
Will the minister clear the air today by tabling a list of those who Mr. Palmer consulted on behalf of the Department of Finance and a list of firms and individuals who donated to the minister's leadership campaign?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this matter has been discussed extensively with the ethics counsellor. He has commented on it. Any further questions should be directed to him.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is interesting. The ethics counsellor has no credibility with Canadians and none with the members of the House, except for those who hide behind his rulings.
The ethics counsellor has a perfect record of never having found anyone in breach of the so-called Liberal code of ethics. He is batting 1,000. However, if the minister is so confident in the ethics counsellor, will he table in its entirety Mr. Wilson's written ruling regarding the investigation into this murky relationship?
(1455)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has commented extensively publicly and has responded to questions on this matter and has not held anything back.
* * *
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said that the government's position on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol will be considered after the introduction of a plan which will be fair for all regions of the country.
But in July, after the Bonn meeting, the Prime Minister said that the government was prepared to ratify the Kyoto protocol in 2002.
It is now 2002. Will the minister confirm that Canada will ratify the Kyoto protocol this year?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the fourth month of the year. The Prime Minister has not changed his mind. So we are awaiting developments, especially after the joint federal-provincial committee, which will be submitting its report in a few weeks.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, at the opening of the Conference of the Parties held in Marrakech in November 2001, the Minister of the Environment quoted the Prime Minister as saying “The Bonn accord paves the way for ratification of the Kyoto protocol by Canada next year”.
Does the minister realize that his statements contradict those of the Prime Minister and that he is getting in the way of the entire process of ratifying the Kyoto protocol this year?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. Last year, the Prime Minister clearly said that the Bonn and Marrakech accords pave the way for ratification, even for 2002.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, federal officials are now estimating that the Kyoto protocol could cost Canadians as much as $15 billion over the next five years. Last week it was $10 billion; this week it is $15 billion.
The minister is on a cross-country tour selling Kyoto but it is clear that the government really does not know what it will cost. Would the Minister of the Environment tell the House how much the Kyoto protocol will cost? Will it be $40 billion or $50 billion by the time he gets to Calgary?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who is a critic for the Alliance should know that the government's consistent position has been that no figures will be put forward from the government until we have had the report from the federal-provincial-territorial joint working group which is currently analyzing the impact of Kyoto on the economy.
When that occurs all governments, federal, provincial and territorial, will be in a better position to offer comments and a response to the hon. member's question.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would have asked some of these questions before he signed in Kyoto. Canadians are growing tired of this chicken little forecast from the minister. Yet he continues his cross-country the sky is falling tour, trying to sell Kyoto even though he has no idea what it will cost.
It was this same cavalier attitude of spending that put Canada into the $547 billion debt we are in. Will the government stop trying to rob future generations of Canadians and just admit that it made a mistake when it signed Kyoto?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member remembers what he said at the Alliance convention not too long ago when he said that the Alliance position on Kyoto would “help our fundraising”.
* * *
Education
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. In 1998 the federal government established the Canada study grants. Since then tuition fees, rental housing and capital costs for things like computers and books have risen.
Will the minster expand the Canada study grants to make extra funding available for students with the highest needs?
(1500)
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to answer the member's question. We are pleased to announce that we are expanding the Canada study grants which will provide better post-secondary access for those with disabilities, women in non-traditional doctoral studies, part time students and students with dependants.
[Translation]
In its most recent budget, our government announced investments of $10 million for two measures which will help disabled students pay for the costs of their education. We will be increasing the Canada study grants now awarded to these students from $5,000 to $8,000, and there will be other improvements as well.
* * *
[English]
Agriculture
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the farm safety net agreement between the provinces and the federal government expires next February. The minister has tried to impose the one size fits all program. Now backtracking at an Olympic speed, he is spending $15 million on a series of poorly organized meetings with select farm groups. These so-called consultations are only an attempt to force acceptance of his plan.
Why can the agriculture minister find $15 million for this public relations exercise but cannot find $5 million for farm drought in Saskatchewan?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, here is the critic for a party that says we should talk to the grassroots. We are spending some money to have the widest, broadest and most indepth dialogue with farmers and all Canadians about the future direction of the agriculture and the agri-food industry in Canada.
We think it is the way to go. We want to talk to people. There is no done deal. We do not know all the answers. We do not know all the questions. That is why we want to talk to Canadians about it and work with everyone to do so.
* * *
[Translation]
Highway Infrastructure
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has once again told people on the south shore that money was available to go ahead with highway 30, which was promised by the Liberals during the election campaign.
What does the Minister of Finance have to say to the Mayor of Longueuil, Mr. Olivier, who is telling him in no uncertain terms to stop stating that the money is available and to pay up, because the Government of Quebec's share is on the table?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have already explained, discussions have taken place with my counterpart, Mr. Ménard, regarding highway 30. As I have said publicly, this is a priority for the federal government. We will continue to work with the Government of Quebec to find a solution. Our party supports this highway.
* * *
[English]
Fisheries
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the real minister of the environment. Despite that the minister of fisheries says the issue of overfishing on the Atlantic coast will not be addressed at the summit in Banff, practically every country that fishes on that coast will be represented there.
Will the minister confirm that he will raise the issue of overfishing on the Atlantic coast? He will be negligent if he refuses to do so.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is a past minister of fisheries and shares all our concerns for the fish off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
Like the rest of cabinet, the rest of government and hon. members of the House, he will not let an opportunity go by to promote proper management of our fishery resources.
* * *
The Economy
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Statistics Canada has released its latest analysis of employment and productivity.
Could the Minister of Finance explain to the House the importance of the most recent reports on the performance of the Canadian economy with the creation of almost 88,000 new jobs in March?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the question of the member for Brampton Centre is very much to the point. In terms of productivity on a year over year basis, Canada's productivity at 2% matched that of the United States for the first time in a long time but that is still not good enough. We have to do better than the Americans.
One area where we are doing better is in terms of job creation. In the first three months of this year over 170,000 new jobs were created. That is the best job record since 1987. In the month of March alone at 88,000 jobs it is the best record since we started keeping records in Canada.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1505)
[English]
Excise Act, 2001
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina--Qu'Appelle, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of answering a question posed of me by the finance critic in the Conservative Party about the Tobin tax, the tax on the speculation of currency.
I want to confirm to him that speculation on currency occurs on very small margins. A very small tax on the speculation of currency will sort out speculation around the world, which would be positive in terms of international development in the world community.
A tax on speculation would slow down speculation in the world on currency exchanges. Three years ago the House of Commons passed a motion agreeing that we should adopt the idea of the Tobin tax, a small tax that would slow down the speculation of currency and at the same time build up a huge international development fund. I am sure the finance critic of the Conservative Party, on giving it a second thought, would agree with my position
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings--Hants, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle regarding the Tobin tax. How would he propose that our floating exchange rate mechanisms would be able to work if we were to put a tax, a small tax albeit but still a tax, on currency speculation when the good kinds of speculation which we require to maintain a floating exchange rate mechanism have such minute, tiny margins? My difficulty with the Tobin tax is that it would not discourage the type of speculation that is focused on the hot money movements that lead to meltdowns. It would actually discourage the kind of good speculation which we need in order for countries like Canada to maintain an independent monetary policy. That is a real concern.
How would he propose that the Tobin tax would work when, if 200 countries agreed to it, all it would take is one country, 10 countries or 15 countries to not agree to it and all the money through electronic means would be transferred through accounts in those countries?
(1510)
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should let the member from Nova Scotia explain what is good and bad speculation, and what is big and small speculation. I am not sure if he can do that. It is a pretty arbitrary definition of speculation.
The member for Brandon--Souris would know the answer to that. I certainly could not help him there except to say that the vast body of opinion does not share the concern that he has. The vast body of opinion that is looking into this issue thinks that a very small tax would deter the bad speculation, the kind of speculation that wreaks havoc with the different currencies around the world.
We would need to have this tax to be an effective tax along with the co-operation of most of the major financial players in the world. There are only about seven or eight that are really major, such as the European Community, Britain, the United States and two or three others like Japan. This is a means of doing something to curb the speculation in the world, to curb the volatility of the currencies and also to help the international development fund.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland--Colchester, PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-47. Based on the debate I heard from the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle and others we would not know it was Bill C-47 because they talked about the airport security tax, the Tobin tax and all these things. I will follow his lead and talk about something else myself.
Bill C-47 is a housekeeping bill that would do a lot of things to clean up the act as far as tax collection goes and to define things for people involved in the wine, spirits and tobacco industry. It would do a variety of things including increasing the tobacco tax by $240 million annually, which will be the lead-in to the subject I want to talk about.
I feel obligated to mention a few things about Bill C-47. It would change the framework governing taxes on spirits, wine and tobacco. It would make the duty charged on wine the same as the duty currently charged on spirits.
The bill would bring in licensing registrations and regulations for the transportation industry to prevent trafficking and control of the movement of spirits and wine. It would create new provisions for offences for those breaking the law with regard to wine, spirits and tobacco.
The legislation would merge some already existing taxes which should make it simpler for industry to handle. It would make the federal tax on cigarettes the same all across the country which it should have been all along in any case.
I was watching television the other evening and I saw a Health Canada ad that said 45,000 Canadians die from smoking cigarettes every year. I thought to myself that figure could not be right. That is 10 times the number of people killed in the World Trade Center attack, and according to the ad it happens every year. I thought it must be wrong.
I contacted the Department of Health to clarify the figure and to ensure it was not providing the wrong information to Canadians. The department sent me a report confirming that in Canada 40,000 to 45,000 Canadians die of smoking related diseases. That is the same as having a World Trade Center attack every month. It is absolutely incredible. If we were to think about this, 45,000 Canadians die every year, year in and year out.
The report goes on to say that this impacts on the cost of living in our society of $15 billion a year. It is $2.5 billion directly to our health care system at a time when it is strained to its very edges, and yet we have this extra burden that does not have to be there.
The report from the Office of Tobacco Control, Health Protection Branch, stated:
| According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes. |
If it is killing 40,000 to 45,000 people a year it hardly seems like good value. A rough calculation indicates that at 41,000 people dying per year with a $7.8 billion tax revenue, that amounts to $190,000 per person. This is crazy. It is absolutely ridiculous that 45,000 people a year die from tobacco related diseases.
I commend and encourage the health minister to use these ads more that tell us about the dangers of smoking and about the incredible costs incurred. I encourage her to do more of these ads and make them clearer. I want her to point out the number of people who die every year in Canada is the same as 10 World Trade Center attacks. In the U.S. it extrapolated into an unbelievable number, but we are not talking about the U.S. we are talking about Canada.
The Canadian government, the military, everybody in Canada has turned a focus on the horrible terrorism act in New York which killed 4,000 people, but we have 45,000 people dying every year from smoking related diseases. It seems to me a misguided focus. If we are to address this issue the government has to come up with more ways to discourage people.
(1515)
In the documents provided on Bill C-47 the government says it would increase the taxes on tobacco by $240 million annually. It claims that this would discourage tobacco consumption. I do not think that $240 million will discourage tobacco consumption enough. It does not provide educational material for young people, for smokers and does not help people get off the smoking habit. That is not nearly enough based on the numbers available and based on the study on the costs of smoking in Canada.
The numbers are absolutely incredible. They just go on and on in this report about the damage. It says that in 1991 approximately $2.5 billion in health care costs was attributable to smoking. That was 4% of the total health care budget in Canada.
That is just the beginning. There are extra costs for hospitals, physicians and absenteeism, and all other costs attributed to the smoking habit, which in 1991 was estimated at $15 billion. If we were to think about that, the whole health care budget was only $66 billion and the smoking attributable costs were $15 billion.
While we are talking about Bill C-47 and extra taxes on tobacco I raise the alarm bell and encourage the Minister of Health to increase those ads and put them into perspective for people so they can understand how dramatic the damage is that smoking is doing to our health, especially to young people, based on the charts and information that Health Canada supplied me. I hope we can raise the level of public awareness on this.
I compliment the Minister of Health for placing these ads. I have spoken to her today about how effective they were on me. In fact, they were so effective I thought they were wrong. The numbers are so high, they are hard to believe. I hope the Minister of Health will continue those ads, maybe even broaden them out and put them into perspective for people.
When I say that 45,000 people a year die in Canada people shake their heads and say that it is a lot. However, when I put it into perspective and say that it is 10 times the number of people that were killed in the World Trade Center they are flabbergasted. That is almost a World Trade Center catastrophe every month in Canada.
We should not accept this. We should not stand for it. We should do everything we can to bring this awful disease or addiction or whatever we want to call it to a minimum level at all costs because the real cost in money and in lives is incredible, especially at a time when much of the time we spend in the House is talking about health care.
Here we are spending $3, $4 or $5 billion on health care costs which could be controlled or reduced. I hope we do that in this case. I want to say those numbers again. That is $3 or $4 billion in health care costs because of smoking related and smoking attributable ailments.
When the government is talking about raising an extra $240 million in taxes as opposed to the cost directly attributable to our health care system of $4 billion, it is incredible. We should all be aware of this and the government should be doing more to raise public awareness of the situation and push for a correction.
I will now go back to Bill C-47 which is what the bill is about, although the bill does mention tobacco. It has several clauses with respect to tobacco, tobacco controls and tobacco taxes. I would like to see much more of that restriction. I would like to see a more concentrated, focused and increased effort on controlling tobacco and helping people get off the tobacco addiction.
Does Bill C-47 have some positives? We think it does. Bill C-47 would merge taxes which already exist to make it simpler for businesses to handle. It would make the taxes on tobacco the same right across the country, which is what it should have been all along. It would change the form of penalties resulting from excise tax, and we support the move in that direction. The increase in the export duties should discourage smuggling Canadian cigarettes back into the country which has been a problem in the past although it is reduced now.
(1520)
On the down side, Bill C-47 increases the taxes but again does not specify where the taxes will go. Will it go toward helping people to understand their addiction to tobacco and the terrific price it costs in human lives, sickness, dollars and the strain on our health care system? Will that be where the money goes or will it go into general revenue like the EI fund? It is absolutely wrong for the $40 billion surplus in the EI fund to be going into general revenue. I consider that to be fraud. Every employee in Canada who gets a paycheque pays an EI premium but it is not an EI premium. It is an extra tax. If the government wants to take this money and put it into general revenue as a tax it should be marked extra Liberal tax, but it is not. It should be designated as a Liberal tax and not an employment insurance premium.
I appreciate the chance to speak to Bill C-47. We will be supporting Bill C-47 but I do hope my comments have not fallen on deaf ears. I hope the Minister of Health understands that I appreciate what she has done in the direction of raising public awareness of the damage smoking does to health and the costs to our health care system but I hope she will enhance that. I hope she will put more money into that budget and maybe take some of this money and put it into a budget to increase public awareness and help people get off the addiction to tobacco.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to ask my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester to clarify his position. Am I to understand that he is in favour of raising the excise tax on tobacco products significantly above the level proposed in this bill? If so, to what level would he propose to raise it?
Does he base this on any scientific or empirical data about the correlation between tobacco use and prices? If so, I wonder if he could make reference to that because I have heard competing information. Some data suggests that while tobacco prices have increased over the past three decades so in fact has teen tobacco use. I wonder if he could comment on that.
Finally, would he not agree with me that if the government is to raise additional revenues through the excise tax on tobacco that these revenues should be offset through commensurate tax reductions in other areas?
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, somehow I could tell he was going to ask me a question by the way he was looking at me.
Increased tobacco taxes could be part of a strategy, but certainly not the only part of the strategy to discourage smoking especially among young people, to decrease the terrible cost to health and health care in Canada in actual dollars. It could be part of the strategy but it has to be a wide strategy of education, restrictions, maybe higher taxes and a variety of other things.
Much of the revenue from Bill C-47 could go toward preventing tobacco smoking and toward encouraging people to quit smoking. Should the revenues be offset by others? I do not think that is necessary at this time. I think the revenues should be dedicated to fighting tobacco addiction.
(1525)
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton--Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question posed by my colleague concerning taxes on tobacco.
One of the fears in raising tobacco taxes has to do with the problem we had the last time when taxes were at an all time high. The increase in black market sales became a significant problem in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and even in the west. The government's response to that was to reduce the taxes on tobacco so it could be sold at a reasonable price and then hopefully the government could then, as the hon. member said, look at directing those taxes into more meaningful programs. However the government did not do that.
I am curious to know what his response would be in the event of significantly increasing taxes on tobacco, especially if the black market continues to grow and people are still accessing tobacco through underground routes, something which I think is a significant problem.
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that was a tax problem. I believe that was a law enforcement problem. Just because the law enforcement systems in the country were not successful in enforcing the law does not mean the circumstances change. I think the system has been improved but I do not think it has been totally addressed.
The hon. member referred to selling tobacco at a reasonable level. I am not sure what a reasonable level is if tobacco sales generate 40,000 or 45,000 deaths per year even though it generates $7.8 billion in taxes. I divided 41,000 deaths into $7.8 billion and it came out to $190,000 per person. For every person who dies the government generates $190,000 in tobacco taxes.That is an awful way to generate tax revenue.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member for Cumberland--Colchester had to say. I also listened to the question and there clearly is a balance here.
I am pleased to see that taxes on tobacco products are rising in various jurisdiction in the United States. I think it helps us with the question which the member addressed before.
I wonder if the member would give us his thoughts on the other side of the question. Like him I am very concerned about it. I am involved with groups in my riding that are actively working to reduce tobacco consumption among young people. People often ask me why the government does not completely ban tobacco. I have some thoughts myself. I am in an area very close to tobacco growing and I sort of know the answer to my own question.
I wonder what the member's thoughts are on banning tobacco products all together.
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Peterborough were to bring in a petition to ban tobacco I think we could do it.
I am not a smoker and never have been so I cannot share the feeling of an addicted smoker. I do not know what is involved. I have to couch my words because it is not fair for me to say we should ban cigarettes and everybody should stop smoking. I know it takes a tremendous effort to stop smoking.
However, if the hon. member for Peterborough were to consider that according to the Department of Health numbers we have the equivalent of one World Trade Center disaster every month, year in and year out, then there is a strong argument that we should take a lot of action to deal with it.
As a country, in partnership with other countries all around the world, we have taken strong action to fight terrorism which resulted in the 4,000 or 5,000 person deaths, the horrible tragedy and attack in New York City. Here we have one happening every month in our own country. I should not say that we make very little effort to do anything but I do think we should do more.
I do not know if banning tobacco is the answer. I would probably try to go in the direction the government has gone with some success but I would go further. I would put more pressure on the industry, provide more help for smokers, more information for young people and more ways to discourage people from smoking.
(1530)
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan--Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have grave concerns when it comes to taxation on any product. I find it rather strange that we want to talk about taxation instead of education. I think we are missing the boat here.
The government can tax cigarettes, tobacco and spirits all it wants but an underground market will be created. I think it is time the government started to look at education in the schools to inform the young people of exactly what happens. What is wrong with showing a cancerous lung or someone suffering from asthma or a similar condition? What is wrong with showing the school children exactly what happens?
The government can tell young people not to do it but chances are they will do it. The more costly the government makes it the more it will be in demand.
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, the member may not have heard me earlier say that taxation should be part of a strategy to help people with this addiction and that education would be a big part of it. Industry pressure and public awareness would also be part of it.
I was startled when I saw the government ad on television that said 45,000 people a year die from diseases attributable to smoking. I thought it was so wrong that I asked for the report. The report showed that it was right. That is the equivalent of one World Trade Center attack every month in Canada.
We can do more in the House and the government can do more. It is a wide range of things from taxation to education, pressure and public awareness.
Mr. Peter Adams:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my own question. I tend to agree very much with the member's point of view. I think I have the sense about education, that if we tell kids to do something they very likely will do it.
I think the answer is that prohibition did not work. I mentioned that I live close to a tobacco growing area. I also live close to Lake Ontario. If we look back at what prohibition did for alcohol consumption, it did the opposite to what it tried to do. In fact it glamorized alcohol and made the situation worse, and we are still recovering from it.
I appreciate my colleague's interest in this matter and that would be the point that I was trying to make.
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, seeing as how the member answered his own question it is difficult but I feel obligated to respond. I understand that the member comes from tobacco growing area and that is a big part of the agricultural industry in his area. That is always a problem. We need to create balance or help that industry as well if there is a big effect. I understand that position but I think we can do a lot more.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton--Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-47. At the outset, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with my friend and all around great guy, the member for Medicine Hat.
Bill C-47 attempts to amend the Excise Tax Act. I will begin my remarks by taking this opportunity to first of all thank my leader, Stephen Harper, for entrusting me with the responsibilities of critiquing the government as the senior opposition critic for national revenue.
As we know, the Canadian Alliance is dedicated to reducing the size and scope of the federal government in order to deliver meaningful tax relief to hard-working Canadians. As a small business owner, I have firsthand knowledge and experience in dealing with the difficulties inherent in complying with CCRA regulations and remittance schedules. I look forward to being an advocate on behalf of millions of Canadian small and medium sized businesses that prosper in spite of the federal government's insatiable appetite for tax revenues.
Bill C-47 addresses excise tax. Although I am opposed to the government's intervention into the freedom of choice of Canadians through taxation, I will be supporting the legislation as it has been endorsed by industry stakeholders and modernizes the framework of excise taxation on wine, spirits and beer.
The proposed excise tax 2001 aims to replace the existing old and antiquated administrative and enforcement structure governing alcohol and tobacco products with a modern regime reflecting current practices. It does not address the tax rate and base matters other than to ensure equitable treatment between domestic and imported products.
The proposed act shifts compliance and point of taxation from a sales levy to a production levy for the production of wine. This is already the case for distillers.
The changes introduced for spirits and wine are regulatory in nature and tax neutral. The primary purpose of these changes are to modernize how these products are taxed to allow distillers and vintners the greatest flexibility in their production practices and to ensure an internationally competitive tax regime.
From an industry perspective the proposed legislation also provides for an appeal and assessment process. Previously industry had no recourse against the government if it felt unfairly treated.
The motion also contains significant enforcement tools to crack down on contraband products. This is a major feature of the proposed legislation and is welcomed by industry.
Changes in the act make it easier to enforce existing laws and provide stiffer penalties for conviction. For example, under the proposed legislation the maximum fine for producing contraband alcohol would be up to $1 million and up to five years in jail for indictable offences. These are industry-led, spirits and wine, and supported changes. There are no losers because of this legislation with the exception of contraband producers.
It is the second aspect of Bill C-47 with which I personally have problems. The bill also seeks to increase the federal excise taxes on tobacco products and to re-establish a uniform federal excise tax rate for cigarettes across the country of $6.85 per carton. The stated purpose of this tax increase is to improve the health of Canadians by discouraging tobacco consumption.
The federal excise taxes on cigarettes will increase $2.00 per carton in Quebec, $1.60 per carton in Ontario and $1.50 per carton in the rest of Canada. This will bring the total federal excise burden on cigarettes to $12.35 per carton. Federal revenues will increase by approximately $240 million per annum through this tax hike.
We all want Canadians to live a healthier lifestyle, especially our youth. The reduction of smoking is a big part of that. My problem with this legislation is philosophical and based on the process. The past decade has proven that high levels of excise tax on cigarettes do not reduce consumption. It only creates an underground market. The role of government is to provide information for consumers to ensure that citizens have an informed choice. Make no mistake, it is the right of individuals to choose whether or not they want to smoke.
It is my belief that the government is increasing the tax levels simply to increase revenues. It is the only politically correct tax increase at its disposal, and the finance minister has never found a tax he did not like.
(1535)
There are many Canadians out there who believe that excise taxes are dedicated to specific spending, that tax revenues on cigarettes and alcohol are spent on health care and that gas tax revenues are spent on roads. The truth is that while federal excise revenues have increased, transfers to provinces for health care have decreased.
What are Canadians going to get in return for this blatant tax grab? I challenge the government opposite to detail what its plan is for the revenues.
Contrary to what the government thinks, Canadians are not stupid. The tax increase is of the same ilk as the airport security tax. The Liberals are manipulating the concerns of Canadians to finance their next election campaign. The government opposite cannot escape its past nor its record. The transitional jobs fund, Shawinigan, Groupaction and everything Alfonso Gagliano ever touched raised doubts in the minds of Canadians regarding Liberal accountability, ethics and fiscal restraint.
The Liberals have once again piggybacked meaningful legislation and political opportunism. The Prime Minister in the past has appointed a qualified Canadian and a Liberal hack to the other place at the same time. When one criticizes a patronage appointment, the Liberals defend it with the credentials of the qualified candidate. Today they are hiking taxes under the guise of tax fairness, and that is unethical. The Liberals are politically savvy and ethically devoid.
I will support the legislation because it is in the best interests of Canada's emerging industries. However through this piece of legislation, the government has added another chapter to the red book of Liberal shame.
(1540)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and address this legislation today. I want to take a little different tack than my friend just took a moment ago, but I am very sympathetic to a lot of the things he had to say.
The reason the government is proposing to raise the excise tax on cigarettes is it believes that if it raises the tax on cigarettes young people will be sensitive to that price increase and therefore will not smoke as much. The proposals are to raise the excise tax, I think $2 in Quebec, $1.60 in Ontario and $1.50 in the rest of Canada.
I would like to go from there. If the government believes that raising taxes on cigarettes will discourage a particular kind of activity, I simply point out that raising other taxes also discourages activity.
For instance, right now the government is in the process of raising CPP premiums. In other words, raising payroll taxes. What kind of activity does that discourage? It discourages the hiring of employees because when we raise a tax we create a tax wedge between the price that employers would typically pay to hire an employees and what goes beyond what they would be willing to pay. In a case like CPP, and sometimes between the CPP and EI premiums, it gets to a point where employers say that it is simply just too much tax and they will not hire particular employees.
I wanted to point that out because the government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that higher taxes on cigarettes will discourage smoking for young people but raising CPP premiums will not discourage hiring. In fact it is the same in both cases.
This is a problem not just with CPP premiums. It goes well beyond that because although income taxes are not going up in Canada right now they are still much higher than they are in other jurisdictions. Therefore the same principle applies. If we have taxes that are higher in Canada than they are for instance in the United States, our largest trading partner, people then will say that they cannot afford to do business in Canada but can afford to do business in the United States. Even having taxes that are mildly lower for instance in some areas in Canada than they are in the United States will not do the job because business people and investors look at the total package.
The government has made much about the fact that corporate taxes are mildly lower in Canada than they are in the United States. However what it neglects to understand is that people who are casting about for a place to invest want to have access to the U.S. market. They used to come to Canada because they had pretty much assured access to the American market. That has changed now since September 11, so we have to go well beyond just having one tax mildly lower than it is in the United States. I am talking about corporate taxes. We need to have the whole basket of taxes much lower than they are in the United States, if we ever are going to fulfill our potential as a nation.
Again, the same principles apply to corporate taxes, income taxes and other taxes as apply to excise taxes. We cannot have higher taxes without discouraging particular kinds of activity, and the same thing applies on income taxes, capital gains and corporate taxes. The government has to realize that.
I cannot believe that the government has been able to stare a 62 cent dollar in the face and not have some kind of a vision or strategy to start to attract investment back from the United States and other parts of the world and to keep investment already in Canada. We know there is a huge capital outflow in Canada today. This is partly driven by high tax loads. As a country, we have to have a strategy to attract some of that investment back. Why? Is it because we just want good numbers or we want to have a bunch of money pour into the country to benefit a few people? No. It benefits the entire nation.
(1545)
When investment flows into a country, it can be used to purchase equipment to make it more productive as a nation. Talented individuals can be hired to improve one's business, to produce new products, to be innovative and take initiative. When that is done, good paying jobs are soon produced and one comes up with new markets for the products. All of a sudden more people can be hired and there is a demand for good people.
If we were to keep that up, there would soon be enough activity in the economy that the unemployment problem would not exist any more. Instead of the old story of three people chasing one job, it would become three jobs chasing one person. Ultimately the entire country would benefit. We would not have a situation like the one we have in Canada today.
Although we have a relatively low unemployment rate compared to where it was a few years ago, we still have an unemployment rate that is completely unacceptable. Millions of Canadians still cannot find work. If we had a job market that was absolutely on fire, businesses would go into areas of unemployment to offer people on the job training and the skills and abilities necessary to succeed. It has happened in other jurisdictions.
In Alberta the economy is heating up again. The Alberta economy in the last number of years has been so hot we have attracted people not only from all over Canada but from all over the world.
In Brooks, Alberta where I live there is a meat packing plant and an oil industry which attract people from all over. Many people have come from Atlantic Canada because they cannot find jobs in Atlantic Canada. We have low taxes in Alberta. We have an environment that is conducive to business. Businesses start to look around for people to hire. They advertise in the newspapers across Atlantic Canada.
People come from all over the world to my little town. It is an amazing place now. What used to be a farming and ranching town made up of a couple of generations of people who came in the 1920s is now a very cosmopolitan place. There are people from all over the world. People come from Asia, Africa and eastern Europe to our little town because we have lots of jobs due to the prosperity that has been created by a climate that is conducive to business.
I simply want to point out the inconsistency between what the government is doing on excise taxes for cigarettes and its overall approach to taxation. In this case it understands that raising taxes on cigarettes may dissuade young people from buying cigarettes but it does not seem to understand, or at least we do not see it in budgets, that lowering taxes invites people to invest in the country. That is obviously a very serious problem.
As our dollar continues to plummet, more and more people are coming to the understanding that their standard of living is in peril. The industry minister a couple of years ago pointed out that Canada's standard of living had fallen below that of Mississippi and Alabama, the poorest of the poor American states. That came from the industry minister on the government side.
It is time for the government to wake up and address this serious issue which impacts every single Canadian today. If it finally does wake up and starts to address it, I can guarantee that the official opposition will support it.
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill on the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores.
Let me say from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill. However, I would like to draw attention to an issue on which the bill is silent, namely the tax imposed on Canada's small regional breweries and called the excise tax on beer.
There are several small regional breweries in Quebec. I know that there are also some in Ontario and in other regions of Canada. These small businesses are called microbreweries. I would like to name a few from Quebec: the Brasseurs de la chasse-galerie, in Candiac; the Brasseurs RJ, in Montreal; the Brasseurs du Nord, in Blainville; the Brasserie McAuslan, in Saint-Henri; Unibroue, in Chambly; the Brasserie Saint-Arnould, in Saint-Jovite; and the Seigneuriale, in Boucherville. I am sure that I forgot some. I just wanted to point out that there are several such breweries in Quebec.
The Brewers Association of Canada represented these people before the Standing Committee on Finance, in October. They told us about the difficult situation that these microbreweries are currently facing. They submitted a very good brief and they presented strong arguments in favour of a reduction of the excise tax imposed on Canada's small breweries.
I want to mention that both the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Finance were approached. They were informed of the problems currently faced by small breweries. The ministers promised to look at the matter, but we have yet to hear from them. However, it is important that the government look at the situation of microbreweries. We want to export our products—because we are proud of them—both from Quebec and Canada, but we must give our producers the means to develop them.
Let me explain the situation and the context. In the context of globalization, these small businesses called microbreweries must compete with foreign businesses that have a much smaller tax burden than Canadian companies.
In an increasingly open market, competition is not necessarily coming from within but, rather, from established breweries abroad. These businesses often enjoy preferential tax treatment, which allows them to sell their products at more competitive prices. The Canadian parliament must keep this in mind when legislating.
Currently, France, Germany, Belgium and our U.S. neighbour grant their small breweries a reduction on excise taxes. Canada is one of the few industrialized countries that refuses to give what could be called a privilege, a fair treatment or excise tax parity to its small breweries.
For example, let us take the case of one microbrewery in Canada and another in the United States. In Canada, a brewery producing 6.5 million litres pays federal excise tax of 28 cents a litre, for a total of $1.8 million.
In the United States, the same entrepreneur in Boston, for example, would pay $585,000 rather than $1.8 million, or a tax of 9 cents a litre. So, as hon. members can see, the excise tax in Canada is 28 cents, while in Boston it is 9 cents.
(1550)
These figures, I think, speak for themselves. For the same production, there is a difference in taxes paid of $1.2 million. What, Mr. Speaker, would you do if you were planning to develop a microbrewery? It would be in your interests to go to the States, because otherwise all your profits would be swallowed up. A company cannot survive such a tax.
This is why the Brewers Association of Canada is calling upon the Government of Canada to make a 60% reduction in the excise tax on the first 75,000 hectolitres produced by Canadian breweries producing a maximum of 300,000 hectolitres annually. In this they have the support of the four largest Canadian breweries belonging to the association. Speaking of major Canadian breweries, I would like to name a few, but I know very well that everyone knows their names.
It must be mentioned that between them, the 53 breweries that pay excise taxes shell out $19 million per year. That is not small potatoes. A study done in 1995 of Ontario breweries demonstrated that the excise tax is nine times greater than profits in the sector, profits estimated to be $2.1 million. Therefore, $19 million was paid in excise taxes by 53 breweries with estimated profits of $2.1 million. Something is not right with this equation. Excise taxes are disproportionately high compared to revenues. This kind of approach leads to bankruptcy. Something really must be done.
There are also repercussions in the regions. These small breweries can be found in just about every region. They are small businesses set up in small communities, which contribute a great deal to their development. They are tourist attractions, which generates employment, and consequently, more financial resources.
Unfortunately, as I explained earlier, this unfair and untenable situation that the industry is up against constitutes a very real threat. Only three months ago, there were 19 small scale breweries in Quebec. Now there are six. They are handing over their profits and them some in excise taxes. These breweries are often being forced into bankruptcy or dire financial straits. Only six of 19 are still in business because five went bankrupt, three closed their doors, two were sold and three are experiencing temporary difficulties.
The situation demands to be rectified. The government must now make decisions that will help these small entrepreneurs.
I am referring to Quebec, but I know that you being a Franco-Ontarian, Mr. Speaker, are surely experiencing the same problem in the regions of Ontario. I spoke of Franco-Ontarians, but the situation also applies to all of Ontario, English speaking Ontario. There are microbreweries for which I could probably quote similar figures.
It begs the question: given the current state of affairs, why should microbreweries continue to invest in Canada, when there are incredible benefits to setting up shop in the United States? I mentioned the example of Boston earlier. Clearly, if I were an entrepreneur wanting to make a profit, by doing an impact or feasibility study, I would see that staying in Canada is not to my advantage.
The excise tax represents a very heavy burden for these small Canadian businesses. It is therefore urgent that the excise tax program be amended.
In other sectors of activity, small businesses investing $1 million in land, equipment and facilities are successful. They hire fifteen or so people and have sales of $1.5 million to $2 million. They make a profit and shareholders take a profit. They are successful.
(1555)
For microbreweries, it is a completely different scenario. With sales of $1.5 million to $2 million, they barely break even; no clear profit, but a requirement to pay a little over $200,000 in excise taxes to the federal government. The excise taxes are unrelenting. Let us be clear: excise taxes are higher than labour costs. There is no logic to this; the excise tax makes no sense.
The government must recognize that small breweries are distinct and should be taxed accordingly. The government is the only party that still does not recognize this. The amendment requested is minimal compared to the revenues generated by the general tax. The proposed tax break would represent only 2% of what the government collects in excise taxes. Let us be clear that this concerns a small sector which is highly labour-intensive, manufacturing-intensive, with heavy investment, a sector which plays a vital role in small communities and in their provinces.
The current fiscal regime simply does not correspond to the reality of microbreweries. Today, the taxes in this sector add up to 58% of the sales price; excise taxes represent 16% of the sales price, compared to only 4% in the United States. The conclusions are simple: a small brewery operating in Canada pays four times more in excise taxes than one operating in Boston, U.S.A.
If we look at competition within North America, beer sales are considerable between Canada and the United States. For there to be fair competition, it is imperative that the cost structure in both countries be as harmonized as possible.
On both sides of the border, small breweries are manufacturing special products and are competing in the same market. The international situation is such that all distributors in Canada now stock imported beers, which account for 8% of the market. Generally speaking, imports have more than doubled during the last ten years, while the market share of Canadian microbreweries has remained almost unchanged. They are not competitive, particularly as far as the giant U.S. companies are concerned.
One of the reasons for this is that Canadian producers—this is the reason—must pay nearly three times as much in taxes as their American competitors. South of the border, small U.S. breweries are better able to strengthen their trade activities because they shoulder a lighter tax burden, they are able to open new markets and expand their territory.
In 2000, the number of American breweries with an annual production of less than 75,000 hectolitres with exports to Canada doubled compared to 1995, climbing from 6 to 14. Something is not fair. The Americans are able to double the number of companies doing business here, yet we cannot even operate because we pay too much in excise taxes.
For more than eight years now, Canada has been complaining that the U.S. does not respect NAFTA rules and has adopted protectionist measures for its small breweries. NAFTA allows the free trade of goods, but in the current context, the result is catastrophic for small breweries. They are unable to fend for themselves on an equal footing with small American breweries.
The North American Free Trade Agreement is not the problem; the problem is our neighbours, who are not respecting it. They are using discriminatory tax provisions to give their microbreweries an advantage, and as a result, they are penalizing ours. We know they are good at respecting rules when it suits them. We have seen this with softwood lumber; in that case, it does not suit them.
(1600)
Moreover, what we have to say today, the Minister for International Trade has already heard, as I have said. The minister had no objection to extending the same privileges to small Canadian breweries. As I said, nobody has yet moved on this. Even the Minister of Finance has been informed of the situation, but we are still waiting.
Our businesses are capable of producing products that compare very favourably with others. Our entrepreneurs want to be able to manufacture or sell them at competitive prices. Yet a bad taxation system prevents them from holding their own with foreign competition.
In 1992, Canada made a court challenge on non-compliance with the agreements of the GATT, now known as WTO, or World Trade Organization. A committee mandated to analyze the complaint found that the imposition on eligible producers by the U.S. federal government, as well as some of the state governments, of a lower excise tax on beer sold outside the country, combined with some other practices in place in various states, was not in compliance with U.S. obligations under the GATT or WTO, in that imported beer did not receive the best national treatment.
Ten years have now gone by. Not only has the American government maintained its position, but a number of states have implemented new measures giving their producers favourable treatment. This constitutes real discrimination against the importers of Canadian beers to the U.S.
In conclusion, I feel it is urgent to take steps if we want to see this small brewery sector survive. A reduction in the excise tax on small Canadian breweries, the microbreweries, would respect the policies adopted by the majority of the world's beer producing countries.
Our microbreweries have now been waiting more than eight years for duty parity. The impact on government revenue would be minimal, but the advantageous impact on the sector is undeniable. The government has a duty to do everything in its power to ensure the success of companies and individuals. Reducing the excise tax for Canada's small breweries constitutes one approach to encouraging their growth. This is part of a policy aimed at enhancing the country's productivity and the standard of living of Quebecers and Canadians.
In closing, I would again make the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade aware of the situation so that they will keep the promise they made to the brewers' associations of Canada to reduce the excise tax on microbreweries.
(1605)
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores. Members of my caucus have already addressed the principal aspects of the bill, which we intend to support, while I note that we have certain very pertinent concerns. My colleague from Edmonton--Strathcona outlined them as they relate to the provisions of the bill dealing with the excise tax on tobacco products, which will increase revenues to the federal treasury by at least $240 million.
It is our concern that this could lead to an increase in the black market in tobacco products and furthermore that the $240 million will find its way into general purposes in the general revenue fund. We believe that any targeted tax increases of this nature, which are designed to achieve a certain social outcome such as the reduction of tobacco use among youth, ought to be offset by a commensurate reduction in general tax rates elsewhere. To do otherwise is to fail to recognize that Canada continues to have an inordinately high tax burden, which disadvantages Canadian industry entrepreneurs and reduces the amount of capital available in the country for investment in job creation. I share those concerns with other members of my caucus.
I would like to take most of my time to join with the member who just spoke in addressing a pertinent issue that did not find its way into the bill, namely, the treatment of microbreweries, which are an important part of Canadian industry. The bill would have been the perfect place in which to address the inequity of taxation of microbreweries. Indeed, the government has received representations from the Brewers Association of Canada, as has the House of Commons finance committee, to rectify the discriminatory application of excise taxation on these very small, entrepreneurial, craft style breweries.
The House of Commons finance committee heard from the Brewers Association of Canada last October, when it recommended in a very compelling submission that the government reduce by 60% the excise taxation for the first 75,000 hectolitres of production for microbreweries, which the association defines as those that have an annual production output of less than 300,000 hectolitres per year.
Currently small breweries pay $19 million a year in excise taxes. Those are the 53 breweries in Canada that produce less than 300,000 hectolitres a year. That $19 million in federal excise tax exceeds by nine times the $2.1 million of collective profits reported by those 53 companies. In other words, the amount the federal government is taking from these struggling entrepreneurs outstrips by nearly a factor of 10 the profits they are able to retain to reinvest in their companies to purchase capital assets that are necessary for these companies to continue. This is a very grave situation for the microbrewery industry in Canada.
Several provinces have addressed this. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have all adopted a lower rate of provincial excise tax to be applied to microbreweries. Indeed, this reflects international precedents throughout the world and among our major economic competitors in the United States.
(1610)
About 21 million hectolitres of beer are sold and consumed annually in Canada. Of that enormous amount only 3.4%, and I admit to having contributed to a small part of the figure, has been produced by small breweries, namely those with a production of less than 300,000 hectolitres per year. This gives us an idea of how small a piece of the overall market they are.
I am a partisan of microbreweries. I am a big fan of what I think is Canada's finest microbrewery and finest brewery, period. It is known as Big Rock and it happens to be in my riding. It produces tremendous products like Traditional Ale, Grasshöpper Wheat Ale, Warthog Cream Ale, and my favourite, McNally's stout. Its products are famous throughout Canada. It is an award winning microbrewery founded by distinguished Calgary lawyer Ed McNally. It has done very well notwithstanding the discriminatory tax regime it finds itself fighting against.
It is interesting. There are only four companies responsible for 93% of the beer sold in Canada, and they support the proposal for the government to adopt a lower rate for smaller breweries. They are not threatened by the small microbreweries. They see microbreweries like Big Rock in my riding and Unibroue in Chambly, Quebec as an opportunity to increase their market share by increasing beer consumption. They are not afraid of this kind of competition. They see that the application of one excise tax to all companies of all sizes is not fair.
Total excise duty revenues to the government for beer currently amount to about $580 million. If the government were to adopt the recommendations of the Brewers Association of Canada, remembering that they produce only 3.5% of the product and pay about $19 million in excise tax a year, the reduction would represent only 2% of the total excise for beer collected by the federal government. A 60% reduction in the excise rate for small brewers on the first 75,000 hectolitres would be a tiny reduction in government revenues. As the brewers association points out, “the impact would be no greater than could be felt from the market effects of poor summer weather”. It would have no significant impact on the federal treasury.
Were we to allow these breweries to generate a small profit and reinvest it we would see them expand their market share and exports. Even at a lower excise rate the federal treasury would see an increase in the total amount paid by the companies. It would likely see total excise tax revenues for microbreweries increase at a lower rate given the incentive it would create for new investment, production and consumption in the industry.
I will illustrate the magnitude of the tax and address the impact it would have on small brewers. Excise is the highest federal tax paid by the brewing industry. It is the highest cost borne by microbrewers. It is currently $27.98 per hectolitre. That means the excise duty equals the average cost of operating a small brewery. The cost is estimated to be about $30 per hectolitre. Direct labour costs are estimated at about $27 per hectolitre. This means the excise tax, which is insensitive to profit and is charged and collected even if a brewery is losing money, equals the total cost of running a small brewery in Canada.
(1615)
A benchmark study conducted by the brewers association in Ontario in 1995 found that taxes represented the largest category of costs, amounting to the equivalent of total production costs including raw materials. The study said the tax burden was extremely high “particularly considering that microbrewers are effectively small businesses often competing with large companies”.
Most of the companies reviewed in the study lost money. Normal rates of return fell short by $17 per hectolitre. The companies are producing a great product, they are working hard and they are entrepreneurial. Yet they are not able to generate a profit. That is why many of them are going under. There is a high bankruptcy rate in the microbrewery industry in Canada.
The findings suggest the federal excise rate places brewing companies at a significant disadvantage compared to other small business in Canada. The Income Tax Act sets out a preferential lower rate for small businesses as opposed to large businesses. We do not expect family owned corner stores with capitalizations of a few hundred thousand dollars to be able to compete while paying the same fixed level of taxation as a Safeway or Loblaws. It is not possible given their much smaller economies of scale and higher costs. That is why I think all parties in this place support the principle of a lower small business tax rate.
The brewers association is simply asking that the same logic be applied to the brewing industry. This would allow us to recognize that the costs of producing microbrewery products in small operations are much higher than for Labatt or Molson, companies which retain profits and have huge factory operations across the country, enormous economies of scale and great capitalization. They can afford to pay a higher excise tax rate. Indeed, they have endorsed the idea of a differential rate.
Another important factor is international competitiveness. The United States has a much lower federal excise tax rate on microbrewery products. It charges only $9.35 per hectolitre for products sold in the United States while Canada charges $24.06. That is a difference of 146%. When Big Rock Brewery in my constituency, Granville Island Brewery in Vancouver or the brewery in Chambly, Quebec try to export their products into the United States they are at a 146% cost disadvantage because of the difference in federal excise tax rates. That means we will never be able to penetrate the U.S. market with our superior products as we should.
This has been raised at the GATT panel. In 1992 Canada filed a complaint to the panel of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The panel reported that the U.S. was violating free trade rules by not permitting national treatment in terms of excise tax on microbrewery products sold domestically.
However the United States has not corrected the problem. Most countries in the European Union have adopted separate lower excise tax rates on the output of small breweries notwithstanding trade action that has been taken against the European Union. They have retained the differential as a matter of policy, which makes it difficult for Canadian microbrewers to sell their product in the European Union.
(1620)
It is interesting. Adopting the proposal of the Brewers Association of Canada would reduce the premium paid by Canadian brewers from $16.30 per hectolitre over like sized U.S. competitors to $1.26 per hectolitre, or 11% as opposed to the 146% I quoted earlier. The suggestion the Canadian Brewers Association is making would not bring us precisely in line with the domestic excise tax rate in the United States. It would simply bring us into the ballpark so Canadian brewers could sell their product in that country at much higher levels without the penalties we impose on them in Canada.
Canada currently receives microbrewery products from about 95 different breweries throughout the world. About 60% of the companies that sell microbrew products in Canada receive favourable excise tax rates in their domestic markets. We are putting our companies at a competitive disadvantage. The trade actions we have taken have not resulted in national treatment for our products in those countries. We have only one policy option left, and that is to do what the Americans and Europeans have done. We must come up with a second, lower rate for small brewers.
I will quote from the submission of the Brewers Association of Canada to the House of Commons finance committee. It said:
| Over time, as other countries have failed to introduce trade compliant policies, the industry has concluded that competitor neutrality within the small segment can only be achieved by introducing a tax measure that has come to be accepted internationally as a means of supporting small brewers. |
The official opposition calls on the government to take up the matter urgently in the strongest possible terms. There is no sound policy or fiscal reason why the recommendation of the brewers association ought not be accepted with due haste to allow the microbrewing industry in Canada, an important fledgling value added industry, to survive and prosper both here and abroad.
Once more, the recommendation we and the brewers association are making to the government is a 60% reduction in the rate of duty on the first 75,000 hectolitres of production for brewers producing not more than 300,000 hectolitres annually. An excise duty reduction for small brewers in Canada would be consistent with policies adopted by major beer producing nations like the United States, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Germany and the Czech Republic. The countries providing the benefit account for about a third of worldwide beer production. The reduction's impact on government revenues would be minimal but the benefit to the small brewer segment would be significant.
There is a precise reason the Brewers Association of Canada came up with a figure of 60%. A 1994 study indicated average Canadian small breweries were falling behind in the amount of money they should be reinvesting to purchase new capital assets, by $16.89 per hectolitre. The study said a 60% reduction in excise tax for such breweries would return about $16.80 to the sector.
There is a clear symmetry here. The reduction in excise tax would not be a giveaway to the industry. It would allow small struggling breweries to run just enough of a profit to invest in needed capital assets so they could sustain themselves and grow in the future. It would create thousands of new jobs. It would generate prospectively tens of millions of dollars in revenue to the federal treasury. It would help our country become more export oriented in this important industry.
I hope the government takes heed and soon introduces legislation to adopt the recommendations presented at the finance committee.
* * *
(1625)
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
|
|
That the debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 this day shall continue until no member rises to speak, provided that, after 10 p.m., the Chair shall receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent to propose any motion. |
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
Excise Act, 2001
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, an act respecting the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco and the treatment of ships' stores, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair):
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
Pest Control Products Act
The House resumed from April 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the Minister of Health for her speech yesterday and particularly for what she said at the outset:
|
|
--the purpose of federal pest management regulation is to protect Canadians and their environment from the risks associated with pesticides. |
She went on to say:
| The proposed new PCPA would ensure Canada's children and other vulnerable populations were given special protection from the health risks posed by pesticides. It would do so by enshrining in legislation the requirement to incorporate modern risk assessment concepts-- |
She also said:
| It is important to keep in mind why we regulate pesticides. We do so for a variety of reasons including the following: Some pesticides may pose risks to people and the environment; many pesticides are released into the environment; our exposure to many pesticides is involuntary; and redressing harm from pesticide exposure is generally difficult. |
| Human exposure can occur when pesticides such as those used in agriculture, forestry, lawn and garden care, and on golf courses are released into the environment where people may be exposed to them involuntarily. In addition, since pesticides are often applied to crops and livestock we may be exposed to their residues involuntarily through the food we eat. |
It would be an understatement to say that the bill is long overdue. It amends legislation passed in 1969. It is therefore highly welcome, badly needed and most appreciated by anyone concerned with public health as affected by pesticides.
Before going into the pros and cons of the bill, it would seem desirable to say a couple of words about its title. The official title of the bill is “an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests”. However, the short title of the bill is same as the title of the legislation it is supposed to replace, namely “pest control products act”.
It would seem to me that to continue with the use of the old term, pest control products act, would mean adopting an industry oriented title, not a publicly oriented one as the full title conveys. If the intent of the bill is truly to protect human health and welfare, then this contradiction in titles should be corrected.
An appropriate short title might read “an act on the use of pesticides” or “an act on dangerous substances used to control pests” or simply, “the pesticides licensing act”. Instead, what is being proposed is a short title with a focus on pest control products and as such, it sounds pretty good to consumers. After all, who could be against the control of pests? To conclude, the long title is good, but the short title leaves much to be desired.
Bill C-53 has been in the making for some time. In its report on pesticides, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made many recommendations, some of which appear to have gone unnoticed. I will mention some shortly but first I have a few words on the new and positive features of the bill before us today.
First, human health and the environment, as other members have commented before me, are now leading principles of the proposed legislation.
Second, in evaluating the health and environmental risks of pesticides, the minister must now apply appropriate margins of safety for pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors and must apply a margin of safety 10 times greater than now if a product is to be used around homes or schools.
Third, in determining maximum residue limits in foods, the law will require the use of an additional safety factor of 10 in determining the tolerance of pesticide residue in foodstuffs.
(1630)
It will require the application of appropriate margins of safety for pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors. It will require the implementation of government policy as defined in the toxic substances management policy, which I am told does include track one toxic substances under CEPA. Finally, it will require the application of such government policy through sections 7(8) and 19(3).
Fourth, pest control products must now meet the requirements of the workplace hazardous materials information system. This insertion is in answer to many interventions, including the one by the member for Ottawa West when we were in committee.
Fifth, there is a very narrow application of the precautionary principle. For instance, the minister may cancel or amend the registration of a pest control product if, in the course of a re-evaluation or a special review, the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the cancellation or amendment is necessary to deal with a situation that endangers human health or safety or the environment.
Sixth, as to the re-evaluation of existing pesticides, with this bill all pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years, which is not as good as the recommendation made in committee which suggested that by the year 2006, if I remember correctly. The term in the special review will be mandatory for any pesticide banned or restricted by an OECD country, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris.
These positive features tell us that the government recognizes the fact that pesticides, euphemistically called pest control products, are highly dangerous substances which should be used rarely and with extreme care. Otherwise how could one explain the symbol of the skull and crossbones used to identify most pesticides, softened in its impact by the intensive advertising campaign by pesticide manufacturers who find it necessary to try to convince the public that everything is fine with pesticides? For instance, in the mollifying ads promoting lawn beautification the word pesticides never appears. What we are treated to are bucolic green lawns, happy children playing and pets frolicking in a sea of perfectly uniform green blades of grass.
It should also be noted that in its attempt to dominate the market, industry avoids the word pesticides and instead uses intriguing, scientific sounding formulas like 2,4-D or other fancy abbreviations intended to reassure the potential consumer of chemicals about using pesticides on his or her front yard lawn. Fortunately, municipalities have not been bamboozled by the pesticide industry's public relations campaign. Today over 30 municipalities have banned the cosmetic use of pesticides on private property and in some cases on public property.
All this is after prolonged and extensive legal battles which peaked last June when the Supreme Court of Canada hit the pesticide industry on the head and gave it a lesson in constitutional law. The court declared that yes, municipalities do have the power to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides and that yes, the public interest can and should be served by municipal governments.
Before leaving the subject, I would like to pay a warm tribute to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine for her bill on banning the cosmetic use of pesticides. The bill was unanimously adopted at the last national convention of the Liberal Party of Canada. Unfortunately, the cosmetic use of pesticides is not mentioned in Bill C-53, one of several shortcomings which of course could be corrected in committee by way of appropriate amendments.
(1635)
There are other serious shortcomings in Bill C-53 which I would like to bring to the attention of the House.
There is no statutory mandate and responsibility given to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which makes it a rather unique feature in the government structure.
There is no inclusion of the substitution principle, therefore no requirement to deregister older pesticides once newer, safer products are registered and brought to market.
There is a very narrow application of the precautionary principle. Why is it applied only at the consultation or amendment stage of the registration of a pesticide and not right at the beginning of the process, namely when deciding whether to register it or not? That is the question. It would make enormous sense to apply the precautionary principle all the way through as it was already advocated yesterday, if I remember correctly, by the member for Rosemont--Petite--Patrie.
There is no definition of acceptable or unacceptable risk and that is also a very serious matter which needs to be brought to the attention of members.
There is no requirement to take into account aggregate and cumulative exposure when registering a product. Time and again witnesses at committee hearings brought this to our attention, particularly the Canadian Institute of Child Health and other organizations concerned with the health of children.
There is no room for independent scientific findings which could be followed by mandatory feedback. Let us be realistic. Only so much can be achieved through public consultations and comments on decisions. More needs to be done in the public interest.
There is the matter of what constitutes confidential business information and that matter remains the same in this bill as in the 1969 legislation. It seems to me that surely there are situations when the public good can be of greater importance than confidential business information, or am I living on another planet?
Another shortcoming is the fact that the bill focuses only on the active ingredients of a pesticide but not on ingredients that can pose a threat to human health and the environment and are not necessarily active.
Finally, and this may be a budgetary requirement and not necessarily a legislative one, there is a need also identified by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development for better statistics on pesticides, be it their sales or other related data. There is indeed an important challenge here for Statistics Canada.
As others have already outlined, Bill C-53 is definitely an improvement over the 1969 legislation. It should however be stronger in ensuring a healthy and safe environment for Canadians. The bill relies too heavily on product, product management and product regulation, and too little on the reduction in the use of, the reliance on and the risks posed by pesticides. That in a nutshell would be my way of assessing the bill.
It is my sincere hope that colleagues on the health committee will be able to address these shortcomings and amend the bill, which is quite possible at the committee stage, as members present have experienced.
(1640)
To conclude, it seems to me that the Canadian population can expect a law which will give full and unconditional precedence to human health and the environment over pesticides and the very powerful industrial interests behind them.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. I noted that he mentioned the court decision that enabled municipalities to regulate the so-called cosmetic use of pesticides and other products on lawns and things of that type. I thought a good deal about that myself. On the one hand, that is the appropriate jurisdiction to deal with these matters of enforcement. It would be very difficult, for example, for someone in Ottawa to enforce such regulations in downtown Peterborough.
On the other hand, because there are thousands of municipal jurisdictions, it may well take a very long time before they take up the cause as some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, have already done.
In legislation of this type, how could we introduce something that would move along the aspect of what he was discussing? I suppose it might range from advertising and education to a federal government department that might do that. Has he given any thought to a practical way of bringing that aspect into this new legislation?
(1645)
Hon. Charles Caccia:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in pointing at the government of Quebec as having introduced legislation which across the board empowers municipalities to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides. In addition to that, some municipalities in other provinces have done so. They were challenged in the supreme court which ruled in their favour.
However, the main point is this. We did recommend in committee that the federal government could phase-out pesticides that were put on the market for cosmetic purposes alone. We set a time limit of five years. I believe the hon. member from Lachine did the same. It would gradually be phased-out as a decision of the federal government, which is responsible for the registration of products. To decide what enters the market and what does not is fully a federal responsibility. Failing that, then we would have to rely on the goodwill of the provinces or the political will of the municipalities to do it on their own.
As to the final suggestion that a public education program could achieve that purpose, that is a very good idea. However let me draw to the attention of the member the fact that the producers of cosmetic pesticides are very engaged in advertising campaigns themselves which show beautifully uniform green-bladed lawns, happily frolicking pets and the like. Therefore the competition for public attention would be very intense.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris--Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated listening to my learned friend and to the question from the member for Peterborough. I have had more than 50 years of experience with the use of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and so on. I appreciate the fact that the 1969 legislation needed to be updated. However I suggest to the House and to the Minister of Health that to make the bill effective and to make it have broader appeal, control and easier to regulate, we have to have a program which will involve a great amount of co-operation between the provinces, the local governments and individuals.
When my learned friend was speaking, I could not help but go back to a time that many people will not remember; the grasshopper plague in western Canada. The hordes of grasshoppers blocked out the sun. In an attempt to control this pest, carloads of sawdust. were brought in. I do not know what they mixed with it, but as a kid I would throw this out. The control was worth two things and that was nothing twice. It really did nothing in the control the grasshoppers.
It is possible that there are millions of acres in western Canada, given the right temperature and amount of sunshine, that could be facing a similar situation to the thirties. Once before we used a spray called dieldrin that really killed the grasshoppers but it was very hard on the operators. It was a very dangerous insecticide.
We have a situation that has developed where we would not have enough pesticides on hand in western Canada and eastern Canada because the grasshopper population could explode over a weekend with the right amount of hatching. Therefore, those areas that are most polluted with grasshoppers right now and if they have any crops growing, they could lose their crops again without adequate supply. Western Canada has not had any crops for two or three years. I lived through that in the sixties and part of the seventies.
When I talk about co-operation, I know what that means. I know what we have to do and I know that a lot of legwork has to be done to make this bill effective. I have seen children who have been hurt by the spray. I have even seen animals, pets running alongside the tractor and the sprayer, that have been hurt by the spray.
We get so excited at times about some things and then we do the wrong thing. For instance, the same area that is likely to explode with a huge grasshopper population is also an area of western Saskatchewan and into Alberta that is polluted with the Richardson's ground squirrel or the gopher. We can now get the proper percentage of pesticide and the farmer must bring the oats or grain in to be spread. I do not necessarily disagree with that.
However what happened to the chap who invented the gophinator? It used the same gas as the farms used for fertilization. Just one shot down the hole and it controlled the spread of gophers in a painless way. However the animal rights people did not see that this was not only valuable as a fertilizer and that the pesticide was controlled. Therefore for some reason or another the patent was disallowed. Now this very thing that is being used is labelled a toxic substance. I am not too sure if we do not move in the wrong direction very often.
I would like to relate another incident that we would not allow today, and we have come a long way.
(1650)
A church group in town bought three extra lots which were once used for propane storage and delivery. They had a herbicide on the market which sold under the generic name of Spike. It was used mainly around the elevators, so any grass fires would not get up close. However, nobody had properly tested that. Let me give some examples. I said that I would plant trees around the edge of that lot but before I did I noticed that nothing was growing there. I took in a soil sample and was told that nothing would grow in that soil for 25 or 30 years and maybe never.
At one of the schools I was supervising they built a football field with a track around the field. They put this Spike herbicide on the field, which was a good idea, but a heavy rain fell. They put enough on that it ran down corner wise some distance away and killed two big pine trees at the edge of the lot. We have come a long way but in some instances we have not come far enough.
Let me tell members about co-operation. Two years ago I had a double row of a very popular hedge called cotoneaster. Cotoneaster is subject to infestations of what I call pear slugs. They are cone shaped like a pear and if they are not controlled they ruin the whole hedge. They do not kill it but it is nothing to look at for the year.
The most effective insecticide was malathion. Let us talk about co-operation. I would tell the widow lady to the east and the one to the west the day I was going to spray the hedge. The smell still got into the house but I wore a mask when I sprayed. Eventually I took the hedge out. I wanted to do that because I did not want to have bad relations with two friends that I have had for years. That is what I mean by co-operation.
Where I live we have all kinds of empty lots. The town does not have enough money to hire crews to keep these vacant lots properly trimmed and so on. The town is caught in a dreadful squeeze. It does not have enough money to hire a crew to keep up the lots. It only has enough money to spray the lots. Some of these sprays come under the province's noxious weed act. All provinces have noxious weed acts. One can see that the ragweed, the sow thistle, the Canadian thistle and so on are very high.
Here is the catch. If the towns do not go in and spray the ragweed the people who suffer from that pollen will suffer terribly but if the towns do spray then they also suffer. I support the bill but, in all honesty, I think we have to do a fair amount of public relations in order to make it successful.
Let me tell members of another example. When I was farming in Saskatchewan, under the noxious weed act authorities could destroy the weeds on any given piece of land that contained noxious weeds and I would be charged.
Today, however, with the herbicides that have been used it is not difficult to control the weeds. Most spraying is done miles away from another farm or miles away from somebody else and, for the most part, has been mostly controlled.
This is a little off topic but Prince Edward Island developed a genetically modified potato that insects did not chew at the leaves. The excuse customers in the United States used was that they had the right potato but that they were GMO potatoes and that potatoes had to be from Maine first. So the PEI potatoes were banned. PEI went back to growing the original potato. It had a good crop but it had to be sprayed about three times. On that little island the spray comes right up against the schoolyard. They have smaller fields and there is a real problem.
(1655)
How do we deal with that? How do we deal with taking away the livelihood of an individual and still comply with this particular bill? We need to find ways to make that happen.
I think the government is correct in allowing the municipalities to maintain the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. I also believe that it will require a great deal of public relations. I believe that one of the things that has to be done with the passage of the bill is that various departments need to co-operate, such as the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health, in putting out a campaign across the country showing the health dangers and also co-operating at the local level with the municipalities and the provinces.
If there is indeed an outbreak of grasshoppers this spring the municipality's responsibility is to spray some of those roadways where most of the eggs are lying at the present time. This is a big problem and perhaps bigger out there where there are so many acres and so many problems that we have, particularly with gophers, grasshoppers and so on.
We believe that proven sound science domestically and so on should be on an ongoing basis for debate so that we can provide the best for those who are growing the products but also the best for our health and in particular the health of children and, as my hon. friend mentioned, pregnant women and so on.
I support the bill. I think we can do great things with the co-operation of the federal government, the provincial governments, the municipalities and the individuals who have to use the products.
(1700)
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from a book entitled Our Stolen Future written in 1996 by three famous scientists: Theo Colborn, Diane Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers. It states:
| Through the creation and release of billions of pounds of man-made chemicals over the past half century, we have been making broadscale changes to the Earth's atmosphere and even in the chemistry of our own bodies. Now, for example, with a stunning hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer and, it appears, the dramatic decline in human sperm counts, the results of this experiment are hitting home. From any perspective, these are two huge signals of trouble. The systems undermined are among those that make life possible. The magnitude of the damage that has already occurred should leave any thoughtful person profoundly shaken. |
Theo Colborn appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development during its review of pesticides. She urged us very strongly to review our legislation and to bring in better and improved legislation.
I would first like to commend the minister for bringing forward this new legislation which is, by any standard, an improvement on the existing one which goes back to 1969 and is therefore 33 years old.
I should mention that the process for managing and regulating pesticides goes back quite a long way.
The previous Conservative government produced a report that was known as the purple book. In October 1994, I was one of four parliamentary secretaries assigned to implement the recommendations in the purple book. One of the recommendations called for the establishment of a pest management agency, which is now called the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, that would be transferred from the department of agriculture to the department of health in 1995.
After the environment and sustainable development committee held hearings over many months, it made recommendations in a report produced on May 16, 2000 entitled “Pesticides: Making the Right Choice”.
I would like to take a minute to congratulate my colleague from Davenport who was chair of the committee at the time. The committee did very deep study on a critical issue for all of us concerned with human health and the environment. It was a groundbreaking report that led to the introduction of this legislation, which thankfully follows many of the recommendations contained in the report.
We can see many improvements reflected in the recommendations from the report. The bill's primary objective is to prevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the use of pest control products. The critical question of assessment of risk is based on the consideration of children's health, pregnant women, seniors and, in certain cases, of special risk in a safety margin 10 times greater than would otherwise be predicated.
The bill provides for a public registry which is a good start to giving the public access to health information. Whistleblower protection is provided in a meaningful way. There is the possibility of sharing information among government departments, a question which was raised by the commissioner for sustainable development who had strongly criticized the government for lack of communication among its departments with regard to pesticides. The bill provides for the burden of proof for the safety and value of the product to be clearly on the registrant or applicant, which is a big step forward.
As my colleagues have stated, there is room for a lot of improvement. I say this constructively hoping that when the bill reaches the health committee much improvement will occur and it will be treated in a very constructive manner by the government in addressing the question.
Let us look at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency which licenses and re-evaluates pesticides so they can be sold to the public. No statutory mandate in the legislation is given to the PMRA. All responsibilities and obligations fall on the Minister of Health.
In 1995 the PMRA was established as an administrative branch within Health Canada. We need to create an arm's-length agency. As we recommended, the PMRA should be accountable to parliament. The committee report gives the example of the patent office which is an agency set up within a department but given a full statutory mandate.
The committee also recommended a very clear mission for the PMRA. It recommended that it give absolute priority to the protection of human health and the environment when considering whether to approve a pesticide for use in Canada or allow its continued use. The committee recommended that it promote the use of sustainable pest management strategies that seek to reduce use, risk and reliance on pesticides. It emphasized the development of safer pest control products and to inform and educate the public about pesticides and the risks associated with their use. No such provisions are contained in the law and they are in my view essential.
(1705)
My colleague from Davenport referred to the precautionary principle and its narrow application to the act. There is no mention of it in the preamble and there is a narrow application in the legislation itself. It is essential that the new act implement the precautionary approach in all aspects of decision making. Mrs. Barbara McElgunn of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada made the following statement at one of our hearings:
| Critical to this issue is the fact that for the majority of priority chemicals or for important new innovations, there exists very little, or no, human health safety data. Many decisions on chemical safety have been taken on very limited toxicological data re their safety to developing organ systems, i.e. children. It takes many years to obtain these data. Under current law and policy in Canada, it takes many more years to develop regulations to protect public health and the environment. Therefore, under the Canadian Perspective on the Precautionary Principle, the health and safety of Canadians is placed in a “Catch-22” situation, that says, “We must have strong scientific evidence before precautionary action can be taken--but we don't have that exact evidence, and therefore we cannot use the precautionary principle to act in a timely and protective manner |
This is why we need the precautionary principle which Canada endorsed way back in 1992 at Rio in all facets of this legislation. The definition in the proposed legislation falls short of what the committee recommended and short of international standards. The committee recommended the following clause:
| Appropriate preventive measures are to be taken where there is reason to believe that a pesticide is likely to cause harm, even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between the pesticide and its effects. |
There is no definition of acceptable or unacceptable risk in the bill. In fact the whole purpose of the bill is to avoid an unacceptable risk. The implementation of the bill would depend on the subjective interpretation of this concept, which is not defined. The precautionary principle is only applied in the proposed legislation in re-evaluation or special reviews. At an operation level the precautionary principle must be used in all decisions respecting pest control products.
There is no requirement to consider aggregate and cumulative exposure. The committee addressed at length that the minister shall consider available information on aggregate and cumulative exposure when determining maximum residue only. That is not sufficient.
There is no science based inherent toxicity criteria, that is, there is no threshold for endocrine destruction, neurotoxicity or carcinogenic content of a pesticide specified for testing of the products. There is no requirement to re-register or evaluate pesticide for use on GMOs.
Another issue that the committee dealt with was an educational mandate. I remember legislation I passed in Quebec, in 1987, where one of the central features was an educational mandate. Without educating the public at large or the people who use pesticides, farmers and others, we will never change attitudes toward pesticides. We had a system where CEGEPs and schools gave instruction on pesticides and changed attitudes in the public mind.
The committee recommended that PMRA be expressly mandated under the new legislation to inform and educate the public about the risks associated with the use of pesticides and the availability of less harmful alternatives. Attitudes about pesticide use must be changed through aggressive public education programs. PMRA should not be given the exclusive responsibility to carry this out given that many federal departments make vital contributions to public awareness raising. It should be spread throughout the system. Public education should be a key mandate of the legislation.
(1710)
We need a commitment in the bill to the pollution prevention principle. There is no substitution principle included in the bill, that is, a requirement to deregister older pesticides once newer and safer ones are registered.
There is a lack of consideration given in the bill to alternatives, to the essential need to use alternatives when they are available and use them on a fast-track basis. Track 1 toxic substances of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act are not explicitly disallowed, again a breach of committee recommendations.
There is no requirement to obtain information or to evaluate registered formulants and contaminants. There are no requirements either for the establishment of a government-use database or to develop reduction plans. There is no phase-out of cosmetic pesticides as referred to by my colleague from Davenport.
I will address the question of transparency under the bill. The need to involve Canadians in the decision making process and to inform them about pesticide use in the environment is clearly evident in the amount of attention this issue has garnered in the press and in the public forum for several years now. The key to fostering public confidence in pest management is to develop an open and transparent system. Canada does not have a tradition of allowing the public to act as a watchdog to the extent the U.S. does now. We have many lessons to learn from our American neighbours in enabling public participation in decision making.
That includes access to what we call CBI, confidential business information. Yesterday, the minister stated:
| Confidential business information will be defined very narrowly in Bill C-53 and will include only financial information, manufacturing processes and formula ingredients that are not of health or environmental concern. This means that the identity and concentration of formulas that are of health or environmental concern will not be held in confidence and can in fact be made available to the public on labels and material safety data sheets and through the public registry. |
That is a good step forward but it falls far short. The restrictions on CBI should be much tighter. For example, there is no definition of what financial information should be protected. Knowing how wily industry is on all these issues it will find a way to make confidential what the public wants to be transparent.
It is my hope that the details of this legislation will be examined closely by the Standing Committee on Health. What constitutes confidential business information is broadly defined in the bill in that the person who is providing the information decides if the information is CBI or not.
Another point regarding transparency is that there is no requirement for a sales database, for which we had asked. There is no direct mechanism for submission of independent scientific findings. We asked for that as well. There is no requirement to establish a database on reported adverse effects. There is no specific mention of the Pest Management Advisory Council. There is no requirement for harmonization between the protection of human health and the environment in order not to weaken Canadian standards.
Nicholas Ashford, a professor of technology and policy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology warned us in 1996 of the most serious environmental problem facing industrialized countries today. He is known for his work on the theory of multiple chemical sensitivity, MCS. He was one of the first to suggest that people who become sensitized by exposure to one form of contamination are much more liable to be affected by a whole range of other pollutants, including detergents, traffic fumes and tobacco smoke. He gave many examples.
(1715)
Theo Colborn and her colleagues stated that only after DDT had been spread as liberally as talcum powder across the face of this earth did we realize that DDT brought death to wildlife, but in a different way. She added that when concerns emerged about the persistence of DDT and its impact on wildlife, regulators imposed controls on less persistent compounds such as methoxychlor and we now know that the same chemical which is still in wide use disrupts hormones.
We have gone from one pesticide to another, from one chemical to another, producing more millions of chemicals and pesticides all over the world and spreading them all over our earth thinking that each new one is better than the other and we will be safe. Yet we are finding out time and again that what we judge safer this time is found to be toxic and dangerous to human health and the environment, especially for children, seniors and pregnant women.
We owe it to ourselves to accept the bill as a big improvement on the previous legislation, but to also ask the minister constructively to allow the committee on health to look at the improvements we have all suggested and make the bill into leading legislation for the federal government. This is my strong hope.
(1720)
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris--Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments of the hon. member.
I want to ask the hon. member a question in regard to the legislation. The bill would require manufacturers to show that their chemicals are effective as part of the approval process. The PMRA should perhaps be more concerned about the safety features of the chemical itself. The market will decide the effectiveness. If we need a product we should look at the health safety of the chemical and its use. Would the hon. member not agree that the testing of the effectiveness should be left with the purchasers? They would find out whether or not it was effective.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln:
Mr. Speaker, I think the precautionary principle has to be the guiding light in all aspects of decision making, including that of the PMRA. If there is any uncertainty it should not be licensed and used. If we are sure, after using the best assessment methods using the benchmark of children, pregnant women and seniors and the safety margin of 10 times, if we are 100% sure that a pesticide is reasonably safe for use in regard to human health and the environment, then it can be licensed, but only after it has been made 100% certain.
Our problem is that in our landscape today there are pesticides being used that have been in use for 40 or 50 years that are completely out of tune with the environment and human health. They have not been retested. We have to start retesting. We must start using the precautionary principle in a proactive and aggressive way. We must tell the PMRA that its mandate is, first of all, human health and the environment and all the rest comes afterwards. If we were to do this then all things would fall into place. This is our hope.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia--Matane, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie mentioned yesterday, I want to say at the outset that the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of pests.
I also want to thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis, who just spoke. He was environment minister in Quebec. In many respects, I agree with what he said, particularly with regard to the number of years that we have been using pesticides and the impact they can have on human health.
We have been using pesticides for many years. We started using chemical pesticides 40 or 50 years ago perhaps. We have very little knowledge of the impact that these pesticides may have had on our lives, on the lives of our children and on the lives of the elderly, as the member pointed out.
He gave a very good example when he mentioned the use of DDT. Everyone will remember that 25 or 30 years ago, DDT was used on a large scale. Researchers found traces of that product in animals in Canada's and Quebec's far north. These animals were still carriers years after the use of DDT, a very common pesticide at one time, had stopped.
I clearly remember that in Quebec, before the introduction of Bacillus thuringiensis—which, incidentally, was developed by a Quebecer—highly toxic chemical pesticides were used in our forests to control pests such as the spruce budworm in New Brunswick and in other provinces. There was no real control over the spraying of that pesticide. It was sprayed all over our forests and even over inhabited areas. As a child, I was exposed to these highly toxic products before biological pesticides were developed. It happened in my province as well as in other Canadian provinces. I am sure that many people my age were affected by the chemical products that were used in those days.
So what is the purpose of this bill being introduced? This bill is to replace legislation that dates back to 1969. It is legislation that is now outdated and should have been replaced before now, given the environmental awareness that has developed in recent years, and our awareness of things that have been done and the impact pesticides can have on our lives, on the lives of our children and on our environment.
There is another element that I consider important. I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for fisheries and oceans. As such, I am fully aware that chemical pesticides used, which in most cases are not biodegradable, can be found in the environment, in streams and rivers, and ultimately, in the oceans. They can also be found in the food chain.
What are the consequences? Obviously, when fishing in a polluted ocean, the resource is polluted. If you eat what is caught in the ocean, you are ingesting a resource that is highly toxic.
At the present time, we do not know enough about the consequences of using this resource to be 100% reassured about what has taken place until now.
As I was saying, we obviously support Bill C-53 in principle, but we would like to see a number of amendments. We know that the bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
I will summarize, as my colleague from Rosemont--Petite-Patrie did yesterday, the main amendments to Bill C-53 that the Bloc Quebecois hopes to see.
The first amendment that we would like to see stems from the fact that Bill C-53 does nothing to speed up the registration process for less toxic pesticides. A focus group was set up in Quebec by Minister Boisclair last October.
(1725)
In fact, this group wanted the registration of less toxic pesticides to be speeded up. The reason is quite simple. Currently, non organic pesticides are being used. It would be necessary for the government to invest into research and to foster the registration of less toxic pesticides, particularly organic ones. But it should also be cautious.
The government should foster the speeding up of registration, but in taking the precautionary principle into account, as my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie mentioned yesterday, and as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis said earlier. It seems to me that the precautionary principle is lacking, or at least not present enough in the bill before us. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis mentioned, this is an essential element, and we ask that the bill be changed, amended, improved. This opportunity to amend the bill would allow us, as a society, to have less toxic products that can be used in a much safer environment.
Second, the bill does not suggest any alternatives to current pesticides. As I indicated, we should have alternatives. Of course, the government can ask people to stop using specific pesticides, but it must at least provide alternatives. Alternatives are necessary, not only in terms of biopesticides, but also when it comes to agriculture; reference is made to organic agriculture. Since I represent a rural riding, I know full well that, in the industry, farmers are still using products that may be considered as highly toxic and that it is necessary to have some control on the way these products are used.
There is also another element that is close to my heart. I remember quite well that, in the last 20 or 30 years, when a highly toxic pesticide was banned in more advanced societies like Canada or the United States, the companies manufacturing these products would make them available in the third world. This may not have been taken into account in the bill, but it might be important to do so.
Today it would be necessary to consider that what is going on elsewhere in the world may have an impact on us, on our societies, in the long term. What goes on in the third world can have an important impact. If highly toxic products are used in the third world and end up on our market, then we will have a serious problem in the more or less long term.
As I said, this bill proposes no alternatives to the pesticides in current use, as was recommended in their respective reports by the focus group on the use of pesticides in urban areas I have already referred to—and will come back to later—created by the Quebec Minister of the Environment, and the Standing Committee on the Environment of the House of Commons.
In its report, the standing committee even recommended incentives be given for organic agriculture, as I have already mentioned, as well as sustainable pest control strategies. What does this mean? It means developing new approaches to controlling pests and stopping the use of highly toxic products which can be harmful to human health.
For example, as my colleague from Rosemont--Petite-Patrie pointed out yesterday, certain European countries offer financial incentives to encourage growers to eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, that is chemical fertilizers. Bill C-53 seems to have been completely stripped of any recognition of the importance of research and development of biopesticides.
We can hope that chemical pesticides, pesticides potentially hazardous to human health, will disappear, but there must be alternatives available, and research must be developed and encouraged if the process is to be speeded up.
Another thing that was recommended by the standing committee is for there to be a re-evaluation by the year 2006 of all pesticides that were registered prior to 1995. Once again, the bill seems not to have set a time limit for the re-evaluation of old pesticides. This is an important point.
(1730)
Basically, even though we have a bill and are trying to replace pesticides said to pose health risks to humans, if we do not re-evaluate the pesticides that are being used, that were used in the past and that are still used today, it is obviously useless to try to go any further.
It is important to consider that we can already, through serious research, come to the conclusion that the pesticides that were in use 20 or 30 years ago—earlier, DDT was mentioned—can be considered as posing health risks to humans. We have a laboratory precisely because these pesticides were used for so many years that we can now evaluate them in a very real and serious fashion. When it comes to evaluating biopesticides, it is the same thing. We are told that it is always a matter of time, that it takes a lot of time to evaluate these products.
There is another important factor to consider in the bill and regarding which amendments are desirable. The bill includes what I would call a wish, in the form of a special protection for children, infants and pregnant women.
I find it hard to see how, through a bill such as this one, we could, without being specific, protect children and infants in a special way, considering that it is society as a whole that is affected by pesticides. In light of this, how can we single out infants, except when they are directly affected in their immediate environment by chemical pesticides or by pesticides that pose health risks?
Earlier, I discussed the position defined by Quebec, by the focus group set up by Minister Boisclair. This position goes much further than the bill before us. On October 15, Minister Boisclair announced the creation of the focus group on the use of pesticides in urban areas. The objective of the focus group was to identify possible solutions that would allow Quebecers to reduce their dependency on and the risks of exposure to these products, including those used to maintain lawns, for environmental horticulture and for extermination purposes, while developing a sense of responsibility among citizens.
A sense of responsibility is very important, and one of the aspects I wish to mention is developing people's sense of responsibility. This is an aspect which is very difficult to control, however. Developing people's sense of responsibility has to do with methods of pesticide use, with people using pesticides in their immediate environment, either on their lawn or on their fruit trees. People often have very little information about how these pesticides should be used. They use them any old way. Sometimes they may very well misuse products and not be aware of their possible hazards. Even if each of these products is very clearly labelled and the recommended use very clearly indicated, not everyone is an expert on pesticides and sometimes amounts can be considerably increased and pose a threat to human health.
Some fifty or so organizations and individuals presented briefs to the group formed by Minister Boisclair. Over half of these organizations, representing municipal government, the research, health and business sectors, and ecological groups, expressed their views during the four days of consultations held in January 2002.
The focus group and the people who presented briefs at the hearings made 15 major recommendations designed to considerably reduce the use of pesticides in urban areas.
But I would like to see this go a bit further than the urban setting. I would like to see rural areas included, because we are well aware that pesticides are also used in farming. They are not restricted to urban areas. They are also used in our towns, our villages and our countryside. I would like to see a broader approach taken and all of society made aware of the problem of using pesticides, which can be potentially dangerous to human health.
(1735)
The first recommendation of the focus group is to ban pesticides, unless action levels have been reached or the survival of plants is being threatened, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier.
The group asked that this be done within a quite short deadline. This provision seems to be lacking in the bill. In the bill before us, it seems that the government does not wish to ban the use of pesticides in the more or less long term, among other places in urban centres, as other members have mentioned. These are pesticides that are used only for lawn and park improvement in cities.
We will have to raise people's awareness. We will have the raise the awareness of businesses that are using such pesticides. We will have to allow them to have access to organic pesticides and make them aware that the use of specific chemical non biodegradable pesticides may be harmful to human health, even to those who spray them, that is workers in these businesses. Consequently, it seems important to me that the government should try, through an amendment to the bill that will be sent to the Standing Committee on Health, to set a deadline to ensure that the use of potentially harmful chemical pesticides be banned in green spaces and on our lawns.
Other recommendations were made by Minister Boisclair's focus group on the use of pesticides, including environmental management training for those working around the public, such as lawn care businesses, those who sell pesticides, professionals who provide services or those who work in public areas, so they can give advice and set an example. Those who work in public areas include municipal employees.
Public information and education with regard to the risks associated with the use of pesticides, with regard to environmental management and with regard to alternative methods and products must be an important part of the bill. The public must be informed and educated on this issue as quickly as possible so that people become aware that the use of these products can be extremely harmful to their health and, in the long term, to human health and to the environment.
One wish expressed by the focus group, and it is something that I mentioned myself, is that alternative methods using less harmful products be made available. We cannot ask people to stop using pesticides if they do not have access to much less dangerous products that would therefore be less harmful to their health.
The focus group also wanted to see an adequate regulatory framework, including the adoption, in the near future, of a pesticide management code that could accelerate the implementation of environmental management.
Since I am running out of time, I will conclude by saying that we agree with the principle of the bill, but it needs to be amended to give it more teeth because, as it is now, it seems to be nothing more than a paper tiger.
(1740)
[English]
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the hon. member who just spoke. I certainly agree with the intent of the bill. I agree with anything that will ensure pregnant women and children are better protected. All Canadians have that same concern and we certainly want to have a look at it.
My greatest concern with the bill is that the problems in the PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, have not been dealt with. There is a real lack of requirement for good scientific information to be used. There is much overlap between testing done in the United States and testing done here.
Farmers are probably the widest users of many of these pesticides. They are held at a disadvantage while the PMRA deals with the registration of these products. When good scientific studies have been done in the United States why is there duplication? It is very expensive. Farmers have to pay an extra tax on these products because they have gone through the PMRA. I have some concerns about that aspect.
I want to ask the member some specific questions about his presentation. He talked about DDT, a product that was banned probably 30 years ago in Canada. Perhaps the member could tell me how long ago it was banned. Nothing to do with human health led to its banning. It was an eggshell problem. Raptors and birds of prey had thin eggshells which resulted in their young not hatching and a decline in the raptor population. If we look across the country now we see a mammoth increase in raptor population. Clearly that problem has been taken care of.
Why would the member raise DDT when it does not seem to fit in with the bill? Maybe he could explain why it would.
Herbicides in particular have become far safer than they were 20 years ago although there was very little evidence that they were not safe at that time. Farmers are more comfortable using these new products because they are extremely safe and have been well tested. That is a real positive.
Who could be more interested than farmers and others who have to use these products when it comes to human health considerations and the environment? No one has a greater vested interest. As a former farmer, my children were around these products. We sprayed crops near our home and had to be very aware of safety.
Would the member comment on that and especially on why DDT was raised as an example of the problem? It was in the past and we have clearly learned from it. Why not mention the new class of herbicides and pesticides that are much safer? The unsafe pesticides are very clearly labelled and someone needs to be licensed to use them.
(1745)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy:
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but he may have misheard or misunderstood certain things.
I did of course refer to DDT, because that was the example I wanted to use. I wanted to use that very specific example because it is an actual example of the use of a pesticide which had, and which obviously caused, major environmental hazards.
He spoke of the raptors as being affected, but they are not the only ones. In all countries where DDT was used at that time, this highly toxic substance was found throughout the food chain. Of course, it had an impact on human beings. What would that have been? Research could be done today, updating the situation, and then we would perhaps have a better idea.
My colleague has raised another point. Today, of course, certain pesticides can be considered less dangerous, less harmful, than at that time, 30 or 40 years ago. Nevertheless, it is often only in the long term that there is an awareness of the potential effects. In the short term, we can say, “Yes, a given pesticide does not seem to be highly toxic”. If it is not biodegradable, however, in the long term it can obviously be dangerous. A pesticide that is not biodegradable inevitably ends up in the food chain and inevitably also in our environment.
When my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis referred just now to the 500% principle of precaution, I am totally in agreement with him. We must have total or near total assurance, if this is possible, that the pesticides we use are not dangerous in the long term to human health and to our environment. One of the points he raised was the very serious problem posed by the use of thousands of tonnes of pesticide products.
I would also like to add, as I did in my speech, that our countries must not stop using highly toxic products, stop manufacturing them, ban their use, and then send them off to the third world, as has been done in the past.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech I want to make a comment on the issue of DDT for the member of the Canadian Alliance who asked the member from the Bloc why he mentioned the issue. I think the issue of DDT is very informative in terms of what we are looking at with regard to the Pest Control Products Act.
First, in 1951 studies indicated issues with regard to human health. If I may share a personal anecdote with the House with regard to DDT, in 1951 my mother was carrying me. I was born in 1952. All members can do the math. I am getting very old now. In 1951, a year before I was born, studies showed that DDT was affecting human health in a negative way. DDT was not banned in Canada until 1978. In January 1978 my daughter was born. Here we have a situation where two generations have been affected by a chemical when it was understood that there were human health problems associated with the use of that chemical.
How does this relate to the Pest Control Products Act, an act that is 30 years out of date? When we talk about the kinds of pesticides and chemicals being used to control pests, yes, as the speaker from the Canadian Alliance said, there has been a new generation of pesticides, but there also is a huge proliferation of pesticides of which we have no understanding and no real knowledge in regard to some of the human health and ecological problems. As well, we have information on pesticides which we are not acting on.
Therefore I am pleased to rise in the House today and speak to this long awaited Bill C-53, the new pest control products act. Indeed, it is an act that many people have been anticipating for a long time. It will amend an act that is 30 years out of date. In May 2000, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report in the House of Commons entitled “Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment”. It was the result of a long study of the pesticide regime in Canada, during which the committee heard a great deal of disturbing testimony about life under the very outdated Pest Control Products Act.
The committee's first recommendation in the report was that the Minister of Health introduce new pesticide legislation as a matter of top priority. Despite the delay, I commend the minister for finally bringing forward Bill C-53. Canadians have been looking forward to the arrival of the bill for a long time.
More important, I congratulate the minister for what is in the bill. On a number of critical issues, the government clearly has listened to the testimony of witnesses and to the recommendations of the committee. The new PCPA strengthens our pesticide regime quite simply by bringing it up to date with modern science, with modern concerns about these products and with modern expectations of government transparency in the protection of human health and the environment.
What is to be applauded about the bill? There are a number of things. To begin, the emphasis of the standing committee's work was on vulnerable populations and, of those, especially children. As we heard over and over from witnesses, children are not little adults. They run a greater risk of exposure to pesticides because of specific characteristics of their physiology. They are developing organisms. For example, they drink more water and breathe more air per kilogram of body weight and thus can absorb larger quantities of pollutants present in the environment. Their diets are appreciably different, consisting largely of fruits, vegetables and mother's milk. They have habits like rolling about on the grass, and little kids like to eat dirt. Because of this, compared to adults, they are exposed to pesticides to a greater degree. For this reason, the committee was greatly concerned that a new pesticides bill grant legal recognition to vulnerable populations, including infants, children, aboriginal people, professional users of pesticides, people in poor health, pregnant women, seniors and others. I am pleased to note that it does.
(1750)
In addition to recognizing vulnerable populations, the bill would apply margins of safety for protecting them. The U.S. food quality protection act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to use an additional safety factor of 10 when assessing the risks posed by the presence of a pesticide in the diet of children. There is no such legislative requirement in Canada under the current act. For this reason, the committee called for the use of an additional safety factor of 10 in determining the tolerance of pesticide residues in foodstuffs. This recommendation is addressed in the bill. However, I believe it requires clarity and perhaps some amendments to provide that clarity. I hope that the health committee will look at clause 11 very closely.
The bill also calls for a greater margin of safety in using pesticides around schools and homes, which is commendable. During its hearings, the environment committee heard alarming stories about the safety of workers handling pesticides. The committee agreed that such workers need the same level of protection now afforded to workers handling other hazardous substances. For this reason, it recommended that the new legislation ensure that pesticides meet the workplace hazardous materials information system requirements. Although the bill does not specifically mention WHMIS, I am pleased to note that it does include the ministerial requirement that a material safety data sheet for each product be provided to workplaces.
The committee was also greatly concerned about the state of product re-evaluation under the current act. Presently there is no timeframe for re-evaluating pesticide products. Re-evaluation ensures that product registrations are supported by up to date science. Not surprisingly, with no timelines we are far behind in reassessing them. Under Bill C-53 all pesticide products would be re-evaluated every 15 years. Unfortunately, there are no timelines associated with the completion of the process. Again, this is an area that I hope the health committee will address.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that when we continue debate on Bill C-53 I will be able to continue my presentation on these issues.
(1755)
The Deputy Speaker:
I want to thank the hon. member for York North for her co-operation. Certainly when this matter is before the House again she will have the floor, with approximately 12 minutes remaining in her intervention.
* * *
[Translation]
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act
The House resumed from April 8 consideration of Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker:
It being 5.56 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of Bill C-15B.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 266)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands)
Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska)
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bailey
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Borotsik
Breitkreuz
Brien
Brison
Burton
Cadman
Cardin
Casey
Casson
Chatters
Clark
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Desrochers
Doyle
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Elley
Epp
Fitzpatrick
Forseth
Fournier
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallant
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Gouk
Grewal
Guay
Guimond
Hearn
Hill (Macleod)
Hilstrom
Hinton
Jaffer
Johnston
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lebel
Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni)
MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough)
Marceau
Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Ménard
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Pallister
Paquette
Penson
Perron
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rajotte
Reid (Lanark--Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Rocheleau
Roy
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
St-Hilaire
Stinson
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Toews
Vellacott
Wayne
White (Langley--Abbotsford)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 89
|
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Assadourian
Bagnell
Barnes
Beaumier
Bennett
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Charbonneau
Coderre
Collenette
Comartin
Copps
Cotler
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies
Desjarlais
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Dromisky
Drouin
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fontana
Fry
Gallaway
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Ianno
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lill
Lincoln
Longfield
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Manley
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
McCallum
McCormick
McDonough
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Neville
Nystrom
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex)
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Redman
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Robinson
Saada
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Shepherd
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Stoffer
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Wappel
Wasylycia-Leis
Whelan
Wilfert
Wood
Total: -- 143
|
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
Bellemare
Bradshaw
Crête
Gagnon (Champlain)
Jackson
Loubier
Maloney
Myers
Owen
Rock
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis)
Venne
Total: -- 14
|
|
(1825)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker:
I declare Motion No. 5 lost.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall:
Mr. Speaker, I think if you would seek it you would find unanimous consent in the House to apply the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 7 and 8.
The Deputy Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Dale Johnston:
Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will be voting yea on Motions Nos. 7 and 8.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien:
Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting in favour of Motions Nos. 7 and 8.
Mr. Yvon Godin:
Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will be voting no on this motion.
Mr. André Bachand:
Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party who are present will be voting yes on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)
|
(Division No. 267)
|
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Anders
Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands)
Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska)
Bachand (Saint-Jean)
Bailey
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Borotsik
Breitkreuz
Brien
Brison
Burton
Cadman
Cardin
Casey
Casson
Chatters
Clark
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Desrochers
Doyle
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Elley
Epp
Fitzpatrick
Forseth
Fournier
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallant
Gauthier
Girard-Bujold
Gouk
Grewal
Guay
Guimond
Hearn
Hill (Macleod)
Hilstrom
Hinton
Jaffer
Johnston
Keddy (South Shore)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lanctôt
Lebel
Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni)
MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough)
Marceau
Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
Ménard
Merrifield
Mills (Red Deer)
Pallister
Paquette
Penson
Perron
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rajotte
Reid (Lanark--Carleton)
Reynolds
Ritz
Rocheleau
Roy
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
Spencer
St-Hilaire
Stinson
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Toews
Vellacott
Wayne
White (Langley--Abbotsford)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 89
|
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allard
Anderson (Victoria)
Assad
Assadourian
Bagnell
Barnes
Beaumier
Bennett
Bertrand
Bevilacqua
Binet
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown
Bryden
Bulte
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Caplan
Carroll
Castonguay
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Charbonneau
Coderre
Collenette
Comartin
Copps
Cotler
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies
Desjarlais
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Dromisky
Drouin
Duplain
Easter
Eggleton
Eyking
Farrah
Finlay
Folco
Fontana
Fry
Gallaway
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Harvey
Hubbard
Ianno
Jennings
Jordan
Karetak-Lindell
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc
Lee
Leung
Lill
Lincoln
Longfield
MacAulay
Macklin
Mahoney
Malhi
Manley
Marcil
Marleau
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (LaSalle--Émard)
McCallum
McCormick
McDonough
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough East)
McLellan
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Neville
Nystrom
O'Brien (London--Fanshawe)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peschisolido
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex)
Pratt
Price
Proulx
Redman
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Robinson
Saada
Savoy
Scherrer
Scott
Shepherd
St-Jacques
St-Julien
St. Denis
Stoffer
Szabo
Telegdi
Thibault (West Nova)
Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)
Tirabassi
Tonks
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
| |