[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 6, 1995
.1540 
The Chairman: I call the committee to order.
We'll continue with the consideration of private members' business for votability. We are now commencing this round after the most recent draw. We will consider six items today.
Mr. St-Laurent, is this the first time you have been before this subcommittee?
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent, MP (Manicouagan): Yes.
The Chairman: That's great. We will listen to you for a few minutes, and you will tell us why you think your item of business should be made votable. We may have questions when you conclude your presentation. We would like to keep the total time for your presentation and our questions to 10 minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent: All right. Thank you.
I will first read part of my notes in order to highlight the paragraphs that will put the matter in perspective. Then we can start a discussion if necessary.
In Quebec, several unions and employers agree that the anti-scab legislation reduces the number and duration of labour disputes while reducing the risk of violence on picket lines, which benefits both parties. However, the use of scabs in the past few years has only served to prolong disputes between unions and management. An anti-scab provision eliminates unfair situations and has a civilizing effect on labour disputes while creating a better balance of power between the unions and corporate management.
Since companies under federal jurisdiction represent only a small proportion of the Canadian labour force, it seems quite obvious that federal legislation must adjust to provincial legislation and complete it when necessary. The legislation in those three provinces that limit the use of replacement workers during work stoppages includes provisions for the maintenance of services necessary to protect health, public safety and welfare.
The addition of such provision would ensure that health, safety and the welfare of Canadians are not jeopardized during work stoppages involving essential services such as firefighting at airports and similar examples.
In 1992, statistics indicated that there could be up to 1.83 million workers came under the Canada Labour Code. Right now in Quebec, approximately 217,500 such workers, including the employees of the notorious Ogilvie flour mills that I mentioned during question period. This example is in fact quite relevant.
The purpose of the Bill is therefore to maintain the balance of power between the parties from the beginning of the negotiation phase and thus create a more serene climate likely to shorten work stoppages. Essentially, if this bill had to be summarized, that is the paragraph that should be borne in mind.
Now, who supports this bill? Needless to say, the workers do, but so do bodies such as the Conseil du patronat du Québec and the Conseil du commerce du Québec who admit candidly that anti-scab legislation greatly improve labour relations.
In 1990, the Liberal Party was in opposition and the NDP came out in favour of a similar although less elaborate bill. My colleague Mr. Plamondon had tabled it and at the time, the Liberals, your colleagues, had passed it.
.1545
The average number of person-days lost is three and a half times higher in conflicts where scabs are used. This is an important data and we will see why later on in the statistics. Ever since anti-scab provisions have been enforced, the proportion of person-days lost decreased by almost half, which leads us to believe that these provisions not only reduce the length of conflicts using scabs but also soften the impact of these work stoppages on workers and their jobs. Let us recall that the shorter the conflict, the lesser the chance that violence and exasperation will occur creating a tense atmosphere that is not conducive to conflict resolution.
According to the statistics mentioned earlier, it appears that labour disputes last half as long in provinces with anti-scab legislation. This is very important for the economy of a country like ours. There's talk of economic recession and many people don't have a job. But among those who do have one, some are standing twice as long as they need to on picket lines.
What does this represent in terms of lost work days? Between 1977 and 1995, it was estimated that 10,428,940 person-days were lost for businesses with 1 to 499 employees and approximately 8.5 million days lost for those with 500 or more employees. If you total these two figures, you arrive at some 19 million lost work days. From an economic standpoint, this translated into loss of taxes for governments not counting other kinds of economic repercussions. Had there been anti-scab legislation, those numbers would have been cut by half. Therefore, if only for economic reasons, such an intiative would have been justified.
I didn't come here only to talk about economic reasons, but also to emphasize the quality of life that we should have in this country. A government must not simply react to events; it must prevent them.
In the three provinces with 75% of the workforce in this country, 75% are already subject to anti-scab legislation. Therefore, why shouldn't Canada not protect the remaining 25% through this bill? This is a progressive measure that is part of the normal evolution of labour relations in civilized countries.
I'm now prepared to answer questions.
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. St-Laurent, are you essentially proposing that with the necessary adjustments of course we should emulate the anti-scab legislation that has been in force in Quebec for that past 20 years?
Mr. St-Laurent: Yes, but I would also include the employees of the Public Service of Canada as well as emergency measures that guarantee that the public is not unduly affected by a labour dispute, for example.
Mr. Langlois: Would your bill apply equally to legal entities and persons?
Mr. St-Laurent: Yes.
Mr. Langlois: It would not be possible to hire corporations, as the Quebec legislation presently allows?
Mr. St-Laurent: Exactly. Unfortunately, the Ogilvie conflict is a perfect example. That conflict has been going on for a whole year now.
.1550
In four days, it will have been one whole year since scabs crossed the picket lines and replaced the workers without anyone stopping them. The tension has become extreme on the picket line. Any day now, some horrible event could occur.
With anti-scab legislation protecting the workers of this company, management would have to negotiate. It wouldn't simply not care as is the case right now, to the detriment of the workers. Respecting people means giving them the necessary attention during negotiations.
Mr. Langlois: I would have another question. Have you made provisions for the maintenance of essential services? I thought I saw that you were giving the governor in coucil, and not the Canada Labour Relations Board, the power to define what constitute essential services. Am I correct?
Mr. St-Laurent: Each case will have to be decided on an individual basis when the time comes. When you're talking about the Public Service for instance, it's rather delicate and you can only give broad guidelines. Each case has to be decided individually. That's why I proceeded this way.
Mr. Langlois: The government would become the arbitrator rather than a council on central services. I undertand there would have been a problem in creating an organization with...
Mr. St-Laurent: It gets somewhat complex. With regard to the Bill, I think it's also important not to generate any new expenditures. That's why we have to legislate this way.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Patry.
Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds - Dollar): If I understand you correctly, you mentioned at the outset that three provinces had anti-scab legislation. Which ones?
Mr. St-Laurent: Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario, I believe.
Mr. Patry: In support of your bill, you also mentioned that the Chambre du commerce du Québec and the Conseil du patronat du Québec were in favour of anti-scab legislation.
Mr. St-Laurent: Yes.
Mr. Patry: Are you aware that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is oppose to this because of the complexity of implementation across the country and it has already presented a brief to this effect?
Mr. St-Laurent: Naturally, I'm aware of this, as is anyone else interested in this issue. It's certainly a viewpoint that we have to take into account, but you do know that for geographical reasons, legislatively speaking, Quebec is really one of the provinces that is most difficult to cover. And yet, we do manage to do that back home. Therefore, I think this is rather a easy excuse on the part of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Patry: One last question to follow-up on Mr. Langlois' regarding essential services in case of a strike.
Since there is no essential services committee or council, don't you think that as the governor in council would be responsible for defining essential services this may lead to some difficulties in terms of reaching an agreement between union and management?
Mr. St-Laurent: If you take Quebec as an example, it has intervened in less than 1% of cases.
Therefore, as I was saying earlier to my colleague from Bellechasse, each case will have to be decided on its own merit rather than developing useless policies which could not be applied down the road. We can't go any further without generating costs and I have to be careful not to do that. It's a rather delicate situation.
Mr. Patry: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. White.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): No, Mr. Chairman. I was late, so I prefer not to -
The Chairman: You didn't miss much. I'm sorry; you didn't miss much in the sense that you came not long after the commencement.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: You're very unbiased about it.
The Chairman: You didn't miss much in terms of time, but you missed a great opening presentation.
Thank you very much, Mr. St-Laurent.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Our next presenter is Bob Mills, speaking in connection with Bill C-309, followed by Ted White.
Mr. Bob Mills, MP (Red Deer): Mr. Chairman, Mr. White has a plane to catch and I'm in Ottawa, so -
The Chairman: By all means, we'll hear Mr. White then, on motion M-431.
.1555
Mr. Ted White, MP (North Vancouver): The motion reads as follows:
- That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support and work toward
enabling legislation for a binding national referendum on capital punishment to be held
concurrently with the next federal election.
There's no doubt the issue of capital punishment is national in nature. It's brought up regularly in letters and phone calls to MPs across Canada. I know that all members of the House must receive these letters and phone calls from time to time. The polls indicate an ongoing and significant public interest in this area.
The motion doesn't discriminate against any particular area or region of the country; it's pretty clear in what it intends to do; and it would be very easy to implement. It's not a partisan motion, and there would be minimal cost associated with running a referendum at the time of an election, since most of the paper work would already be in place.
There are currently no government bills or motions before the House dealing with the subject of capital punishment, and there has been no private member's bill or motion drawn on this subject since the last election. However, there has been a significant increase in the number of petitions on the subject of capital punishment presented to Parliament over the last few years. It has been a growing trend. So there is clearly growing public interest in this area, and obviously people would like to have the matter discussed in the House.
The motion is not unconstitutional. It doesn't infringe upon any provincial legislative authority. Neither does it impede federal-provincial relationships or any international relationships.
In summary, the motion deals with an issue that has normally been subject to a free vote in the House, and the passage of the motion would have the effect of encouraging an extension of that free vote to the people of Canada.
I respectfully request that the committee make the motion votable so the people of Canada will be able to have their say.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Chairman, for everybody's information, can you tell me the last time the issue of capital punishment was in the House?
The Clerk of the Committee: It was during the first years of the Mulroney government, 1985.
The Chairman: An excellent guess, 1985.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): That was voted upon through what measures?
The Clerk: There was a free vote in the House because the vote crossed party lines very strongly.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Was it a government bill or a private member's bill?
The Clerk: That I couldn't tell you.
Mr. Patry: It was a government bill.
The Clerk: It probably was.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Thank you, Mr. White, for assisting with an indication of how long it has been since this topic has had some discussion in the House.
Mr. Langlois: Even though it was a free vote in the House the cabinet ministers were bound by the.... So there.
[Translation]
Mr. White, I won't hide the fact that I've been a staunch abolitionist for many years now. Having said that, I accept your view. This is the place to discuss it, and that's why we were elected in fact.
To my knowledge, the last execution in Canada took place on December 6th 1962. There hasn't been an execution for 33 years. In 1967, a debate led to a temporary abolition for a five year period that was renewed. There was a vote in July 1976 which extended sine die, the abolition without a definite limit. This was extended for another five years in the meantime. Finally, there was the vote in 1985.
Don't you think that we've just about exhausted the subject, since there is not political party sitting in the House right now that advocates the return of the death penalty?
If I understood your own party leader correctly, he does not advocate the return of the death penalty. Of course, there are horrible crimes that stir up passions momentarily. There are peaks in the surveys that show people want the return of the death penalty. That's quite normal.
.1600
There do not seem to be any major political party advocating the return of the death penalty. But I do believe that there is in your party a desire to do away with the possibility of release after 15 years for first degree murder and offences under section 745 of the Criminal Code. There's even talk about having sentences that cannot be reduced in the case of murder conviction, that is a full life sentence with no possibility of release. That seems to be something new and I'd like you to clarify this point for me. Is it a new position you are taking in opening up the debate on the death penalty through a national referendum and are there any other political parties supporting this position?
[English]
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Thank you for the question. As I said at the beginning of the presentation, I'm trying to avoid getting into actually debating the rights and wrongs of capital punishment. That's what I think we will do in the House eventually, whether the motion is votable or not.
Sticking to the reasons behind why this perhaps should be votable, I think there's no doubt we're here to serve the people who elected us, and as I mentioned there has been growing public interest in this matter. The number of petitions that have been presented to the House has been growing. My assistant in my office looked at the numbers right back to 1980 or 1985.
There is growing public interest in this issue, and people are not going to be satisfied if we keep pushing it away. At some time we need to bring it back. It has been 10 years, and those 10 years now give us the benefit of a lot of statistical information that can be used for either one side or the other - at this point that's not the issue - to help settle the matter once and for all.
We have now approximately 20 years of experience in statistical information that would support one side or the other of the argument. So the question first of all is whether we should discuss it in the House, and I think we should. Secondly, should we put it to some sort of vote? I would say yes. I think this is an important issue. There is growing public concern and people want to see us make some decisions.
Mr. Patry: Mr. White, I have just two questions. You were talking about the number of petitions we've brought up in the House of Commons. Can you tell me how many petitions have been presented here since October 1993, after the last election?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): I can't be certain how many there have been since October 1993, but in the last twelve months I believe there have been eight. It is a much higher number than in the year before and so on.
Mr. Patry: Do you know how many people signed these petitions?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): No. I don't have those figures with me today.
Mr. Patry: Can you tell me the last time there was a referendum at the same time as an election?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): In Canada?
Mr. Patry: Yes.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): No, I can't.
Mr. Patry: Do you know if there has ever been a referendum at the same time as an election?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): No, but it seems to be the natural time to do it.
Mr. Patry: I'm just asking you to see if there is any background on this.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): No there isn't.
Mr. Patry: Okay. That's fine. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: If my memory serves me right, Dr. Patry, there was one in British Columbia during the last provincial election relating to a recall procedure for members of Parliament at popular demand and the requirement to consult the people on any constitutional amendment and there was one in Saskatchewan as well. In both cases there was quite an extraordinary majority in favour of these initiatives, in excess of 80%. Strangely enough, the measure has not yet been put into effect by the British Columbia government where 82% of the people were in favour, except on the constitutional matter, where there was already some provision.
[English]
Mr. White (North Vancouver): That's a very good example. I feel quite embarrassed that I did not remember that one. Actually, that particular referendum was not binding upon the government that then took office. That's why there was much reluctance by the NDP government to enact it. But it was an excellent example of how it actually increased voter turnout for the election as well. So it was a very good way of getting more involvement.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The referendum was about recall, and the NDP would be reluctant to put that in under the circumstances.
The Chairman: Next is Mr. Mills with Bill C-309.
.1605
Welcome, Mr. Mills. You have a bill for us. Please give us your best five minutes and we'll see what happens.
Mr. Mills: This is Bill C-309. Very briefly, its subject is the disclosure of public opinion polls conducted with taxpayers' funds.
Bill C-309 amends the Access to Information Act by adding conditions after section 5. Basically, it defines the public opinion poll and asks that a designated minister notify the Speaker of the House of Commons that this public opinion poll is being conducted and is being paid for by public funds.
The designated minister must then submit to the House of Commons the results of this poll and describe the nature of the poll, as well as giving a summary of the responses, along with the period during which the poll was conducted, the name of the person or firm commissioned to do the poll, and the cost of the poll.
Most importantly, the results of this poll would be placed before the House of Commons within 15 days of the poll being conducted. If the House is not sitting, the results would appear in The Canada Gazette five days after the last sitting of the House.
The 15-day period is an important feature. Now the results are announced within 30 to 90 days. Obviously for most polls, release within 30 or 90 days makes them rather insignificant. By then, the results are not of much interest and are not very relevant.
I believe that Bill C-309 should be votable because it increases the transparency of government operations and it opens the lines of communication between Canadians and the Canadian government. I believe anything we can do to convince people that what we do here is legitimate is for the better.
I also refer to the Liberal red book promise about openness and transparency and, of course, the promise that the results of public opinion polls be made public.
I don't feel there would be many reasons for a political party not to support this. It is the age of accountability. It would reduce excess spending on polls, particularly where the public purse is involved. I believe the people who pay for the poll should have immediate access to that poll. I think it also increases people's interest in polling. Again, I come back to the fact that they're paying the bill.
Here is a little bit of history on this issue. This was the very issue on which the Information Commissioner took Mr. Mulroney to court in 1992. The ruling was in favour of the commissioner. However, the law was not changed. There were changes in 1994, but in my opinion these changes haven't gone far enough.
I believe that for those reasons Bill C-309 should be made votable, and I would work very hard to try to convince all parties they should support this kind of openness and increased access to information on polling.
I do have a summary that I don't believe the clerk has handed out because it's recent.
I believe that's all I need to say, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully, I've summarized it for you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, are there any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Mills, can you imagine circumstances where it would not be in the public interest or the national interest or where it would not be appropriate for the results of a poll to be immediately made public? I'm thinking of a war time situation or a period of negotiations. Let's say negotiations. I imagine that there were umpteenth polls commissioned during negotiations relating to the Canada Free Trade Agreement. It was necessary to have an idea of the situation in Quebec and in Ontario since the election results hinged on those two provinces.
.1610
I quite understand the purpose of the bill. There would be a significant reduction in the latitude of the executive branch and its control over the legislature with respect to decisions. But I come back to my original question. Can you see any circumstances where such results should not be made public?
[English]
Mr. Mills: I guess I have a firm belief that the people are always right. Because I believe that, I could find no reason why the people shouldn't have the information that was collected from them and why it shouldn't be made public.
On the other side of it, I can see a lot more damage being done by keeping polls secret, to be used by the government, I suppose. I'm not referring to the recent past, but to the time before 1993 when polling was done very frequently and was kept secret as a matter of course. I'm sure that's why it's in the red book. We don't ever want to return to those kinds of days.
In a serious situation such as wartime, I still think I would stick with the fact that the people who provide the information and pay for it have the right to know the results of that poll. I can't really think of a reason why they should be kept secret from the people. Believing in true populism, I have to state that. Possibly that's a political point of view, but I do believe the people have that right.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Let me take another example, Mr. Mills, with the chair's indulgence. With respect to the referendum debate on the future of Quebec, the Quebec government has probably tested a number of questions that would be put to voters, to determine which ones have the best chance of obtaining a yes and which ones should be avoided. I suppose that on the other side, unless they are sleeping on the switch as we say in Quebec, they must also be testing out a strategy in preparation for the campaign.
With the present legislation where the federal government must put all its cards on the table since it must immediately reveal its questions - I'm playing the devil's advocate here - do you not think that there is an imbalance in the cheques and balances that must exist in the system? On one side Quebec would not be required to reveal its strategy since your legislation would not apply to a provincial legislature but on the other side the federal government would have to make its strategy known.
[English]
Mr. Mills: The issue of separation to me is an issue of politics, and an issue of politics should be paid for by the political party. So I would find it not desirable that the PQ would be using taxpayers' money to conduct polls on separation and keeping them secret from the people, because it's a political area. I think the federal government could be the same. If it's playing politics, it should pay for the conducting of that poll with the party's money.
If it's the taxpayers' money being used for the good of the province or the country, the results of the poll should be made public.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Chairman, Bob said changes were made already in this area and they didn't go far enough. What didn't go far enough?
Mr. Mills: Basically, again, it's just some fixing. As I understand it, there's improved release of public information. In other words, they will release it, but we have that 30- to 90-day period in which it will be released. My contention is that 15 days is long enough, and in many cases, even that would be too long.
The direct problem that occurred in 1992 with Mr. Mulroney and all his polling has not been addressed head-on. There's really no method for ensuring that federal institutions have to reveal that information. They can still cover it up and not make it public. I'm saying if taxpayers are paying for it, it should be made public.
.1615
There's still room for personal interpretation in ministries, as I understand it, with the changes. It's not as hard and fast...and I believe that's why the justice minister has indicated he too feels some changes should be made. However, he has a lot of things on his plate, and whether he will get to changing access to information before the next election is rather doubtful. So I'm suggesting we give him this little prod to say let's change it piece by piece, if that's possible.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Would this cover crown corporations, agencies?
Mr. Mills: I'm not sure whether we could extend that under access to information. I'm not sure of that.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Strictly military, RCMP?
Mr. Mills: Military, RCMP, crown corporations; any federally funded institution. But I'm not positive on that, so I wouldn't like to say for sure about that. I guess if you ask me my intention, it would be that it would include all publicly funded polling.
Mr. Patry: Apart from these changes from 30 to 90 days to 15 days, as in your project, are there any changes that are not satisfactory from the changes of 1994? You said there were changes in 1994.
Mr. Mills: That's correct, but again, they just didn't go far enough to spell out that they must be made public. Discretion was left to the department.
Mr. Patry: Are you aware of any department that didn't go far enough with access to information?
Mr. Mills: Not since this change. Again, I would have to go back to 1992 for all the best examples of where this was abused. The idea would be let's make sure that in the future we've taken care of this problem, which was identified in court in 1992.
The Chairman: There's a trick phrase here that I need some help with. It's in your opening clause, which refers to subsection 5(1) of the Access to Information Act. In lines 14 and 15 it talks about any department established by an act of Parliament or by proclamation, Order in Council, or other instrument otherwise than in the execution of a power conferred by or under an act of Parliament. What does that phrase in lines 14 and 15 refer to, ``otherwise than in the execution of a power conferred by or under an Act of Parliament''? Do you know what that's referring to?
Mr. Mills: Damn lawyers, anyway. I don't believe those are our.... You take this off for drafting. That is not my type of wording.
The Chairman: It may be that counsel, or whoever has assisted with the fine-tuning of the drafting, has emulated a pre-existing concept in the act and included it in this.
Mr. Mills: I think that's the case, because as I say, to me that is legal jargon.
The Chairman: Okay, we'll let it roll the way it is.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, might this be interpreted to say that an organization such as CSIS, that has been set up for national security, would not be able to conduct its polls in full impunity of this legislation in view of the fact that it is a particular mission under a statute?
[English]
The Chairman: I don't want to be the arbiter. It's possible, Mr. Langlois, that the French reading might be more helpful in understanding this than the English version is. Is it possible?
Mr. Mills: This might refer to your wartime concerns, or those that might be of national security. Possibly that would be the ``out'' clause to handle that sort of extreme situation. I would hate to try to interpret.
.1620
The Chairman: I have a problem with the phrases at the beginning and the end.
- 5.1 (1) Any department... established by or pursuant to any Act of Parliament... otherwise
than in the execution of a power conferred by or under an Act of Parliament
There has to be a reason for it. Perhaps someone assisted you and recommended that it be included. I know that Parliament itself has always refused to be subject to any of these statutes...
Mr. Mills: That certainly isn't my intent. Obviously it was put in there by counsel for some reason.
The Chairman: Irrespective of how this particular exercise goes on votability, you might want to ask counsel that question. It's probably not broken, but you might want to figure out the reason for it.
Mr. Mills: Yes. Thank you.
The Chairman: Our next presenter is Bill Gilmour in relation to motion M-425.
Have you presented here before?
Mr. Bill Gilmour, MP (Comox - Alberni): Yes. I'll be brief, concise, and to the point.
I bring this motion to your consideration to be selected as votable because I believe it meets the criteria for selection of votable items drawn up in 1987 and is an appropriate votable item.
It deals with sewage treatment. Sewage treatment is significant to Canadians. It affects the environment, the economy, and the health of all Canadians.
This motion proposes that the government support the undertaking of a country-wide program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least that of primary treatment facilities.
The environmental effects of sewage dumping affect all Canadians. There are no borders and I feel a minimum legislated standard is in fact appropriate. Sewage dumping into water bodies, as presently occurs in Halifax, Vancouver, and Victoria, can devastate areas by drastically degrading water quality, limiting dissolved oxygen levels, harming marine life, and polluting shorelines, thus removing areas from recreational use and endangering human health.
A 1993 report shows that only 57% of Canadians are served by a wastewater treatment plant. Last summer it was reported that 17 cities failed to treat all or some of their sewage. We need strong government support to push this issue to the forefront and ensure that action is taken. There has been no similar bill - or similar questions - brought forward to the House or voted upon this session. This item has not been declared to be on the government's legislative agenda, yet I believe this is an issue upon which all parties are united.
I ask that this committee consider this issue carefully and support my motion as votable in the House.
I thank you.
The Chairman: That was refreshingly brief and to the point. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Despite the fact that your presentation was brief, it was very clear. It was clearer than the wastewater you want to treat. I only have one question. If the federal government adopts this motion, what impact will it have on municipalities and the law, since this is a provincial jurisdiction?
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: I think it's the federal mandate - and I recognize that it is a provincial responsibility - to put in an umbrella minimum standard. That's what we don't have now. Whether you happen to be in British Columbia, Quebec, or the Maritimes, there are different standards. I believe that we, as Canadians, need a minimum. There are plenty of municipalities that will go for secondary and in fact tertiary treatment. That's fine if that's what their electorate chooses to pay for. But I think it's appropriate that we establish a minimum. That's the purpose of this motion. This issue affects all ridings and all members.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Is this motion in fact enforceable through government legislation when control of the sewage is municipal and even provincial?
.1625
Mr. Gilmour: It would be, because one of the strongest acts that we have is the Fisheries Act. So if they are going into salt water, in fact we do have an enforceable standard. For example, if we wanted to get pushy, then in Halifax, Sydney, Vancouver, or Victoria it could be enforced under the Fisheries Act, under putting a deleterious substance into a water body. I think it's quite reasonable and quite enforceable.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Could you explain how serious this is? I know that Victoria is a problem.
Mr. Gilmour: Victoria is really bad. My riding is two ridings north of Victoria. We get into major discussions with the Americans because the Strait of Juan de Fuca is international water and Seattle and the areas down south treat theirs but Victoria doesn't. It's really non-defensible that in the 1990s we're taking steps as if we were in the 1890s.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I'm still looking for the scope of it. Victoria, Halifax.... I know that Sydney has a problem.
Mr. Gilmour: Yes.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): How big is the problem?
Mr. Gilmour: My research is just halfway along on this one, but it's fairly broad. It's all over the board.
People will say that it's going to cost money. I believe the infrastructure dollars are there. It's a matter of priorizing where we are going to put our energies. I think clean water has to be near the top of the list.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: Mr. Gilmour, when you came up with your plan to treat municipal sewage, were you aware if some municipalities took advantage of the Canadian government three level infrastructure program to build sewage treatment plants?
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: Yes. In fact, I think the biggest infrastructure grant - at least in B.C., and it may be in Canada - went to Vancouver for the Annacis Island treatment plant, to bring it up to standard. It was a mess, going right into the Fraser River, which is the major salmon river in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: Do you think there should be another project under the three level infrastructure program to get around, if I can put it that way, provincial jurisdiction? Sewage treatment in cities lies without a doubt under provincial jurisdiction. Do you think there should be another three level infrastructure program only for sewage treatment?
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: I think it's a matter of discussion among all levels. I'll use the Vancouver case. The City of Vancouver put some in. The regional district put some in. The federal government and the province also contributed. I believe it is something like $300 million, so it's a major expense. Clearly, particularly in major cities, it's going to require an infusion of dollars from all levels. I certainly don't want to enforce something that's not wanted, but my view is that Canadians are demanding this.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: You talked about costs and you said that sewage generated by 57% of Canadians is being treated. How much would it cost to treat the sewage of 90 or 95% of Canadians, especially those people living in large cities?
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: No, until I get the full scope of where the major cities are. I've put in municipalities because I feel that in very small communities the tax base wouldn't allow for it and in fact it probably isn't a problem. Only as you get into bigger populations do you start to get into the problem.
I will have that for the discussion in the House.
The Chairman: The next presenter is Daphne Jennings, in connection with Bill C-259, followed by Mr. Zed, on Bill C-311.
Welcome back, Mrs. Jennings.
.1630
Mrs. Daphne Jennings, MP (Mission - Coquitlam): Thank you.
The Chairman: You're familiar with the program?
Mrs. Jennings: Yes, I am.
I thought I would start today by listing the criteria for selection and answering each one. I have addressed qualifications.
Bill C-259 is an act respecting a national grandparent's day. Regarding the number one qualification, this bill is national in significance as it seeks to establish a day for recognition of the contributions of grandparents across Canada. I do not believe recognition of one's ancestors could be termed trivial or insignificant.
Number two, this bill is national in scope and does not discriminate or favour one region against another.
Number three, I believe, is not applicable.
Number four, this bill is perfectly clear and needs no amendment. Its purpose is clear, to establish a day once a year for the recognition of contributions of grandparents not only to their grandchildren but also to society as a whole.
Number five, this is not on the government agenda at this time.
Number six, while a bill to this effect was just debated for one hour and deemed not votable, the matter is still of great significance. It should be noted that the United States has declared 1995 as the year of the grandparent. This illustrates the recognition given in other countries, and perhaps we should give the same recognition. Also, the United Nations made 1994 the year of the family.
Number seven is not applicable.
Number eight is not applicable. This bill is not a partisan bill.
Number nine is not applicable. The bill is constitutional, does not infringe on provincial authority, nor does it violate the Charter of Rights. As it is not declaring a national holiday but simply a day of recognition, it will have no effect on existing or future labour contracts.
Number ten, a similar bill to this was not voted on.
Number eleven, it is not similar to any other votable item dealt with this session.
I'd just like to add a couple of comments here. With the rising divorce rate in our country there is the need for grandparents to help out with their grandchildren. Indeed, many grandparents are already raising their grandchildren in Canada, albeit without recorded recognition. If we believe the family unit is the basic unit of our society, then I present to you that when we, as parliamentarians, are given the opportunity to recognize the senior members of our country, I feel it is an honour for us to be able to give permanent recognition to this particular group of Canadians.
There is no cost involved in recognizing those who have given so much of their time with no thank you and no cost except to themselves, usually willingly and sometimes without regard to their own health.
I would just ask that you consider it very carefully, and I will await your decision.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Chairman, I have several questions. You did confirm this isn't a statutory holiday you're looking for, just an acknowledgement.
Mrs. Jennings: That's correct.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): This was, however, before this committee already, was it not?
The Clerk: Bill C-274, an Act respecting national grandparents' day, was presented byMr. Assadourian and it was debated last week.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): You propose it be held on the second Sunday in September. Is Labour Day the second Monday in September?
Mrs. Jennings: It's the first Monday. I should maybe clarify that. The grandparents asked me for that day.
The Chairman: Your efforts on behalf of the class of Canadians sometimes called grandparents are notable. Thank you for being here today.
Mrs. Jennings: Thank you.
The Chairman: Next is Mr. Zed in connection with Bill C-311.
Mr. Paul Zed, MP (Fundy - Royal): Thank you.
The Chairman: I resisted all efforts to jest and make reference to sugar and anything like that. It's an important commodity, due all the respect we can muster.
The floor is yours, Mr. Zed. We usually allow the presenter five minutes followed by questions.
Mr. Zed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since I'm often sitting in your chair, I know what it's like trying to keep things brief.
.1635
Colleagues, Bill C-311 is a bill that requires the Minister of International Trade to retaliate against import restrictions that were introduced by the United States of America recently on Canadian refined sugar and sugar-containing products. I think it's important to recognize that Canada's sugar policy is indeed unique among the industrialized nations, in that Canadian sugar prices are closely following trends in the world market. Exporters to the Canadian market face almost no restrictions to access.
United States sugar policy continues to threaten Canadian refined sugar production. I won't go into details, but I've circulated for you a copy of some of the remarks I feel are relevant in support of this bill. It's interesting to note that although not referred to in this document, Lantic Sugar, which is based in Montreal, has also, together with B.C. Sugar, laid some workers off recently. So the bill would be very timely and appropriate in the sense that it is already having some devastating effects in Canada.
Canada sugar and sugar-containing product exports do not impact on the United States market. Since 1987 the United States has limited Canadian exports of sugar to refined beet sugar, and the exports have averaged somewhere in the order of 0.05% annually in the United States market. The overall U.S.-Canada trade balance shows the United States has a trade surplus in sugar. As a result, they're dumping, or allegedly dumping, sugar into the Canadian market.
As many of you know, colleagues, the free trade agreement does not protect Canadian sugar refiners. The only benefit of the free trade agreement was that the United States could not apply a quota to refined sugar. However, with the recent changes in the WTO or World Trade Organization implementation, the Canadian sugar industry lost the only benefit they had achieved under the free trade agreement and are now subject to this global trade.
I can perhaps just draw your attention to the fact that NAFTA has resulted in further restrictions on exports, the fact that the United States' restrictive actions historically have targeted the Canadian industry, and with the recent entry of Mexico, the Canadian market has been restricted. Our market access to the United States has been restricted almost identically to the amount of quota the Mexicans have been granted. Obviously it's water finding its own level, and the difficulty is obviously the Canadian market.
The new GATT protects the United States sugar producers, as my outline shows. The new agreement falls short of the object of liberalizing trade in agriculture and achieves little in the sugar sector. United States production has expanded beyond domestic demand. As many of you may know, currently an investigation is going on into alleged sugar dumping. That's being conducted currently by the Department of National Revenue.
I believe the new GATT is going to restrict Canada's access to the United States market further. As many of you know, earlier this year the United States trade representative, Mickey Kantor, said the new trade rate quotas in the U.S.-Uruguay round will sharply reduce United States imports of sugar and sugar-containing products from recent levels.
I think one of the things that are very worrying is the closure of one refinery, or a reduction of many of the sugar refineries, in Canada. The estimate of Canadian job losses now is about 700, while the loss of Canadian production of many sugar-containing products could affect an additional 1,700 jobs, specifically in Ontario and Quebec. The plants in jeopardy are in Ontario and Quebec. The sugar beet farmers are out west. We have, as you know, a large refinery in Atlantic Canada, which supplies Atlantic Canada, part of Ontario, and part of Quebec.
In concluding, I want to draw colleagues' attention to the pending U.S. Helms-Burton legislation, which is a further sign that the United States could impose additional restrictions on the Canadian sugar exports if we do not exhibit what I think are tough but fair policy initiatives. I think it's well understood that the United States Congress is going to have significant support from presidential candidates for the anti-Cuba bill, effectively, which is what it's called in the American media, because Canada imports large quantities of sugar from Cuba and the Canadian exports of refined sugar and sugar-containing products of over 35% would be denied entry into the U.S. marketplace. This would result in a loss of about $500 million in exports.
.1640
As colleagues may know, the sugar caucus is leaving for Washington on the 29th and the 30th to voice Canada's concern over unfair tariffs and, obviously, the anti-Cuba legislation. More importantly, we're going to be hopefully exchanging information with colleagues in the United States to make sure that they appreciate the nature and the depth of what's happening.
The urgent need to address and rectify the unfair trade of tariff and quota restrictions is being done with this all-party group. The private member's bill, in my view, would show the Americans that we are deadly serious about the unfair access to their market by imposing reciprocal restrictions on their sugar exports to our market.
That basically concludes the points that I feel are relevant to show you that it is important in national significance and it is national in scope. The government agenda obviously makes it difficult, because there are a number of trade issues relating to our cousins to the south. I think this bill is going to send an important message from parliament to parliament, to the American Senate and the House of Representatives.
Thank you. I'm prepared to answer any questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Zed, if I understand your bill, correctly, you are not granting the minister any authority that he doesn't already have. By law the minister has to act whereas he didn't deem fit to exercise discretion: you are taking away that discretion. My objection is the following and I would like you to clarify things for me. The minister for International Trade, like the government, has to report to the House of Commons. Why would you oblige the government, by statute, to exert a jurisdiction which is his whereas the House, by virtue of the minister's responsibility, can with a simple motion require the government to comply with its order, for fear of non-confidence either in the government or the minister, which would be much more effective. I have a feeling you are going for the Way of the Cross when a sign of the cross would suffice. I find it difficult to understand, and would like you to explain it to me.
[English]
Mr. Zed: I'm sympathetic to your logic. The difficulty is that, as you would know, it's difficult to get the minister to exercise discretion.
This is more important than an exercise of discretion. What we are doing, effectively, is highlighting the importance that Canadian parliamentarians place on this issue in order to protect the Canadian sugar industry.
I agree that we do indeed fetter or interfere with the discretion of the minister a bit, but the bill does contemplate a negotiation, a consultation with our colleagues.
The bomb is ticking, if you will. If this bill were to be implemented, the match would be lit to the wick and at the end of it would be a certainty that all of our colleagues in the United States and Canada would know what would happen if this weren't to occur. In other words, the minister has to undertake consultations, there is a 60-day period, etc.
Maybe that doesn't satisfy you, but that's the way in which we've structured it for technical and legal reasons in terms of attacking or getting the minister to act.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: If it is so urgent to act, Mr. Zed, you can ask for an emergency debate in the House: the government, if not legally, at least politically would be bound to act, and a debate can lead to a consensus.
.1645
The problem I see is that your bill, in the best of cases, will probably be held over in the House for a year: the committee stage, then the hearing of witnesses, then report stage, third reading and it will then be refered to the Senate, where it might again be held over for quite some time. You want to solve a pressing problem with a protracted process. You are using a homeopathic dose when what is really needed is something strong, like a shot in the arm. What you want is a surgeon's knife or a scalpel; at least that's how I see it now.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Colleague, I accept what you're saying. As you may know, what we have done is a little unconventional in the sense of attempting to bridge the gaps between opposition and government. The sugar caucus is indeed an attempt to do that. It was the collective wisdom of 40 members of the caucus, representing all parties in the House, that we should have a shotgun - and I hate to use a gun analogy so close to the gun legislation - approach, this being one of the pellets, if you will. As you know, the dumping action is under way.
To use the contrary logic, the Helms-Burton bill in the United States was not seen as a major threat three months ago, but all of a sudden momentum has been developing around the anti-Cuba legislation so that no one really wants to say they're opposed to the legislation because they'd look like they're soft on Cuba.
I would hope if we were able to get this into the House of Commons through this process that we would create additional pressure on our American colleagues to have them understand that maybe administration to administration there is no priority given to this issue - not to say thatMr. MacLaren and Mr. Goodale, the two ministers involved, aren't working very diligently, but it's complicated. There's butter; there's poultry; there's wood; there's grain; there are a number of other trade issues that make this very difficult. But there are a number of our colleagues who feel very strongly about this, who can't get it perhaps to the emergency or urgency debate, and this is one of the very few vehicles available to us.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you very much.
[English]
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Chairman, I have similar questions about this. I'm trying to think of another way to put it. I guess I would ask what the position of the minister is on this.
Mr. Zed: Do you mean on this bill?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Yes.
Mr. Zed: Let's not sugar coat it; he doesn't like the bill. To be candid, I'm not sure he appreciates or even likes the initiative of the sugar caucus itself, because it's not necessarily within our tradition of Canadian parliamentary democracy to have caucuses that bridge party lines. I think, Mr. Chairman, that's a fair statement. The only other example in this House is a steel caucus.
So we are attempting, in my view, to show, to the Canadian public at least, that there are a number of members of Parliament from different regions, from different provinces, representing different political parties, who regularly have focused on a very specific problem: the Canadian sugar industry. So that's the only comment I would make to you.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): So this problem is going to continue if the private member's bill doesn't get accepted.
Mr. Zed: That's correct. We still have a very serious problem.
The trip to Washington, as an example, is scheduled. Your colleague from the Reform Party, Mr. Speaker, your colleague, Mr. Bergeron, my colleague, Mr. Graham, and I will be going to lobby colleagues about the Helms-Burton legislation to convince them that this is going to have devastating effects on the Canadian sugar industry.
That isn't even this problem. I mean, this problem is the dumping problem and the access problem. There are several problems here that face the sugar industry.
It's not perhaps a sexy industry. It's not like 20 million people are working in it; there are only a couple of thousand. But when you start to look at Kraft General Foods in Cobourg, Ontario, or in Montreal where we have Lantic Sugar, or in Saint John, New Brunswick, where we have a sugar...or 750 beet sugar farmers out west - some of you may be more familiar with the western situation. It's very serious. B.C. Sugar has recently laid off a number of people because of what has happened in terms of the restrictions to markets in the United States.
.1650
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: One quick question, Mr. Zed. Would you consider the bill which was passed by the United States as an infringement of Canada's sovereignty?
[English]
Mr. Zed: In my view, if it is accepted, the Helms-Burton bill attacks Canadian sovereignty. It basically tells us who we can truck and trade with.
The tariffication changes and their restrictions have already lost Canadian jobs. We have absolute, hard-core, concrete evidence of that.
This bill is an attempt to develop a resolve within Parliament that there are some crazy parliamentarians who, despite political, regional, and linguistic differences, can say they want to protect the Canadian sugar industry. I think it will create enough pressure for the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture to go to their respective counterparts and say look, I have these parliamentarians.
What I think we are all trying to do is to look for mechanisms to make us more useful. I think the sugar caucus is moving in that direction. It's not perfect, but I think we're attempting to move in that direction.
The Chairman: Just to follow up, in looking for some symmetry here, it appears as though in the U.S. Congress they have a bill that would affect the work, tie the hands, and bind the discretion of the member of their executive branch of government, the U.S. trade representative, in dealing with this issue. You and your colleagues here in what you call a sugar caucus are, if I may use the term, doing roughly the same thing.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Chairman, we're looking for a mechanism to try to send a similar message to the Americans.
The Chairman: Are you trying to send a message to the Canadian minister?
Mr. Zed: Absolutely. That's a dangerous road for a member of a government caucus, but I feel strongly about it and so do my colleagues, and I'm really here on behalf of all of our sugar caucus. A number of members of the Reform, the Bloc, and my own Liberal government party side support the bill as individuals.
The Chairman: Can I assume it doesn't have precedent?
Mr. Zed: I think that's fair.
The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Are you saying that the minister...? The minister doesn't disagree with this. It's pretty basic. If the government wanted to do this, they could do it.
Mr. Zed: They could do it, but they don't want to do it.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Is it because it's just not high enough on the agenda of cabinet, or is it the fact that they don't agree with the -
Mr. Zed: With the greatest respect to the minister, I think the difficulty is that he is the minister for all of Canada dealing with trade for all of Canada, dealing with very complicated trade issues, whether it's poultry or butter. There is an interconnection, as you colleagues would know. It's not just simply sugar. We don't know whether they made the tariffication change in December because of our poultry policy. We don't know that. We suspect it.
So the minister's hands in many ways are tied. In a perfect world he'd say, this is crazy, yes, of course I support the Canadian sugar industry. I think if we as members of Parliament can do something the minister can't do, he can say officially it's not this simple. If all of a sudden there's this ground swell of parliamentarians who come forward and say look, MacLaren, this is the direction you should be moving, I think it's very helpful to him at the end of the day in negotiating with our colleagues in the United States.
The Chairman: You have reason to believe that all the members of the sugar caucus would support this bill.
.1655
Mr. Zed: Yes, I do. In fact, it was a resolution of the sugar caucus in this very room that a bill be drafted and submitted and put to the House, and I have members of all parties who have signed off indicating that they would have seconded the bill. I don't know if that's helpful or not.
The Chairman: I think colleagues are always interested to know that there are a lot of other colleagues who might support it.
Mr. Zed: Madame Debien and Mr. Bergeron in the Bloc, Mr. White - not this one, but your colleague - and Mr. Speaker, Mr. Solberg.... Mr. Solberg and Mr. Speaker are the two more active members of the Reform Party in the sugar caucus. You might want to check with them. I spoke with both.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I've heard from them.
The Chairman: If there are no more questions, thank you very much, Mr. Zed.
We've reached the end of today's list. We have a few more people scheduled for tomorrow. It looks as if there are three more, but there is also a need to hear from Mr. Caccia in relation to his bill, Bill C-275.
Am I right, Mr. Clerk?
The Clerk: That's right, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: But we're unable to link up with Mr. Caccia tomorrow. He's unable to, so I don't know what we -
The Clerk: We can have him from Thursday on.
The Chairman: Could you inform us about what we've got to select in terms of bills and motions and when we have to report?
The Clerk: We don't have to report to the procedure and House affairs committee until Tuesday morning, and the procedure and House affairs committee doesn't have to go to the House, really, until Thursday of next week. That's the day on which the new list will come into effect. So we're not under pressure.
The Chairman: We could report next Tuesday and they could go to the House on Wednesday. That would keep things organized.
The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, also, with your permission, I can bring a slightly revised text of the report that we've got to take to the procedure and House affairs committee. I can bring it tomorrow if we have time to deal with it.
The Chairman: The report from this subcommittee, yes.
Are colleagues prepared to deal with that tomorrow?
The Clerk: If we have time, obviously, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): At what time are we to start?
The Chairman: Tomorrow is Wednesday, so it is at 3:30 p.m. for three members. There will undoubtedly be conflicts with some other things, but there being only three members....
The Clerk: You could deal with that in half an hour or 40 minutes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: What do we have to select?
The Clerk: You have one motion and two bills available.
The Chairman: Are there any questions? Is everyone okay for tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.? It looks like a maximum of an hour.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): We've got five motions and four bills to select from.
The Clerk: Right. There should be a total of 10. There is something wrong somewhere, but I'll check my list.
The Chairman: Close enough. Mr. Caccia's is not on the list.
Mr. Langlois: For what motion?
The Chairman: Mr. Caccia? That's Bill C-275, endangered species. It looks like a well-researched bill, as most of Mr. Caccia's stuff is.
Mr. Langlois: Will he be available?
The Clerk: I think he'll be available on Thursday morning, for example, Mr. Chairman. So I can get in touch with your office if he can find a few minutes.
The Chairman: Mr. Knowles will track him down as best he can.
Mr. Langlois: Can we proceed ex parte?
The Chairman: No.
Will we all be here on Thursday?
Mr. Patry: On Thursday I'll be here, yes, in the morning.
The Chairman: In the morning, good.
This meeting stands adjourned.