1999-11-19

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning co-operation on the civil international space station and to make related amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Industry, Lib.): 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)
Lawrence MacAulay: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that I rise to begin third reading of Bill C-4, the civil international space station agreement implementation act.
As my colleagues in the House will recall from the second reading debate, the international space station is the world's most ambitious civil undertaking in the area of science and technology. Canada is honoured and privileged to have played a very crucial and central role in this program.
Over 40 flights of the U.S. space shuttle will be required to loft this impressive outpost of humanity into orbit. Canada has already embarked on this exciting adventure.
CSA astronaut Julie Payette flew to the space station in May of this year. Next year, CSA astronauts Marc Garneau and Chris Hadfield are scheduled to participate in missions to the space station, ultimately delivering Canada's principle contribution: the mobile servicing system, Canada's next generation, state of the art space robot.
A project of such scope and grandeur required the definition of a very elaborate management regime, negotiated over several years and laid out in detail in the international agreement. This multilateral treaty brings together 15 participating nations in a truly global space station partnership.
In short, Bill C-4 implements our commitments under the international agreement by bringing Canadian legislation in line with that agreement. Let me point out that much of this text can be implemented directly without changes to the existing law. In other areas changes were clearly necessary.
First, and most importantly, Bill C-4 extends the application of Canada's criminal code to the Canadians onboard the space station and, in exceptional circumstances, to foreign nationals as well. This is similar in principle to the other extraterritorial applications of the criminal code, for example on high-sea oil drilling platforms.
Clearly, however, there is something new and exciting about extending the application of the Canada law beyond the immediate borders of our planet. As the space station partners defined the legal regime of the first truly international, collaborative, crewed space vehicle, Canada was at the very heart of those discussions. Through Bill C-4, Canada will enact into law the principles it helped define.
The bill also ensures, for example, that Canadian law applies to Canadians travelling to and from the space station, rather than the law of the carrying countries.
Bill C-4 also ensures that information essential to meeting our space station commitments is available to the Canadian government and that any information provided to meet those commitments is used exclusively for that and only that purpose.
My colleagues will also recall that during second reading in the House, every party spoke strongly in favour of this outstanding project and Canada's unique role, of course. During our committee sessions, we were able to move quickly and, let me say, competently through the bill.
I must take a moment now to thank my colleagues from both sides of the House, in particular the members of the Standing Committee on Industry, for their strong support behind the passage of the legislation. The members of the committee co-operated efficiently and while taking an earnest interest in the bill and the ISS program did not delay its passage.
One amendment was proposed by the committee to section 10 of the bill, an amendment which would ensure that any amendments to the intergovernmental agreement would be laid before parliament so that we are made aware of the evolving nature of Canada's ISS related commitments.
Although technical in nature, this implementing legislation is a crucial step on the path toward the ratification of the intergovernmental agreement. Canada made a clear commitment to the space station when it signed the agreement in January 1998. Ratification will clear the path for Canada and ultimately for all space station partners and open a new era of space exploration: the operation and utilization of the world's largest permanently inhabited laboratory station.
It is with great pride, Mr. Speaker, that I ask you today to help bring this remarkable project to a close and make it indeed a reality.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy today to participate in the debate on Bill C-4.
The bill is now at third reading. The Reform Party is interested in having this pass the House, proceed to the Senate and receive royal assent so that we can implement Canada's obligation under the agreement we signed with the other parties to this agreement.
It is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-4, which the Reform Party supports very heartily. It is a new and exciting frontier which Canada is privileged to participate in.
Bill C-4 implements the agreement that Canada signed last year with the United States, Japan, Russia and 11 countries of the European Union. The agreement formulates Canada's participation in the international space station.
The space station is a bold and exciting project which has nations around the world working together in a spirit of co-operation rather than rivalry. We have moved to a new point in our world development where we are seeing more and more international co-operation on many projects. I certainly welcome it.
This is quite different than the environment that existed only 10 years ago when the collapse of the Soviet Union brought a new era to world peace and world co-operation. We need to welcome that spirit of co-operation that exists today. We know what happened when we had 50 or more years of cold war and the difficulties that led to, including the Berlin wall which divided East and West Germany. We have seen in the papers just recently the 10 year anniversary of the fall of the great wall. It signified a change in direction that was very welcome in terms of international co-operation.
I believe this is a step that will enhance co-operation. We will have the ability to study our globe from the outlook of the space station orbiting above the earth. I think this will be very beneficial to Canada.
We have this spirit of co-operation. It is the largest science and technology project in the history of humanity. Canadians should be proud of the role we are playing and will continue to play in this key role of its development.
In its final form, the station will cover an area as large as a football field, weigh 450 tonnes and be clearly visible in the night sky as it orbits the earth.
More and more young people are interested in astronomy and have telescopes to observe the different constellations and stars. I think it will be interesting that they will see pictures coming back from the space station. They will see pictures of Canada's involvement in building the space station. They will also be able to use their telescopes to see the space station in the night sky as it orbits the earth and does its good work.
The habitation modules and the laboratories will accommodate a permanent international crew of seven astronauts dedicated to advancements in areas of biotechnology, engineering, earth observations and telecommunications. Those are all key areas in which Canada is striving to develop new technology.
In my capacity as the critic for the area of industry, these are all areas that we recognize in Canada as areas of growth for Canadian business. The telecommunications industry is one that Canada is very, very good at. Nortel comes to mind as a case in point. According to an announcement last week, it is expanding right here in the Ottawa.
Telecommunications in a large country like Canada is a very important aspect. We are now able to have satellite phones with connections in the Arctic. It does not really matter where we live in Canada these days, we can develop a home based business because of the ability of Canadians to be able to use the new technologies that are developed through telecommunications. I suggest that will be enhanced by the Canadian involvement in the space station. I would think companies like Nortel and others could take advantage of the space station to develop new technologies, try them out, deliver them to the Canadian space station and apply the scientific results that accrue from that.
The area of biotechnology is a very big industry in Canada these days. I know there is work being done at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. It has an expanding role in agriculture, but not just agriculture, and it is certainly one that I believe is going to serve us well into the future.
Again, this is an opportunity for Canadian companies to have a vehicle for research and development, perhaps with some co-operation through the labs that are on board with the United States and Russia.
In terms of Earth observation, I will be speaking to that a bit later, but I see that as an important aspect of this as well.
I am pleased to say that the Reform Party will support the speedy passage of the bill. I recognize that there is some urgency in getting it passed quickly to meet the commitments that we have made to our partners in this project.
I have to say, though, that we have some concern about the way these international agreements are developed and the role that the House of Commons plays, or in this case does not play, in the development of those agreements. I am not speaking only about international agreements, I am also speaking about agreements such as the one that was made between the government and the Nisga'a people where there has been very little consultation in places like British Columbia. Even here in parliament the government brings the Nisga'a deal to us and has us rubber stamp it without amendment.
We have concerns about the way these agreements are developed. I know the former minister for international trade, Mr. Marchi, decided that it was important to consult civil society. Therefore, I think there is a new era developing in Canada in terms of how we develop international agreements. The only reason I am talking about it in light of the space station bill is that it is just another example of an agreement that is brought here. I know that amendments can and are being made in this particular case, but the basic agreement was put in place and brought here with the intent that parliament would just approve it and not alter it in any meaningful way.
In this particular case I do not think we need to alter it in any substantial way, but parliament would like to have the ability to do that and not just act as a rubber stamp for government. That is a concern that we have in the Reform Party.
The leader of the Reform Party, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, and many of my colleagues have a keen interest in the area of space development. It is the new frontier. It is a frontier that is probably comparable in many ways to the industrial revolution, a frontier that was opened up by the steam boat and trains back in the early 1800s in England, eventually leading to development all over the world, in particular North America. We know what happened when the steam locomotive was developed, how it opened up Canada and the United States.
I had a distant relative who was involved in developing and in fact was credited with being the first person to manufacture the first locomotive and the first railway, George Stephenson, which took place in northern England in the Newcastle area. He observed that there was rail track on which coal cars were hauling coal from the mines to the ocean for export. Those coal cars were being pulled by oxen. At the same time there were stream pumps being used in the mines.
My great great uncle was a 10 year old boy working in the mine. His job eventually led to making sure the steam pump worked to pump the water out of the mine. This man had a son, his only son, Robert Stephenson, who became famous in his own right. He had enough money to send his son to school. That was not a common occurrence in those days in early England.
It is very significant that George Stephenson was illiterate. He was the man who developed the steam locomotive which opened up the world in terms of having railways across Canada, the United States, Brazil and Europe, which enabled us to have speedy transportation. He scraped every cent together so that he could send his son Robert to school. Robert came home with his books and George Stephenson learned to read and write with the help of his eight year old son. It is a very interesting story. His son went on to do famous things. They worked together on the improved model of the steam locomotive, the rocket, which is still on display in northern England. Robert Stephenson built railways all over the world. He built the railway bridge, the first bridge across the St. Lawrence River in Canada, which was called the Victoria Bridge. The bridge has been rebuilt and remains in the same location.
A number of us in the Reform Party are interested in this new technology. I suggest that it is not much different from what happened in the early days of the steam locomotive and the industrial revolution. We are on the verge of a launch into space. We are on the verge of being able to observe our planet much better with our involvement in the space station and we will learn a lot more about ourselves in the process.
I had the opportunity a couple of years ago to visit the NASA space science centre in Houston. I saw some of the rockets that boosted some of the early satellites into orbit, as well as the early shuttles. I marvelled at the technology.
It is an exciting frontier. In 1957 Russia sent the first satellite, Sputnik, into orbit and now we are co-operating with that very country, which was formerly a communist country. Russia had a tremendous difference in philosophy from that of the United States and Canada. In just over 40 years we have moved from the first satellite in orbit to co-operating with Russia to build the international space station.
We have to be thankful that Russia is involved in this project. It has the ability with its rockets to send up a lot of the material that is needed to build this very big space station. It takes a lot of capacity to do that. Russia has that capacity. Even though it is having some difficulty these days financially, we think it is going to meet its commitments in delivering its part of the space station into orbit.
We have to be thankful to Russia for another reason. When it joined the international space station project it insisted that the orbit of the space station would fly on a more northerly route from time to time. Over a period of one month the international space station will vary its orbit from 52° south to 52° north. That is very good news for Canada because it will fly over parts of Canada where it probably would not have flown if Russia had not insisted that development take place. It wants to observe its country as well and it is basically on the same latitude as Canada.
The space station will be angled. It will be 400 kilometres above the earth, and at 52° latitude we will be able to see a big part of our country and observe what is happening.
Before I get to the reasons we are supporting this bill, I will provide listeners with a bit of background as to when and how the space station got its start. Its history goes back to 1984. President Reagan of the United States directed NASA to develop and place into orbit a permanently manned space station. At the time, President Reagan invited friends and allies to participate in its development and to share in its benefits.
People may remember President Reagan talking about the star wars concept at the same time. That has not actually developed in any meaningful way, but the space station is a survivor. The first section of the space station has already been delivered into orbit and different components are going to be set up and joined together shortly.
At the Quebec summit in March 1985, Canada accepted the invitation to confirm Canada's interest in the co-operation at a summit meeting in Washington the following year. At the same time, various other countries expressed interest in the project and over the years signed memorandums of understanding.
It was recognized that Russia could greatly enhance the capabilities of the space station. Not only does it have the boost capacity, it has a long list of accomplishments in the area of human space flight and missions of long duration. Russian astronauts have been in space for long periods of time and that has greatly enhanced our ability to study whether we can have permanent life on space stations in the future.
On December 6, 1993 Russia was invited to take part in the project. Arrangements were then made for co-operation on human space flight activities, including the Russia and United States Mir shuttle program, to prepare for the building of the space station.
Russia will derive benefits from this as well. Russia is a very big country. Now that the Soviet Union has broken up, we naturally think that Canada must be the largest country in the world. Large parts of the Soviet Union broke away from Russia when the mentality of the eastern bloc started to come apart. We know of countries such as Ukraine which claimed independence on its own. However, we have to recognize that even though that happened, Russia is still twice as big as Canada, and Canada is the second biggest country in the world. We have much land and water to view from the space station, but Russia has even more and I know its people would be greatly interested in using the space station to do that. In fact, they are building a science lab of their own to perform scientific studies.
On January 29, 1998 the countries got together and signed the civil international space station agreement which established a framework for the design, development, operation and utilization of the space station. Bill C-4 seeks to implement the agreement signed last year.
The international agreement that was signed by Canada, the United States, Japan, Russia and 11 European countries contains 28 articles and an annex which summarizes the tasks to which the various countries have committed themselves. In Canada's case the space agency will provide three elements: a mobile servicing centre, a special purpose dexterous manipulator, the new generation Canadarm that is going to be used to put the space station together and service it afterward, and space station unique ground elements.
The articles lay out the objective and scope of the agreement, international rights and obligations, ownership of the elements and the equipment and the management of the space station. As well, aspects of design and development are covered, the right to provide qualified crew, transportation and right of access to the space station and the provision of a communications network, which are all important things that need to be settled early in the project.
Each partner will bear the cost of fulfilling its respective responsibilities under the agreement, including sharing on an equitable basis a common systems operating cost and activities attributed to the operation of the space station as a whole.
My understanding is that there has been some delay in the project because of the involvement of the United States in the lift capacity. The space shuttle program is undergoing repair and some of the shuttles need fairly extensive work. On the other side, the last couple of Russian delivery rockets have failed to deliver satellites into space and have actually burned up. There is some work to do to make sure that these important components which they will be lifting into orbit will be able to deliver the merchandise. It is very expensive technology that we are delivering and we want to be absolutely sure that something does not go awry. We do not want to have to start over again with building different modules to replace anything that might happen to be accidentally destroyed.
Everybody is pretty hopeful that after a short delay some of these problems will be ironed out, we will be back on track and the space station will be developed in an orderly manner.
Article 19 of the agreement deals with the exchange of data and goods. Each partner to the agreement agrees to transfer all technical data and goods considered necessary for the fulfilment of the responsibilities of the partners. Bill C-4 actually contains provisions in clause 7, giving the agreement the power to force companies, individuals and third parties that are not in direct contractual relationship to the crown to release information related to the space agency.
One might ask why that would be necessary. It is necessary in the event that a company working under contract to the government on a project is bought out by another company which may be unwilling to honour the company's contractual obligations. The partners did not want to be held up to ransom if that were to happen. This is the reason for the particular clause.
Clause 8 of the bill provides safeguards to ensure that documents so produced are not unduly communicated to other parties. Because they will require these companies, if they are bought out, to fulfil their contractual obligations, they want to safeguard that they will not be produced and sent out, that the information in those contractual arrangements will not be sort of public knowledge, and that they would be guaranteed with some process defined in clause 8.
While the exchange of information and scientific data is crucial to the successful development of the entire project, the protection of intellectual property rights is also very important. We talked about this point in committee.
The parliamentary secretary referred to the fact that we had pretty speedy passage in committee of Bill C-4, but when the space agency people appeared before the committee that was one of the questions I raised because I think it is important that intellectual property rights or any product development in the space station be guaranteed.
There are many partners involved in the space station and many people from different countries working there. It is absolutely important that any research and development that leads to product development or new service development is not stolen. It needs to be protected. That is the reason we were concerned that intellectual property rights have proper protection. We were assured that was the case. The agreement contains article 21 which states the following:
For the purposes of intellectual property law, an activity occurring in or on a Space Station flight element shall be deemed to have occurred...in the territory of the Partner State of that element's registry.
If a Canadian is developing it, it is essentially protected as if it were developed in Canada. Normal patent procedures will apply, which means that the person or entity first filing a patent is the owner of that intellectual property.
The bill also contains amendments to the criminal code. The amendments ensure that any criminal acts committed in space by a Canadian crew member fall under Canadian law. While that is not likely to happen, we did not know what developments could occur there. We wanted to make that each country would try that particular person under its own law. That is important for Canada's well-being as well.
Canada's involvement in this matter goes goes back away. Recently Julie Payette became the first Canadian to board the first component of the space station. In the year 2000, which is not far away, Marc Garneau will participate in his third space mission as a crew member on the shuttle. He will be followed by Chris Hatfield who will instal Canada's space station robotic manipulator system, the new generation Canadarm, and the main element of the mobile servicing system. It is called MSS for short. Once installed, the MSS will move around the space station doing assembly and repair work.
We learn a lot from nature. Even in flight itself we have learned from nature. Here again they are sort of emulating how the inchworm moves, and the new Canadarm will move in exactly the same way. It will attach itself, loop, attach to the other end and pick up. It will be able to assemble components of the space station by moving around the space station as if it were an inchworm doing its work. Canadians will be able to see this happening as the space station is developing.
We are also contributing a vision system for the operators of this remote manipulator. They have to be inside the space station when they are doing it to minimize exposure to danger. They will be doing this from a windowless space station, so there is a need for a vision system.
On the ground the MSS operation complex at the Canadian Space Agency in Saint-Hubert, Quebec, will plan missions, monitor the condition of the remote manipulator, and train the space station crew in its use. The cost of designing, developing, operating and launching the MSS into orbit is approximately $1.4 billion over 20 years. That project actually started in 1984 so it includes the years 1984 to 2004.
Approximately $3 per Canadian taxpayer per year is Canada's contribution. Although Canada's contribution will be $1.4 billion, it is still relatively small in terms of the total project at just 2.5%. It is important nonetheless. The 1999 federal budget provides the Canadian Space Agency with $430 million in new funds over three years, which stabilizes the agency's budget at $300 million per year starting in the year 2002-03.
The scientific benefits for Canada from the space station will be our ability to monitor the earth; to study our environment including agriculture, crop monitoring and the Arctic ice pack; and to aid navigation for shipping. These are all very important elements. That is one reason we are so happy the deflection in the orbit will take it to 52.5° north, which will probably fly over somewhere between Red Deer and Edmonton, Alberta, on its most northerly flight.
Canada is a very large country, as I said earlier. We have a lot of land mass and water to monitor. We want to make sure, for example, that our environment is being protected. We will have the ability through the Canadian space station to do just that.
In terms of agriculture and crop monitoring, we will be able to see where areas are under stress because of lack of moisture or too much moisture. We will see where there is stress in terms of erosion that is affecting agriculture over the years and will design programs to fix it. Of course that is assuming there will be any Canadian farmers to worry about in the future. Because agriculture is in a very tough state right now the Liberal Party needs to do some work to make sure that Canadian farmers are here down the road in 10 years when the space station will be doing the majority of its work.
I saw an interesting infrared picture one time of the Canada-U.S. border taken from a satellite. This is the type of monitoring we will be able to do. Some people asked how we could see the 49th parallel between North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and Alberta, how we could tell that was the border. We could tell because the infrared rays picked up what types of crops were being grown.
It has to do with government policy. Government policy has its shortcomings but one reason we can see the Canada-U.S. border is that the United States subsidizes its grain farmers so extensively that right up to the 49th parallel in North Dakota and Montana grain crops were being grown. On the Alberta and Saskatchewan side, the land was left in grass because there was not sufficient money to encourage farmers to grown grain crops. The different colours that showed up on the infrared picture because of the different crops being grown showed the Canada-U.S. border for hundreds of miles. That is the type of thing we will be able to see from the Canadian space station.
Approximately 90% of Canada's investment is going into contracts to Canadian firms. The rest is going to universities. Since 1987 over 150 contracts have been let for automation and robotics technology development. During the space station's estimated 10 year lifespan Canada will be able to expand it research in micro-gravity with applications into human disorders such as osteoporosis and cancer. Canada will also continue its research into protein crystallization in space for the medical industry.
A very important element in Canada's involvement is that we have the ability to do quite a bit of research to aid Canadians in the future in terms of important studies into subjects like osteoporosis. A lot of the female population at a certain age suffers from this condition. The Russians who worked in space for long periods of time have been studied as a result, because the same conditions exist in space and space travel where significant bone density loss occurs if a person stays too long.
It is an important area to Canada. How that happens and what can be done to correct it will help an aging population in Canada, and we have an aging population as baby boomers start to work through our system.
Cancer research is very important work that will be done by scientists on the space station. There will be co-operation with other countries such as the United States in its space laboratories.
Technologies that have already resulted from our space involvement include the first robotic refuelling station. When we are spending this amount of money, $1.4 billion, people have to see some concrete physical example of how it helps us on an everyday basis.
We live in a northern country. In northern Alberta, where I come from, sometimes during the winter, in January, the temperature reaches -40°C and even lower. We know that shopping centres with indoor stores help to combat the cold. In downtown Ottawa we can go through a network of malls for several blocks.
As a northern country we need to find ways to work with the Canadian winter. The new technology for refuelling stations being developed by a firm in British Columbia in partnership with Shell is doing just that. While the first development is actually in California, it is my understanding we can now drive our cars to service stations and not even get out because a robotic system fills the cars with fuel. I can imagine the application and benefit of that when it is 45° below outside. We will not have to get out of our cars and freeze a bit in the process. There will be developments which apply to us and have everyday application.
A Quebec firm applied space expertise to develop a digital imaging system for x-rays which eliminates the need for photographic film. In addition, a company in Newfoundland has developed a sensitive skin, originally developed for space robotic manipulators, that is now being applied to artificial limbs and even car bumpers to control the release of airbags.
These are examples of technology we will be using on an everyday basis. I believe many more of those kinds of advances will be used in practical ways in our own country as a result of this development.
Even in the horrific wars in which Canada has been involved in the 20th century there have been technologies and new product developments because of the need to win which have actually benefited Canadians in civilian use. Various examples of expertise have been developed in a warring fashion. Why can we not have the same kind of development in the peaceful co-operation that is taking place as a result of the international space station?
I think international space station co-operation will be expanded into the future. Although the space station's life is scheduled to be only about 10 years, in talking to Mac Evans, head of the Canadian Space Agency, and others, I am told that there are components which will be obsolete in 10 years. Because they are components, a shuttle flight can be sent up with a new component. The old section that has become obsolete because of the new technologies can be replaced with the new one. Plug it in and it becomes part of the new space station. It will be a continual process of upgrading over time.
Many firms have succeeded in entering the international market by landing contracts based on the expertise they have gained from working on various aspects of the space project. Other firms are helping partner countries with their own contribution to the space station.
For example, the Ottawa company EMS Technologies recently won a $9.5 million contract with Mitsubishi to supply electronics for Japan's contribution to the space station. Ripples occur and Canadians benefit beyond our own involvement. In this case we are taking advantage of Japan's involvement by supplying it with electronics for the space station itself.
It is clear that Canada's involvement has produced tremendous returns so far. Satellites are being used for telecommunications, as I said earlier, in such areas as our very remote Arctic. I travelled in the Arctic a few years ago with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. People were using cell phones that had direct linkages to satellites. They could talk to someone thousands of miles away in the Arctic without using any wire control telephone system. The wireless system takes advantage of the new technologies in space provided by our satellites. Canada is continually putting up more satellites to increase this capability.
It is important to us that we have this co-operation and that we be involved with the space station. On our own we would never be able to develop or fund a project of this magnitude. It is very big. As I said, Canada's involvement amounts to 2.5%.
The potential for a meaningful contribution therefore has to come from co-operating with others. The potential for this meaningful contribution and rewarding spinoffs is very great. We do not know where it is going to lead.
There have been unmanned flights to Mars to explore the surface of that planet and there has been talk about a manned flight. We hope that this international agreement and co-operation can lead to other successful ventures in the future such as a manned flight to Mars. I think there would have to be some new lift capacity. My understanding is a trip to Mars and back takes about three or four years which is a pretty significant investment of time. I am not sure who would want to make that investment.
Our co-operation in the international space station is most important for the young people of Canada. They will follow Canada's achievements in space thereby sparking their interest in the fields of science and technology.
Canada needs a very well educated population to compete in the future. Our astronauts Julie Payette, Chris Hadfield and Marc Garneau have been travelling around the country. They have travelled to space and have worked to develop the space station. Their interest will spark the interest of our young people to get involved in science and perhaps work in that area in the future themselves.
We do not need to be reminded that our future prosperity lies in our ability to encourage the pursuit of knowledge for those following behind us. As in the past, they are the building blocks in scientific areas.
I want to inform the House that the Reform Party is supporting this bill. We are very supportive of our involvement in the space agency. My colleagues and I wish Canada well in the future in whatever endeavours we might undertake in a co-operative nature with other countries to explore far beyond where we are now.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me reassure my colleagues that I will not be taking the 40 minutes allotted to me, even though I could.
As a member of the industry committee, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-4, to implement the agreement among various countries concerning co-operation on the civil international space station, entered into on January 29, 1998.
The Bloc Quebecois is also in favour of this bill, but the government does not have much respect for us as parliamentarians, in having us vote on an agreement entered into nearly two years ago, right at the two year limit set for its ratification. I say right at the two year limit because the final date is January 29, 2000.
Since the House does not sit in January or over the holiday period unless there is an emergency and the bill has to go to the other House, we are really up against the deadline. Imagine, as parliamentarians, what would happen if it did not go through. The government has been spending money under this agreement for two years. It would be a fine mess.
This is a pretty strange way to finish up this millennium. It was precisely in order to avoid a repetition of such a thing that my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry recently introduced private member's Bill C-214. Its intent is to get parliament more involved in ratifying treaties.
In his speech before this House, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry indicated that the present Government of Canada, like the previous one, appears to be following a British tradition, one followed by member countries of the Commonwealth, one that is not a practice in most other democratic countries.
I will not repeat what my colleague has said, but I will point out that in the United States, surely the most advanced country as far as space is concerned, a two-thirds vote of the Senate is required for an agreement of this nature to be ratified by the president. We can see therefore we have a way to go in terms of democracy.
I have a question. Regardless of what the members opposite have to say, is Canada still dependent on the British system, since we retain many of the parliamentary rules and traditions of this system?
We are dealing with space, therefore electronics and very advanced science and technology. I have been in a number of parliaments on delegation visits. In most western countries that have parliaments, votes are taken electronically from the desks of the members. They insert a smart card, and the calculations are done automatically. They do this in the States, as in many other countries.
We are debating a bill and will soon have to vote on it, rising each in turn. It is perhaps a good thing that we all rise, but the calculations must still be done manually in the best country in the world, as the Prime Minister often says.
In the best country in the world, it takes time. So much time that an agreement, because there are so many bills to debate, has to be ratified at the last minute. This isn archaic way of managing a modern project.
What a poor way to encourage young people to become active in politics. The government would like all young people to be connected, through the schools and universities. The government encourages Canadians to get connected, but is unable to connect its own parliament.
Let us come back to this modern agreement on the civil international space station, concluded nearly two years ago and difficult to oppose, because it is already in operation.
This agreement contains 26 pages and is, in fact, part of the bill, whereas the bill itself has only six pages. So, as the bill is not very long, I trust members will allow me to read and comment on a few clauses—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but since it is now nearly 11 a.m., and he has some 33 or 34 minutes left to speak, I think we could move on to Statements by Members.

Statements By Members
ChildrenMr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, November 20 is national child day in Canada. This event is put forth to recognize the importance of our children. All children need to be loved, respected and supported to grow to their full potential. We need to recognize their rights and their important contributions to society.
Children are the future of our country and of the world. That is why national child day is so important. We need to reflect on their special needs and think of ways we can improve their well-being.
November 20 is the anniversary of two historic events for children. On this day in 1959 the United Nations adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child. In 1989 it adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I urge all Canadians to celebrate national child day in their own way. Listen to children, respect them and marvel at all they have to offer. We need to recognize how important our children really are to all of us and to Canada.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is a special day in Canada. It is national child day. The significance is heightened because 1999 is the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Efforts of organizations like Our Kids Foundation in Ottawa and Results Canada help celebrate this special day.
In my riding of Dauphin—Swan River, efforts by the Coats for Kids Campaign through the Dauphin Friendship Centre help assist children in need.
Tomorrow is also the third annual national child day youth forum on Parliament Hill. We welcome them.
Governments must recognize children as Canada's strength now and in the future. Child poverty is a reality in this country. It should be addressed in ways that strengthen and promote the family unit.
Let us celebrate tomorrow with the fact that children are unique. We need to listen to them. But let us make a point of doing that not only tomorrow, but each and every day.
Barry CudmoreMr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate my fellow islander, Mr. Barry Cudmore, on his induction into the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame on October 27.
This honour follows decades of his being a positive force in Island agriculture. Barry assisted farmers in dealing with pressures from the public on environmental issues. He served as president of the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture in both 1995 and 1996. He initiated a highly publicized pork giveaway in 1998 to show consumers how little the pork producers were getting for their pork even though retailers were charging high prices for the same product. He has also won swine productivity awards numerous times since 1987.
Mr. Cudmore has also been active on the international stage. He is a founding member of Farmers Helping Farmers, an organization which has undertaken development projects in Kenya and Tanzania.
Again, congratulations to Barry and his family
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada, in refusing to rehear the Marshall case, has reminded us of the importance of actually reading court decisions before jumping to attack them.
The Marshall decision is deliberately limited to its own specific facts, narrowly defined: the closed season in the eel fishery in a part of New Brunswick. But the supreme court decision has also reminded us that aboriginal rights, customary and treaty-based, are legally subject to the constitution and the charter of rights and have always to be balanced against other competing individual or community rights.
Courts, parliamentarians, ministers and the parties themselves each have their own distinct and separate but fully complementary constitutional roles to play.
The lesson: think, instead of leaping to empty rhetoric.
United Nations Children's ElectionMr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the thousands of Canadian school children who voted this week in an election to highlight the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
These students learned about the value of basic rights, they learned about the importance of democracy and they developed an interest in current affairs.
Unfortunately, what should be a celebration of education and democracy, is mired in controversy because of the extreme right wing views of those in the Reform Party.
I was moved by the comment of a Calgary student on CBC radio this morning. She said she was “slighted” by Reform allegations that the vote somehow impinges on parental rights and the results will be used by the Liberal government for some hidden agenda.
I fully agree with the student. One would think that the party that prides itself in supporting so-called family values, would recognize the importance of teaching our children about democracy and basic human rights.
Then again, that would take common sense, something the Reform Party does not have.
TaxationMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago we launched a pay stub campaign to have Canadians tell parliament about how much they are paying in federal tax.
We have received over 200 pay stubs from Canadians who are outraged. One was from Adam Grabowski from Hamiota, Manitoba, a teacher with 12 years experience, who said, “My last pay stub in October showed that I grossed $4,412. Federal income tax takes $1,130 and for approximately 10 months of the year I lose $110 to employment insurance and $140 to the CPP”. He is afraid that he will not collect the CPP and he cannot claim employment insurance. He said, “Even before I get a chance to pay into other things that are supposed to help take care of my family, I have to give almost $1,400 to the federal government. Because of the debt we have, my wife and I have decided that only the kids will get gifts this year for Christmas. We will not be buying for ourselves or our extended family. So much for merry. There is no money for it”.
He goes on to say that either his wife will have to leave the kids and go to work or they will have to sell their house—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
National Child DayMrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, November 20, is national child day.
The strength of our society will depend on the investments that we, as a country, are now making in our families and in our children. There is no greater priority for a government. This is why we announced in the recent Speech from the Throne an investment of over $7 billion, between now and next July, in children's programs. Also, Human Resources Development Canada is funding a study to follow 23,999 Canadian children through various stages of their lives.
I invite hon. members to join me in supporting national child day and in showing that our children, who will become tomorrow's leaders, are our priority today.
ChechnyaMrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the summit of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe ended yesterday afternoon without Russia making any fundamental compromise concerning the Chechen issue.
The bombings continue, civilians are being killed or displaced, and Russia is still rejecting any negotiated solution. The conflict could now spread to a whole region that is already unstable, with Russia using antipersonnel mines in neighbouring Georgia, which has asked to join NATO.
We must fight terrorists by arresting them, not by bombing innocent people. It is now clear that the conflict is not strictly a matter of internal Russian policy, but an issue of international security.
The timidity shown by the western world with Russia regarding an armed conflict that has been raging for two months has had disastrous consequences. Our commitment to peace and to the security of people requires much stronger action.
TaxationMr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after reading Reform's tax relief plan in its brochure, Give Me a Break, I had to ask, what planet is the Reform Party on? To live up to its rhetoric on the tax cuts alone, it would cost $26 billion. To finance their prebudget submission, it would cost $53 billion to cover the next three years.
Where is the Reform Party going to get that money? Is it going to finance it with borrowed money and an even higher debt in the future?
Reform also thinks it would be wise to cancel Canada's UN membership. I agree, give me a break. These guys are not only out to lunch, they are not even on the same planet.
Employment InsuranceMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I used to teach math, as you know. The other day I hauled out my calculator and did a very simple calculation using what we call ratio and proportion, computing a reduction in the number of unemployed and the premiums.
I just did this using very rough figures and almost no assumptions at all. Guess what? Those very rough numbers came out to a premium needed of $2.05 per hundred. Amazing, because that is identical to the number that the chief actuary of the fund came up with. Yet the government continues to take $2.40 and it wants us to cheer.
One of the witnesses at the finance committee said that the money was held in trust by the Canadian government on behalf of people who might lose their jobs. He said that their failure to do that is a breach of trust.
I call on the government to fix the problem, to fix it right and to fix it soon.
Web Jam BellMr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House about a highly innovative event, the great Web Jam Bell, taking place tomorrow, November 20, on the occasion of national child day.
Today's Parent, Bell Canada and Health Canada are proud to present the Web Jam Bell: 24 hours of live presentations on the topics that interest families most, from 5 p.m. Saturday to 5 p.m. Sunday.
Parents and children are invited to take part in a huge interactive symposium using RealVideo to watch presentations, take part in discussions, obtain answers to their questions and take part in surveys.
Between 11.30 p.m. and 8 a.m., there will be an all-night opportunity to listen to and share advice with other parents, along with the team of La ligue des parents.
This is a technological first in Quebec, made possible through the co-operation of Bell and the untiring support of groups that believe in the new technologies for communicating with parents and families. Health Canada, Petit Monde, La ligue des parents, Radio-Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
Un Convention On The Rights Of The ChildMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today is the 10th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
1989 was also the year that the House of Commons voted unanimously to pass a motion by NDP leader Ed Broadbent to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000.
These are noble concepts, but how have we fared when it comes to putting words into action? In 1989, 14% of Canadian children lived in poverty. In 1999, that figure is 21%, an increase of 50%.
Internationally, Canada still refuses to sign ILO Convention No. 138, prohibiting labour by children under 14 years of age. It refuses to ban the importation of goods made by child labour. It refuses to push for rigid labour standards in international trade agreements.
In summary, we are not doing that well in living up to the spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It seems that if we starve one child we can be thrown into jail for child abuse, but if we deprive 1.5 million kids of the basic needs to survive, the government calls it balancing the budget and it might even get a person elected as prime minister.
Mandatory Labelling Of Genetically Modified FoodsMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the campaign calling on the government to make labelling of genetically modified organisms mandatory continues, I would like to make a few comments.
First of all, this campaign is aimed at consumers, without any political overtones. They have the right to know what they have in their shopping cart and they certainly have the right to know what is on their plate.
The campaign warns farmers interested in the ongoing and long term effects on the environment, soil and the water table about these farming practices.
The campaign is intended to alert religious groups, members of ethnic groups and certain vegetarians with dietary restrictions. For them, labelling is essential. The same goes for parents concerned about the safety of the food their children eat, particularly if they suffer from allergies to such things as seafood.
Hence this demand, and Bill C-309 on mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.
I hope that most members of the House, who represent consumers, will support this bill, in the interests of their constituents' well-being.
Job CreationMr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was good news for eastern Quebec this morning. The Government of Canada has announced the investment of $427,000, which will help create 43 secure jobs.
RGB Technologies, founded in 1996, is being given assistance in diversifying its activities in order to meet new requirements in the technology market, thus creating 25 secure jobs in Rimouski.
Also, les Entreprises forestières Dany Savoie Inc. of Bonaventure will be offering wood lot owners specialist forestry services relating to harvesting and development of private wood lots. The Government of Canada has awarded this company $57,000 from the Canada Job Creation Fund.
In addition, $120,000 will be going to the eastern Quebec emergency call centre. This will create 12 secure jobs. The government has invested in this expansion project the sum of—.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Tobique Mactaquac.
National Child DayMr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus of Canada, I would like to draw the House's attention to National Child Day.
On March 19, 1993, the Canadian government proclaimed November 20 as National Child Day, in order to commemorate two historical events relating to children, the adoption in 1959 by the United Nations of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and, in 1989, of the Convention of the Rights of the Child.
When this day is celebrated tomorrow, I invite all Canadians to reflect on the needs of children as well as on how we can ensure that they receive all of the guidance and love they require to become responsible and healthy adults.
Let us take advantage of this day to express our respect, affection and support for all those who represent the true greatness of our county, our children. Let us also make it the opportunity to remind the ineffectual Liberal government that is in power at this time of the shockingly hard times still being experience by a growing number of poor children in our country, which is one of the best off in the world.
Fort Garry HorseMr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 82 years ago, on November 20, 1917, the Battle of Cambrai took place with the aim of creating a breach through the German Hindenburg Line. The Fort Garry Horse, as part of the Canadian Calvary Brigade, was given the task of spearheading the assault and the special mission of capturing a German corps headquarters behind the enemy lines.
On that day, Lieutenant Harcus Strachan took command of B Squadron when his commander was killed by machine-gun fire. With his sword drawn, Lieutenant Strachan led a charge of 129 men on horseback to destroy a German artillery battery. He won the Victoria Cross, an astonishing feat of conspicuous bravery and leadership during operations.
Today, the Fort Garry Horse continue to serve Canada with distinction. In recent years, they have been on operations in Cyprus, the Golan Heights, the Sinai and various missions in the former Yugoslavia with the UN and NATO. The Garrys also helped out at home during the 1997 Manitoba flood and the Pan-Am games held last—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Health CareMr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this week we witnessed a landmark in health care in Canada. Premier Klein recognized that the Canada Health Act is broken, and he is trying to fix it.
There are currently 187,000 people on waiting lists for surgery alone, and these people are waiting 12 weeks or more for their surgery, more than they have ever waited in the recent history of Canada.
The government has gutted the Canada health system. It has ripped out $21 billion from health care in the country. What is an example of that? In Quebec, cancer patients are being sent south of the border to get the health care they require. In my province, cancer patients are waiting two months to get radiation therapy for cancer.
Premier Klein and Premier Harris are trying to fix the publicly funded health care system. This government has been gutting it.
All we see from that side is rhetoric and trying to penalize other people who are trying to fix the publicly funded health system that this government has gutted.

Oral Question Period
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday I had the misfortune of attending the Indian affairs committee hearing on the Nisga'a treaty in Prince George. Why taxpayers would pay to fly pro treaty witnesses from Vancouver Island and the lower mainland to Prince George while denying locals the opportunity to be heard is beyond me.
Since the government has proven the hearings to be the farce that we feared, will the government now conduct a province-wide referendum so that the people of British Columbia can have a say on the Nisga'a treaty?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decisions of the committee with respect to witnesses are the decisions of that group. They are not decisions of the government.
Furthermore, the committee hearings are indications of how the democratic processes of parliamentary government are working. People are being heard at the committee hearings, including those not favourable to the treaty. After the committee hearings are completed, there will be further debate in the House at report stage and third reading, as well as in the other place.
The democratic process based on our system of parliamentary government is working and the Reform Party should admit that.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberal majority on the committee decided who the witnesses were going to be.
In Prince George on Wednesday the committee only heard from four witnesses all day, three of which were from southern British Columbia. Even though three other organizations backed out at the last minute, the committee chair denied representatives from B.C. in Focus and the Central Interior Logging Association an opportunity to speak.
Only the Nisga'a have had a direct vote on this treaty. Other affected Indian bands have not been granted the same right.
Before it rams the Nisga'a treaty through this House, will the government conduct a referendum so that all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, can have a direct vote on the Nisga'a treaty?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, let me say that the work of a committee, it is very clear under our rules, is for the committee itself. The hon. member should know that. He did not get here yesterday, although he is acting like it.
Furthermore, we are not intending to ram this through the House. We want to provide reasonable time for debate but we also need to take decisions. Parliament is for debate but it is also for decisions. We hope that we will have the support of the Reform Party to let the democratic process based on our system of parliamentary government work.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, why would the government spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to fly the committee to northern British Columbia and not hear from people from that area directly affected by this treaty?
In fact, taxpayer money was spent to fly an author from Vancouver to speak, yet the people from Prince George, the people who took time off from work to attend those committee meetings, were denied the right to be heard.
Does the government agree with the recently deposed premier of B.C., Glen Clark, that the reason for denying a referendum to the people of British Columbia is because the government knows that it will fail?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not try to rewrite history, even if it is recent history.
As I understand it, the committee list was agreed to by all committee members collectively. Second, it is the Reform Party that insisted that the committee go to British Columbia. If the Reform members do not like the fact that the committee is going there and that it costs money, this is their fault.
In fact, what the member is complaining about shows that this system works. We are willing to listen to the opposition, even when its concerns are as poorly grounded as the Reform Party's. I do not know why the hon. member is getting up today and saying that we should not be spending money when the Reform Party asked that this be done.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is not answering the question about the referendum. Support for the Nisga'a deal hardly extends beyond the Liberal caucus room door. Both current and former B.C. Liberal leaders have slammed it.
Gordon Campbell called the deal an unacceptable slight to Canadians. Gordon Gibson said “Say no to a separate government structure for Indians”. But these Ottawa Liberals want to ram this deal through British Columbia.
Why will the Indian affairs minister not just admit that he is afraid of holding a referendum because he knows it will fail?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Reform Party continues to suggest that somehow there were no meetings relating to the Nisga'a treaty.
I understand that during the provincial part of this whole discussion, the province had 27 different meetings in different communities in British Columbia. In fact the longest debate in the history of the B.C. legislature was on this particular agreement. There were over 500 consultations with interested groups when the Nisga'a agreement was being debated when the AIP was in progress.
I am not sure I understand where the member is coming from when he says that B.C. people have not been heard. We have heard them loud and clear.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, for four questions now we have asked about the referendum aspect of the Nisga'a deal and why the government will not allow people from British Columbia the opportunity to have a referendum on this deal. That is the question the minister is avoiding, the Deputy Prime Minister is avoiding and the government is avoiding.
Why will the government not just admit it is refusing to allow a referendum on the Nisga'a deal because it knows it will lose?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I pointed out previously, that having referendums on matters is not consistent with our democratic approach to parliamentary government.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, that is right. We handle our approach based on the democratic principles inherited from Great Britain. I do not know why the hon. member opposes our democratic parliamentary system.
Speaking of leaders of the British Columbia Liberal Party provincially and their views on this, I am sure Reform supporters in British Columbia were not asked in a referendum whether the Reform Party should be supporting the provincial Liberals. Why did they not have a referendum on that?
Audiovisual ProductionsMr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has confirmed that the investigation on grants in the audiovisual sector is targeting only one company, most likely CINAR.
So far, however, two companies have been identified and there are reasons to believe that others are involved.
Instead of restricting the investigation to just one company, does the government not have a responsibility to broaden it to the whole industry throughout the country?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allegations have been circulating for over a month. When it all began, the government asked the RCMP to investigate.
Again, if the Bloc leader has information that could be useful to the investigation, we ask him to contact the RCMP directly.
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, if we had not reported here facts that had been checked and that were verifiable, there would not even be an investigation, because the other side does not want one, and that is the problem. They may have things to hide.
We are asking for a Canada-wide investigation. The president of Quebec's Union des artistes, Pierre Curzi, said it was important to look at the whole industry.
If the government truly wants to shed light on this issue, does it not agree that a Canada-wide investigation is required to look at all of Telefilm's activities? The investigation must not target just one company, whether in Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal, but the whole industry. Stop hiding behind all the investigations—
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask all members to address the Chair.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, it is not for us to tell the RCMP how to conduct its investigations.
When allegations are made to us, we have a responsibility to ask the RCMP to investigate. That is what we did.
That being said, members opposite are wrong if they think the government does not care about the integrity of its funding programs. We have always cared about that, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government clearly wants to hush the matter up.
It is refusing systematically to answer the many questions put to it. It gives short shrift to information that the RCMP is investigating only one firm, when the problem is much greater. It is holding off following SODEC's example and calling on Revenue Canada to look into this matter.
Why is this government refusing to investigate this entire matter? Could it be because many friends of the Liberal Party are involved?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, it is really deplorable to be hearing the allegations we are hearing this morning.
Allegations have been made. An investigation has been called for. It is not for us to tell the RCMP how to carry out its investigation. I hope that the member opposite realizes that.
I have already said that the government is responsible for the way its grant programs are administered, and it intends to see to it that its responsibilities are properly discharged.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Micheline Charest has been involved in Liberal Party funding operations and was appointed by the Prime Minister to the board of the millennium scholarship fund.
The Minister of National Revenue who, until recently, practiced in a firm of lawyers specializing in copyright, is refusing to initiate an investigation by his department, unlike what has been done in Quebec.
Given the scope of the problem and the troubling facts undermining the government's credibility, is there no way to initiate a cross-Canada investigation into the matter?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, an RCMP inquiry is under way. I invite the member opposite to pass on all relevant information he may have to the RCMP. In addition, the government has always ensured that its programs were well and honestly administered, and we have every intention of ensuring that this continues to be the case.
Child PovertyMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a Statistics Canada report shows that poor families with children are $1,500 per year worse off than when the Liberals took office. Three-quarters of that drop is due to the government's vicious cuts to unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, $1,500 can mean a lot to a poor kid: decent breakfasts, warm boots, maybe a special toy at Christmastime.
Why is the government taking this money from poor kids?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question gives me a chance to reiterate the commitment that this government has to children and to child poverty.
I would remind the hon. member that we invest $5 billion a year through the Canada child tax benefit and another $2 billion a year through the national child benefit. We invest $9 billion in programs like Cap C and prenatal nutrition, in Inuit and aboriginal community child care programs.
Not only do we have a commitment to continue that investment but through the Speech from the Throne there will be significant additional investments in children.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, 1.4 million children are living in poverty. That is the Liberal legacy, 1.4 million poor kids.
The minister knows perfectly well that the child tax benefit is being clawed back from 64% of the poorest families in this country. Where is the clapping? Where is the cheering?
Why will the government not set targets and timetables to eliminate child poverty come hell or high water?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain what indeed is happening with the national child benefit. In fact, the federal government gives assistance to poor families through $1.7 billion, soon to be $2 billion in income support. That allows the provinces to take moneys and build a platform of services to support of our children in low income families.
The big challenge that we have is giving opportunities to low income families, many of whom are on social assistance. Rather than facing the moral dilemma of leaving behind the services that their children receive through that program to take work to get into the economy and make a contribution and provide food for their families—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's West.
Millennium Partnership ProgramMr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister responsible for the millennium partnership program.
The Liberal minister of tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador has charged that Newfoundland is getting shortchanged in this program. In fact to date we have received less than 1% of approved funding. It appears that projects are being approved in one province, while similar projects are being rejected in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberal minister stated “This is absolutely ridiculous, uncalled for and discriminatory”.
Will the minister give the assurance to the House and the people of Newfoundland that Newfoundland applications are not being discriminated against?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance.
They are being looked at on their merits. We have already approved projects with support of almost $1.5 million. I have conveyed this information to the Newfoundland minister who has gone back to the drawing board to check further into the basis for his allegations.
I also want to say that we are striving for an overall balance over the total length of the program. I should say that this is not a per capita program. It is application driven and we respond to applications.
I believe that over the life of the program Newfoundland will be found—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's West.
Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer and I would like to ask one more question.
The final phase of applications for the millennium partnership program has been announced. Will the minister also give his commitment that all applications submitted from Newfoundland and Labrador will be given a fair assessment and that applications already rejected, such as the excellent ones from the Newfoundland Symphony Orchestra and the Grand Concourse Authority, will be reviewed to make absolutely certain that no discrimination was involved?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I assure my hon. friend that none of the applications from Newfoundland, or anywhere else in our country, have been dealt with on the basis of discriminatory practices.
We look at all applications in light of the criteria in a fair and equitable way, and we will continue to do so with respect to Newfoundland applications.
As far as my hon. friend's other comments are concerned, I will take them as a representation.
HealthKeith Martin: Mr. Speaker, Premier Klein recognizes that the Canada Health Act system is failing Canadians, particularly poor and middle class Canadians. Now the Premier of Ontario has written to the Prime Minister saying “Provincial governments have not cut health care funding; the federal government has”.
My question is for the health minister. If the health minister truly believes that putting more money into the health care system will fix the system, will he restore the $21 billion the government has taken out of health care?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to having a high quality health care system for all Canadians, and I wish Reformers had the same commitment. Otherwise they would not complain about the $11.5 billion we have committed to help make sure we have that kind of health care system.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about a Liberal quality health care system. Some 188,000 people are on a waiting list. People in Quebec are having to go down to the United States to get cancer treatments. Emergency departments in Quebec are so full they are telling people “Don't come to our emergency department”. That is Liberal health care.
How can the government possibly penalize the provinces for trying to save publicly funded health care when all it gives is 10% of the total cost of federal spending for health care today? If that is the case, will the government restore the $21 billion—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the management of the health care system in each province is under the control and direction of the provinces. They have to take some responsibility for that management. We are providing additional funding of $11.5 billion.
It is interesting to hear the hon. member on behalf of the Reform Party calling for even more public spending. We appreciate that support for what we are doing for health care across the country, and we will take his comments as a very sincere representation.
Child PovertyMr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when we questioned the government about its inability to reduce poverty in Canada, the learned Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explained that Quebec's referendum debate was responsible for the increase in the number of poor children in the country.
So we come back to this issue today. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the government agree with this somewhat short-sighted analysis by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, according to which the number of poor children in Canada has increased since 1993 because a referendum was held in Quebec in 1995?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs indicated very clearly that political instability was hurting the country's economy.
When the country's economy dips, it is naturally hard on the poor and everyone else. If the member opposite does not understand this, I am sure he is the only one here who does not.
Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have my doubts, although they are not about the House leader, who has put his foot in it. I find myself obliged to tell him that the poorest place in Canada is Newfoundland and the maritimes.
To my knowledge, the last constitutional referendum in Newfoundland took place in 1948. Is he telling us that the effects have lasted 50 years?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the member asked about Newfoundland. In fact, in the last two years, it is one of the provinces, if not the province, with the highest rate of economic growth in Canada.
TaxationJason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we continue to receive hundreds of paystubs from Canadians who are fed up with having to spend half of their income to finance the government's tax and spend habit.
People like Adam Grabowski, a teacher from Hamiota, Manitoba, sent a paystub showing that income tax took 49% of his pay or 54.7% when CPP and employment insurance premiums are included. He wants to know why the government thinks it knows better how to spend the money than he does on his family.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government continues to cut taxes. In the last budget it cut $16.5 billion. For a typical family of four with a $65,000 income that is a 10% reduction in federal taxes.
The government is committed to cutting taxes. In the economic update the Minister of Finance invited comments on where Canada will go in the future with our surpluses. Canadians will participate in that debate. Our government is committed to more tax reductions.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, that is the new Liberal math. I wonder if the member really believes that there has been a 10% tax cut when everybody has seen their tax burden increase.
Why are the disposable incomes of people shrinking if in fact the tax burden has gone down? The member is talking about a so-called reduction which has been overwhelmed by bracket creep and the Canada pension plan increase.
Why do people like Adam Grabowski have to continue working harder and making sacrifices when the government refuses to provide real tax relief?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is calling for tax cuts, which we have already begun doing and will do a lot more of.
His colleague from British Columbia just called for $21 billion to be spent by the government on health care. Why do members of that party not get their act together? They do not seem to understand that there is a balance between these things.
We are pursuing a fair balance and we will continue both with respect to tax cuts and investing in key priorities like health care. In the meantime the Reform Party ought to go back behind the curtains and get its act together.
Intergovernmental AffairsMr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday on RDI the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development stated that the government would be forced to do something to avoid the dirty tricks that, according to him, occurred during the last Quebec referendum.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Are we to understand from these words that the government has made its decision to act, and all that remains to be determined is the details on how a future Quebec referendum will be managed?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we do have an answer on this, as the hon. member suggests.
Of course, we do, I hope, all recognize the supreme court decision on this which indicated that, if there were a referendum, there must be a clear answer to an unambiguous question and of course also subsequent negotiations if the first two criteria were met.
Quite simply, we must repeat what has been said on a number of occasions in the past. The hon. member has even referred to this himself.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State said he had spoken of this with the Prime Minister himself, and had reached the conclusion that action had to be taken.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister confirm what the Secretary of State has said: that the decision has indeed been reached to introduce a federal bill relating to a future referendum in Quebec?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way is aware of the procedure for introducing bills in this House.
When and if a bill is introduced in the House, notice is given in the House and remains on the orders of the day for 48 hours. Then the bill is introduced, not before.
Those are the rules of the House of Commons.
TradeMr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian beef producers recently dodged a bullet when the USITC ruled that Canadian cattle exports do not cause injury to the U.S. cattle industry.
In order to avoid further challenges of this type the international definition of dumping must be changed to reflect predatory pricing and selling below home market prices rather than the current definition.
Will the trade minister assure producers that he will immediately renegotiate this definition, or will he continue to leave our producers exposed to the threat of million dollar legal battles?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are going into important trade negotiations and indeed a number of topics will be raised.
We are well aware of the cattle situation raised by the opposition member. I can tell him that we are giving our full attention to the cattle situation in our country and their export to the United States in particular.
Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is paying attention to that he should pay a little more attention in here. The fact is that the cattle industry in Canada spent nearly $5 million in legal fees fighting these complaints by protectionist American producers, money that did not have to be spent if the government had implemented the changes requested by Canadian producers. It could have spent that money on research and promotion.
Why will the agriculture minister not implement the changes recommended by industry, or is he content to do nothing and leave Canadian producers again exposed to these multimillion dollar battles?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that it is not a situation of our doing nothing. We were supporting the Canadian Cattlemen's Association in that challenge. The government was there. I congratulate Canadian cattlemen for the work they did. It was truly a team Canada effort.
There are different views on the way dumping or anti-dumping is treated. Some of our sectors are import sensitive and some are export sensitive. The horticultural industry has a different view than the cattle industry. I had a meeting with the cattle industry this week in that regard and it understands that too.
As my colleague the trade minister said, we will be working on this matter as we go into the important start of the WTO.
Transfer PaymentsMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Alberta premier Ralph Klein pointed out that the federal government was the one that made cuts in the health sector, not provincial governments, and that it should restore that funding. This comment is not from a mean-spirited separatist, but from the premier of Alberta.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How many stakeholders will have to repeat that message to the federal government before it finally understands that it must restore transfer payments to the provinces?
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy that Quebec is now among the have not provinces. All this because of the BQ and PQ policy.
It is a tragedy that in this day and age the province of Quebec takes more than 50% of the equalization payments. In the last two or three budgets transfers to Quebec have increased substantially with the CHST, with the equalization payments and with the other transfers to Quebec.
I think the province of Quebec should look at its revenues, which have been growing, and distribute some of its surpluses.
DiabetesMrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, between one and two million Canadians are suffering from the debilitating effects of diabetes, and the numbers are three times higher among aboriginal people. Each year, 60,000 new cases are diagnosed.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health tell the House what the government is doing to fight diabetes?
Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, we heard more good news from Health Canada and our government this morning when the Minister of Health announced in Montreal a national diabetes control strategy with a budget of $115 million over five years, in addition to the $60 million already committed in the budget speech a few months ago.
Diabetes kills some 5,500 Canadians every year. The new strategy will allow us to target diabetes, particularly among aboriginal people. National chief Phil Fontaine—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
The EnvironmentMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment minister denied that Nick Mulder, whom he appointed chair of the environmental review panel for a Hamilton area expressway, is in a conflict of interest. Mr. Mulder is a registered lobbyist for Environment Canada, DFO, and the agency for the panel of which he is the chair.
Under law the minister has an obligation to appoint only panel members who are unbiased and free from any conflict of interest. The ethics commissioner and Ontario's attorney general are now investigating Mr. Mulder. Why will the minister not remove Mr. Mulder from this review panel?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave to the hon. member a few days ago is correct. There is at the present time no reason to remove Mr. Mulder.
There is, however, an investigation taking place by the ethics commissioner to determine whether, prima facie, there is enough information to start a formal inquiry under the lobbyist code of conduct.
The situation has not changed since I replied to my hon. friend two days ago. The situation is that the ethics counsellor is looking into this and in due course we will get his report.
Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the environment minister does not want to listen to the facts. It is obvious that he is just paying patronage to his own previous deputy minister while he was the Minister of Transport. It is obvious that this is a registered lobbyist of Environment Canada, the DFO and the agency panel for which he is the chair.
Under the law, as I mentioned, the minister has an obligation to appoint only panel members who are unbiased and free from any conflict of interest. It is obvious that the ethics commissioner of Ontario and the attorney general are investigating Mr. Mulder. Even the member for Stoney Creek, in his own senior level, has called for the minister—
The Speaker: The hon. minister can address himself to the preamble.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the preamble with the comment that there is an investigation into this to determine whether there is any conflict of interest. That is exactly what the ethics counsellor is now doing.
There is only a claim and a charge that there is some potential for conflict of interest. It is being looked into appropriately by the official who has this task. If he determines there is enough information prima facie to launch a more formal inquiry he will do so. But at this point it appears there is not even enough to launch an inquiry under the code of conduct for lobbyists.
Banking IndustryHon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
We will recall that last year the big banks said that the sky would fall if the mergers were not allowed. Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker?
In any event, the Toronto-Dominion Bank now has announced an incredible $3 billion profit for this year, the largest of any bank in the history of this country, and now it wants to eliminate 5,000 jobs.
I want to know if the Deputy Prime Minister would screw up his courage and say that with a $3 billion profit these greedy CEOs are not going to eliminate jobs in the banking industry in this country.
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the record profits for the Toronto-Dominion Bank that were announced are fueled by an extraordinary gain by the sale of a subsidiary. That really accounts for half of the $3 billion profit.
I should say that the 5,000 jobs the member refers to are having to do with the Toronto-Dominion Bank's proposed acquisition of Canada Trust. That would be over a three year period. That proposal is right now being considered by the Competition Bureau and by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and that merger will not be approved without the Minister of Finance's approval, and job losses are a very important part of that equation.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the TD bank wants to spend some $8 billion to buy Canada Trust, eliminate up to 5,000 jobs and, get this, close up to 275 branches.
What I want this morning from the government is a guarantee that it will bring in a community investment act that, among other things, will protect jobs and allow communities to veto the closure of a branch in a community where that branch is needed.
Will the government do that? I want an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister who speaks on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, half of the Toronto-Dominion Bank's profit is fueled by the sale of the subsidiary in the United States, so its profit is about normal. In fact, banks contributed last year about $5 billion in tax revenue to governments.
The government has been on the record as saying that the job situation in the proposed merger of Canada Trust by the Toronto-Dominion Bank will be of paramount interest to the government. We are going to be watching that very carefully.
Public PortsMr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, back in August Transport Canada was considering a proposal to adjust all existing public port fees by an increase of 15% per annum over the next three years.
Will the Minister of Transport tell us whether this increase has been approved or whether it is still under consideration?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is under consideration.
Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada has been slowly divesting itself of regional local ports. By imposing such a significant increase upon its remaining public ports, is the Minister of Transport not simply using undue economic pressure to force local communities to bear the brunt of the wharf divestiture program?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as a representation on the issue.
The EnvironmentMr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the emission of greenhouse gases from our energy related industries is a concern to all Canadians, especially in terms of our obligations under the Kyoto arrangements. I would ask the minister for an explanation in the House of what is being done in the coal industry to develop this and to make our international obligations a reality for Canadians.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The government is aware of how important the coal industry is to the economy of our country. Any technology which reduces greenhouse gas emissions in any way is good in terms of our Kyoto commitments.
Just this week the federal government announced funding to support a test project in Alberta that would see the testing of the storage of CO2 in deep Alberta coal seams. If this works out, not only will methane be released, which could be very useful, but it will help us to achieve our objectives.
The partners include the Government of Alberta, the United States, the United Kingdom and 15 private—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary East.
World Trade OrganizationMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, reports coming from the WTO in Geneva indicate that a draft agenda for the Seattle negotiations has reached a stalemate. As it stands now the elimination of the export and domestic production subsidies in the agricultural sector could be sidelined as it will be up to various delegations in Seattle's free for all to come up with an agenda. With 11 days remaining before Seattle, why will the minister not guarantee Canadian farmers that the elimination of agricultural subsidies will be his number one priority?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I want to be quite clear. This is definitely a very important priority for our government. This is at the top of our list of priorities for the WTO negotiations.
I am extremely pleased to tell the House that in early November we developed under Canada's chairmanship a consensus of the 34 democratic countries of this hemisphere, the Americas, to support our position to work very hard on the elimination of export subsidies in the field of agriculture.
Canadian Security Intelligence ServiceMr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Paule Gauthier, the Chair of SIRC, said that the antics of CSIS have created a serious credibility problem for Canada internationally.
Does the solicitor general realize that, from the beginning of this affair, his attitude and his pat answers about how very concerned he was have done nothing to improve Canada's credibility?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois' support for the security of the Canadian government is very interesting. We appreciate this change in policy.
National HighwaysMs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, right now 38% of the national highway system does not meet minimum standards. These bad roads cause avoidable accidents that kill over 200 Canadians a year. The national highway system has been a federal responsibility since 1919 and the Liberal government cannot blame the provinces for this.
Fixing the national highway system would cost 26 cents for every dollar the Liberal government collects in gas taxes. Will it commit in the next budget to invest at least this much in the national highway system so that Canadians can drive home safely?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the hon. member's support for upgrading the national highway system. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech we said that there would be an infrastructure program with a transportation component. As to how much money goes into that, it depends on the work the Minister of Finance is currently doing in juggling other priorities and other demands for the very valuable money that is available. It is nice to have the NDP's support on this matter.
Royal Canadian MintGilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has just appointed Emmanuel Triassi as chair of the Royal Canadian Mint's board of directors.
Mr. Triassi is a generous donor to the Liberal Party of Canada; in addition, he and the minister have been very good friends for many years and belong to many of the same organizations.
Apart from the fact that he is a good friend of the minister, does Mr. Triassi have other qualifications justifying his appointment as chair of the Royal Canadian Mint?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not in absolute control of all the information on this particular file, but all appointments, including those to the mint, are made by choosing the most qualified person and the best person for the job. I am sure that the person we have chosen will do a very fine job.
Foreign AffairsMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, around the world armed conflicts are increasingly taking place inside countries instead of between countries.
What we are seeing more and more is that civilians are being brutally targeted and hit by their brutal governments.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. What is the Government of Canada doing to put a stop to this nonsense around the world?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has been working vigorously in a number of fora to encourage action regarding the need to improve the safety and security of people. This was highlighted in the Speech from the Throne.
Following our initiative, the UN secretary general submitted a report last September containing 40 recommendations for improving the legal and physical protection of civilians affected by armed conflicts around the world. The security council unanimously adopted the resolution presented by Canada.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the supreme court clarified the Marshall decision, stating that native Indians had no treaty rights on natural resources such as timber.
However, in response, the minister of Indian affairs stated that the government plans to negotiate natural resources with the native community.
Considering that under our constitution natural resources belong to the province and the supreme court has just stated that natives have no treaty rights on resources such as timber, what exactly is it that the minister is going to negotiate with the native community?
Bob Nault: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to commence in the short time you will give me.
Quite frankly, the courts have said over and over again—and if we read the clarification that the court made last week it says very clearly—that the government should be sitting down with the province and the first nations to negotiate modern day treaties dealing with resources.
I do not know why I have to stand every day to explain to the members things that are obvious in writing. If they would read the treaty we could get on with giving the Nisga'a new economic opportunity in this country.
World Trade OrganizationMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the WTO negotiations will be getting under way in Seattle on November 30.
Canada has met the commitments it made in the agricultural sector under the GATT agreements. However, our other major trading partners have yet to meet theirs, including in the area of export subsidies and in market access rules.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Before negotiating, should he not demand that the other countries meet their commitments instead of placing Canada's farming industry in a vulnerable position?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Lotbinière for his excellent question, one that is highly relevant to Canada's position at this point, as we move toward the World Trade Organization negotiations.
This is in fact something we have noted. In Canada, we have honoured the Marrakech commitments. We have even gone slightly beyond, thus putting Canada in a very strong position to demand in Seattle the elimination of subsidies in the farm sector, export subsidies, because we respected our commitment as concerns supply management.
So that will improve Canada's position in obtaining new concessions from its partners.
Health CareMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Premiers Klein and Harris, backed up by the Reform Party, want this country to retreat to the old, inefficient U.S. style of health care, back to the dark ages where they checked the purse before they checked the pulse.
The government has to be concerned about these developments and must know it has to take immediate action. It has to hold Alberta accountable for violating the principles of the Canada Health Act. It has to acknowledge that the only way to go forward, not backward, is to pursue innovation and improvements within the public health care system.
Can the government do that? Can it make that commitment today?
Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health was very clear on this matter two days ago, before this House and in public. He will be a strong defender of Canada's public health system.
Mr. Klein has made proposals. The Minister of Health has agreed to study them. It is pointless for Mr. Klein to raise his voice and call the minister a hypocrite right now. The minister has said he will study the proposal and, should it run contrary to the Canadian public health system, the Minister of Health will rigorously defend the basic principles of the public health system.
Points Of OrderLawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a response to an RCMP question from the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, I mistakenly stated that the documents in the briefcase were not project specific. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they were project specific but they did not involve national security. I just wanted to set the record straight.

Routine Proceedings
Committees Of The HouseMr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of some standing committees. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the ninth report later this day.
Corrections And Conditional Release ActMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-328, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (withdrawal of applications for full parole by offenders serving two or more years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lethbridge for seconding the bill.
I am pleased to reintroduce this private member's bill, formerly designated Bill C-388 in the previous session, which seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
There is no provision in the current legislation to prevent offenders from withdrawing an application for parole at any time, right up to the actual commencement of the hearing and then they can reapply immediately.
As I said previously, many victims of crimes expend enormous emotional and perhaps financial resources in preparing to attend parole hearings which are frequently held far from their homes.
In addition, significant time, effort and money is expended by authorities to facilitate the hearings. There is no good reason why offenders should have complete control over a process that burdens taxpayers and revictimizes victims.
These amendments will place a consequence on offenders who withdraw applications for parole at the last moment for no good reason. Unless there is reasonable and valid grounds for withdrawal, the offender will be barred from reapplying for a period of two years.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Members know that the introduction of a bill is normally just to summarize the intent of the bill, not to defend or go beyond that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees Of The HouseDerek Lee: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to present two petitions with 100 names on them. These petitions are from concerned Canadians, mostly from my constituency of Surrey Central.
The petition is about the development and safety of children put into jeopardy because of the B.C. Court of Appeal decision that made the possession of child pornography legal. The petitioners are asking why parliament was not recalled immediately to invoke section 33 of the charter of rights and freedoms, the notwithstanding clause to override a B.C. court decision, and to ensure that the possession of child pornography in B.C. is illegal. The careless, heartless government that lacks vision is constitutionally inept. The Liberals cannot change the constitution, but this is their position. I am proud to present it.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to table a petition signed by 854 residents of Quebec, and in particular the Greater Montreal area.
The petitioners call upon the Canadian government, which has a seat on the UN security council, to pressure the council to have peacekeepers sent to East Timor as soon as possible.
This petition was signed before the House had reconvened and, in the meantime, the United Nations has organized and sent to East Timor a peacekeeping mission in which Canada is taking part.
I still thought, however, that it was important for me to table this petition, since it reflects the concerns of many of our constituents about the situation that prevailed at that time and that still prevails, albeit to a lesser degree, in East Timor.
In the same spirit, I have the pleasure to present another petition about the situation in East Timor, this one is signed by 1,771 residents of Quebec, and in particular the Greater Montreal area.
Stressing the many abuses committed against the East Timorese people, the petitioners also indicate that these people have democratically voted in favour of self-determination and the results of these elections have been recognized by the Canadian government.
Besides asking the Canadian government to urge the United Nations to send peacekeepers to East Timor, the petitioners want major economic sanctions to be taken against Indonesia.
On top of these two petitions, signed by a total of 2,625 Canadians, I will have the pleasure to directly hand over to the Minister of Foreign Affairs 72 circular letters dealing with this very same issue.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table in the House today a petition from several hundred Canadians from across the country calling on parliament to officially declare November as Incontinence Awareness Month and to support local communities in Canada in educating and informing constituents across the country about incontinence.
I have one point that is very important. According to statistics, in any group of 300 adult Canadians of all ages, approximately 15 of them experience incontinence. I remind everyone in the House that we have 301 adult Canadians sitting in the House. I ask members to do the arithmetic and draw their own conclusions.
Incontinence often leads to depression and isolation, and is, for many care givers caring for an aging spouse, the last straw before admission to a long term care facility. It is one of the three leading causes of institutionalization.
It is my honour to table this petition in the House today.
Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions from my riding of Nanaimo—Alberni.
In the first petition, the petitioners call upon parliament to give Canadians a break by instituting tax relief of at least 25% in federal taxes over the next three years, starting with the next federal budget.
Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call upon parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other federal legislation which will provide for the exclusion of reference to the supremacy of God in our constitution and our laws.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is a privilege for me to present to the House a petition bearing the signatures of residents and users of the wharf facility in the community of Durham Harbour, in the riding I have the honour to represent, Madawaska—Restigouche.
The signees are asking that parliament authorize, with no further delay, dredging work that is badly needed. Some work was started in 1985 but was never completed. These people have already shown much patience.
I therefore whole heartily support their request.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first petition draws to the attention of parliament that Canadians from many backgrounds have been affected by crimes against humanity. They pray and request parliament to support Bill C-49, to recognize crimes against humanity and establish the creation of an exhibition within the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains over 2,000 signatures. It draws to the attention of parliament the ban by the Chinese government of the Falun Gong practice. It calls upon parliament to continue urging the Chinese government to release all arrested Falun Gong practitioners, lift the ban, withdraw the international arrest warrant against Mr. Li Hongzhi and achieve a peaceful resolution through open dialogue.
Questions On The Order PaperDerek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning co-operation on the civil international space station and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.
Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am going to use the 32 minutes I am allowed since we are in favour of this bill.
However, as I mentioned in my remarks before question period, I would like to reiterate our disappointment in the fact that we are called upon now to discuss this bill to ratify an international agreement reached nearly two years ago, when the deadline for the ratification of the agreement is January 29, 2000. Since the House does not sit in January, parliamentarians are really called upon to express their views on this bill at the very last minute.
Perhaps I should address one particular aspect of this bill. It seems to have become a habit, as I noticed myself last year with Bill C-54, to include the substance of the bill in the schedule. While the bill per se is only six pages long, the schedule contains 26 pages.
There is a provision in the bill that says that, once the bill passed, after nearly two years, the minister will only need an order in council to amend the agreement through changes to the schedule. It is as simple as that.
Here we are, two years later, and this is the first time we hear about that in the House. It might well be the last, even if the agreement can be changed at the international level by different partners.
I dare say that I find this rather highhanded. It may be a matter of form rather than substance, but I would not like the government to continue in that vein, because it would be tantamount to gagging members of parliament.
This project, a civil international space station, is extremely important, and the Bloc Quebecois obviously does not want to unduly hold up the legislative process, because the impact of this project in Quebec is quite significant. I remind the House that the Canadian Space Agency is headquartered in St. Hubert, near Montreal.
The space agency has offices in each province, but since its headquarters are in St. Hubert, many businesses in the Montreal area and in other regions in Quebec benefit from the spinoffs.
The bill itself is quite short; it is only 6 pages long. It might be interesting to give a general idea of each one of its clauses. When I have to address the House, I make a point of reading all the clauses of a bill, even when there are many. In this case, there are only 13, so we should be able to go through them fairly quickly.
We have no problem with clause 1, which deals with the title of the bill, since we are talking about the Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act.
I will ship the first part of clause 2, but I would draw the attention of parliamentarians to the definition of “minister”. I know it is commonly used in legislation. It is good to remind people that we live in a so-called sovereign state.
The definition of “minister” reads “member or members of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada.” This is the Queen of England of course. It is good to remind ourselves that, although Canada claims it is a sovereign state, it still maintains very clear ties with the monarchy.
Clause 3 states “The purpose of this Act is to fulfill”—I emphasize the word fulfill—“Canada's obligations under the agreement”. We are talking about two years later.
Clause 4 states “This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.” Same as before.
Clause 5 states “The governor in council may designate one or more members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as the minister or ministers for the purpose of this act.” We have no problem with this one either.
Clearly clause 6 gives a lot of power to the minister. It reads “The minister may delegate any powers, duties and functions to one or more persons”. One comment in this respect. I hope the minister will not delegate any duty to the secret service agent who lost his documents. We are talking about space and things could go wrong.
Clause 7 states:
The Minister may send a notice to any person that the Minister believes, on reasonable grounds, has information or documents relevant to the administration or enforcement of this Act, requesting the person to provide, within any period that the Minister specifies, that information or those documents to the Minister or any person that the Minister designates.
That is very nice. Such notice could be sent to people who might have important information on space research, many aspects of which may be top secret.
Clause 8 reads as follows “No person in possession of information or a document that has been provided under this act or the agreement shall knowingly communicate it”. But there are two exceptions.
That is when the communication or access is in the public interest or necessary for the administration or enforcement of the act or the agreement.
Clause 9 states:
The Governor in Council may make regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary for carrying out the purpose of this Act and giving effect to the Agreement—
The governor in council is the cabinet. I repeat, this agreement can be changed merely by changing the schedule, without going back to the House.
Clause 10 states:
The Minister shall, by order, amend the schedule to incorporate any amendment to the Agreement—
As I just said, the agreement of parliament is not required.
Clause 11 is longer, so I will just give a summary.
Section 7 of the criminal code is amended to include offences committed by a Canadian crew member even if he or she is in space. Similarly, the law would apply to a crew member from a partner state who commits an act or omission affecting the life or security of a Canadian crew member or a flight element belonging to Canada.
As for clause 12(3), it is worthwhile reading it in its entirety, for it is not very long:
If the employee or the dependants referred to in subsection (1) elect to claim compensation under this Act, Her Majesty shall be subrogated to the rights of the employee or dependants and may, subject to the Agreement implemented by the Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, maintain an action in the name of the employee or dependants or of Her Majesty against the person against whom the action lies and any sum recovered shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
As we can see, this is very vague. However, it is normal to have recourse, but all this is subject to the approval of Her Majesty, which is “subrogated to the rights of the employee or dependants and may, subject to the agreement implemented—”
Clause 13 deals with the coming into force of the act.
The schedule, which is the agreement itself, is very interesting. It mentions many things.
It indicates that the whole process began in 1984. We are discussing the agreement now, in 1999, but the whole process began in 1984. Since then, there was, among other events, a meeting between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada at the time. I will never forget that meeting, which ended with the former Prime Minister and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and the U.S. President, Mr. Reagan, bursting out in song together. At the time, everyone recognized that Canada was very, very close to the Americans.
I am pointing this out, because we recently travelled to Russia to meet a Russian parliamentary committee on science and technology, as part of an economic mission led by the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development. People asked questions about the space station, because the Russians are experiencing financial problems and are having difficulties meeting the requirements of the agreement they signed in 1998.
The Russian parliamentarians' objections had to do with Canada always appearing to be too close to the United States and to be in agreement with the Americans.
Earlier, I mentioned our ties with the Commonwealth. The Russians believed, and they were very blunt about it, that we were too close to the Americans, and they had doubts about the future of the space station. So much so that they insisted on keeping a separate module, which is the exception on board this particular space station. The Russians absolutely want a module not accessible to the rest of the space station, because they do not trust the Americans.
Now, I will not go over all the other pages of this substantial schedule, which deals with international rights and obligations, management, intellectual property and, of course, research. The latter is an important issue, because Canada is taking part in this initiative. I think it is important that we preserve intellectual property rights over the research Canada will have invested in. The same thing goes for the other participating countries.
I would like to underscore the special contribution of Canada to this research project through the Canadian Space Agency, thanks to the mobile servicing system. People will ask “What is the mobile maintenance system?”. It is the famous Canadarm, which will be able to move just about anywhere in the station.
I was fascinated , during a visit I paid with the other members of the Standing Committee on Industry to the space agency in St. Hubert, by the way mobility is achieved. The Canadarm has two hands, so to speak, and if it attaches itself to one part of the station, the other hand can move about and attach itself to another part of the station.
I saw that. I think that people can go and visit the centre. They can see this discovery, which has put Canada and Quebec's scientific community on the map, as they say, because this system will be used not only for repairs but to assemble all of the elements of the module. Canada's participation is therefore vital to the construction of the station.
I would also like to mention the role played by Quebecer Julie Payette in a research expedition in the international space station. She was the first Canadian to go there. Her particular contribution was important, since she was the head of the medical team, which obviously monitored the health and physical condition of the astronauts and which carried out very serious medical research.
Since the beginning of medical research in space, a number of treatments for diseases have been found, thus improving health. There are obviously a lot of questions about bone density and balance. In short, it is very important.
This project, which will span over 20 years, requires a $1.4 billion contribution by Canada. This may seem expensive, but the economic benefits are estimated at over $6 billion.
An investment that will yield such substantial economic benefits is a good investment. Overall, it will create 70,000 jobs, which is significant. This is one reason that motivated us, in the Bloc Quebecois, to support this bill. These jobs are not only in the province of Quebec, since, as I said, the Canadian Space Agency has divisions across the country. But Quebec is glad that the agency has its headquarters in Saint-Hubert.
We are not talking only about public servant or researcher jobs paid by the agency, but also about jobs in the private sector and for people who do research on a contractual basis or who try to apply research elements identified by the agency itself. The application aspect is very important and it also creates a lot of jobs.
There will be enormous economic and scientific benefits in our daily lives. Because of the financial limitations of a country with 30 million people, the space agency has decided to limit its activities to certain niches.
Besides the Canadarm and the mobile maintenance system I mentioned earlier, the agency has become a world leader in satellite communication. This is not necessarily related to this particular project, but the Canadian Space Agency developed RADARSAT, as well as other applications. Another project will be launched shortly, which will contribute further to the advancement of satellite communication. This means that soon someone in the Sahara desert will actually be able to speak on the phone with someone in Ottawa. They will be able to communicate. This is no small thing.
And that is not all. Those interested in geography can expect to see more accurate maps, because it will be possible to take shots to within approximately two metres from the ground. Agency representatives told us that the Russians and the Americans do not want it to be any closer, apparently for security reasons.
During my visit, I observed the seriousness of Agency employees, especially their pride when astronauts from around the world come to the training centre devoted solely to use of the Canadarm. All astronauts, whether they are Russian, American, European, or Japanese, come to Saint-Hubert regularly for training. This is great for the city of Saint-Hubert and for Quebec. It is also good for Canada.
I would now like to talk about what I think is the most important aspect of the civil international space station, and that is co-operation among various countries. These include Canada, the United States, Japan, Russia and European countries; others could join eventually.
The word “partnership” appears throughout the agreement. It is used very frequently. I think this is very important. This is a step forward for the advancement of aerospace science. This multilateral agreement has been quite a shot in the arm. Since the end of the cold war and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Russians have joined the expedition. I think this is good.
Speaking of history, this year the Canadian Space Agency, which has its headquarters in Saint-Hubert, is celebrating its tenth anniversary.
I will conclude on a political note. The word “partnership” crops up everywhere in this agreement. Canada has agreed to discuss an important agreement with other nations, but has said in advance that it is not interested in discussing partnership with Quebec. This government is prepared to talk with everyone except Quebec. That is how much this government seems to care about a wish expressed in 1995 by 49.6% of Quebecers.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-4, the civil international space station agreement implementation act. This bill represents a key advancement in Canada's important role in the development of the international space station and further strengthens the very valuable level of international co-operation that began under the previous Progressive Conservative government.
As a point of recognition the PC Party has supported this bill from its inception as it is a further development in the process that began under the leadership of Brian Mulroney. On this level I must congratulate the minister for continuing his government's commitment to the agenda set by the former prime minister.
Beyond furthering Canada's reputation as a major player in international efforts, the bill provides for an important contribution to the development of the Canadian scientific community. However, it must be noted that this is but a scratch in the surface of where we must go in order to further develop our high tech industry which stretches well beyond our responsibilities to the space program.
The bill is easy to support given the origins of its purpose. Beyond this, it is one that is merely evidence of the Liberal government's chronic, mediocre commitment to advancing the Canadian context of technology. For instance, since 1993 the government has steadily cut into the budget of the Canadian space agency, reducing it from $378 million in the 1993-94 budget period to $350 million this year and ultimately down to a level of $300 million in the future.
As the developed world around us races toward the future the Liberal government creeps along a path of complacent indifference toward this most vital sector of our economy and of our well-being. As our talented technology workers head south of the border—incidentally, with the Prime Minister's full support—the Canadian technology sector, stifled in large part by high taxation, slips further and further behind our competitors.
As an example of the fast rate of change in the United States I will point out the incomprehensible speed at which the technology sector is advancing in the United States. Through innovation and e-commerce, for example, Dell Computers is generating $30 million per day in Internet sales every single day of the year. How does it do it? Hard work and a system that rewards innovation and growth.
As further evidence, in Santa Clara, California alone, 64 millionaires emerge every day from the competitive and rewarding environment that is so vital in fostering this astronomical rate of growth. These are two examples of many.
Why does this not occur in Canada? One need only look at this bill to appreciate the cause. It has taken nearly two years for the government to finally get Bill C-4 through parliament, just barely making it for the international co-operation deadline in January.
This slow rate of progress is not a confidence building approach. Taking this long to get through a piece of legislation which we all, in essence, support is remarkably counterproductive, especially when one realizes that we should be dealing with far more issues related to the technology sector.
The government must get off its duff and accept that we are losing the great war for talent. Yes, the bill does provide money for research and development to the technology sector, but it is incredibly far from being enough. Everywhere else this industry is in a brawl with no rules, whereas in Canada, among the countless punitive regulations and taxes, the most telling rule is “Leave if you don't like it”.
That is what our talent does. They do not wish to have to reply to the question of “Where were you during the great enterprises of Y2K?” by saying they were waiting for the Liberal government to stop diddling over long overdue legislation and tax cuts. That is why they leave. There is virtually no commitment to ensuring that we give our massively talented workforce the tools to prosper in the most important industry of the present and indeed the future.
It should come as no surprise that the government waffles on this issue. In fact it becomes more and more apparent that its interest wanes when it is asked to support something it did not create.
I strongly urge that the government take some leadership on this issue. I do not offer this appeal on the basis that we begin massive new spending projects. Quite the contrary, we need to offer an environment that allows the technology industry to do what it does best, innovate. However, it is hard to do so when there is an increasing burden of taxation on the corporate sector and on the individuals it employs. This is completely unacceptable.
The only way we can bring Canada up to a far greater level of productivity in technology is to slash taxes. We need to cut taxes in a meaningful way for Canadian businesses and Canadians, not as window dressing for the posterity of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
The government need not provide the capital if it is encouraging the incentive. That incentive lies at the end of the day, when the hard working and talented Canadian workers are able to see a substantive reward for their efforts. Should this occur, should we rise to the occasion, the government and the country will reap the rewards of excellence.
My party and I fully support Bill C-4 and do not wish to further delay this valuable piece of legislation. I will, however, restate my message to the government that it best begin to change this lethargic approach to the industry and get on the ball. It has to recognize and respond to the rapid rate of change. It is barely able to govern effectively with its present complacence with regard to pressing issues which, as it happens, may disqualify it from successfully governing for the future, and that is the kind of leadership which the country so desperately needs.
Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the member's comments, in particular with regard to the movement of our talent south.
I am not sure whether he saw the article in the Citizen last weekend about Nortel's CEO. It was a very interesting article about the amount of brain power that is moving south of the border and the inability of our system to replace that talent.
It is interesting that we also have a Prime Minister who says there is not a brain drain in this country, that it is just a myth. Yet, these high tech firms categorically state that they cannot compete with the U.S., in particular because of the tax structure. I certainly concur with the member's comments that we are taxed out of our socks in this country.
How are we going to stop this brain drain? It fits with the space station and it fits with the high technology arena that we are in. Where does the hon. member see the solutions to stopping the brain drain and getting the country on its feet again?
Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent question. It is not a simple one to answer, but basically we are beside the greatest economy in the world. I do not know why we are trying to forge a different economy of high taxes when the United States encourages innovation and free enterprise.
We have to get our taxes, both corporate and personal, more in line. There is a whole new revolution going on, for example, with Dell Computer and the e-commerce world. Ninety per cent of Canadians today, when they are buying products on e-commerce, buy them from the United States. They are not buying in Canada. Dell is doing $30 million a day, every day of the year, and it has just started.
We also have to encourage people that if they work hard they will enjoy the fruits of their labour. For example, in Santa Clara, 64 millionaires are created each day. I bet those people for a year or so had the dream of becoming rich and knew that if they worked hard, once they realized their aspirations they would get to keep their money.
We seem to tax it away, do some sort of income averaging and give the money to everyone. We have to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit at the school level, and when people work hard they should be able to keep their money. We have to reduce taxes both at the corporate and personal levels.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, be read the second time and referred to a standing committee.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, any time I have the opportunity, I will stand up in defence of Canadian taxpayers.
Those poor, beleaguered people are attacked at every turn by government after government after government. It boggles the mind to think that Canadian taxpayers give up over half of their earnings just to fund their levels of government.
I have often said that if someone came into my house and took half of everything I owned, I would probably phone the RCMP. I would tell them to come and get this guy, take him away and lock him up. Let us have some justice here. Probably most Canadians would say, “Yes, you are entitled to do that. That is fair. That is in defence of your property. That is stuff that you bought with money you worked for and earned. The guy who went in at night has no right to take it”.
The taxman comes in the daytime. He comes and takes everything I earn. If I do not help him load the truck, I am the one that goes to jail. If I do not co-operate with him loading up and taking my stuff, I am considered to be some sort of a lesser citizen because I will not take part in the scheme.
I guess should put this into balance. I suppose I should not always talk about taxes like that, because it is a privilege to pay taxes. I concur with what many people say, this is a wonderful country. It is a privilege to live in Canada. I believe it is a privilege to be a member of parliament in the country. It is a privilege and an honour to stand in this place in defence of the people who elected me and who are paying the bill.
I hear from a lot of people in my riding and across the country who say, “You know, I would not mind paying a fair amount of taxes, but the taxes we pay are too much. We keep on paying taxes on taxes”.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware that we pay a lot of taxes on taxes literally. For example, if we go to the gas station to buy $10 worth of fuel for our cars, in the end that $10 actually includes a portion of the federal gasoline tax and the provincial gasoline tax. That price of $10, although I cannot remember the last time I only bought $10 worth of gas at one stop, but that $10 already contains a bunch of taxes.
What do we then get here? The government says that it wants to charge GST on it. The GST is our famous gouge and screw tax. It is added to everything, even to the tax portion of that gasoline. Here we have money that we have earned and on which we have paid income tax. We then take the part that is left and pay the gasoline taxes. On those taxes, GST is added. When I say taxes on taxes on taxes, it is literally true that we end up paying taxes on taxes.
I am getting very close now to talking about municipal grants because we want to talk about taxation collected by municipalities. It is also true that when we pay our municipal property taxes, in most instances the money we use to pay that tax we have already paid income tax on.
We work like slaves, get some money and the federal and provincial taxman keeps about half of it, on incremental income for most Canadians these days. With the half that we have left over we have to pay our municipal taxes. This is the reason I introduced my private member's bill that says that people who pay property taxes should be able to deduct that amount from their taxable income. I do not think it is right for Canadians to have to pay taxes on money they earn for the sole purpose of paying taxes. It is enough already, as my grandmother would say. It is just too much.
Today we are talking about Bill C-10. Bill C-10 is also a bill which has to do with how to distribute and move around money that has been collected from taxpayers. It also has to do with municipal taxes and other fees and charges that are paid by different levels of government, in this case, the federal government. I find it absolutely incredible that the money that the taxpayer sends to Ottawa is used for all sorts of different things.
Among other things, the Canadian government operates a number of vehicles. We have thousands of dollars of real property. I suppose that is a necessity, although sometimes I wonder whether we have allowed that to get out of hand as well. It seems to me that our government is larger than it ought to be because there has not been any real accountability on the part of government on how it spends money.
Obviously, when the federal government uses part of the facility in a municipality to operate its buildings, it should also pay a fair share of the municipal taxes. One could argue that there is only one taxpayer. However, the fact of the matter is that this is a way of relieving, at least partially, the burden of property taxes on people in the municipalities. That is, in order to provide the services and the infrastructure which also supports the government facility, as it supports other businesses and homes and apartments, this money is also used for these government buildings and government services.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is fair that the Canadian taxpayer should pay a fair share of the municipal taxes because there is an increasing burden on municipalities to pay for all of the things that are being downloaded by the government.
This is a bill that will amend the Municipal Grants Act. It has to do with how the federal government makes grants to municipalities directly in lieu of taxes that it should be paying.
Mr. Speaker, I know you had some anxiety as to whether or not I was on topic, but I was indeed giving my preliminary lead-up to the topic at hand today. I think I can probably promise you, Mr. Speaker, that at least 95% of the time I will open my speech with some sort of a statement that says it is time to cut taxes in the country, so my preamble was most appropriate.
In this particular bill, there are a number of things which are needed and are justified. It is a case where we have a number of items that are probably worth supporting. We know, and this has been the case for quite some time, that supplementary payments can be made to municipalities in lieu of taxes. In other words, in this country we do not permit one level of government to tax another.
There are some exceptions to this. I have noticed lately that federal government vehicles carry provincial licence plates. Agreements have been reached on that, which is fair since those vehicles utilize the roads of the province in which they are stationed, for the most part.
There are other things that have been permitted for quite some time. The federal government, however, cannot be levied a tax. If a municipality says that we have a federal court, a federal taxation building or an EI office that is owned and operated or leased by the federal government, normally if that were any other lessee it would assess property taxes against that property. The federal government, in order to be fair, has for a number of years voluntarily paid a fair assessment to the different municipalities. By doing this, it gets around that little rule that one level of government may not tax another level of government.
This particular bill has a couple of good features in it. It will extend the ability of the federal government to make these voluntary payments in other areas. For example, it would extend it to making payments of interest in the event that the payment was late.
I do not know if members have heard this rumour, but there are some government departments that are continually late in their payments. The Minister of Defence is here and maybe he can give me a wave if I am wrong, but I have heard rumours that the Department of National Defence spends millions of dollars every year on late payments through the normal billing of expenses. It is late in paying, so the supplier of the commodity that the defence department has purchased just adds the usual carrying charge to the late payment and the government pays it because it is a legitimate payment. If it would be on the bit and pay its bills promptly it would not have those interest payments.
In the case of municipalities, they also assess charges for late payments, whether it is late payments for municipally owned utilities or whether it is late payments on property taxes.
This particular bill would extend the ability of the government to make voluntary payments in lieu of interest on payments which are late. Again, I cannot really be against that. I think it is fair to the municipalities, the ratepayers and the property taxpayers in those particular municipalities where this applies.
There is another thing that happens. Sometimes the federal government owns a property but does not use it all. Even though it is owned by the government, it leases that same property out to another third party. Almost always, those particular contracts for lease include a clause that says that the lessee must pay the property tax on that property. Sometimes these people who lease the property are not diligent in their payments. As a result, they go late. This particular bill will now, I guess, stiff the taxpayer for the inability of the government at whatever level to collect the rent and tax payments from the individual or business that is leasing the property.
At any rate, it is a transfer of tax dollars from one location to another. In this case, it is from the federal government to the municipality. If the taxes are delinquent, this bill will allow the federal government to voluntarily make that payment.
There are some kinds of structures that have been added to the list. I would not disagree with that. Also, we now have a committee of appeal.
However, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that the Reform Party has a very good policy with respect to this type of thing. I would like to read a page from the book. It states:
The Reform Party will insist that all laws pertaining to individuals and the private sector apply equally to the Government of Canada, its personnel, its agencies and Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, you will be totally amazed at how I am going to weave the MP pension plan into this story. That principle applying to the fairness of municipal taxation is a principle that extends right across the board.
I draw to the attention of members and anyone else who is hearing or reading these words that in the pension plan for members of parliament and senators, legislation is in place which specifically exempts members of parliament from certain provisions of the Income Tax Act. I meet many people who would love to defer an additional 2% or 5% of their income for taxation in some future years.
This is a violation of the Reform principle which says that all laws which pertain to individuals and the private sector will apply equally to individuals as well as to governments, as well as to members of the government, including the employees, members of parliament and senators. We have here a violation of that principle. The MP pension plan is one of the most blatant violations. Specific legislation was passed in this place to exempt members from a law that applies to every other Canadian.
How could the Liberals have the gall to do that? I cannot believe Canadian voters continue to send members to this place who would do that type of thing. It boggles my mind.
The government is maintaining a special position in this bill. Even though the Government of Canada will voluntarily pay taxes to some municipalities on behalf of its buildings and structures, it will not necessarily do it all the time.
One objection we have to the bill is that Canada Post is not included. It is very much an arm of the government. The Canadian mint, a crown corporation, is not included as having to participate in this program. We think that is wrong. It should apply to everyone equally.
The payment of grants in lieu of taxes is a very good program but every once in a while a dispute arises. How would we solve a dispute? There are a number of ways to resolve a dispute when two people disagree. The best way is to sit down, talk about it, negotiate it, figure out who is willing to bend which way and come together on it. Every once in a while disputes become serious and the federal or provincial courts become involved. We try to resolve our differences at the court level by having a judge and in some cases a jury look at the situation to try to bring about justice.
There is a serious flaw in this bill. Even though when there is a dispute there is a mechanism to solve it, lo and behold we find that the board that is supposed to do this is appointed by the minister. It is like getting into a boxing ring and finding out that the opponent is also the referee. It does not bring a great deal of fairness to the situation. This flaw should be corrected before the bill is passed.
A second flaw is that board members make recommendations to the minister. Is that not a surprise. First the minister appoints the board members and then they make a recommendation to him. The bill is clear. The minister may or may not accept their recommendation.
If a municipality disagrees with the payment level or the promptness of the payment being made by the federal government and challenges it, the matter goes to the the board which hears the case. The board may give some very good advice or it may given rotten advice, we do not know which, but we hope the board would try to be fair.
I suppose the Prime Minister would hasten to tell us that just because they were Liberals who were appointed to the board does not mean that they will always make a wrong judgment, and I suppose that would be a fair statement. They probably would not always make a wrong judgment. In any case they make a recommendation to the minister and then the minister has the choice to take the recommendation or not.
In all fairness the minister and his officials would probably read and study the recommendation. I would hope they would. I hope the decision would not be arbitrary and capricious, but there is nothing in the bill or the act that would prevent that from happening. The minister could take their advice or he could decline their advice and do whatever he wants. He would then unilaterally say, “Sorry, we are not paying” and that would be the end of the matter. There is no further appeal.
Those are some of the very serious flaws in the bill that should be corrected. There should be some fairness built into this. Arranging the affairs so that the person one is fighting with in the boxing ring is also the referee is just not a very good way to plan success.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of the bedrock principles of our system is that there is to be no taxation without representation.
At the municipal level, in my lifetime, that has been expanded so that there is no residency without the right to representation. Renters who pay their taxes indirectly are allowed, just as landowners are, to have a vote on the activities of their local government.
We have before the House a bill that flies squarely in the face of that principle. It is called the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty which will make it quite possible for a group of municipal councillors, band councillors if you will, since the government keeps telling us that what it is setting up is a form of municipal government, to levy taxes. This group will be able to levy taxes on any and all residents on the reserve irrespective of what the persons being taxed may think or what they may want to do. They will not have a voice in it because voting and the choice of councillors will be limited only to people who have the correct skin pigmentation. The fact that one may be living, doing business or providing a service on the reserve will be totally irrelevant.
We already have an example of this sort of thing on the Musqueam reserve where in addition to the massive rent increases that we hear so much about, there is also a silent and somewhat unreported problem of taxation. The band is levying taxes to the tune of about $6,000 per residence on the people who will ultimately be dispossessed of their homes. They are doing this without any recourse to democratic action. These people cannot vote in any way on what their local government is doing with respect to taxes.
Does my hon. colleague have any thoughts or suggestions on this subject as to what might be done to ameliorate the problem?
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question because it has to do with how Bill C-10 impacts on the life and times of municipal taxpayers. We are talking about municipal taxpayers paying their bills to the municipality in which they live or in which they own property.
The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has made an excellent point. We have long held the principle that there cannot be taxation without representation. There cannot be a body for which we have no opportunity to vote and which can levy taxation against us, make rules that actually part us from some of our income. It is unconscionable.
He made mention of the fact that this is what is happening in the treaty agreements in British Columbia. I would take the point a little further than he did. There is certainly an immediate and serious problem that needs to be addressed.
The government members, all those green foreheads as I refer to them, are just not listening. They are not paying attention to the genuine concerns we are bringing forward on behalf of the people of British Columbia on this issue. I wish they would listen because not only is there an immediate concern, but there is the immediate huge injustice of people losing their own property through a process over which they have no control and no recourse. There is also a long term repercussion which I think our children and our grandchildren are going to rue for years and years to come.
To divide our population based on genetic make-up and to say that different rules apply to different people because of their particular genetic make-up, history teaches us that that is dangerous. Common sense makes us aware that that is dangerous.
It is unfortunate with legislation like that which we have before us today and legislation such as my colleague mentioned that the government is totally blind and deaf. It will not see the problem and it will not hear from the people. I find it unconscionable that the government is actually contemplating not even permitting the people of British Columbia to have a referendum on what is going to make a tremendous difference to their lives and their society, not only now but for years to come.
I thank my colleague for an excellent question. That is the type of thing I wish we could debate clearly and openly in the House with a genuine willingness to listen and to make changes when it becomes clear that there is inadequacy in the legislation before us.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed in the comments by my hon. colleague.
I do not know if other members of the House get lists of the new citizens of Canada. We get a list of the new citizens in our ridings. I am always pleased when there is someone on it who I have known for a number of years. I have a couple of friends who have lived in Canada for 25 and 30 years. The other day I was going through my list while I was sitting here listening to the really important debates we have. I noticed that a couple of my friends were on that list and I automatically thought great, two more votes next election.
In spite of the fact that these friends had lived and worked in Canada for 25 or 30 years and had paid taxes, they were not able to vote on electing federal members. Why is that? Because we recognize that until people become citizens of our country, we do not allow them to vote for the governments.
Does he think it is fair that people move to Canada and are not able to vote for a federal member of parliament unless they become citizens? I think it is reasonable. Does he not think it is reasonable as well, or does he think people should not have to become citizens and be part of a community before they vote?
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the member has said. I notice she did not in any way indicate that we would first of all test the pigmentation of people's skin or genes before we allow them to take up citizenship. It is totally irrelevant to this situation.
I would add a further caution to what she has said. I will put it in the form of a rhetorical question. Do we really want to within the boundaries of our country have little countries all over the place, here a country, there a country, here a country, so that when we walk into those boundaries we cannot be a citizen of that country unless we pass a racial test? I need to ask, is that really where we want to take our country? I say as emphatically as I can, no.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, municipalities across our great land are paying in terms of employment insurance. As a result of that and the huge overpayments this government is amassing, municipal governments across the country are transferring municipal tax dollars to the federal government.
One level of government is taxing another with municipal taxes going into the federal coffers. What does the hon. member have to say about that?
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, we have all sorts of government politicians and bureaucrats playing around in the big mixing bowl with taxpayer money. It is going here. It is going there. It is going everywhere. Nobody really knows how much is going where, and the level of accountability is altogether entirely too low.
We have a principle in Canada that one level of government cannot tax another. With all deference to my colleague, we have a voluntary plan on the part of the federal government to carry at least some part of the fair share of municipal taxation in those municipalities which have facilities.
I do not think that is unfair. The money comes from the taxpayer. Some municipalities have a preponderance of federal government agencies, buildings or facilities, and it is not totally unfair that should be done. However, the principle that he has referred to must of course be maintained.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, as always, I will start my comments on the bill by telling the folks back home what it is all about.
Bill C-10 is an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act. It talks about administration. It talks about payments. It talks about taxes. It talks about common tax due dates. It talks about government leasing its properties to non-departmental third parties. It mentions the Canada Post Corporation and goes into the discretionary power of the federal government.
Let me make a few points about those subjects. We have a situation where we have three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, and this government is trying to establish a fourth level of government. This is despite the fact that the country is already overgoverned, despite the fact that we have a $600 billion national debt, and despite the fact that we have unfunded liabilities with the Canada pension plan that will max out in 2017.
Despite the fact that we have all these concerns—and the government certainly has a full plate if it were willing to deal with it—it is creating a fourth level of government by what it is doing with Nisga'a. That impinges because we have three levels of government and we are already having difficulties. It is troublesome at times to deal with those issues, especially for the taxpayer, because there is one taxpayer and there are three levels of government, and now we are to have four.
On top of that is the whole issue of taxation without representation. That is exactly what will happen with the fourth level of government that I mentioned. Not only will that happen in the new level of government, but it will learn from the previous ones. It will be picked up as precedent.
We have a situation where we have taxation without representation going on right now with municipal governments. I asked a question of one of my colleagues about the whole issue of municipalities across the country that are paying more employment insurance than they get back in return.
I am a taxpayer in Calgary. By contributing my money to municipal taxes in Calgary I am paying for municipal workers in the city of Calgary, and the overpayments this government is collecting in employment insurance, in the EI fund, is therefore going into federal coffers. The situation is the same for all those who pay municipal taxes
It is absolutely unfair that the federal taxman is robbing money out of municipal coffers across the country, especially when we consider the federal government has cut back its transfers to the provinces and therefore also cut back transfers to the municipalities dependent upon provincial funds. That is a shame.
This government continually says that it believes in some of the programs that it holds high as sacred cows in the country, but time after time it makes cuts to them. On top of that it raises taxes. I could talk about the CPP tax hike and the EI taxes.
On top of that as well municipal governments are forced to go ahead and overpay employment insurance for their employees. In the city of Vancouver alone the people of Vancouver are overcontributing over $2 million to the federal government. It is not as though the people of British Columbia and the people of Vancouver are not overtaxed as it is. On top of that $2 million of their money are being transferred to the federal government. That is an absolute shame.
The bill also includes appointments. I happen to be the Senate and patronage critic of the official opposition. Patronage all too often takes place in all aspects of government legislation. There are thousands of positions, and this bill is no different, that include patronage positions. People meet with the Prime Minister on a regular basis to go ahead and dole out the precious positions Liberals love to give to their friends. Part of what the bill is about is appointments and patronage.
In 1990 this government said it would change things. When the Prime Minister ran for election as leader of the Liberal Party he said that things would be different under his rule. We do not have that. The Liberals promised in the red book in 1993 and again in 1997 that patronage would change.
As a matter of fact, the government House leader helped to author the McGrath report in which he said that some of those positions would be vetted by parliamentary committees which have the ability to go into these matters and would love to be able to scrutinize people based on the merits they have to hold their positions. Instead, we continue to have this government push forward its agenda of patronage.
It gets worse. It goes into the whole idea of tax sharing and tax agreements. I have been in this place two years. The longer I am here, the more I believe the provinces should divest themselves of the tax sharing and tax agreements with the federal government because they are done wrong by them. I applaud the Government of Alberta for moving ahead. Within the next few years it will go ahead and separate the tax collection situation from Ottawa.
The federal government is collecting taxes and collecting taxes for the federal government. That is a result of the first and second world wars and the Great Depression when no other government had the ability to meet the needs of the country in those dire times.
Since that time the federal government has abused that privilege. It has gone ahead and is using the money for buying votes like it always does. It is cutting back on programs. It entered into arrangements with the provincial governments on things like health care, and I could name others, where it said it would fund 50% of the programs. Instead it has cut, hacked and slashed.
Every time it came to an election government members said “Trust us, we will increase the money”. When push came to shove, they cut and cut deeply, to the point where the provincial Government of Alberta now receives only 15% for every dollar, even though the federal government promised Ernest Manning and that province when they entered into the agreement on health care that they would receive 50%.
Government members have the gall to stand in this place to tell us that they will somehow shove their way down the throat of the Government of Alberta. The tail is wagging the dog. They are only funding 15% of the show and they said they were committed to 50%. They preach high morals about how they want to defend this and that, but they do not ante up with the cash. They continues to cut. Shame on them.
I also want to talk about the whole idea of government leases, third party leases, mentioned in the bill. That is when the government leases some of its properties to non-departmental third parties. I will pose a general question, and I hope the folks back home are listening.
If the federal government has more property than it needs to do its job, why should it be going ahead and renting out the property in competition with private sector renters? Taxpayers have been calling for money for certain programs. Why does the government not sell off the property, that taxpayer asset, and give the money back to taxpayer programs or give taxpayers a long awaited tax break?
If the federal government has assets or property it is not using and is renting out right now, it should get rid of it. It should be sold off and given back to the free market or given back to the people. There is no reason the federal government needs to continue to hang on to it.
Another aspect of the bill is that of the Canada Post Corporation. It touches on that. It is another example of a government institution that does not believe in competition and will not allow anybody else to give it a fair shake for the money.
T2P Overnight, a company in Calgary was willing to deliver anywhere within the T2P postal code in Calgary for significantly less money than what it costs for a first class stamp. The company delivered overnight, in one day. Can we imagine Canada Post Corporation promising the delivery of mail in one day and doing it for less money?
They did not allow that. They shut the company down and said it was competition for Canada Post. They could not handle it. As a result they closed it. A private sector entrepreneur who wanted to start up something offered a better level of service. It could have provided an incentive and an example for the government and for the Canada Post Corporation, but they would not even allow competition. They would not even think about it. As a result, an entrepreneur in the city of Calgary suffered for it, jobs were lost and the government won.
The bill talks about arm's length relationships. Those arms continue to grow and grow, not only in terms of the multiplicity and the number of arms on this government beast but the length of the government's arms. Everywhere we look the government wants to establish longer arm's length relationships, because ministers in the House do not want to have to stand and answer for their own departments.
They would rather be able to stand and say “I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that is not my department. It is not my department that is responsible for that. It is that arm's length body, that arm's length organization. I do not have anything to do with that. It is not directly involving me. It is now independent”. That is a joke. It is going on right now with Revenue Canada.
They wanted to go ahead and establish an arm's length relationship. More and more they want to distance themselves from the actual business of governing because they realizes they are not doing it well. They realize they are squandering taxpayer dollars, that they are not accountable, that they are overtaxing people and that they are doing it poorly. As a result they want to distance themselves from their poor record, from their shoddy record.
Setting themselves up in some sort of arm's length relationship is a code word for saying that ministers do not want to be accountable for abrogating the whole idea of parliamentary responsibility, the whole idea of the cabinet being accountable to the country, and the whole idea of the minister being responsible for the actions of all those employed beneath him. Those are just some of the problems with the bill.
I will talk about priorities for a second. There is a real lack of priorities around this place when we talk about bills like this one with all their inherent flaws, and I went through them.
This type of thing occupies our time when instead they could be talking about cutting taxes and coming forward with tax cuts. They could be talking about employment insurance reform. They could be talking about putting money back into health care. That does not happen. Instead they talk about arm's length relationships and cutting back on their accountability. Shame on them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member will have approximately seven minutes when next the bill comes to the House.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
National Highway SystemLee Morrison: moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, a minimum of 20 per cent of federal excise tax revenues on gasoline should be directed to joint federal and provincial programs to upgrade or renew many sub-standard sections of the national highway system.
Mr. Speaker, my motion proposes that two cents from the ten cents per litre federal excise tax on gasoline be directed to joint federal and provincial programs to upgrade and renew our crumbling national highway system.
I have addressed this issue many times both in and out of the House. I was eagerly anticipating presentation of this motion and I very deeply regret that today we will be going through this silly charade of a debate with no opportunity for a vote on a matter of great public interest.
Canada is the only developed country with no national highway program or even a coherent national highways policy.
In 1992, a federal-provincial study identified 25,400 kilometres, including the Trans-Canada Highway and a few major cross-border arteries, as the national highway system. However, having been identified, the system has been almost totally forgotten. There is no administrative framework and no federal funding for maintaining or upgrading it.
Every year the federal government collects about $5 billion in fuel excise taxes, including $4.3 billion specifically from highway fuels. A miserable 4% of that lovely pot of money is going to be reinvested in highways this year.
On November 4, 1998, in the Standing Committee on Transport, the Minister of Transport readily admitted that there is a lack of balance between federal fuel tax collected and federal expenditures on roads. He said that the government needed the money for other purposes. He stated, “I accept the general thrust of your argument and it is something we have to work toward as we progressively get the books in order”. The government has been crowing about its huge projected revenue surpluses, surpluses from usurious taxation, so the time has come to invest in something of permanent national benefit. Show us the money, Mr. Minister.
On February 7, 1997, in a transport committee report called, A National Highway Renewal Strategy, it is mentioned that the Minister of Finance had conceded that the dedicated tax concept might be examined at such time as the government is generating substantial surpluses. Show us the money, Mr. Minister.
That same finance minister has from time to time expressed his distaste for the dedication of tax revenues and has indicated that dedicated taxes are not the Canadian way. Apparently only excessive taxes can be classified as truly Canadian. Actually there are precedents for dedicated federal taxes. For example, old age security and the air navigation system were both in the past funded by dedicated taxes. Now, in spite of usurious federal fuel taxes, there is no dedicated federal road improvement fund in place.
Contrast this with the United States where federal fuel taxes go into a highway trust fund, where the money is protected by a budgetary firewall mandating that transportation infrastructure spending cannot be reduced in order to finance other programs. The U.S. transportation equity act provides each state with a minimum guaranteed level of federal highway funding proportional to each state's highway mileage.
The budget for six years is $217 billion U.S. An equivalent expenditure proportional to Canada's population would be $5.3 billion Canadian annually, not much more than we have been paying every year into the fuel tax fund, or as fuel taxes with nothing substantive to show for it.
Our neighbours have not only identified a national highway system, they fund it, as part of the program that I have just described, to the tune of $29,000 per mile per year.
If we financed our much smaller so-called national highway system at that rate, the annual cost in Canadian dollars would be less than $700 million. With the $800 million that my motion would yield, we could actually play catch-up on the worst parts of the system before it deteriorates beyond the point of no return. If we do nothing and total replacement becomes necessary, tens of billions of dollars will have to be found somewhere or we will have to revert to red river carts.
It is a national disgrace that the Trans-Canada Highway traffic is routinely diverted south of the border to where the highways are. Tens of millions of dollars in fuel taxes that could be used to upgrade our system stay in the United States, together with the costs of lodging, meals, repairs and incidentals.
Traffic does not just move south for comfort, convenience and speed, but also for safety. Hundreds of people die every year in Canada because of substandard highways. Almost every province has at least one stretch of two-lane Trans-Canada Highway referred to locally as the “death strip” or “death alley”. In Saskatchewan, the death strip happens to be in my riding where a 113 kilometre segment has claimed 40 lives in the last 20 years. The provincial government has just completed twinning a 27 kilometre piece of it, with no federal assistance, and plans to complete this project in small segments over a period of several years. To do that, it will have to take funds away from secondary roads now being destroyed, thanks to federally-blessed railway abandonments.
Ninety-five per cent of Canadian passenger miles and 24% per cent of freight tonne miles move on the public road system which is rapidly disintegrating under that heavy burden. Transferring a mere two cents per litre from the ten cent federal excise tax for the national highway system would not only solve some of our arterial highway problems, but it would free up provincial funds for other roads.
Yesterday I received an unsolicited and kind letter of support from Mr. Brian Hunt, the president of the 3.2 million member Canadian Automobile Association. I would like to quote a few segments of his letter. He said:
—structurally sound highways improve safety, productivity and trade. The National Highway System must be upgraded to ensure continued economic growth and productivity across the country. It's time the federal government paid serious attention to our nation's transportation infrastructure...and commit to multi-year funding for Canada's national transportation infrastructure.
That is from a member of the public who represents a very large number of Canadians.
The government has always had a bottomless purse to pursue pork barrel projects in the Prime Minister's riding, development aid to despotic countries like China and useless initiatives such as universal firearms registration. But, it has nothing for vital communication links of any kind, much less highways.
One cannot see the condition of a highway from a Challenger jet at 30,000 feet. I would recommend that a few cabinet ministers jump into their limousines and try driving from here to Vancouver. Perhaps then they would gain a little understanding of the situation.
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
The motion proposes that the government dedicate a minimum of 20% of federal gasoline excise tax revenues to joint federal and provincial programs to update or renew substandard sections of the national highway system.
The government appreciates the hon. member's concern for the national highway system and commends him for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I had the opportunity to work closely with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands as co-vice chairs of the Standing Committee on Transport for the House of Commons. I know he has a keen interest in this topic as do many of us on this side as well.
Before discussing the motion, however, I want to take a moment to set the issue in context. Since the beginning of its first mandate back in 1993, two of the government's ongoing priority areas continue to be sound financial management and fairness in the tax system. Balancing these two equally demanding commitments has been a challenge for the government.
With order now restored to the nation's finances and targeted tax relief provided in each budget since 1994, together with broad based tax relief starting in 1998, the government will continue to meet these commitments as resources become available.
Faced with these challenges, the government unfortunately cannot agree to direct part of the revenues from the federal excise tax on gasoline to upgrade or renew highways. Let me explain.
The earmarking of tax revenues, which is the focus of the motion before us today, is a concern shared by many hon. members. The government has several reasons not to direct tax revenues to specific programs.
Earmarking tax revenues for a specific item would limit the government's capacity to redirect federal expenditures according to its changing priorities.
When the hon. member says that the Minister of Finance has sanctioned dedicated taxes, he knows full well that this finance minister has never been in favour of dedicated taxes. In fact, it was our finance minister who appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and encouraged the committee to look at public-private partnerships.
Revenues from federal taxes, including the excise tax on fuel products, go into the consolidated revenue fund which is used to support a broad range of federal programs that are enjoyed and valued by all Canadians, programs such as health care, post secondary education, seniors' benefits and national defence.
Another reason the government has avoided dedicating tax revenues to specific programs is because earmarking can result in some programs being overfunded while others suffer from shortfalls. Making budgetary and long term investment decisions under a program funded by earmarked taxes is difficult as revenues from taxes fluctuate from year to year.
A third reason for avoiding earmarking revenues for certain activities is that the government believes that potential spending initiatives, including highways, should be evaluated independently of tax sources and examined as competing priorities.
As hon. members know, there are many demands today on the government's scarce resources. Because of this, it is important that the government remains firmly committed to sound financial management. What the government intends to do is to continue to follow a balanced approach to managing the wide range of priorities.
I would like to remind the hon. members of something else because it is important. Highways fall under provincial jurisdiction. I know that provincial governments are pressuring the federal government to invest in highways.
However, hon. members will recall that the federal government has assisted provinces in the past with provincial highway construction projects through a series of federal-provincial cost shared agreements. In addition, about one-third of the $2.425 billion federal contribution under the Canada infrastructure works program went toward municipal roads and bridges.
Although many of these agreements are winding down, the federal government intends to continue working with the provinces and municipalities. In the October 12, 1999 Speech from the Throne, the government announced its intention to implement a new physical infrastructure program to invest in and improve our nation's physical infrastructure.
The federal government stated in the throne speech that it will work with other levels of government and the private sector to reach agreement on a five year plan for improving physical infrastructure in urban and rural regions across the country by the end of the year 2000. This agreement will set out shared principles, objectives and fiscal parameters for all partners to increase their resources directed toward infrastructure. It will focus on such areas as transportation, as well as tourism, telecommunications, culture, health and safety, and the environment.
The answer for highways does not reside solely in seeking more federal funding. In searching for solutions we need to be creative.
As noted in the Speech from the Throne, one of the partners in addressing the infrastructure challenges is the private sector. While not a panacea, public-private partnerships warrant more encouragement. When properly structured, they may provide roads at a lower cost and more quickly than traditional procurement methods.
In conclusion, I cannot support this motion for the reasons I have stated. However, I want to thank the hon. member for raising this important issue in the House. I also hope that the hon. member will find some positive elements in some of the ideas set out in the throne speech.
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to speak to the Reform motion before us today, asking that a minimum of 20% of federal excise tax revenues on gasoline be directed to joint federal and provincial programs.
My Liberal colleague opposite said that the government had no money to intervene immediately, but he seemed to have forgotten that it already has a surplus of several billions of dollars.
However, my speech will not deal with the Reform motion per se, but rather with the high gas prices people have to pay these days. If I were to move a motion, it would be to reduce this tax to deal with a glaring problem people have today, namely that if the price of gas keeps on rising as it has, soon they will no longer be able to drive their own cars.
In a riding like mine, Lotbinière, and in several other ridings throughout Quebec, a car has become a necessity since, over the past few years, inter-city bus networks have been dismantled one by one, with the result that there is no longer any link between smaller municipalities or with the major centres around the riding of Lotbinière. If we lower taxes, therefore, it should be with the consumers in mind.
As far as the issue of roads is concerned, it should be dealt with through the infrastructure program soon, not only in December 2000. In the throne speech, the government made several commitments, but they are all for the long term. The strategy of the Liberals across the way reeks of electioneering. Everything is being delayed until the end of the year 2000, so there will be goodies left for the budget in 2001, because we know there will then be an election campaign.
People have a good memory, and I hope they will keep it until the next federal election. This government's approach to everything is to keep people waiting, waiting for the programs announced with regard to mothers and parental leave, waiting for the infrastructure program.
As for everything announced in the Speech from the Throne, nothing has yet taken concrete form. The budget for the year 2000 will be more or less a rehash of the one for 1999.
We will have to wait for the 2001 budget to really find out what the intentions of this government are. The unemployed will also have to wait. The young people will have to wait. Everyone will have to wait, with this government. I am going to come back to the matter of reducing taxes, however.
In the present surplus situation we are in, it is high time the federal government started thinking about the consumer. It is high time the Liberal Party started thinking about the middle class.
According to Canadian statistics, middle class incomes are between $30,000 and $70,000. That is not the case in my region. That is not the case in my riding.
Some members of our middle class earn only $18,000, $20,000 or $25,000. Hardworking factory workers nearly faint when they see what they have to pay at the gas pump. Nothing has been done by this government to try to get this back to normal either.
Over the summer, gas prices were like a yo-yo. They could be 61 cents in the morning and 68 cents in the afternoon. They were as low as 59 cents and as high as 70 cents. And nobody really understood why the oil companies were doing this.
If the Liberal government wants at all cost to take humanitarian action that will help consumers, it should reduce its excise tax. It should indeed reduce its gasoline taxes so that consumers can continue to use their own vehicle.
It is distressing to have people come to your office saying “Listen, if this keeps on, I might be able to use my car for two or three weeks or a month, but if the price of gas continues to climb, I won't be able to”.
What will people do? They will feel isolated. They will feel deprived of a vital tool, one they use every day.
The situation I am referring to must exist pretty well everywhere in Canada as well, in regions similar to my own, in ridings that are half rural and half urban.
Why is the government not acting? It has the surpluses to respond to the Reform Party's motion. It should announce its infrastructure program right away and not do as the President of the Treasury Board did yesterday, put things off again to December 2000.
In the meantime, vehicles are breaking down, and we are having a hugely difficult time keeping a decent road system in Quebec and in Canada. When I hear the government say that roads come under provincial jurisdiction, I am glad that it is beginning to understand the constitution a little better.
But although it can see the difference when it comes time to invest money in roads, I would like it to be as discerning with respect to health, education and social programs. The hon. member should talk to his caucus and persuade it to get out of exclusively provincial jurisdictions and, while he is at it, ask the caucus, the Prime Minister and cabinet to immediately restore the transfer payments they have cut since 1993.
Here too I am almost certain that, if provincial governments had available to them all the money cut from their budgets, if they had all the money they needed, they too would come up with the necessary funds to invest in a decent road system.
What we are seeing with this government is that, when it comes to consumers, the middle class, and the unemployed, their memories fail them and we are left hanging. So, yes to tax cuts but for the benefit of consumers. As far as roads are concerned, with the present surpluses, let the infrastructure program announced by the President of the Treasury Board be implemented now.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, as the New Democratic Party transportation critic, it is an honour to speak in support of this motion.
I begin by thanking the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for bringing this motion before the House. I put in a very similar motion about a year ago. I know the hon. member submitted this motion when he was still his party's transportation critic and I am glad to see he decided to follow through in this area even though he is no longer the transportation critic.
As any Canadian driver will tell us, the highways in our country are in terrible shape. The Liberal government has abandoned its duty to maintain safe and adequate roads. It has abandoned our highways just as it has abandoned health care, education, homeless children, first nations, farmers, the RCMP and so many other vital areas.
We all know the finance minister said that he would balance the budget come hell or high water. In my home province of Manitoba we have seen high water in two disastrous floods and thanks to the Liberal government, driving on our roads is hell.
Canada is the only country in the developed world that does not have a national highway program. It is truly pathetic. When it comes to highways, Canada is dead last. Not only are we last, but we are not even close to most other countries we need to compete with for investment.
The United States spends six times as much per kilometre as Canada on maintaining and expanding its national highway system. Britain spends four times as much per kilometre. Our G-7 competitors like Germany, France and Italy all spend five to ten times as much as Canada does on their national highways systems.
It is important to point out exactly what we mean by the national highway system. We are not talking about every road in the country. The national highway system makes up 3% of Canada's roads. This 3% of our highways carries over 25% of all highway traffic in the country.
The national highway system has been a federal responsibility ever since the Canadian Highways Act was passed in 1919. The provinces are responsible for the other 97% of our roads. Is it too much to ask that this Liberal government do its job and maintain that measly 3% it is responsible for?
Because of the Liberal government's abandonment of highways, the provinces have had to pick up the slack as best they can. Unfortunately the provinces have also had to pick up the slack for all the other Liberal government cuts, cuts to health care, cuts to education, cuts to housing, cuts to policing. The Liberal government has cut so much, the provinces have not been able to keep up.
It should not be a shock but the regions that are getting ripped off the most by the Liberal government are, as usual, the west and the north. Between now and 2001 the four western provinces and the three territories combined will only see $13 million in Transport Canada money for highways, with $6 million going to B.C., $5 million to the territories, and $2 million to Saskatchewan. Manitoba and Alberta are not getting one red cent. If we drive down the road in Manitoba and we have to stop on a dime, we know for sure that it is a provincial dime because the federal transport department invests not one red cent.
Why do we need good highways? Why is the national system something the government needs to make a priority? There are three main reasons: safety, the environment and the economy.
First I will talk about safety because it is the most important reason. At a bare minimum Canadians should be able to drive safely but many of our roads simply are not safe enough. Thirty-eight per cent of the national highway system is substandard. Right now over 1,100 bridges on the national highway system need repair.
I am reminded of two summers ago during our summer recess. There was an article in which a beaver was being blamed for the breakdown of part of the Trans-Canada Highway. A beaver had made a dam which had damaged the road. I thought, one would think someone was out there maintaining that road, but no, the beaver was blamed for the breakdown of the highway. It is like blaming the cow for the spilled milk.
It is true that overall the number of deaths on Canadian roads has been decreasing since the seventies, and that is a good thing. The Liberal government points to this statistic and says, “See, the roads are getting safer”. We know that is simply not true. The government is misrepresenting the numbers.
The reason the number of deaths on the roads has been dropping since the seventies is because the rate of seatbelt use has gone up and the rate of drunk driving has dropped.
If the Liberal government would bring the national highway system up to a minimum standard, the number of accidents this would prevent would save an average of 247 lives and 16,000 injuries every year. Even one preventable death or injury is too many.
It is appalling that the Liberal government is continuing to neglect our highways when Canadians are dying on our substandard roads.
The second reason to improve highways is to help the environment. Transportation fuel is responsible for over half of our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. We have to bring this down to meet our commitments under the Kyoto agreement and stop global warming.
Bringing the national highway system up to minimum standards would save over 230 million litres of fuel each year. This alone would not be enough to meet our commitments to stop global warming, but it would be an important start.
We also need to switch to greener forms of transportation, such as rail and mass transit, particularly in big cities. But many Canadians, particularly in rural and northern areas like my riding of Churchill, absolutely need to drive, so the Liberal government has a responsibility to invest in highways.
The third reason to fix the national highway system is that of economics. I do not expect the Liberal government to listen to my arguments about the need to save Canadians' lives. If the government really cared about saving Canadians' lives it would not have cut health care by $25 billion since 1995. I also do not expect it to listen to my arguments about saving the environment because the Liberal government's record on the environment is terrible. But I do know that the Liberal government listens to the bottom-line economic arguments, so here they are.
First, highways are good for business. Most of Canada's manufactured goods are transported by road. Companies setting up plants look for access to good roads. That is one of the reasons the economy is now booming in the U.S., while many hundreds of thousands of Canadians are still out of work.
The U.S. knows the benefits of investing in highways. Bad roads also discourage tourism, which is an important industry in many parts of our country. Many truckers and other travellers going across Canada prefer to go south, cut across the U.S. and then come back up to Canada. This means that on their trip they buy U.S. gas, stay in U.S. motels, eat in U.S. restaurants and pay taxes to the U.S. government instead of to the Canadian government.
It would cost about $13 billion to bring the national highway system to minimum standards. That is a lot of money, but if we spread it out over a number of years it is something the government could well afford within the budget surplus. Not only that, in the long run improving our highways would save money, not cost money. Preventable accidents cost more than $25 billion each year in emergency health care for victims, long term health care and other costs, such as property damage and lost productivity.
The health care savings alone would pay for the cost of fixing the national highway system, not to mention the benefits of the increased economic activity that better roads would lead to, particularly job creation, something Canadians badly need.
I conclude my remarks by repeating my support for the motion. The Liberal government has abandoned its responsibility for national highways. By doing so it has put the lives and health of Canadians at risk. It has also squandered the many economic benefits that come from having good highways.
The motion calls for dedicating a modest 20% of income from fuel taxes to highway improvements. Normally I would not support dedicated taxation. However, as we have seen with the way the Liberal government has misused Canadians' employment insurance money, we cannot trust the Liberal government to use Canadians' money for what it is intended. Twenty per cent of fuel taxes is a reasonable base line and the Liberal government has no excuse not to invest at least that much in our highways.
Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today to the motion put forward by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands which calls for a minimum of 20% of federal excise tax revenues on gasoline to be directed to federal and provincial programs to upgrade and renew many substandard sections of the national highway system.
Our party supports the motion because highway renewal is extremely important and must be a priority. An increased portion of gasoline excise tax is one way of finding more of the necessary resources.
A recent report commissioned by the council of ministers responsible for transportation and highway safety shows that the cost to bring the national highway system up to standard has increased from approximately $12 billion in 1988 to $17.2 billion in 1997.
Our national highway system consists of approximately 25,000 kilometres of highways, including the Trans-Canada Highway, which connects all of our capital cities, commercial and population centres, and access points to our largest trading partner, the United States. For decades the Government of Canada provided funding through federal-provincial funding agreements for highways. Over the last five years all of those agreements have expired.
Federal government policy has allowed the railways over the last 15 years to decline and heavy truck traffic has taken the place of the railways as the major product and commodity movers. This federal policy has resulted in increased damage to our highways as goods and services transfer from rail to highway trucks. Pressure is increasing on the Government of Canada in conjunction with the provinces and territories to reinvest in our deteriorating highway system.
While there may be increasing consensus toward the need for reinvestment, all options must be considered in order to achieve the goal of improving our highways. Therefore, we are supportive of the idea of directing more of the revenue generated from gasoline excise tax toward upgrading the nation's highways.
This idea, however, is not new for us. My colleague, the PC transport critic, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, has already recommended this plan to all provincial and territorial ministers of transportation in their continuing discussions with the federal Minister of Transport. The PC transport critic has contacted all provincial and territorial ministers in calling on the federal government to increase the portion of the tax collected on gasoline and diesel fuel sales that is invested into highways from the current 4% level to a 15% level.
This proposal would yield 15% of $6 billion collected each year, for a total of $900 million. Considering that the estimated cost for upgrading our present highway system is over $17 billion, this funding alone, with matching provincial funding, would go a long way toward correcting a problem that has been overlooked for too long.
We have argued that asking for 15% of the total gas and diesel tax to be returned to the highways is eminently fair and more than reasonable. It would still enable 85% to be dedicated toward general revenues. It is our belief that public opinion would also be supportive of this measure and the federal government would have a difficult time not going along with this plan.
In my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, there are two items at the head of the agenda, including the Van Horne bridge, which has been unsafe for years.
Construction and upgrade work on this bridge should have been done several years ago. Now, the people of my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche and especially of Campbellton who use the bridge linking New Brunswick to Quebec are in danger, because the bridge's structure has been neglected.
The public works department has been aware of the problem for several years now, but again, the government has not responded. The department had to reduce the number of heavy duty trucks on this bridge used every day by Canadian consumers and citizens.
The other item that has me very concerned and that comes under the motion put forward by my Reform colleague deals with the major highway in the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, to be more precise in the Upper Madawaska Valley. The previous parliament had voted moneys for the construction of a highway between the economic sector of the Upper Madawaska Valley and the Trans-Canada Highway.
We all know what happened in this case with the government and the then transport minister Doug Young. The government transferred the money, and believe me, it was strictly for partisan purposes. All the local stakeholders were unanimous: the mayors, the people, the provincial government and even the federal government had achieved a consensus on the need to build this highway. Again, we saw money being transferred strictly for partisan reasons.
I would like to tell the House again that a greater portion of revenues from gasoline taxes should be used directly for highway improvement in Canada, as members of the Progressive Conservative Party have been requesting for a long time.
Another colleague of mine, the member for Brandon—Souris, also brought forward in the House a motion asking that the federal government apply a portion of tax dollars raised on fuel sales to the maintenance of the rural road system in Canada. Even though this is not a new idea for our party, it does not mean it should not be considered by the present government.
There is a consensus among Canada's premiers. I hope the Government of Canada will respect that consensus.
Since 1994 the premiers have called on their federal partners to ensure that money is reinvested. Many organizations across the country are increasing their call on the government to act. The mayors, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Automobile Association are just a few of the groups that are speaking out.
In addition, Canadians are recognizing more and more that the federal government is spending too little on our roads. In a national poll conducted in October, 81% of Canadians who were asked thought that the government should be spending more money toward improving our highways. As well, almost 90% said that we have real safety concerns with the state of our highways.
There are many positive impacts of reinvesting, namely, increasing the safety of our roads and the safety of our citizens, which is something the government does not seem to be able to see. This is extremely important when one considers the high number of injuries and fatalities each year on our roadways. Road accidents are the most serious transportation safety problems that we face. They account for nearly 95% of all transport related deaths. An improved highway system would also provide the important economic spinoff of increased commercial activity for business and increased tourism.
We support this motion and hope that the government will seriously look at this type of proposal.
Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands in dedicating fuel tax revenues to highways.
I would like to start by describing a section of road: non-existent shoulders and blind curves, a narrow road jammed with tourists and commercial traffic made even more dangerous by wildlife, steep grades and falling debris, some roadsides with abrupt 500 metre drop-offs and no guardrails. Where would this piece of highway be? Is it in the Cape Breton Highlands? Is it in Newfoundland? Is it in a rural area of Ontario or Quebec?
[Intervention]
An hon. member: It is not in Etobicoke.
Bill Gilmour: It is the Trans-Canada Highway between Golden and Field, B.C. One would expect that this piece of road would have been fixed. I have been driving it for probably four decades and there has not been any great improvement in the road. Imagine a two-lane road, the Trans-Canada Highway, that is that dangerous and yet it has not been fixed. The question is, why? Clearly it is a function of money.
Every province has its killer chunk of highway, as my hon. colleague mentioned earlier. We all know that there is one where each of us comes from. Whether it is down around Windsor, in the maritimes or across the prairies, there are chunks of the main highways of this country which are clearly dangerous. They are killing people. How are we going to address that? How are we going to fix that up?
There are a couple of ways. One is dedicated revenues, which I agree with. I am not a big fan of dedicated revenues but I think in this case it is correct. Another way would be toll roads. The Americans do some of that. We tried it for example with the Coquihalla highway which was built for Expo '86 basically to feed the lower mainland during Expo. My understanding is that it has been paid for seven times over. The provincial government is now looking at it as a cash cow.
Toll roads have opportunities but they tend to get abused. Again it brings up the question of double taxation because we are taxed already on our fuel taxes. Why should we be then taxed to use the road?
I would like to use the American model because I believe the Americans have excellent roads. They have dedicated revenues. They have found the prescription that is fair. My NDP colleague was commenting earlier about areas like Manitoba that get no revenues, that are getting no money this year in the budget. The Americans solved that by doing it on the number of miles of roads. Some poor areas such as Mississippi and Arkansas because of their tax bases and their situations cannot afford to put the money into roads, but the national system does it on a per mile basis.
If we transferred that formula to Canada, where Saskatchewan and Manitoba are having trouble in getting finances, this formula would solve it. There would be dedicated revenues and the national highway system would be fixed up. That is a good formula we can look toward.
My colleague from the Liberal Party commented earlier that it was in the budget and he is not supporting it but to my mind it is too little too late. We have to address the system. Certainly the budget is dedicating some revenue and I do not quarrel with that, but it is not dedicating nearly enough revenue toward highways. We are putting back about 5% of what we take in taxation revenue just from fuel. That is wrong. Fuels are not a cash cow. They simply need to be put back into the system.
There are areas like Windsor where 10,000 trucks a day are coming across the bridge and are being dumped into downtown Windsor. This is not a freeway system; basically they are municipal roads. In situations like that, there is a bottleneck. NAFTA is clearly going to expand and there will be more trucks. We should fix the situation. We can deal with it with dedicated revenues.
In many ways the government is missing the point. The point is where do we direct our tax revenues from gasoline, from diesel? Do they go into general revenues, into the main pot? Do they go, as most of us in the House would agree with, back into the highway system? We do not need a Cadillac system, the same as that of the Americans. But we certainly do not need roads that are going to be like those of a banana republic if we keep going the way we have been for the next 10 years.
I support my colleague. It is a good idea. In fact, I would ask unanimous consent of the House that this motion be votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni has asked the unanimous consent of the House that this motion be made votable. Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As members know, the last five minutes are reserved for the sponsor of the bill, but we have another five minutes available for debate.
Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would not have a chance to talk about this motion today, but I am a very fortunate man.
Despite the fact the government will not allow a vote, would not allow the will of the taxpayers to be done on this, I would like to touch on a number of points.
Mr. Speaker, suppose I took a significant chunk of your money and in return I gave you 6% back. This is a special year and I will give you a special deal, Mr. Speaker, because I like you. I will give you only 4% of that money back. I will keep 96% of the money. You would probably say that was not such a good deal. Mr. Speaker, you are a pretty fiscally responsible fellow and you would probably say it was a pretty bad deal. And that is exactly what has been happening in our country with fuel taxes.
Folks at home please pay attention because this is your tax money at work. The federal government takes in excess of $4 billion of taxpayer funds. For every tank of gas that we buy, 10 cents on every litre goes to the federal government but we are given a pittance back in terms of what is returned in our highways.
We shake our heads sometimes and ask why did the government do that? Why did the federal government put a 10 cent tax on gasoline? We already pay many taxes.
Back in 1975 Petro-Canada was created, the nationalization of Petrofina. And thank you Pierre Trudeau. Albertans loved the prime minister for that, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. The government taxed people 2.2 cents a litre. The funny thing about government is that over time, it just continues to grow. It went from 2.2 cents in order to fund Petro-Canada, Pierre Trudeau's pet project, to become the 10 cent per litre tax that it is today.
There are things known as dedicated taxes in this country. The government will tell us that it does not believe in dedicated taxes, but it sure believed in dedicated taxes when it came to old age security. It believed in dedicated taxes when it came to the air navigation system. But now the government is beyond dedicated taxes and is into something noble called slush funds. That is what the Liberal Party of Canada is into now. That party does not like dedicated taxes.
Slush funds are way better for the Liberals. They can then take the 96 cents out of every dollar we pay in fuel taxes and buy votes from other folks. Why give the money back to the taxpayer? Instead, they can give the money to special interest groups or someone who is really going to appreciate it and give them electoral support or work for them on election day. That is what they do with the money.
That is my opinion, but what do the premiers have to say about this? In 1994 at the annual premiers conference they said that they did not like the system either. Provinces across the country said that they were getting shafted and they wanted something different.
I took part in a debate at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. Our mayor was there. The provincial government, myself representing the official opposition, and our mayor all said that not only 20% but it would be really sweet if they could get 50% of the money that goes into the federal coffers to be spent on the national transportation system. But this year it is only going to be 4%, a far cry from 20%.
I would like to point out to the people of Calgary that our mayor Al Duerr would love to introduce a municipal fuel tax. As a result of that debate, the provincial government coughed up the money to give to the city of Calgary. As a result the mayor did not get his way on a municipal fuel tax. Remember that the mayor of Calgary is in favour of a municipal fuel tax. Do not forget it next election day.
The federal government tries to say that this is a provincial responsibility, that it is not its bailiwick any more. If it is not the federal government's bailiwick, why is the federal government taxing people 10 cents per litre and taking $4 billion of their money? Leave it alone. It is the taxpayers' money. If the federal government is not going to give money back to the taxpayers in better roads, then it should not collect it in the first place. If it is going to collect $4 billion and spend only $200 million, leave the money in the taxpayers pockets. Otherwise, direct that money toward the roads. I could go on about why that would be a good thing to do, but my time is up.
Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long, lonely ride. It has been a ride over bad roads too, but that is another issue.
I have been at this now since 1995. Occasionally, I get whispers from the ministerial side that makes me think that I am making headway. However, it always seems to be not one step forward and two steps back, but one step forward and about five steps back. We get a lot of rhetoric and a lot of talk about infrastructure programs, but in the meantime the roads are crumbling, people are dying and nothing is happening.
What the country needs is some action. What the country needs is a Liberal like C.D. Howe to come back from the grave and show these guys how to run a country. Instead, we have these effete folks who like to have money to spend for their little projects: their millennium projects, their patronage deals, the Prime Minister's riding and the $800 million to subsidize the CBC television network and so on. But, something of substance, something we could look upon with pride and say “we built that, that is the Canadian national highway system” has not happened.
I am afraid that as long as these folks continue to occupy those chairs, it will not happen. We will still keep driving down to the United States. If we want to go from Mississauga to Vancouver, we start off through Michigan. This is the way it is. This is Canada. This is what we have to show for the tens of billions of dollars that have been sucked out of Canadian truckers and private motorists over the last few decades. To do what? To go into that great black hole known as general revenue, but not to do anything useful for the country. We cannot drive our cars safely on the national highway system.
I drove from Saskatchewan to Ottawa three years ago. While driving across northern Ontario on the Trans-Canada Highway, I lost a windshield and a shock absorber. Now that is beyond disgraceful. We are almost into the 21st century and still we cannot build a decent highway.
I have worked in a lot of third world countries. I can assure members that in many of them the main trunk artery is a damn sight better than the main trunk artery in Canada.
The hon. member for Etobicoke did contradict something I had said in my presentation. I quoted from a report of the Standing Committee on Transport, which in turn quoted the Minister of Finance as saying “yes, maybe we could look at dedicated revenue”. If the member does not believe me he can check that himself in the government document. I know that it is baloney because do I know this minister. If there is one thing he has it is a hard head and his hard head does not allow for any input from private members, from his caucus or from anybody else. He does not like dedicated taxes. To use the American terminology, when there is a fire wall around that money he cannot get his greedy hands on it. That is the whole idea of a fire wall.
I hope that, some day before I die, I will live to see a highway that one can safely and reasonably drive on, right from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But, I get discouraged. We have our surges in the country of activity. All of a sudden, back in the late 1870s and early 1880s, we build a railroad. It was a marvellous thing and we are still talking about it. From 1958 to 1962, we build a Trans-Canada Highway. It was a lot better then than it is now because it had not had 30 years to fall apart.
It is time we got out act together and started acting like a modern industrialized state, did something useful and permanent, and gave taxpayers something to show for all the money that is being scooped up by the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being after 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)