GOVERNMENT ORDERS

OCEANS ACT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon. member for Richelieu has the floor to conclude his speech.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Madam Speaker, around 9 o'clock last night, I received the unanimous consent of the House to complete my speech. As the Chair interrupted my speech at 9.30 p.m., I have the opportunity today to complete my speech on the motions in Group No. 11 put forward by the Liberal Party.

I will not only conclude my speech, but also recap the reasons behind our amendments to this bill. The government seems uncomfortable with its bill, for it could not get any Liberal member yesterday to explain the relevance of these amendments and of the bill itself.

The Bloc Quebecois reiterated the reasons behind its proposed amendments to this bill yesterday and we will do so again, forcefully, today. This hastily introduced bill does not meet the people's demands, the government's objective to cut spending, or users' expectations. Yet, users told the committee they were ready to share costs, provided this is done in a reasonable manner and they can specify what their needs are in relation to the fee structure, navigational aids on the St. Lawrence, as well as icebreaking and dredging.

What hurts stakeholders is that the government based its bill on the IBI report, which in no way reflects the reality. All the witnesses who appeared before the committee said they were appalled to see that the government's hare-brained bill is based on that report.

This unfair bill has been condemned not only by members of the opposition, and not for partisan purposes, but also, for logical reasons, by well-known associations that realize what a heavy price

they will have to pay, in economic terms. This could lead to enormous job losses along the St. Lawrence.

This bill will result in unfair competition, making it impossible for us to compete with ports in Halifax and Philadelphia. The unfair fee structure will compromise any expansion plan for these businesses and even threaten their very existence.

Speaking of the unfair fee structure, it is funny to hear the minister invoke fairness and the user-pay principle to justify the division of Canada into the three regions referred to in this bill.

(1550)

If we read this proposal, we notice that all the regions, and particularly those of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, will pay part of the marine services provided to Newfoundland, which happens to be the province of origin of the minister responsible.

Ships going to Newfoundland will benefit from substantial rebates paid for in part by ships elsewhere. Moreover, according to the minister's policy, the port of Churchill, in Manitoba, would not have to pay for coast guard services.

The bill creates a situation which could be described like this: ``Look, since you are my friend, I will give you an exemption. This port is in my riding, so it will get an exemption. We are indebted to that region, so we will also give it an exemption''. And then: ``The coast guard is under the responsibility of the transport department, but it will be transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans''. And finally: ``You will have to pay for the costs related to the coast guard. Ports in the St. Lawrence will pay this amount, those in the second group will pay that amount, while those in the third group will pay that much'', without knowing the impact of all this on the companies using these services. The government does not even know about the impact. No economic impact studies or economic forecasting were done to see what kind of operating cost increase companies will face.

This is what we object to, and we want the government to think things out thoroughly. After all, there is no urgency to establish a new policy which could greatly hurt the economy of a region, particularly Quebec. But the Liberal Party has a history of always targeting Quebec. Such is the story of the Liberals and their leader.

If the government could not find a single person to speak in favour of its bill, it is because there is something wrong with it. It is because people, and particularly the 21 Liberal members from Quebec, know this is a terrible blow to all Quebec businesses that will be affected by these changes.

The government cannot find a single speaker. Last night, we kept asking for a Liberal member to give us one reason why motions in Group No. 11 should be passed, in fact not only those motions, but all the other ones, the bill itself. We were interested in the justification for the bill, but nobody wanted to explain it to us.

I can understand why Liberal members would hide behind their desks and not want to comment on such an unacceptable bill. I can also understand that they would see this bill as breaking their promises, the promises in the red book. The bottom line is that they are ashamed to have to appear in the House to defend a bill like this one.

This bill has been rejected by all the people directly affected by the amendments, in other words the users, and it has also been rejected by the general public, when they see how unfair it is for ports in the St. Lawrence. This unfairness will reduce, not to say eliminate, the competitiveness of affected businesses.

We therefore say: Let us wait a few months, go back to committee and, instead of hiring a firm like IBI, whose report just went through the motions, make sure that users, all those who are affected or who believe in the survival of shipping, who believe in the development of ports along the St. Lawrence, who believe in a fairer distribution of costs, are consulted. We agree with the government that costs must be reduced, but why is this not done by charging according to dimensions and not tonnage, for instance?

If we heard today that tariffs would be set according to the dimensions of vessels, all regions would be treated equitably. But no, the tariff goes by tonnage. Certain regions do mostly transhipment, while others are primarily unloading points. Adopting a different fee structure for every region would hurt and do a flagrant injustice to Quebec ports.

In this regard, there is talk of going back to the table, looking at the issues and taking the time to think about them. If the government is so keen on seeing the bill passed at report stage today, it should at least have the decency to defer third reading until the fall.

(1555)

This would give users time to lobby the minister, to try to get him out of his office and convince him to change his decision. This would also give him the time to consult the members of his own party and to come back in the fall and say that, through certain procedures, the bill can be amended at third reading to make it more acceptable.

This is quite simple. Like some of their Liberal colleagues, the members of our own party regularly refuse to come to the House to speak to this bill because they are so ashamed of it. Furthermore, what can we say once we realize the new fee structure is unfair to a given region of Canada? Since there are so many disputes, we should go back to the drawing board. Let us take this month to consider the issue more carefully, now that all the parties are aware of the problems, that the responsibilities for dredging, ice breaking operations and other fee-generating operations to be carried out on

the St. Lawrence will be reassigned, that the costs will be shared by users.

However, let us make sure that users will not be adversely affected and forced to declare bankruptcy, shut down their operations, or put projects on hold, as is the case for some companies in the Sorel area, such as Fagen, and also Richardson, the grain elevator company, which are greatly concerned that the new fee structure might affect their projects for the future. These companies were prepared to invest a lot in the Sorel region.

I could also talk about my riding, in the region of Bécancour, which has the largest industrial park. A major dock, entirely built by Quebec and used by all the industries in Bécancour's industrial park, will be hard hit. This will hurt, among other things, major industrial development projects in that park.

This fee structure could adversely affect one of the most important economic sectors in Canada and in Quebec, because of the minister's stubbornness. We say to the government: stop this stubbornness, postpone the adoption of this bill for a few months and listen, not to the official opposition or to the third party, but to those who are directly concerned.

Let us have the committee accept briefs, submissions and claims, to help the minister make a better decision in the fall. This is what the official opposition is asking. We are not doing this to stall the government's bill, but because the witnesses heard by the committee said that something had to be done and that the famous IBI report should be ignored.

I also read a release put out by the Montreal region, in addition to the one sent by the minister, saying that the city's economy might be significantly affected. It was not the Bloc Quebecois saying this. It was the president of the executive committee of the Conseil régional du développement de l'Île de Montréal, the president of the executive committee of the Montreal Urban Community, and Patrice Simard, president of the Metropolitan Montreal chamber of commerce. These are not sovereignists or members of the Bloc Quebecois. These are business people who want to work with the government to defray the cost of using the St. Lawrence Seaway, as well as look at the new fee structure and so on. They are prepared to pay, but they say that the government is on the wrong track.

They sent official requests to the Canadian government and obtained the consensus of the shipping industry to submit this document to the government, which has turned a deaf ear and wants absolutely nothing to do with it. It is stubbornly going ahead with a bill that is not at all in the interest of those it claims it wants to protect.

(1600)

As for what is at stake for Quebec and for Montreal, this letter said: ``Shipping is a fundamental activity for the economy of Quebec. All port activities in Quebec will be affected by the proposed fee structure''. This was what Mr. Ménard, the minister responsible for Montreal Island, had to say.

The port of Montreal handles 20 million tonnes of cargo per year. I said it yesterday and I say it again today, 726,000 containers go through the port each year. All this activity has created 14,000 direct and indirect jobs, in addition to generating revenues of $1.2 billion annually. Many industries in Quebec are dependent on this mode of supply.

Furthermore, the port of Montreal is in stiff competition with ports on the eastern American seaboard. Fifty per cent of Montreal's container traffic has as either its point of origin or its destination the industrialized regions of the U.S., the Midwest, New York State, New England. Since 60 per cent of goods passing through the port of Montreal are then loaded onto rail cars to be shipped to various destinations across the continent, the minister's planned fees will also have a negative economic impact on Montreal's rail traffic. The Canadian government's projected charges are a threat to the port of Montreal's competitive position in the U.S. shipping market, as well as to the supply lines for Quebec industries.

Such was the conclusion of the minister who joined forces with the group I have just referred to in criticizing the bill. It is not a member of the official opposition who is today asking the government to change its tune and not blow the shipping industry out of the water. Some 14,000 direct and indirect jobs in Montreal will be affected, not to mention those in all the ports along the St. Lawrence. They are the reason I am asking the minister on their behalf today to listen carefully to what I have to say.

Yesterday, the House allowed me to speak longer in order to make the reasons for our actions clear to the government. I could repeat them here, since you offer me the opportunity and the time. The Bloc Quebecois has issued several press releases as a result of our consultations and the mail and phone input we have received. Our correspondents were asking the Bloc Quebecois to save them from this insensitive government. We have issued our press releases in order to make the minister aware of the situation. But since he continues to turn a deaf ear, now the press has got into the act.

Look at what the business publication Les affaires used as a headline. This is not a Bloc Quebecois publication, a Parti Quebecois publication, a sovereignist publication. It chose as its headline: ``The fee scale proposed by the Coast Guard primarily penalizes the users of the St. Lawrence. The St. Lawrence shipping community sees this as a concession to the Halifax lobby''. This minister has been like a weather vane, letting himself be turned this way and that, first promising to protect this or that port, and then blowing in still another direction when the west wants this or that port

protected. Then he had to find the money, so he got the idea to raise the charges for Quebec ports.

Its always the same, whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, the insensitivity to the Quebec reality is unchanged. It is worse when it is a Liberal government. Almost all of the harm done to Quebec by the federalist regime has had the Liberals behind it, the present leader of that party in particular.

In this article, the journalist for Les Affaires spoke of all the reactions along the North Shore, the economic threat, the costs industries would have to recover. Once again, we must quote the minister, for he ought to take heed and to defer the adoption of this bill on third reading at least until the fall, by which time he will have had the opportunity to find out more about the harmful effects of the bill.

On Saturday, March 16, a headline in La Presse read: ``Maritime services: Quebec's bill goes up''. No one can say that La Presse is a Bloc Quebecois publication, an official opposition publication. It is the voice of Power Corporation, of the Liberals. Their very own paper is telling them that they are overdoing it in raising the charges to Quebec.

(1605)

The columnist, Mr. Arcand, goes on to say: ``Each revision hits Quebec a little harder''. Quoting Mr. Massicotte, he gives examples of the charges proposed by the Coast Guard for maintaining navigational aids such as buoys, lighthouses, shipping control, radio beacons.

The latest Coast Guard proposal, dated February 26, proposed a set rate for Canadian vessels of $3.40 per ton gross tonnage, or in other words per 100 cubic feet of cargo. With this proposal, the charge would rise to $4.48. A laker has a gross tonnage of 25,000, which would mean $112,000 per ship for navigation aids alone.

With this amendment, one vessel alone would have to pay $112,000 more a year. Clearly things are unfair, costs are being allocated crazily. We must come back to reality and have this changed.

``In the context of cut-throat competition with east coast American ports and even those of the Mississippi'', the journalist went on to say, ``many shipowners, exporters and importers fear that the St. Lawrence River is becoming too expensive. Montreal could lose a lot of traffic''. The cost will stop the ports from competing. And what will the ships do? They will head to Philadelphia and the east coast. This bill will harm industry in Quebec and Canada and will send it to the United States.

This is perhaps what free trade is understood to be. This is not free trade was supposed to be, and we can talk about it. While they were in opposition, for eight years, throughout the debate on free trade, even during the electoral campaign, the Liberals were tearing at their clothes in an expression of rejection. Once in office, they were the first to sign NAFTA.

Yesterday, when the President of Mexico was praising free trade, the Prime Minister was applauding non stop. The Liberal Party has always been the party of double speak: one way for the electoral campaign and one for after their election.

In another vein, The Globe and Mail said: ``Making deal to replace GST evading Ottawa''. Even that paper spoke of the injustice this bill creates. Raymond Giroux, a journalist for Le Soleil said: ``A gunboat on the St. Lawrence''. That says a mouthful.

It is not a Bloc member who said that, but a journalist who has been following the economic situation for years, who has an in depth knowledge of this issue, who has consulted users, the public, read the documents submitted to the committee and heard the very accurate arguments presented by the critic for our party, the member for Gaspé.

Our colleague from Gaspé too has conducted many consultations; in an attempt to get the government to see it was on the wrong track, he gave an exceptional speech when this bill was first introduced.

I mentioned the member for Gaspé, but I should also talk about the fascinating speech the member for Trois-Rivières gave last night. As we know, he is a former industrial commissioner, a senior official in the Quebec government. Yesterday, in 10 minutes, my illustrious colleague from Trois-Rivières briefly summarized the problem in eloquent terms indeed. It seems to me that the few Liberal members who were here were amazed at the logic of his arguments since they were nodding in approval without even realizing it.

As I was saying before, my illustrious colleague has spent many hours researching this subject. In Miami, they throw rats on the ice during hockey games; for our part, we are proud to have our own book worm, our expert in research, our friend from Trois-Rivières. He is so good that now our party's research branch consults him, not the other way around. That says a lot.

(1610)

Yesterday, the member for Trois-Rivières pretty much covered all aspects of the problem in just a few minutes. I must also congratulate the member for Châteauguay who, after the member for Trois-Rivières, gave his own description from another angle, reviewing the issue from the Montreal point of view and explaining how terrible the impact of that bill would be for the Montreal region.

We all know the numerous observations of the member for Lévis enlightened all members in the House; we hope they were also

useful for the minister and will help him decide to postpone the passing of this bill for a few months.

The member for Lévis spoke for several minutes after the brilliant performance of the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, and we had the impression that the government finally understood because no Liberal member asked to be heard. Not one member spoke in favour of the government's bill. The whip raised his arms to the sky and tried to convince a Liberal member to speak for the bill, but he found no one. Nobody dared to support that bill. This is very significant.

When a government party cannot find a single speaker to support a bill in such a serious debate, at the end of a session when the hours are extended hours because the government said the matter was urgent, when not one government member will accept to work overtime to speak in favour of this supposedly urgent bill, then there is a problem. Not one speaker from the Liberal Party has risen in support of this bill.

Of course, I understand them, they are ashamed. They are getting ready to end a difficult year, a year of shame, of broken promises, a year, in fact, in their party's image, a party that, during the election campaign, can promise anything, but once in power, forgets its promises and is content to encourage its buddies to make a few backstage deals.

The former heritage minister was good at that; the defence minister, with a $150,000 contract given to a buddy, is good at that; the immigration minister, who uses his discretionary powers and signs as a priority documents allowing into Canada criminal immigrants who had been refused under the usual rules, is also good at that. So, this is a ``scheming'' government, a government unable to make the decisions that would satisfy the people as a whole and, in this case, users as a whole.

Actually, this bill could go in the direction that all the people want, that is, cost reduction in all departments, but, at the same time, this reduction should not hinder industry, which creates jobs. As I said earlier, it is not a few jobs, but 14,000 jobs in the Montreal area that are affected.

I talked earlier about the reporter from the newspaper Le Soleil who wrote, and I will conclude here: ``Ottawa has managed until now to keep the lid on this volatile issue. The St. Lawrence River will come out a loser, unless premier Bouchard and the business community react strong and loud. Ottawa will not understand anything else''.

This was not said by the Bloc or the Parti Québécois, but by a journalist at Le Soleil, who, after analyzing the situation, concluded it would be disastrous for the St. Lawrence if this bill was passed.

I would like to have another hour to comment more fully on this bill, and my colleagues told me they, too, have more to say. I know the hon. member for Champlain, for example, a former businessman with experience in this area, could shed new light on this issue for the government. He has had frequent business dealings with St. Lawrence users. In that regard, this brilliant businessman and dedicated member for Champlain will have an opportunity later to speak to this bill.

(1615)

That is why I wish I had a few more hours, with the unanimous consent of the House, to explain things to the government and the minister, but I will conclude, to leave some time for the hon. members for Lévis, Trois-Rivières, Gaspé, Champlain, and other ridings to add their own voices, the voices of their regions and, in fact, the voice of common sense.

In closing, I hope that, if the government stubbornly refuses to withdraw its amendments, it will at least have the decency and sensitivity to defer third reading until the fall. I challenge it to do that. You will then see all the lobbying that will be done to make it realize that this bill needs major amendments.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): According to the agreement, Motion No. 67 in Group No. 11 is deemed to have been put to a vote and the recorded division is deemed to have been requested and deferred.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Debate is now on Group No. 12, which includes Motions Nos. 76, 78, 80, 82 and 88.

[English]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ) moved:

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-26, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 1, on page 30, with the following:

``47. (1) The Minister may, subject to section 49.1 and to any''.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-26, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 30, with the following:

``48. The Minister may, subject to section 49.1 and to any''.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-26, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing line 22, on page 30, with the following:

``49. (1) The Minister may, subject to section 49.1 and to any''.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 35, on page 30, the following new Clause:

``49.1 The fixing of fees under sections 47, 48 and 49 is subject to adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution debated for three hours in the ordinary course of the business of the House.''

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-26, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 31, with the following:

``51. The standing committee may make regula-''.

There has been some comment made here on the absence of interventions but one should always remember that one gains nothing by iteration and reiteration if nothing new is said. When the debate opened on the first evening, I was very much taken by the witty and informative address of the hon. member for Chambly, by the vigorous imagination of the member for Gaspé, but I have to report, not in anger but with sadness, a certain decline in quality. That comes from repetition. It seemed to me that the ghosts who operate in this Chamber and outside may have become tired. Certainly by last night I felt tiredness had set in with the ghosts.

I was hoping in the spirit of the first evening when the member for Chambly gave us as the sacerdos musarum, the carmina non prius audita, the new songs, new visions, new attitudes that something in the same vein would continue. Instead we have had Mount Pelion piled on Mount Ossa in the poet Flaccus' words, forgetting that it is not by the number of speeches, it is by the weight and content. In a certain sense we are returning again and again to the same themes. I see no particular point in adding to these labours of Sisyphus beyond saying that in the debate from now on, could we hope for something new, something rather exciting, something not very tiring?

To comment specifically on Group No. 12 which has been put forward by the hon. member for Gaspé and which pertain to the fee setting provisions of the oceans act, Motion No. 76 modifies clause 47 which provides the minister with the authority to fix fees for a service or use of a governmental facility provided under the oceans act. Motion No. 78 modifies clause 48 which provides the authority to fix fees in respect of products, rights and privileges provided under the oceans act. Motion No. 80 modifies clause 49, according to which the minister may set fees for regulatory processes or approval provided under this act.

(1620 )

These motions would subject the ministerial fee setting authority to a condition outlined in Motion No. 82, namely that the House of Commons be required to adopt a resolution debated for three hours in its ordinary course of business before a fee could be fixed.

This amendment in our view would clutter House business and cause delays and additional administrative processes when this government is committed to modernizing Parliament, to streamlining its internal processes. That would be a step backward.

In any case, the intent of these motions is already addressed in existing governmental policy. There already exists a regulatory parliamentary review process. It is government policy to consult with affected users on any fees proposed. This serves to ensure the minister is in touch with the views of his clients.

Clause 50 of the bill clearly describes the consultation requirements the minister must comply with before fixing a fee. The clause also provides for the referral of fiscal regulations to the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.

Quite obviously Motions Nos. 76, 77, 78 and 80 serve no purpose and should be defeated.

The last motion in this group, Motion No. 82, proposes to authorize the standing committee to make regulations relating to to the minister's powers to fix fees. I have already spoken of this neo-Montesquieuian confusion of powers when of course we respect the separation of powers as a basic issue of constitutionalism. Do not try to mix up legislative and executive powers unless you have a clear vision of where you are going. In this sense the motion is not well thought out and does not deserve support.

Treasury Board is the central federal authority mandated to make regulations pertaining to fiscal issues. The board is there to ensure consistency and fairness in regulations such as those provided under the oceans act.

The Bloc motion implies that Treasury Board is not ensuring this consistency and fairness and suggests the authority to make fiscal regulations should be exercised by a standing committee. This is entirely contrary to government policy and established parliamentary practice. Indeed in its aspect of all power to the assembly, it is

what we might refer to in our law schools as a Henry VIII clause. Need I say any more?

All of the motions in this group should be defeated. The House is here to improve the quality of the legislation put before it, not to hinder the progress of government. I hope I have not spoken too long because I do not want to set a bad example for this House. Brevity is the art of wit.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is always with pleasure that I rise to speak when the subject-matter of the bill under consideration is close to my heart. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and parliamentary secretary, who knows the customs and practices of this House as well as I do, will have to graciously accept, as part of his parliamentary duties, the fact that the hon. member for Richelieu has decided to use not only all the time he was allotted, but time he was given by unanimous consent of this House. I think it is very good for parliamentary relations that the system allows this.

You know, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, how things work here-

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Excuse me, you must always address the Chair.

Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): I apologize, Madam Speaker. I was not trying to initiate a conversation between the parliamentary secretary and myself. The point I would like to put across, through the Chair, is that British parliamentary rules are such that the only way members of Parliament can express their views and make themselves heard of the government is through the procedures made available to them in Parliament. From time to time, our friends opposite may find their decisions are not approved as fast as they would like. What can I say? It goes with the territory.

Now, coming back to Group No. 12. As the official opposition critic, the Bloc Quebecois critic on this matter, I would like to discuss the substance of the motions in Group No. 12. The substance is quite simple to understand.

(1625)

I will not read them in full, but we are talking about five motions tabled by the Bloc. The gist of these motions is that, whenever the minister's power to fix fees is referred to in clauses 47, 48 and 49, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, wants to promote transparency, as it has been its goal since the beginning of the proceedings at report stage of Bill C-26.

Such transparency would be ensured by Motion No. 82, which reflects the other ones, and which provides, as regards the minister's power to fix fees:

That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 35, on page 30, the following new Clause:

``49.1 The fixing of fees under sections 47, 48 and 49 is subject to adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution debated for three hours in the ordinary course of the business of the House.''

I hope it was not the minister's intention to fix these fees in secret. The minister must give members of this House the opportunity to express their views.

We could discuss the issue for a long time, or we could, as the hon. member for Richelieu did on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, ask the government to postpone the bill at least until the fall, and to review its form as well as its content.

My goal here is to get the message across. The spirit of the letter must be preserved. If we manage to do that, we will have fewer problems in administering the act afterwards. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra pointed it out to the Chair. The member for Gaspé is also trying to make the best of the situation by improving the bill, even thogh the Bloc Quebecois is devoted to sovereignty. But as long as we are a part of Canada, I will try to improve this bill, because it will apply to Quebecers too.

Whatever the political suasion of people in my party or of Quebecers in general, I will do whatever I can to make laws of this Parliament easier to implement and to live with. I urge hon. members to read once more motion No. 82, which underlies all of this, and see for themselves that openness is our goal.

I have even been generous enough to suggest a three-hour debate, which is really not long, you have to admit. It would be more of a technicality, but at least, the exercise would take place. Nobody in Canada could suggest that we have not given it a try. But time flies, and since a number of my colleagues would like to speak to Group No. 12, I will yield the floor to the next speaker.

Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has unilaterally decided to charge the shipping industry fees for Coast Guard services, including the provision of aids to navigation and ice breaking services. Clauses 41, 47, and 52 of Bill C-26 give the minister the power to charge these fees.

(1630)

Several amendments to these clauses were put forward by the Bloc Quebecois for the following reasons: to make the fees

principle more equitable and to force the minister to co-operate with the industry and the provinces before fixing or increasing the fees. These changes would prevent the minister from making unilateral decisions without holding public consultations, as he has done for the fees he wants to charge as of June 1996.

In fact, all the witnesses who appeared before the fisheries and oceans committee decried the decision making and consultation process of the Coast Guard, especially the fact that the minister went ahead with the fees without assessing the economic impact on the shipping industry and all the other industries that rely on shipping.

Also, 75 per cent of the witnesses asked the minister for a moratorium on the fees until the impact studies ordered by the Department of Fisheries come out next fall. The witnesses also recommended that the minister cooperate with the shipping industry in carrying out economic impact studies. Lastly, the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes stakeholders reached a clear consensus against the minister's proposal which they, along with the Ontario and Quebec governments, found unacceptable.

Dismissing all these recommendations and objections, the minister is apparently determined to go ahead with this fee structure and does not care about its possibly devastating effect on jobs in the shipping industry, a very important sector of the Quebec economy.

Moreover, several questions on the department's fee structure policy remain unanswered. First of all, this whole policy is based on the regionalization that divides Canada into three regions: the West, the East and the St. Lawrence region. This rather artificial division was advanced by the Coast Guard under pressure by the maritimes and the West. Each new proposal by the Coast Guard means higher fees for boats in the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes region.

The minister mentioned fairness and the user-fee principle to justify this regional division. Yet, when we read the proposal, we see that all the regions and especially the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes area will pay part of the marine services to Newfoundland, which is the minister's province, since the boats that go there will get substantial reductions at the expense of boats in other regions. Moreover, according to the minister's policy, the port of Churchill, in Manitoba, will not have to pay for Coast Guard services.

Another major problem is that the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports are increasingly less competitive than American ports. On the one hand, boats using the St. Lawrence Seaway to go to the United States without stopping at any Canadian port will not pay for Coast Guard services, thus greatly threatening the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports.

On the other, the user pay principle advocated by the minister is not respected in a number of instances, in particular for the ports of

Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier, which will pay up to $5 million annually for the use of a single buoy.

Finally, the user fees the minister would like to impose are only the tip of the iceberg, since they only include navigational aids such as buoys, lighthouses, and so on. The other services the department intends to charge for are the dredging of Seaway harbours and ice breaking in waterways.

These other fees may turn out to be much higher than those for navigational aids, and there is reason to be concerned about the survival and ability to compete of ports along the St. Lawrence, particularly the port of Montreal and a number of ports in the regions such as those of Matane, Rimouski and Trois-Rivières.

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the effects of this fee structure in my riding, the riding of Champlain, on pleasure boats, pedal boats and other small craft. These should be exempt from this tax in disguise. The riding of Champlain abounds in hunting spots and lakes and is known as a tourist centre.

This disguised tax, or user fee structure as the government calls it, will harm the tourist industry, which provides the riding with jobs it needs to survive. Imagine the impact of charging user fees for pleasure boats on the economy of a region such as mine. We do not yet have all the details, but there is talk of charging fees for pedal boats and sailboards. I do not know where they will hang the plates, but I am sure they will think of something.

(1635)

You can imagine what fees on rowboats and canoes will do to the tourist industry in my region. Small and medium sized businesses which depend on the rental of this kind of equipment during the summer season will have to pay these fees. Will they have to be paid annually, every five years, every four years or every three years? I do not yet know how it will work. We could have big surprises. Will these fees be progressive? All that to collect a few million dollars because the finance minister needs money. It is absolutely outrageous!

And think about what it will cost to collect that money. How will the government find all the people who own a pedalboat, a sailboard, a rowboat or a canoe? It is practically impossible and unmanageable. Again, in the end, it will be the small and middle income people who will pay the bill, who will pay the price for the federal government's financial problems. That is why the Bloc Quebecois and myself, who represent the riding of Champlain, will oppose Bill C-26.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as

follows: the hon. member for Lévis-Quebec Bridge; the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden-Hollinger Inc.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, this bill is divided into three major sections. Part III, with which we are dealing now, describes the powers of the minister. The amendments in this group, and many of the amendments being proposed in other groupings dealing with part III, describe limits to the minister's power.

Motions Nos. 76, 78, 80 and 82 limit the minister's power. These amendments state that any changes to the regulations with respect to fees or other parts of the bill must be debated in the House of Commons for three hours prior to being enforced or enacted.

I cannot see any reason why the House would not support these amendments. I commend my friend, the hon. member for Gaspé, for moving them. When we seek to limit the power of government, we end up doing Canadians a service.

I am not saying that the minister is not acting in good faith or not trying to do the best job he or she can, whoever the minister of the day is, but it is important that there are limitations on the minister's powers.

In this case, if the minister chooses by regulation to increase or change the fee structure, it will be debated in the House for three hours. That will give Canadians and their representatives an opportunity to have some discussion before it takes place. Frankly, I cannot see any reason why the House would not support these amendments. Certainly Reform will be supporting them.

Reform will not be supporting Motion No. 88 because it proposes that the standing committee would be the body to fix fees in the future. I do not have a great deal of parliamentary experience but I do not believe that standing committees are used in any other areas to fix fees. I do not believe it is appropriate for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to be fixing fees with respect to regulations in this legislation.

It is appropriate for the standing committee to review changes to regulations. I am certainly in favour of having the fee regulation process opened up so that everybody can see how it works and provide their input prior to the changes being made.

However, I do not see the standing committee being the body to actually draft the regulatory changes or make the changes to fee structures and so on in the future. I simply do not believe that the standing committee is the appropriate body to do that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak again in this debate, this time on the motions in Group No. 12.

(1640)

But before I go any further, with your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to pay special tribute to our venerable colleague, the member for Richelieu, who surpassed himself these past few hours, last night especially, when he made an improvised speech that lasted a good half hour and in which he succeeded in casting the government in a bad light and in forcing it to think. The few members who were around, even those in the government members' lobby, heard the relevant and judicious speech delivered by our colleague.

We saw how his experience as a former Conservative member served him well because he knows the rules of procedure. We saw how generous the member for Richelieu is, deep down inside, because he succeeded in rallying all the members present, as well as all those representing the region that will be affected by the bill. This man is really a natural leader.

I would now like to recall the principal points of the speech I made last night in the House. First, the whole process by which the government presented this bill is questionable, very negative and lacks transparency, starting with the study made by a private firm called IBI, study that was denounced and ridiculed by all kinds of experts, all interested parties and all stakeholders. As I mentioned yesterday, one witness who appeared before the committee went as far as to say that this report was not worth the paper it was written on, which says a lot.

It is all the more serious not only because the report was paid for by the public purse, but also because this document that is not recognized by the people involved forms the basis of the minister's rationale for implementing these fees. So if we want a healthy debate where everybody agrees on the general parameters, we are off to a very bad start. We do not have this basis for discussion since the document in question is not recognized by the people involved.

Then, under pressure from the official opposition, the fisheries and oceans committee heard witnesses. There again we saw the same attitude on the part of the government, an attitude of non transparency, of narrowmindedness, a kind of military attitude in some way-it is understandable-from the commissioner to the minister, who both happen to have the same profile. It is an attitude of non openness to the very sensible and very sincere arguments presented by witnesses who came maybe not to talk about their survival, but about good management, in the public interest.

Unfortunately, our colleagues opposite did not listen seriously to the evidence presented to them and made absolutely no effort to follow up on it. There was a huge gap between the comments made by the commissioner of the coast guard, our first witness-I sat on this committee as an associate member-and the comments made by the other witnesses, the users, who came to criticize the commissioner's position and to tell us how they perceived the situation and how they intended to co-operate. In point of fact, by this operation, the government is trying to get money from

users-though we do not know at what cost and what the impact it will have-to the tune of $160 million by the year 2000, in four years.

Witnesses mentioned three major grievances concerning the approach adopted by the government and it is obvious users are also upset for three basic reasons. First, no impact study was done to evaluate the impact of the fee structure although several witnesses talked about the potentially destructive effects of this new fee structure. Secondly, no detailed description has been given of services actually provided by the Coast Guard to users, despite the fact that the term user-payer is used. The government wants them to pay because they use services but there is not precise description of those services. I find that approach a bit clumsy and arrogant. If they said: ``From now on, you will have to pay a precise fee for such and such a service'', that could facilitate a positive dialogue between the parties. Instead, people are plainly told they are getting a service for which they will have to pay a given amount.

(1645)

Finally, despite what users wanted, the Coast Guard made no effort, in their opinion-and this is the third complaint-to streamline its operations. This would have reduced potential costs to users all the more. These then are three aspects of the debate to bear in mind, because they illustrate the almost extemporaneous and extremely arbitrary position taken by the government in this matter.

Yesterday, I related a number of distressing facts, but I would like to carry on in this debate. It was said, among other things, that Canada is being arbitrarily divided into three regions with different rates for each: the west, the centre-Quebec and the Great Lakes-and the maritimes. Three different rates for three different regions, to the great chagrin of the federalist witnesses.

We were told that for a 25,000 tonne vessel-as the member for Richelieu said earlier-with respect only to aids to navigation-buoys-the cost would be $112,000 a year. That is awful. Imagine the shipowner with 12 or 15 ships. He will have to pay $112,000 per ship just for aids to navigation, the least expensive of the three items, the others being ice breaking-the most expensive-and dredging-of both the St. Lawrence and approaches to harbours and wharves. That means $112,000 for a single 25,000 tonne vessel, just for aids to navigation.

Another fact we should take into consideration is that a foreign vessel entering the largest inland waterway in the world-the St. Lawrence River-en route to an American port will pay nothing. There is no charge to such a vessel for aids to navigation and ice breaking, because it is not stopping in Canada, but going directly to the States. This will no doubt increase competition between American ports on the Great Lakes and the ports along the St. Lawrence. There will therefore be no charge to foreign vessels heading directly to the United States.

Another item that arose out of the committee's deliberations concerns ice breakers and ice. The fact is that, in the case of the ports along the North Shore, such as Baie-Comeau, Port-Cartier and Sept-Îles, there is no ice. There is no ice in Halifax, another major port, either. Except that user fees will be charged for ice-breakers in Port-Cartier, Sept-Îles and all along the North Shore whereas Halifax will not pay a cent for ice-breaking. Members must know that Halifax is the home port of the big ice-breakers that come all the way up to lake Saint-Pierre, where I come from, so the economic impact on the region will be dramatic.

Finally, I want to say a few words about Trois-Rivières, in my riding. For the port of Trois-Rivières only, the new fee schedule will entail additional costs of $500,000 per year for navigational aids and buoys alone, not including ice-breaking and dredging. This is awful and unacceptable. Everybody will have to pay these new fees even though there was no debate.

This measure is based on an accounting approach not even tempered by political sensibility and not taking socioeconomic consequences into account. We must put all our energies in denouncing such a politicy.

Hopefully the government will come to its senses and postpone until the fall third reading of this bill to allow all stakeholders to make their opinion known once and for all, after having heard from the minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Hopefully the minister and his whole department will bow to public pressure and come to their senses in the best interests of everyone.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, this is the third opportunity I have to address this bill and the amendments in Groups Nos. 11, 12 and 13.

(1650)

Before beginning to seriously address this bill, I want to voice an objection against what the member for Vancouver Quadra said, despite the kind words he had for me. He said the last Bloc Quebecois speakers were running out of arguments. True, this is a political arena and we play the game. The member for Vancouver Quadra came to politics after an outstanding university career and he is fast learning the political role in this House.

However, he must recognize that the role of MPs, especially those of the party I represent, is to express their views and that this role is inalienable. Members of the Bloc Quebecois, at the risk of repeating themselves, properly exercise their parliamentary right to speak. It is about the only thing we have here.

I would like to point out to the member for Vancouver Quadra that we have been debating this bill, its inherent nature, for two days and that there are also Quebec members in his party. There are about 20 Liberal members from Quebec and they are absent from this debate. I do not mean they are not in the House. What I mean is they do not show any interest whatsoever in this debate. They are invisible on this matter. They are not taking to heart the interests of their constituents because they might be at odds with the national caucus of their party.

This is not the first time. It has happened on several occasions. I remember when Ontario Liberal members tried to quash, annihilate and have declared ultra vires the regulations under the Drug Patent Act. Quebec Liberal members remained quiet then also so as not to go against the impressive representation of Ontario Liberal members which had won 98 seats out of 99.

I would like to bring to the attention of my colleague from Vancouver Quadra that Bloc members have not only the right but the duty to speak up on this bill, to take it completely apart to try to explain what is at stake to people who voted for the Bloc Quebecois but also-this is politics-to those who, in Quebec, voted for the Liberal Party, which is not doing a very good job at defending their interests in this matter. Of course, they would have to forget partisanship and realize what the dangers of this legislation are.

The fees are arbitrary. The minister in charge, a former professional soldier, is the only one in his army who marches in step. He knows it all. He is the one who decides what is good for his government and his department.

I will give you an example. Clauses 25 and 26 deal with regulations concerning fees and extraterritorial fishing zones. I would like the member for Gaspé, through you, Madam Speaker, to allow the member for Vancouver Quadra to listen to the important remarks I am going to make. I know you agree, Madam Speaker, since you are not saying anything. Silence gives consent. I assume you have recognized how right I am.

All this to tell the member for Vancouver Quadra that when you write, in clause 25, ``The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs-''

(1655)

A little further it says: ``The governor in council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans''. This may seem harmless. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who is also an expert in administrative law, will understand that this would deprive the House of its only power in the decision to legislate or regulate.

As the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra knows, the old wording was: ``The governor in council may, by order'', that is to say, after the House of Commons has made a decision to that effect. But this government, as it is wont to do, is now trying to make the presence of members representing all the regions of Canada irrelevant, because bills like this one affect everybody.

Therefore, if the minister can decide with his friends, in a Sparks Street restaurant, to regulate, to raise fees, to designate or eliminate an area, to redefine boundaries, he can do so. It used to be said that the only thing he could not do was to turn a man into a woman, but even that is possible today.

Through you, Madam Speaker, and with all the respect I have for my colleague, I wish to say that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is nonetheless a not-so-young man-no offence-who has been left with the burden of defending this bill to save his Liberal friends and colleagues from Quebec, who are hiding behind the curtains or in the lobby on the other side.

They have nothing to be proud of, unlike the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who, at his age, had the courage and the heart to stoically rise in this House to defend what I would not have defended, but at least he is doing so with conviction and intellectual honesty. Such is not the case for the Liberal members from Quebec.

I would like him to suggest that his minister defer third reading of this bill until the fall and finally listen to reason and realize that this bill will have a disastrous, unspeakable impact on the Quebec economy, and on transport in particular.

Are the senior members of the Liberal Party currently deciding to do to maritime transport what they did to rail transport, that is to say, deprive Quebec of most of its traffic, leaving only pleasure boats to sail without hindrance on the St. Lawrence? Did they decide to favour other means of heavy transport, even if this benefits our American friends' eastern ports? We have a right to ask this. I would like the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, in an ultimate effort to be fair and honest, to set the record straight and be fair to Quebecers in this matter.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like to add that I support the point the hon. member for Chambly made quite eloquently about the major impact this bill will have on Quebec in particular.

Since the rules of this House do not allow us to speak of the absent, I am delighted to see that the minister responsible for Quebec is here. I think that references to someone's presence are allowed. At any rate, he is here and he has been all ears, especially since the remarks made by the last few speakers, including the very significant remarks made by the hon. member for Richelieu, have also attracted another minister from Quebec, I think.

It seems that our efforts to catch the attention of ministers from Quebec through our arguments are starting to pay off. Great. We commend them for being here and for listening to what we have to

say. We must take advantage of their being here to go over the economic considerations coming into play.

(1700)

Let me remind the House that the Minister of Finance told the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to come up with savings of $120 million over four or five years.

For this year alone, the finance minister's order is for $20 million. What were the options? The minister first considered implementing a fee structure. I need not elaborate on this subject, as my colleagues discussed it at length, but I feel that there would be room for improvement and, if the Liberals agree to defer consideration of this bill at third reading until the fall, this might be a good time to invite suggestions.

Here is what I have to suggest, in my personal capacity and as a member from the Quebec City area, after wondering if it would not be possible to further streamline coast guard services. Indeed, this is an option the administrator of the port in Trois-Rivières had come up with some time ago. He said: ``At present, all of eastern Canada is divided into three areas and administered by three separate regional directorates. Why not consider merging the three into a single regional directorate for the whole region? This would cut costs by at least $17 million, with $2 million in savings coming just from moving icebreakers from the maritimes to bases located closer areas where the Coast Guard operates''.

It is surprising indeed that nine icebreakers are currently based in Halifax, when we know that the eastern coast of Nova Scotia is ice free year round. That is incredible. Icebreakers are based in locations where there is no ice. To break the ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, they must travel 460 kilometres from their home base. Only four icebreakers are based in Quebec City's harbour. In 1993, there was an incident and it took more than five days for an icebreaker to travel to Lac Saint-Pierre, to break the ice that completely paralysed marine traffic.

Since 85 per cent of the goods transiting through the Cabot Strait are headed for ports in the St. Lawrence, it would make sense to establish the regional centre in Quebec. A journalist recently said I wanted to have the centre in Saint-Romuald, in my riding. I am not asking for that much. I am not trying to convince the minister responsible, but the centre should at least be located in Quebec, in the most appropriate location, since that is where icebreakers are needed, in the St. Lawrence River and in the gulf.

There are other issues which come to mind. The Louis S. Saint-Laurent, an icebreaker, costs $56,500 a day. It is the most costly ship to operate in the whole coast guard fleet. If we stopped using it, we would save $12.4 million. Why are we making this request? It is because the Louis S. Saint-Laurent has not been used to break the ice in the last five years. It was used for all sorts of other tasks. In other words, we were able to do without it.

It comes down to one thing: Why would rescue operations not be taken over by others? The Auditor General of Canada tells us they could be taken over, for instance, by the Canadian Navy, since it already does rescue work. I am not saying the coast guard is not doing a good job in Quebec, quite the contrary. However, since we must streamline operations, we should, instead of increasing fees, better integrate these services.

I know that other members wish to speak on Group No. 13.

(1705)

Since there is only a half hour left to discuss this group, I will conclude by paying tribute to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and by asking the Secretary of State responsible for Quebec to use his influence within the Liberal caucus, so that third reading be postponed until the fall to allow the various stakeholders to make suggestions.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): As agreed, Motions Nos. 76 and 88 in Group No. 12 are deemed to have been put to the vote and recorded divisions are deemed to have been requested and deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 76. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 88. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to Group No. 13, which includes Motions Nos. 77, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, and 87.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-26, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 13, on page 30, with the following:

``(2) Fees for a service or the use of a facility that are fixed under subsection (1) shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the specific service or the use of the facility to each beneficiary, within the specific marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the service is delivered.''

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-26 be amended by adding after line 21, on page 30, the following new Clause:

``48.1 Fees in respect of products, rights and privileges fixed under clause 48 shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the specific product, rights and privileges to each beneficiary, within the specific marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the product, rights and privileges are delivered.''

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-26, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 35, on page 30, with the following:

``(2) Fees that are fixed under subsection (1) shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the specific service or the use of the facility to each beneficiary, within the specific marine sector within the specific geographical marine environment in which the service is delivered.''

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 39, on page 30, with the following:

``50(1) Before fixing a fee under this Act, the Minister shall consult with all beneficiaries, according to stipulations in subsection 41(2). In this context a recommendation shall be sought from the Marine Advisory Board to the Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard.''

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 30, with the following:

``the Minister shall consult with the provincial governments and with such persons or''.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 30, with the following:

``the Minister shall consult with the standing committee and with such persons or''.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 40 to 44, on page 30, with the following:

``(2) The Minister shall, within 30 days after fixing or amending a fee under this Act, publish the fee in the Canada Gazette by such appropriate electronic or other means that the Treasury Board may authorize by regulation. A subsequent period of 90 days shall be allowed from the date of publishing in the Canada Gazette before implementing the fee or an amended fee. The text of the Marine Advisory Board's recommendation shall be included in the published announcement, together with a clear illustration of the justification for the new fee.''

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-26, in Clause 50, be amended by adding after line 44, on page 30, the following:

``(3) Any interested person who has reason to believe that the proposed fee is not fair and equitable may file notice of objection with the Minister no later than 30 days after the publication of the proposed fee.

(4) Where a notice of objection is filed, the Minister shall appoint a person to investigate whether the charging of the proposed fee is fair and equitable. The person so appointed shall report to the Minister within 60 days and the Minister shall, by order, approve or amend the proposed fee. The Minister's decision together with the report shall be published in the Canada Gazette with immediate effect, namely at the end of the original 90 day period as specified in subsection 50(2).''

The suggestions made in the debate have been valuable. I have listened and I have heard what has been said. There is a distinction between those two phrases. It is part of the government's attitude to respect parliamentary debates and to acquire wisdom from the process of give and take. On that basis we can certainly look forward to a valuable third reading.

I have to make some comments on the motions as presented which are without prejudice to positions I might take on third reading.

In the atmosphere of goodwill that attends us in the twilight hours of this debate I hate to say that Motion No. 77 would create an administrative nightmare and an expensive one at that. It would obligate the minister to calculate the costs of the facility or service for each beneficiary on a sector specific basis. It would provide an administrative, expensive, time consuming need to calculate cost per individual user. It would rigidly and arbitrarily preclude the minister from choosing any other fee implementation scheme, even if it were preferred by the beneficiaries.

The government feels this would not meet favourably with the many Canadians who have expressed to us that they want to avoid excessive governmental regulation.

Motion No. 79 proposes the same thing. The minister has to calculate the cost of providing a protected right and privilege to each beneficiary on a sector specific basis. The government feels that would be impractical.

With respect to Motion No. 81, technically we feel it is incorrect. Clause 49 refers to fees in respect of regulatory processes or approvals. The proposed amendment refers to the use of facility or service. Therefore, technically the motion is not relevant to the provision it seeks to modify.

Motion No. 83 concerns clause 50 of the act which pertains to consultation and publication requirements. It would obligate the minister to consult with all beneficiaries before fixing a fee and to seek a recommendation from the Marine Advisory Board regarding the proposed fee. It would obligate consultation in perpetuity. We think it would be an administrative nightmare and on that basis we suggest against its adoption.

Bloc Motion No. 84 deals with the same clause. It would obligate the minister to consult with the provinces before fixing a fee. We do not think the minister should be so obligated.

Motion No. 85 deals with clause 50. We feel it again attempts to fetter the discretion of the minister.

Motions Nos. 86 and 87 were put forward by the hon. member for Skeena who has made very thoughtful contributions to the parliamentary committee and in this debate. Motion No. 86 would allow any interested person the right to object within 30 days of publication. The minister must appoint an investigator. It would be a very heavy administrative burden with astronomical costs at a time when we are stressing economy: cutting back on big government and costs.

The Canada Oceans Act is based on consultation, co-operation and partnership. It is in that spirit that we have approached it. We are therefore recommending that members reject Motions Nos. 77, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87.

(1710)

We believe the act will provide the legislative foundation upon which federal, provincial and territorial governments can work in a full spirit of co-operative federalism, sharing in decision making on a basis of functional utility in the good interests of all Canadians. In recommending the rejection of these motions, nevertheless, I assure hon. members that I have benefited by their valuable contributions to the debate and that I will pass on their views to the government.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was a bit surprised that the government member spoke to our motions in this group before the Reform Party had spoken, but I am glad he did.

I am very pleased to hear the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra thinks we should not consult with provinces like British Columbia that he is from. He thinks we should not have any obligation to talk to the various users and beneficiaries, for example the Marine Advisory Board. He thinks that we should not talk to any of these people, that it would be time consuming. He is right. It would be a total waste of time because clearly the minister of oceans does not listen to anybody anyway.

The Reform Party believes in the user pay concept but it also believes in-and I think I have even heard a few Liberals use it-user pay, user say. That has not happened. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from the words of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that they have no intention of changing their tune and giving the users any say or any input into the various fees and policies they come up with.

I am not a regular member of the committee that dealt with the matter but I sat in on a lot of the meetings. It was pretty clear what was being said by the users the government was pretending to consult with. They understood the user pay concept, the need for them to pay for the services they used, and they are to do that. However first they wanted to make sure they were paying a reasonable amount for it. They had no idea of the true costs of the coast guard.

They are prepared to pay for them but they should be implemented after an economic impact study to determine the real costs and how to bring them forward in a manner that does cripple the industry.

I have risen in the House several times and referred to the minister as the minister of oceans. I specifically and intentionally leave off fisheries. It is not the minister himself, but certainly the department has all but destroyed the east coast fisheries and many species over the years. Now it is doing a hell of a job of doing the same thing on the west coast. If the bill were implemented in an irresponsible and improperly thought out and possibly premature manner, it would do the same thing to the oceans the minister's department has done to the fisheries.

The Reform Party policy dealing with user pay has three basic concepts: first, the users should pay for what they use; second, they should only have to use those things they need; and, third, it should be on a commercially fair and reasonable basis.

With regard to the coast guard, it has not opened its books. We do not even know if it keeps books, in the regular concept of it. We do not know if there somewhere sits a coast guard as a business with a ledger showing its expenses, its revenues, where it spends money, where its costs are, and what it is doing to control costs. There is none of that. Nobody has opened the books.

The coast guard is saying: ``Trust us. There is a lot of costs out there and you should pay them''. Then it says: ``We are even going to be real fair in implementing this. We are only going to charge you 20 per cent so how can you possibly object?''

If the 20 per cent represents 100 per cent or more of the reasonable costs of that portion of the service they are applying to cost recovery and to the marine users, perhaps they are paying too much.

(1715 )

The coast guard says this is something the users should be able to absorb without any harm. The minister says that yes, a study is need but he has done one. He has consulted with the Mariport group which stated in a report that the users are going to be able to accept the impact of this with no harm.

Why should we believe some of the other things we are being told if this is the justification the minister is using? The person from Mariport who did the report has recanted the entire report. The report found there would be no unbearable impact and that these costs could be absorbed based on the information the department supplied.

The department changed all of the parameters after the report came in. The department told the consultant it was going to do this, this and this, (a), (b) and (c). On the basis of that the department wanted a study done to see if it was feasible and absorbable by the users. The department then turned around after the fact and said it was going to scrap (a), modify (b), double (c) and add (d), (e), (f) and (g). The consultant said they were now looking at fees that were four times as much as what they were led to believe would be imposed when they did the study. There is no credibility at all in the ministry or in the minister in the way these fees have been introduced.

As far as an impact study, the minister has said there should be an economic impact study. That is a great idea. It is exactly what the users asked for so it seems they may be on line. The only problem is that the users said they needed to do an impact study to see how to implement this and the minister said something totally different. He said they were going to go ahead and implement it.

The minister's own notes state that they know there will be damage and problems; they know there will be loss of business to American shippers which is going to cause problems. He stated they are going to wait and see what kind of devastation the bill does on the industry and then do an economic impact study to see what they did wrong and how much damage it caused. That is a pretty backward way of approaching this.

Reform has a total of six amendments and the Bloc has two in this group. Contrary to what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said, we do not think it is unreasonable to consult with people. In fact, we are here as the representatives of people, at least that is what I and my colleagues in the Reform Party are here for. We did not get elected to be the rulers.

It is absolutely despicable that the Liberal Party says it should have no obligation to consult with the provinces that are impacted by this. It says it should have absolutely no requirement to talk to the marine advisory board which is supposed be the expert on this. It says it should have no obligation whatsoever to talk to the users who are going to be impacted by this. Given that the Liberals never listen when people do talk, I suppose they are trying to save the taxpayers money by not bothering with a process that they will end up ignoring.

Contrary to what the hon. member says, I implore members opposite to join with us in bringing in reasonable measures. We need measures that limit the powers of the minister and ministers who follow him in the future, that limit the powers of the government, and which make it necessary that we, the elected representatives of the people, must actually talk to the people so we know what it is they want us to represent.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, following on the words of my colleague, when we look at these motions they deal with principles: the principle of fairness, the principle of efficiency, and the principle of cost effectiveness.

Last year the coast guard announced to the Canadian shipping industry and ports that it was going to start charging fees for services that heretofore had been paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.

(1720 )

The Reform Party and I believe in the concept and principle of user pay. It is not right that Canadian taxpayers living in Winnipeg, Calgary, Thunder Bay, or in Vancouver for that matter, should be subsidizing Canada's shipping industry any more than they should be subsidizing any other industry. In principle, we believe the government is going in the right direction.

There is a serious problem with this legislation. We on this side of the House would like to be able to support this legislation but if these amendments cannot be passed by the House, I fear we will not be able to support it. The powers granted to the minister under this legislation are so broad and there is no provision for accountability that down the road regulations can be changed at whim.

The minister does not even have to go through the process of gazetting. He does not have to go through the process he currently is required to go through in order to raise additional money. We fear that in the future there will be a powerful temptation on the

part of whoever is fulfilling the role of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to use this legislation to raise additional money.

That is why we view these amendments and this part of the regulations, sections 81 through 89, as important. We believe strongly that this is a window of opportunity to ensure for all time that any future changes to the regulations with respect to fees for services the coast guard may charge will have to be dealt with fairly and up front, in a manner that is going to require Parliament's perusal.

The way it is set up now, unless these amendments are adopted, there is no requirement for scrutiny down the road. There is no requirement for any future changes to come back to the House or to come back to the standing committee. There is no requirement for any kind of review. We argue strongly that this is wrong in principle. It does not provide anything for the shippers and the people who depend on the shipping industry.

We on the standing committee heard witnesses from coast to coast telling us about their concerns with this new fee for service. They talked about the viability of their businesses. They were not in the shipping industry, but were people involved in the oil and gas business, people involved in the aggregate business, people involved in other bulk products such as iron ore, grain, lumber and coal. We heard from all these people. They have real concerns about how viable their businesses are going to be down the road as the government moves to higher and higher user fees.

Each and every witness who appeared before the committee said that before the coast guard implemented user fees, it ought to be able to justify those fees on the basis that the services it is providing are actually priced at fair market values. It should be able to justify that the services it is providing are actually services the customers want and need and that they are being delivered efficiently.

The parliamentary secretary knows there are many instances where witnesses appeared before the committee and said: ``You are proposing to charge us for something that we can do ourselves for far less cost. We are willing to take that responsibility on. We will go out and service that navigational aid. We will go out and look after our own ice breaking. We will go out and look after it ourselves. We do not need the government to do it. We do not need the coast guard to do it''.

The people who are being forced to pay the user fees ought to have that opportunity and that right. With the way the legislation now reads, there is no requirement on the part of the government or on the part of the minister to sit down and negotiate a deal with these people in good faith.

(1725 )

A hue and cry went from one end of the coast to the other after the coast guard announced its intent to collect a user fee last year. I

would suggest that there has been a fair bit of movement on the part of the coast guard to take into consideration the concerns of many of the people we heard at the standing committee and this is a good thing.

However this legislation is our window of opportunity. It is our way of guaranteeing as parliamentarians that Canada's shippers and shipping industry are not going to be faced with costs down the road that they will have no opportunity to address and which parliamentarians will have no opportunity to review.

I represent a riding that has a significant marine shipping industry. There could be changes to the regulations that we as parliamentarians may never know about unless the affected bodies complain to us. That is no way to run the country. For us to say: ``We can do as we like until people yell and complain at such a level that we obviously have to stand back and take a different approach'', is no way to govern the country and no way to change or enact regulations.

In closing, these amendments are important to the Reform Party. We would like to be able to support the bill. We would like to say: ``In principle the oceans act is a good bill. There are still some things we would like to see changed but on balance we can support it''. However unless we get the motions passed that demand some accountability from the minister, the department and the commissioner of the coast guard, I fear we cannot support the legislation.

Recently we found out that boaters from one end of the country to the other-never mind people who depend on the shipping industry-but boaters are going to be forced to pay a registration fee. If a person owns a rowboat or a canoe an annual fee will have to be paid to the government. For what?

These matters have to be debated in the House Commons and the standing committee. Right now they are not. Some bureaucrat on Kent Street dreams up a regulation and says: ``This is where we can make more money. We can tag those guys. We have not tagged them before''. In essence it becomes a hidden tax and it is passed without any scrutiny, without any accountability. In some instances parliamentarians are not even aware of it.

We insist that these amendments be passed. If they are not passed, the Reform Party cannot support the legislation.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Group No. 13. These are, again, very important motions. Since this is that last group of motions, let me start with a brief preamble, nothing too long.

During the report stage here in the House, every time I rose to speak on the 13 groups of motions with, as the hon. member for Chambly put it, a hand held out in co-operation and a new approach to constitutional negotiations, because I did not want to launch a constitutional debate, I only wanted to make the government realize that to reach this bill's goal, which is to implement an integrated oceans management strategy, it had to create some kind of partnership.

I wanted to draw the government's attention to the fact that, in my opinion, the government's major partners are the provinces, because they are the ones that formed Canada. For each part of this bill-there are three-I asked the government not to forget about the provinces and to consult with them right at the beginning and, in some cases, to work with them.

(1730)

Since we are talking about Motions Nos. 84 and 85 concerning the fees stipulated in clause 50, let me say again that I am asking the government to consult with the provinces, because it is within their territories that the action will take place. In many cases, we want the provinces to levy the fees.

In order to improve transparency, I am urging the government in Motion No. 85 to consult with the standing committee. I want to reassure the House that consulting with a House committee is nothing to worry about, especially since the majority of the standing committee members are from the Liberal Party. That is what my motions on this issue are all about.

As for the other motions, Motions Nos. 77, 79 and 81 presented by members of the Reform Party, I regret to say that we are not in agreement with them. We think that the idea of setting fees by specific marine sector runs counter to what the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee were saying. The majority of witnesses objected to the government's proposal of dividing the country into three regions. I therefore cannot go along with the Reform Party's motions.

However, in order to show you that, in the House and in committee, we have taken a non-partisan approach for the good of the cause, the Bloc Quebecois will support the Reform Party's Motion No. 83, since the purpose of this motion is to force the government to consult with the users of services.

It would be only natural to consult the users, given that, in the case of fees for navigational aids for commercial vessels, the government has often used the expression ``user pay''. But there is also the expression ``user pay, user say''. I think that this is the thought behind the Reform Party's Motion No. 83, which the Bloc Quebecois will support.

Motions Nos. 86 and 87 are very interesting and very forward looking. I would not want to get into the wording as such. But I am very interested to see that they contain the idea of a two way communication. Motion No. 83 provides that users shall be consulted. Motion No. 86 specifies how users shall be informed. The idea is a very good one and we will support it.

Time is flying and I must quickly wrap up. Motion No. 86 sets out when the information shall be published and how must time shall elapse. Motion No. 87 provides for a process of feedback. It is not enough to announce something. You must make sure that it will produce the expected results. If someone in Canada can show the government that it is on the wrong track, there has to be a review mechanism. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore support the Reform Party's Motions Nos. 86 and 87.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I have appreciated working with parliamentarians from all parties, especially members of the Bloc Quebecois, who sometimes got quite carried away. You cannot blame them for their enthusiasm, with all they had to say, and their responsibility as representatives of the people of Quebec. I think we should be proud of the work they did.

We hope that the work we did as the official opposition will bring the government around to delaying third reading of this bill, because they need to go back to the drawing board. On that note, and in the hope that the government will be understanding about third reading, which, we hope, will take place as late as possible next fall, the Bloc Quebecois is ready for the vote.

(1735)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I understand that, under an agreement made earlier, if there is no other speaker at the report stage of Bill C-26, the question is now to be put. I would remind you also that, under a further agreement, the question is deemed to have been requested on Motion No. 77 and to have been deferred.

Furthermore, as requested by the whips, the bell will be rung for only 15 minutes instead of 30.

The vote is on Motion No. 77. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-26.

Call in the members.

(1755)

[English]

Before the taking of the vote

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion No. 1. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 necessitates the question being put on Motions Nos. 2 and 3. A vote on Motion No. 3 applies to Motion No. 4.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 102)

YEAS

Members

Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Williams
Wood
Zed-162

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

(1800 )

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 1 carried.

The hon. member for Skeena has moved an amendment to Motion No. 90. As a result, it will be voted on separately.

The question is on Motion No. 5. A vote on Motion No. 5 applies to Motions Nos. 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57 to 64, 72, 74, 75, 89 and 91. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motions Nos. 47, 48, 51 and 52. A negative

vote on Motion No. 5 necessitates the question being put on Motions Nos. 47 and 51.

[Translation]

If Motion No. 47 is adopted, a vote on Motion No. 48 will not be necessary. If Motion No. 47 is defeated, then a vote on Motion No. 48 will be necessary.

(1805)

[English]

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the result taken on report stage Motion No. 1 to report stage Motion No. 5, as well as report stage Motion No. 33 and report stage Motion No. 65.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 102.]

[Translation]

As well, I think you would find unanimous consent in the House to apply the vote just completed, but in reverse, to the following motions: Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 31, 9, 18, 20, 50, 53, 54, 71 and 88.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the House give its unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 104)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Williams
Wood
Zed-162

PAIRED MEMBERS

(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 31, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104.]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 5 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 22, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57 to 64, 72, 74, 75, 89 and 91 carried. Also Motions Nos. 33 and 65 are carried.

(Motions Nos. 5, 22, 33, 38, 42, 43, 49, 57 to 64, 65, 72, 74, 75, 89 and 91 agreed to.)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 90. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent that all members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay on the motion.

(1810)

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the official opposition will be voting nay on this motion.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members present will be voting yes, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, NDP members would vote no on this motion.

Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division):

(Division No. 103)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Wood
Zed -172

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the amendment to Motion No. 90 defeated.

The vote on Motion No. 5 also applies to Motion No. 90. I therefore declare Motion No. 90 carried.

[Translation]

The question is on Motion No. 8. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 14 and 17.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that the members of the official opposition will be voting yea.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting yes, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, NDP members in the House tonight vote no on this motion.

Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes no.

[Translation]

Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, I was late and would like to be recorded as having voted with my party.

(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 105)

YEAS

Members

Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Williams-71

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 8 lost. I therefore declare Motions No. 15 and 17 lost also.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent in the House to apply the vote just completed to the following motions: Nos. 32, 24, 25, 39, 66, 28, 30, 36, 41, 44, 45,73, 76.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 32, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 25, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 39, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 66, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 28, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 41, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 44, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 45, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 73, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 76, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See division under List No. 105.]

Mr. Boudria:Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent in the House to apply the vote just completed, but in reverse, to Motion No. 67.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 67, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 108)

YEAS

Members

O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Wood
Zed -132

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

(1815)

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 67 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen.

[Translation]

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, the Liberal members voting yea.

At the same time, might I ask that the same vote be applied in reverse to Motion No. 84?

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The members of the official opposition will be voting nay on this motion.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, yes, we can apply the results in reverse. Reform Party members present are voting yes unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this motion and agree to the reversal suggestion.

Mrs. Wayne: I will be voting yea, Mr. Speaker.

(The House divided on Motion No. 29, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 106)

YEAS

Members

Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Williams
Wood
Zed-157

NAYS

Members

Guay
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-46

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 29 carried.

(The House divided on Motion No. 84, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 110)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chan
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
Williams
Wood
Zed-157

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 84 negatived.

The next question is on Motion No. 55. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motion No. 55 agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on Motion No. 69.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent that all members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on this motion, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral:Mr. Speaker, the members of the official opposition will be voting yea on this motion.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present are pleased to vote yes unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote yes.

Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, this Conservative in a Liberal red jacket votes yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 69, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 107)

YEAS

Members

Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
Williams-77

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 69 negatived.

(1820)

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would also find unanimous consent to apply the results of this vote to MotionNo. 85.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 107.]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 85 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 77. A vote on Motion No. 77 applies to Motions Nos. 79, 81, 83, 86 and 87.

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 77 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motions Nos. 84 and 85.

[Translation]

If Motion No. 77 is negatived, we will have to put the question on Motion No. 84. If Motion No. 84 is agreed to, it will not be necessary to put the question on Motion No. 85. If Motion No. 84 is negatived, we will have to put the question on Motion No. 85.

[English]

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote nay.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members present will be voting yes, unless instructed otherwise.

Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote yes.

Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, we vote yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 77, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 109)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Zed-167

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 77 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 79, 81, 83, 86 and 87 defeated.

Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have it.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply in reverse the vote of report stage Motion No. 8 to the motion now before the House.

Let me take this opportunity, in anticipation of that agreement, to thank my colleagues, the whips in other parties, as well as all hon. member for facilitating the voting process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the House give its unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 108.]

* * *

[Translation]

CANADA LABOUR CODE

He said: Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I am very pleased to present Bill C-35, amending part III of the Canada Labour Code to increase the federal minimum wage rate.

In the 12 years I have been sitting in the House, I have never missed an opportunity to stand up for the most vulnerable in our society. The bill we are studying today goes precisely in this direction. I will not go as far as to describe it as a revolutionary measure that will change the life of millions, but it is a long-awaited amendment, because the federal minimum wage rate has not been changed for ten years. It is $4 an hour since 1986.

With Bill C-35, our government wanted to kill two birds with one stone. First, it provides that, as of next July 17, the federal minimum wage rate will really increase. It also includes a mechanism ensuring that, from now on, the rate will be automatically adjusted according to the economic realities of the various regions of our country. After studying several different formulas, our government chose to align the federal minimum wage rate with those established by the provinces and territories. This dynamic initiative is quite logical, practical and fair.

It is logical, because 98 per cent of the workers that are paid the minimum wage rate are employed in industries regulated by provincial or territorial legislation. Every province or territory regularly adjusts its minimum wage rate to meet regional requirements. Indeed, the economy and some of the market conditions

vary from region to region. And so does the minimum wage. Thus, across Canada, it varies between $4.75 and $7 an hour. If we had established a federal minimum wage, we would have gone against this reality.

Our formula is also practical, because it simplifies the process for keeping these rates up to date. By harmonizing our rate with the provincial rates, we avoid having to make statutory changes on a regular basis to reflect change in each of our regions.

Therefore, this initiative reflects our government's commitment to simplify government processes and reduce red tape wherever possible. Besides, business people will no longer have to worry about rate differences between both levels of government. Their employees will always be sure to get a pay equivalent to that of their peers.

This is unquestionable proof that the Canadian government is willing to co-operate with the provinces in order to give taxpayers good service quickly and at the best possible cost. We have always said that we should analyze which jurisdiction is in the best position to deliver a service, and adapt our operating procedures accordingly.

(1830)

This is what we did in the case of Bill C-3 and this is what we are doing now with Bill C-35.

I hope my colleagues opposite, and especially members of the Bloc Quebecois, will recognize that we are serious and consistent in our approach. We have always said that Canadian federalism was flexible and dynamic. Here we have further proof that we can improve our operations without resorting to useless and unproductive jurisdictional squabbles.

[English]

Bill C-35 clearly reflects the strong commitment of the government to decentralization and to eliminating duplication and overlap. This amendment to the Canada Labour Code increases the federal minimum wages in a new and innovative way by aligning them with provincial rates based on regional economies. This clearly demonstrates our strong commitment to work with the provinces and territories to establish which jurisdiction is in the best position to deliver a specific service to Canadians.

In this case it is clear we are happy to harmonize our rates with those of the provinces and territories and to follow their lead in setting an appropriate increase in the future.

I strongly believe that everybody will gain from this simple and dynamic initiative. I also believe this new system will be practical, efficient and reliable.

However, should it be proven otherwise, the federal government will be ready to intervene to protect the interests of minimum wage workers. Those workers are generally not unionized and have little bargaining power with their employers. We retain the power to set our own federal minimum wages in the event that a province withdraws this floor or sets it an an unreasonable level.

[Translation]

I can say that Bill C-35 is based on the indisputable principles of justice and equity. It eliminates any possible discrimination between workers under federal jurisdiction and those under provincial or territorial jurisdiction.

It also allows for more balanced and sounder competition between businesses in any given region because now the obligations will be the same for everyone.

As far as equity is concerned, I would like my colleagues in the House to note that the new minimum wage rate will apply to all employees under federal jurisdiction, whatever their age. You will remember that in some Canadian provinces rates for young people and adults still differ. However, in order to be fair to our young workers, we chose to implement one single rate, that of the adult workers, to all businesses under federal jurisdiction.

Before the government decided to harmonize the federal minimum wage with that of the provinces and territories, it did what it always does: it consulted the major stakeholders.

The provincial governments welcomed the proposal, which will simplify the procedure and guarantee fair treatment of all workers in a given region.

On the management side, there were no opposition since the vast majority of employers under federal jurisdiction are already paying their employees the equivalent of the minimum wage in force in the various regions of the country.

The unions supported this measure because it implements the long awaited increase of the federal minimum wage and it also provides for automatic adjustments in the future.

All the interested parties recognize that this proposal is reasonable and that it takes into account the realities of today's labour market.

(1835)

I must say, that in my work as Minister of Labour, I am impressed by the spirit of co-operation in our sector. I am delighted by it, because I am convinced that it is through dialogue and consultation that we will maintain effective and harmonious labour relations in Canada.

I think this attitude also reveals that labour and management are aware of the great challenges we must fact together at the dawn of

the new century. Their sense of responsibility and maturity are the envy of a number of other industrialized countries.

I therefore set myself the objective of channelling all this goodwill positively in order to amend our Canada Labour Code and to adapt it to the new realities of the labour market in Canada. We are currently working very hard to modernize part I of the Canada Labour Code, which concerns the labour relations process and structures in industries under federal jurisdiction.

Already, the members of the task force under Andrew Sims have agreed on a whole range of recommendations. Rarely have we seen the process of consultation achieve its objectives so successfully, and we must congratulate all those who have helped build this impressive consensus.

One major question, however, remains unanswered: the use of replacement workers during a legal strike. The members of the Sims committee have made two different suggestions. Other options were suggested by different experts, but I wanted to see for myself the mood of the people.

This is the reason why, during the month of April, I participated in consultations all over the country. Almost all stakeholders mentioned the problem of substitute workers and the relevance of a potential federal act respecting strike breakers. I took good note of their opinions, recommendations and warnings.

Consultations on Part I being completed, I am determined to go ahead rapidly. Officials at the bureau of legislation review are currently preparing the amendments I want to submit very soon to my colleagues in cabinet and to Parliament.

At the same time, our analysis of Part II of the labour code, which deals more specifically with health and safety in the workplace is progressing rapidly. Dozens and dozens of changes have been proposed and in this case also, an important consensus has developed. There is consensus on 90 per cent of the changes. There remain only a few questions for the minister to answer.

Finally, we are starting to study Part III of the Code on labour standards. This is the part I consider most crucial for the coming years. Everywhere in the country, a great nervousness and a strong concern can be felt in the face of the rapid changes occurring in the workplace.

[English]

This is why the second priority I have chosen as Minister of Labour is the workplace of the future. The shift from an industrial society to the information age, globalization, demographic changes and the imperatives of budgetary control is causing tremendous worries in society. How we work and how we prepare for our working lives are changing profoundly and irreversibly.

To begin with, fewer and fewer people are working year round, nine to five, Monday to Friday, for one employer on common premises according to established rules. Over the past decade the number of self-employed Canadians has grown twice as fast as traditional job opportunities. In Canada more than three quarters of a million men and women are working out of their homes, and that number is expected to double in the next five years. Furthermore, two-thirds of these home based workers are employed by a company which has its headquarters somewhere else.

(1840 )

At first glance some of these facts appear disturbing. It is true a large number of workers are resigning themselves to self-employment, part time jobs and home based jobs because they have been unable to find traditional work. Sometimes they accumulate two or three part time jobs.

However thousands of Canadians deliberately choose this type of work. Usually they do so to more effectively balance family and work related responsibilities. A growing number of workers are doing so to improve the quality of their lives or to make better use of their creativity, expertise and spirit of entrepreneurship.

[Translation]

Obviously, this more individualized and independent approach to work does not suit all workers. Therefore, in co-operation with the private sector, we must continue to do everything possible to create jobs of all kinds.

At the same time, we must seriously look at the challenges to industrial relations in Canada because of the new trends.

Several questions come to mind: What should be the role of the government when work becomes more individual than collective? How do we define the workplace when a considerable number of employees work at home? How do we better protect transient workers who do not enjoy a continuous employer-employee relationship? How can freelancers and contract workers have access to some kind of social benefits, of security? How do we prevent abuses on both sides?

These are questions we must answer very quickly. The Sims report touched on the subject in its last chapter entitled Beyond the Code. Last year, the Donner report carefully studied the whole issue of work distribution. Several researchers in the area of industrial relations are also working on this issue.

This is why I thought it would be appropriate to take a few minutes during our debate to raise the awareness of my colleagues regarding these issues and to ask them to take part in the brainstorming I want to have on the future of work. This is an issue which has a direct impact on Canadians. It is at the basis of our ability to adapt to change and compete in a global economy in the years to come.

In the meantime, I would invite all hon. members to fully support Bill C-35 before us now. This is a simple piece of legislation aimed primarily at bringing justice and fairness to those who are at the bottom of the pay scale. They are entitled to the dignity of work. They deserve our support and our help. We have the duty to provide it to them.

I trust you will find there is unanimous consent, once my colleagues opposite have stated their position, to go into committee of the whole, proceed with the report stage and third reading and refer the bill to the Senate.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the terms of the request from the Minister of Labour. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is no unanimous consent.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. First of all, I want to say that the official opposition will support Bill C-35.

I just discovered that, in his own way, the Minister of Labour follows the principles of Mao Zedong because he proposed several bills in a series that, we know, will culminate in the presentation of a legislation on replacement workers and the more comprehensive reform of the labour code that the minister will propose, naturally.

We must not underestimate the impact, the importance of legislation like this one, because it affects the most vulnerable people in our society.

(1845)

The minister is right to remind us that the minimum wage issue-and I will get back to this later on-is all about individuals who generally share three characteristics. More often than not they are not protected by a collective agreement. Their jobs are unsure, often in sectors more sensitive to economic contingencies. Moreover, very often these jobs are part time.

It is a good thing the government decided to put an end to a situation that was absurd for two reasons. First of all, the federal government had not increased the minimum wage since 1986; it was still at $4. Later on I will show how this $4 rate ties in with the poverty levels. We had a ridiculous situation where a worker working for a company under federal jurisdiction was not entitled to the same wage as other workers in British Columbia, Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan.

The Minister of Labour, with this bill, is correcting an unfair situation by ensuring that, in a given province, all workers will be entitled to the same minimum wage.

I have looked at this bill carefully. I want to point out that we will reach heaven once we have antiscab legislation and once we have revised as fully as possible the Canada Labour Code, which is very complex, with its three parts. I want to let the minister know that I am deeply interested in these issues. We would be very happy to work in committee, because the labour market is, as we have pointed out, about to undergo major changes.

I need only give my family as an example. I believe it is typical of what is going on in the labour market. My father is almost sixty, and has had only one career. He made an honest living, but has always worked for the same employer. I turned 34 in May-I know I do not look that old-and this is my third career. We know that, by the year 2000, workers will go through five or six careers, and that the employer-employee relationship will be considerably weakened because of the increase in home teleworking.

This means that, as lawmakers, we must look carefully at the protection we want these workers to enjoy.

The minister has introduced a bill that we will support and that covers, if I read right, six main points. To start with, the minimum wage would be harmonized with that in effect in the various provinces, and that we agree with. That is central to the bill and we support it.

Let us remember, for the benefit of our audience, perhaps, the reality of the minimum wage across the country. We have said that the federal minimum wage has not changed since 1986 and stands at $4. It Alberta, the minimum wage is $5, but a distinction is made between workers under l8 and those over 18. This distinction will be done away with. Unless I am wrong, the minister feared, rightly, that it would not stand the test of the Canadian charter of rights. Such distinctions based on age will be tolerated less and less as time goes on.

British Columbia is the wealthiest province. I do not know whether you have been to Vancouver lately, but I have and I was astonished at the meaning of wealth in a province. British Columbia has the smallest debt. There is a correlation between the debt of a province and its ability to provide services. I was surprised to find that in B.C.-to give an example with which I am familiar-25 medications are made available to people with AIDS.

You will understand, then, that this global wealth index is reflected in the minimum wage. It will come as a surprise to no one that the minimum wage in our westernmost province is the highest at $7 per hour.

Prince Edward Island, which expects to have increased its minimum wage three times between 1991 and 1997, will reach the Canadian average of $5.40.

(1850)

The minimum wage in Manitoba is $5.40; in New Brunswick, it is $5.50; in Nova Scotia, it will be increased from $5.35 to $5.50 in February.

In Mike Harris' Ontario, where, as you know, the situation is not always rosy, the minimum wage is $6.85 but we understand that, with its industrial structure, Ontario may be in a better position than Quebec to support a slightly higher minimum wage.

Quebec's minimum wage is $6.45, but one might think-I do not know if the minister has a scoop on that subject, but there is a rumour going around-it could be increased in the very near future, thanks to the bread and roses operation. This beautiful operation came about because of a willingness to link social awareness and economic awareness.

In Saskatchewan, the minimum wage is $5.35; in Newfoundland, about which we have talked a lot in the House in the last few weeks, it is $4.75; in the Northwest Territories, it is $7 and in the Yukon, $6.86.

So, there is a variety of viewpoints that may appear to be discriminatory toward workers and that cannot be explained. One cannot explain why there are two rates in effect in the same province or territory.

So, the minister has done something useful in proposing a bill aimed at harmonizing the wages that will be in effect on the same territory.

Second, if Bill C-35 is passed, the general rate will apply regardless of occupation, status or work experience, which is also desirable.

Third, there are still people who do piecework and therefore are not paid by the hour. My understanding of the bill is that the minister is making provisions so that, where applicable, an employee will never get less than the minimum wage.

Fourth, as it was said, the minimum wage based on age will not be permitted any more.

And fifth, the federal government-I had some questions about that, but the issue will probably be raised in committee of the whole in a few minutes-retains the authority to clearly set the minimum wage. The minister has been discreet on that matter, but he will be able to explain it, if it is indeed the legislator's intent.

This is essentially what the minister is proposing.

I would be doubly satisfied because, as I have said, we agree with the minister's logic. We are happy to see that the proposed harmonization really provides an increase in the minimum wage, given that the federal government was the jurisdiction with the lowest wage rate. We are happy to see that workers will no longer be discriminated against because of their age.

Of course, this legislation will affect a limited number of workers, as the Code protects only 10 per cent of the workforce. According to department officials, only 2 per cent of those 10 per cent will be affected. So, while we must recognize that the legislation has limited scope, it is important for the workers concerned.

I was pleased to hear the minister saying that, all through his career, which I followed from a distance, he has always stood up for the poor in our society. This awareness was apparent when we discussed the Program for Older Workers Adjustment or issues related to social legislation. The fact is that we witnessed a considerable erosion of what the minimum wage represents in relation to the policies needed to fight poverty.

Let me remind the minister that he should-and perhaps would like to in the coming days-review the report tabled by the National Council of Welfare, as I did last night. The report was tabled in October 1993 and is entitled Incentives and Disincentives to Work.

(1855)

The National Council of Welfare is an organization which is affiliated with the Department of Human Resources Development and which must regularly report on the evolution of poverty levels.

I simply want to tell you about what the 1993 report said: comparing the reality of the minimum wage in 1976 and in 1992 leads to two findings. In 1976, most people who were paid the minimum wage had an income above the poverty line. In 1992, in every province, the minimum wage was below the poverty line.

It goes without saying that this situation is not the exclusive responsibility of the Minister of Labour, but involves the whole issue of policy directions. But the fact is that, as we speak, the minimum wage in effect in every province is below the poverty line.

This means that, for some people, there is no incentive to work. I often meet, in my riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, in Montreal, people who have difficult choices to make. When they are beneficiaries of income security programs, it is sometimes more advantageous for them, particularly couples with children, to remain on these programs than to work. As a society, we have to have to wonder about this.

I know the Minister of Human Resources Development also has something to say about that, but the fact is that the minimum wage is now below the poverty line.

Let us take 1976 as an example. Collectively speaking, 1976 was a particular year. The minister surely recalls that, in 1976, a very progressive government came to power in Quebec. It is therefore a benchmark I like to refer to. In 1976, in Newfoundland, a person with a salary comparable to the minimum wage had an annual income of $5,200, an amount which was 5 percent above the poverty line.

In 1992, the minimum wage in Newfoundland gave an income of $9,880, which was 74 per cent of the amount needed to be at the poverty line. As you can see, there has been significant erosion of what the minimum wage buys for those who must live with it.

The same thing goes for Prince Edward Island. In 1976, the minimum wage meant an income of $4,992, which was 3 per cent above the poverty line; in 1992, this income was $9,880, or 76 per cent of the amount needed to reach the poverty line. I could give the numbers for all 10 provinces. This is a fact that the Minister of Labour, who invites us to ponder, should not forget.

Without underestimating the scope of Bill C-35, of which the Bloc Quebecois supports both the principle and the self-explanatory references, it would have been interesting if the government had introduced a single bill proposing to harmonize the minimum wage and concrete measures to fight poverty.

Let us never forget that. I hope we shall never discuss social policy or make reference to the minimum wage without keeping in mind that, overall, Canadian society is poorer than ever. There are in Canadian society people who are far from getting richer. Poverty is reaching classes that until now were believed to be protected from it.

I would like to remind the House of what the National Council of Welfare told us in its report last year. It wrote that 4.8 million children, women and men, that is one Canadian out of six, live in poverty. Poverty is defined as spending more than 56 per cent of one's income for basic needs such as clothing, food and housing. A person who spends more than that for basic needs is poor, according to the National Council of Welfare.

(1900)

One Canadian out of six, or 16 per cent of the Canadian population, is in that situation. We have a fairly precise knowledge of the patterns of poverty. For example, single parent families headed by females are now significantly poorer. In 1994, the poverty rate of single mothers aged less than 65 with children under 18 was 57 per cent.

Now, one Canadian out of six, or 16 per cent of the population, lives in poverty, but the situation is much worse in certain segments of our society. We know that 57 per cent of lone-parent families headed by women with children under 18 years of age live in poverty. There is something very worrisome about this grim reality.

I appreciate the work done by the National Council of Welfare, because it showed us some possible ways to eradicate poverty. Since we have two ministers sitting side by side, two ministers from Montreal, which is quite something, who are committed to promoting liberty and equality, I want to take this opportunity to remind the House that the National Council of Welfare indicated that, if the Canadian government had invested $15 billion, we would have been able to eradicate poverty in just one year. Since I cannot say that to the Reform Party, I have to tell the government majority.

I am now quoting, for the listening enjoyment of the Minister of Labour, the National Council of Welfare: ``In spite of the grim reality, it is not wishful thinking to think we will win the war against poverty. According to Statistics Canada, to help all the poor improve their lot would have cost $15 billion in 1994''. This is a huge amount. Of course, we are not saying this is insignificant, but it is surely not exaggerated for a country where the federal, provincial and territorial governments spent some $350 billion in 1994 and where the value of all produced goods and services exceeded $750 billion. Is this not a reason to be hopeful? Should this not be the way to go?

It would have been very interesting for the Minister of Labour to put forward with this legislation a more general one providing job creation and full employment measures aimed at getting people out of poverty.

To conclude, I ask for the unanimous consent to refer Bill C-35 to a committee of the whole after the intervention of the Reform Party.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

[English]

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the terms of the bill before us are under the guise of giving more powers to the provinces. If it did that, I would be all for it, but I suppose Bill C-35 is a small step toward eliminating useless, outdated regulations. The Canada Labour Code covers less than one million workers.

In 1986, the last time there was a change to the federal minimum wage, only one-tenth of one per cent or roughly 7,000 workers under federal jurisdiction were directly affected. While updated estimates are not available from department officials, there is a presumption that little has changed in that length of time.

(1905)

In 1935, Canada ratified the ILO Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery Convention, 1928, which specified that workers would be guaranteed a minimum wage in cases where wages were exceptionally low.

It was 1965 before Canada actually began setting minimum wage rates. Since the provinces regulate over 99 per cent of Canadian minimum wage earners, there was not much need for expediency. Since there have been only sporadic changes in the rates since 1965, it is evident that the federal minimum wage is not necessary.

Back in the 1930s an argument may have been made to justify a minimum wage in some countries to ensure that workers were not taken advantage of by single industry employers.

There is a general misconception that without a minimum wage workers would be exploited. Employers want the best workers available and often compete to hire them. Low wages often show there is an abundance of workers available, which is just an example of the supply and demand concept.

The minimum wage, rather than bringing the poverty level up, has the reverse effect. It encourages exploitation. It protects highly trained, well paid workers against competition from the young who lack experience and the unskilled people who require on the job training.

Unions, whose mandate it is to protect jobs and increase the wages of its members, support minimum wage rates to protect themselves from cheaper or trainee labour. Naturally, when asked to respond to the initiative aligning federal minimum wage rates with provincial rates, labour groups wanted the federal government to show leadership by maintaining a single rate that is higher than the provincial and territorial minimum wages.

Business groups, on the other hand, indicated the change would have virtually no impact on their operations as the lowest paid wages were competitive with and generally higher than the provincial wage rates.

In the last 10 years Canada has entered into international trade agreements with the U.S. and Mexico which include labour co-operation. There were also agreements with the provinces to cover the provisions of these accords.

If a minimum wage is deemed to be necessary to meet international agreements and conventions, the government could guarantee the continued existence of a minimum wage by concluding federal-provincial agreements on minimum wage rates. This would eliminate the perceived necessity of section 178(2) which gives the governor in council power to set rates should it disagree with the rate set by a province or territory.

The Minister of Natural Resources boasted a new spirit of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments to an Edmonton group last week. If this spirit of co-operation really exists, section 178(2) can be deleted. The understanding works out to ensure that the provinces maintain reasonable minimum wage standards.

High wages cannot be decreed but must be arrived at through years of experience in the workplace. In the nineties, advances in human rights, collective bargaining and consumer awareness make minimum wages, especially in the federal context, irrelevant.

(1910 )

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

* * *

NUCLEAR SAFETY AND CONTROL ACT

Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-23, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

In 1946 when the Canadian nuclear industry was in its infancy, Parliament passed the Atomic Energy Control Act which gave the federal government control over the development, application and use of nuclear energy. Fifty years later, despite the dramatic changes in the size and the scope of the nuclear industry, that legislation has never been significantly revised or updated. Clearly changes are long overdue, changes that this House can help bring about today by supporting Bill C-23 at second reading.

I would like to take this opportunity to review the key elements of this proposed legislation so that hon. members will have a true appreciation of why Bill C-23 is important for the nuclear industry and for all Canadians.

I will talk about the paramount importance of worker and public safety and environment protection and a more modern and effective regulatory framework that focuses on these goals. I will talk about reduced overlap and duplication, improved efficiency of the federation, increased competitiveness and job creation but, most important, I will demonstrate that Bill C-23 is a bill of good government.

When the current legislation establishing the federal role in the nuclear sector came into force, Canadians could only dream about the benefits of nuclear technology. Today each and every one of us in this House and each and every one of our constituents has experienced those benefits firsthand.

Nuclear power now accounts for approximately one-fifth of Canada's electricity supply. The nuclear sector has brought tremen-

dous economic benefits to our nation by ensuring a safe and reliable source of energy, supporting industrial growth and high technology jobs and contributing to our balance of trade. Nuclear technology has also brought enormous social benefits. For decades nuclear isotopes have been crucial for a range of medical uses.

The nuclear industry has grown to the point where it affects the lives of Canadians in many different ways. Yet the law governing the industry has not changed significantly since 1946. The focus of regulation is no longer the security of atomic secrets as it was in the 1940s, but it is now on the health, safety and environmental impact of using nuclear technologies.

Societies expectations about how and why government should regulate the nuclear sector have also changed considerably. For 50 years the Atomic Energy Control Board has used its authority under the current act wisely and effectively. The AECB has been influential in the development of strong safety cultures at Canada's nuclear reactors. Its vigilance with regard to safety is one reason why the safety of Canada's nuclear sector is second to none in the world.

Nevertheless, the status quo is no longer acceptable to Canadians or to this government. The current legislation's deficiencies have been noted by the courts, the media, special interest groups, committees of this House and Canada's auditor general.

(1915)

Bill C-23 addresses these shortcomings by providing for more explicit regulation of nuclear activities and by ensuring that the regulatory body will have the legislated powers needed to fulfil its responsibilities.

Canada's nuclear regulatory agency will be given a clear mandate to focus on public concerns about the safety of nuclear facilities and the environmental impact of nuclear activities in Canada.

In keeping with this mandate, the AECB will be renamed the Canadian nuclear safety commission. This name change will help Canadians better identify with the principal role of the commission and will eliminate confusion with the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited or AECL, the crown corporation responsible for the development and support of Candu nuclear reactors.

The Canadian nuclear safety commission will continue to have responsibility for nuclear security issues. Bill C-23 will ensure a firm basis for implementing Canada's nuclear policy and fulfilling our obligations with respect to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Under the non-proliferation policy, for example, the use of certain nuclear materials including uranium must be fully accounted for by Canada's nuclear customers. Bill C-23 clearly defines the new commission's responsibility for ensuring the proper accounting of these materials.

Nuclear matters are a federal responsibility. Over the past two decades this has led to some jurisdictional problems and to some overlap and duplication in regulations. The federal government has worked with the provinces to address the issue. For example, the government recently introduced amendments to the Canada Labour Code that would allow the government to adopt provincial legislation governing labour matters including labour relations and occupational health and safety, and to delegate responsibilities for administering these laws and regulations back to the provinces.

The proposed nuclear safety and control act includes similar interdelegation mechanisms that will give the Canadian nuclear safety commission the authority to enter into agreements with each province to adopt other relevant provincial standards, codes and laws that would then apply to nuclear activities. This would effectively establish a regulatory regime that respects provincial jurisdiction. The legislation also allows for the responsibility for administering regulations in these areas to be delegated to the provinces.

This new power to co-operate with the provinces is expected to reduce regulatory duplication between federal and provincial orders of government. In so doing it will help reduce administrative costs and establish greater certainty for the industry, thereby increasing the competitiveness of Canada's nuclear sector. This increased competitiveness will in turn preserve and create high tech jobs in Canada.

By explicitly referring to health, safety and protection of the environment, the proposed legislation will clearly match the commission's mandate to public expectations of its role. The government is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadians and our environment.

The proposed legislation will permit the Canadian nuclear safety commission to order the clean up of radioactive contamination when responsibility for the contamination is unclear, under dispute, or where the polluter refuses to act. Currently the AECB does not have this power. This is precisely the kind of protection for Canadians that the auditor general called for in a report to the House in 1994.

It is also worth noting that the high standard for worker protection enshrined in Bill C-23 has received significant support from labour. In fact I have received a letter from the Canadian Labour Congress urging quick passage of Bill C-23.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources I am pleased to inform the House that Bill C-23 has a strong environmental focus which is in keeping with the concerns of all Canadians and with the promise made in the red book that the Liberal government would lead in protecting Canada's environment.

(1920)

Bill C-23 will explicitly require that the environmental effects of a proposed nuclear facility be assessed as part of the commission's licensing process. However I assure hon. members that the legislation will not in any way change the process for ensuring that the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act continue to be met. In addition, Bill C-23 will make it possible to substitute the commission's hearing process for that of the CEAA.

The proposed legislation also contains many other characteristics of a modern regulatory system. The power of federal inspectors will be enshrined in the law. The maximum penalty for offences will increase dramatically from $10,000 to $1 million.

The new commission will also have the clear authority to order remedial action where necessary and to require financial guarantees for decommissioning, thus ensuring that owners meet high environmental standards.

At the same time the proposed legislation is intended to conform with the mining reclamation trust provisions of the Income Tax Act. This means that mining companies could be eligible for certain tax benefits, if they are required to settle such a trust as a licence condition.

Bill C-23 authorizes the new commission to charge fees to recover the costs associated with its regulatory activities. Although the AECB has collected fees from licensees to recover costs since 1990, its authority to do so is not explicitly legislated.

Bill C-23 proposes that the number of members of the commission be increased from the current five to seven. The government believes it is important to have a sufficient number of commissioners to deal expeditiously with all licensing decisions. It has become apparent that the current complement of five board members, only one of whom is full time, is insufficient. We believe the commission needs members who represent a wide range of expertise to deal with the broader set of issues now considered by this regulatory body.

These objectives can be achieved by increasing the number of positions on the commission. The cost of this increased representation, which amounts to approximately $100,000 per year, will be funded from internal reallocations.

Like any other modern regulatory agency, the new commission needs certain authority to function effectively. Consequently the commission will be declared a court of record and will have the authority to conduct formal public hearings, compel witnesses to appear, take evidence and control its proceedings.

Bill C-23 responds to the calls from many quarters for a modern law that will reflect the federal government's responsibilities and powers relating to the regulation of the nuclear industry.

The legislation will enable the federal government to ensure the nuclear industry continues to operate in a manner that protects the health and safety of Canadians and their environment.

Bill C-23 is an important step toward avoiding unnecessary regulatory overlap and duplication between the federal and provincial orders of government. It will also ensure that federal regulations are applied in a fair and just manner.

The steps will minimize the cost to the nuclear industry and allow it to pursue opportunities in an increasingly competitive world, creating new jobs for Canadians and contributing to the country's economic growth.

The commission will be better equipped than the current Atomic Energy Control Board to conduct public hearings and environmental assessments. It will have clear powers to inspect nuclear facilities and other premises where licensed activities are carried out, to enforce federal regulations, to order environmental clean-ups, and to seek suitable penalties.

Further, the use of additional commissioners will enable the commission to work in a cost effective manner while ensuring balanced decision making that fulfils the public interest.

Clearly the proposed legislation represents good government in action. The legislation acts on commitments outlined in the recent speech from the throne for sustaining our environment and for ensuring a modern regulatory regime that will meet the needs of the 21st century.

(1925)

Based on an open and honest discussion of Bill C-23 and its many merits, I am confident hon. members on both sides of the House will join me in voting to send the legislation to committee.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to create the new Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. As my colleague has just pointed out, the old legislation dates back to 1946, so it can certainly be described as outmoded.

This commission is primarily a monitoring body, and whenever I hear monitoring, I wonder who will do this. Will the number of monitors be increased? What will their qualifications be? What will this all cost?

The commission's mandate is also to monitor the impact of nuclear activities on health. This is very important. In my riding I see people from Russia who have been the victims of nuclear

accidents. They take years to recover. They need fresh air and good food as well. It is obvious that there can never be too many protective precautions taken.

The commission will also be responsible for safety, which is all very well and good. The environment needs more looking after, as we are told, and I feel that the commission will be better able to protect our environment. Very often the opposition is criticized for doing nothing but finding fault, but I think that, when a bill is worthwhile, that must be acknowledged. The Bloc acknowledges the definite quality of this bill.

The commission may also set national standards. I believe that it is important, yet my colleague was saying earlier that ertain powers can be turned over to the provinces. Here again-alas, too often-that can lead to quarrelling. I wonder why more powers are not turned over to the provinces.

The commission will also play a role in implementing policy and international commitments concerning the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Finally, it has a major role to play in co-ordinating emergency measures, for instance in the event of a leak at a nuclear plant.

Where nuclear energy and radioactive emissions are concerned, it is essential that safety be a government priority. Clearly, the old Atomic Energy Control Act which, as I have said, dates back to 1946, was essentially focussed on national security.

Today, as everyone knows, there is a far wider use of sources of radiation. The legislation must, therefore, be brought up to date. The new bill is an improvement over the old. Still, Quebec has voiced certain concerns relating to workers in the nuclear industry who were not covered by either the Canada Labour Code or any provincial legislation.

This legal vacuum posed certain safety problems, in nuclear plants for instance. The Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, passed this March 26, filled the need. It also contains the concept that a person may not be held responsible for an incident if he or she has taken all reasonable steps.

(1930)

But here again, we must agree on the meaning of the word reasonable. Who is going to define it? I do not think we can be half reasonable. There are however a number of questions to be answered when we look to the courts of law for an exact definition of the criteria of the word reasonable. As for the expression ``exercise diligence'', ``diligence'' is a big word, but it must be clarified in this legislation, in the application of the standards in effect, to prevent an error occurring.

The Bloc Quebecois would like this to be included in Bill C-23, as it is in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The Canadian commission would also monitor the use of instruments with a radioactive component. Hospitals also use radioactive equipment in certain treatments and diagnoses. The commission would inspect this equipment and ensure it meets safety standards. Business does its own inspections and sends samples to the experts on the commission. Both large and small and medium size business do so.

The commission claims to charge companies using its radioactive source services the actual cost of the inspection. However, certain companies claim that the federal government is not doing everything in its power and that, very often, it is too expensive. Therefore, business has a different story.

The big power companies argue that it is the consumers who end up paying for the ever-increasing fees set by the commission.

We are also in favour of cost recovery so that a balance can be struck. Annual fee increases would, I feel, be improper. A commission like this one is sometimes used to generate profits, even when the fees are said to serve other purposes.

This bill should require the commission to consult with licensees and consider their views before imposing or raising user fees.

This, of course, is a sensitive issue. Some argue that the safety benefits are priceless, that safety standards could always be more rigorous, regardless of the implementation costs. But there is a limit. Few people feel that a regulation's advantages and disadvantages should be assessed before it is imposed on governments, businesses and individuals.

The Bloc Quebecois recognizes the need to act very carefully in this regard, as well as the risk of giving too much weight to economic interests compared to the significant safety needs. Let me give you an example. I was in committee earlier and mention was made of imposing a tax to register small boats such as pedal boats. This shows how a government can take advantage of the people at any time. A supposedly noble motive turns into a money grab. The initially noble motive becomes perverted.

It is, however, necessary to consider the possibility that the commission may have the mandate to conduct its own cost-benefit analysis of the regulations and standards it applies and intends to apply in the future. This would better protect the interests of businesses and their customers.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the many nuclear disasters that have occurred around the world. It can be said that we all played sorcerer's apprentice with nuclear energy.

(1935)

In certain respects, we went much too fast. We did not have the expertise, but we thought it would be the best form of energy in the world. We are paying the price today.

Man has played sorcerer's apprentice with some extremely dangerous products. We became involved in the production of nuclear energy without being able to effectively deal with the consequences. We became involved in the development and production of nuclear energy without really knowing all the facts. We generated tons of nuclear waste without being able to process them effectively, and that is a tragedy.

Our governments have failed to effectively manage health and environmental hazards. Our governments also proved to be incapable of exercising effective control. It is no wonder that, every time an attempt is made to develop or use new nuclear technologies, environmental organizations cry out against the idea and the public itself is wary, and rightly so.

We must not overlook the fact that the nuclear arsenal currently available worldwide could totally destruct humanity and the public is perfectly aware of this. I would not take much to blow up the planet, just one madman, and in this world of ours there is no lack of madmen.

We all know that there are huge stocks of nuclear weapons, plutonium and heavy water in Russia, and that our governments are afraid a black market might develop. Non democratic countries and terrorist groups could then have access to atomic weapons or anything they need to build such weapons.

How can we expect those who develop and sell new technologies to be able to exercise control? In a great many cases, they should exercise control but do not even have this control they should be exercising.

It took the federal government 50 years to come to the realization that this ill-conceived legislation does not adequately protect the people of Quebec and Canada. How do you expect nuclear wary people to trust this government and the new commission after that? Even with the right tools, will the commission be able to ensure adequate monitoring?

It will also be difficult to restore public confidence. I just cannot believe that passing this bill will solve all our problems. Prudence dictates we must give ourselves monitoring standards. In fact I suspect this government is trying to make us forget about the Prime Minister's last visit to Russia, when the purchase of nuclear waste to be processed in Canada was discussed. Members will recall that there had been an outcry over this decision. And for a very good reason.

The government could probably have resolved another problem by dealing with the nuclear energy issue and introducing a bill on this subject. It is clear from analyzing nuclear energy research and development investments made in Canada that almost all the economic benefits in that area go to the same province, and this province, as you know, is Ontario.

In Quebec, we inherited the unemployment insurance-which I call and will always call poverty insurance-while Ontario gets money for research and development. We are still, unfortunately, the forgotten ones.

Who, in this federation, benefits as much from the federal government's generosity? Who else in this federation has such an interest in seeing Atomic Energy of Canada maintained? Who else in this federation benefits as much from the spinoffs of this industry? No one else. Ontario is the only one.

Had this government been serious in its approach, it would have seized the opportunity to look at this issue. The government greatly favours the development of nuclear energy, but does so only as a service to the Ontario industry.

(1940)

While amending the current act, the government should make a formal commitment to better distribute its R and D money between the provinces, particularly those which receive the least, such as Quebec.

But the government did just the opposite when it recently announced the closing of EACL regional offices in Montreal. Montreal was hit again, not to mention the decision affecting Varennes and before that, the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute.

I would also have liked to see the government clearly affirm its will to promote R and D for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. As we know, nuclear energy can be used for the best and for the worst purposes. It can be useful and it can kill. It can save lives and it can eliminate thousands.

The public will only accept atomic energy when it will see its peaceful applications and its usefulness in everyday life.

It will only accept atomic energy when it will see that the government gave itself the means to control almost perfectly-I am tempted to leave out the word almost, but let us keep a margin for human error-all the risks related to its use and its development.

Another important problem we should have been able to tackle openly in considering this bill in the House is the financing of Atomic Energy of Canada, the financing of CANDU reactors throughout the world. Financially, Atomic Energy of Canada is just as much of a bottomless pit as the Hibernia project off Newfoundland may turn out to be.

Since this agency was created, billions of dollars have been sunk into it, and the government is only able to sell CANDU reactors by

financing them with money from Canadian and Quebec taxpayers. If that is not a scandal, what is?

In reality, the sale of CANDU reactors, with their supposedly safe technology, is nothing more than a clever way of subsidizing Atomic Energy of Canada. This government would have done better to overhaul Atomic Energy of Canada's operating methods. The days when the government could squander taxpayers' money have long gone, and gone, I hope, forever.

When a government slashes employment insurance, unemployment insurance, and gets ready to cut pensions and OAS, when a government attacks the poorest members of society, it should first clean up its own act.

Yes, Bill C-23 represents a step forward. The Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this bill.

I pointed out a number of things, and some amendments could probably be made.

I am still critical of the fact that this bill should have been presented 10, 15 or 20 years ago, and at least at the beginning of this Legislature. But we we always have to wait. At a certain point, the government wakes up, but it is always ordinary citizens that get it started. In other words, this government needs a good push before it says: ``Oh dear, we have not been careful enough. For 50 years now, safety has been lacking in the nuclear field''. In 1996, they told themselves it was time to get moving.

This government is like that. The preceding government was no better. So, listen to the opposition for a bit longer. We are making some very good suggestions, because we listen more carefully to our constituents, and our constituents have a lot to tell us. I say that the average citizen is incredibly wise.

(1945)

When in power, a governement realizes that it is inevitably drawn away from the people. After three or four years, it realizes that the people are on one side and it is on the other. At this point in time, those who represent the people best are, of course, the opposition parties, and particularly the official opposition because it does not lean to the far right. When the left has good ideas, they are well received, when the right has good ideas, they are also well received. The important thing here is good ideas.

I will conclude by saying that this bill is a good bill and that it is long overdue. We will follow it closely because a bill in itself is not much, what counts is the way it is implemented. In that regard, we will be there to call the government to order if need be.

[English]

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to express general support for the changes included in Bill C-23, the nuclear safety and control act.

In part they reflect the changing background against which this act was originally written. The main present day concerns involve: the health and safety of Canadians working in and around radioactive material from the initial stages of mining right through to such things as nuclear power stations; medical and educational purposes; disposal of radioactive waste, both low level and high level; environmental concerns for all, especially for people living in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities; the safe disposal of nuclear waste; and the safe transportation of such hazardous products.

I express general support for the method of putting this legislation together. This included reasonably extensive consultation with the four provinces which use nuclear power or mine uranium: Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

We understand there are concerns from the Government of Saskatchewan that Bill C-23 might hamper discussions regarding regulating the uranium mining and milling industry. There is also the possibility that Saskatchewan may wish to develop proper regulations of its own and may wish to license uranium mining and milling. Apparently the federal government's legal beagle so to speak has said that Bill C-23 does not interfere except where federal oversight is needed to maintain the federal role in nuclear matters.

Reformers approve that regulating is being done on a cost recovery basis after some consultation took place with the industry about the fee schedules, with fees being phased in over a fairly extended period of time since the start of the procedure in 1990. I believe Canadians would strongly approve that hospitals and universities should be exempt from such fees.

On the possible objections to Bill C-23, what bothers me the most is that it has taken 50 years to revamp an act which was passed in 1946. The government of the day, and whether it is Liberal or Conservative it never changes, always blames the other for taking so long to get something done, or for putting an act in place and the other one has to follow through on it. I remind the Liberals that probably for 38 years out of the past 50 years their party was the government so that excuse no longer washes.

I also understand from a departmental briefing that changes to the Canadian Labour Code are needed regarding employees in nuclear industries if we do not want to have the federal government intervening in labour matters which are more properly dealt with by the provincial governments. This is a concern. I sincerely hope somebody has ensured that the changes were made. That was mentioned in a departmental briefing yesterday afternoon. They also mentioned that an update was needed on that point. I would appreciate it if the minister or the parliamentary secretary could confirm that for me.

(1950)

Another concern arises where the federal government possibly will not do all in its power to eliminate overlap and duplication with the provinces by delegating responsibility for administration and inspection. Would there be one environmental assessment needed for the federal government and the provinces? Another is provincial inspections for normal health and safety of employees. The provinces could add radioactivity which would then not require that a separate federal inspector race around the country checking on this.

I caution that every effort must be made to protect the safety of Canadians as cost effectively as possible. Nuclear disasters are a terrible risk to all of us and we have to have zero tolerance for serious accidents. We also recognize that uranium has tremendous potential to supply the energy needs of future generations, once adequate research has resolved the problems of the safe disposal of nuclear waste.

We also recognize that uranium mining and milling is a developing industry which is significant for provinces such as Saskatchewan. The regulatory process must be kept clear, timely and based on science rather than politics or fearmongering.

I also wonder about this government when, on a trade mission, it sells a nuclear reactor to China. Yet there seems to be great concern in this country, especially from the Reform Party, on human rights in that country. Where is the government coming from? Is it more in love with the almighty dollar than it is with human rights? I am concerned about this.

In conclusion, when I was young I read the story about Rip van Winkle. I would have to say that after 50 years it is Rip van Liberals. Something hit them on the head and they woke up to the fact that they had to make this outdated policy more modern. They say it may be better late than never and I guess it is better late than never.

We will support the bill. It is long overdue. I can do nothing but blame this government for the length of time it has taken.

Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to replace the 1946 Atomic Energy Control Act. It is destined to remedy some of the problems encountered in the existing act and replace the Atomic Energy Control Board with a nuclear safety commission as described in Bill C-23.

It seems to me one area of progress is that the new commission will have the authority to order remedial actions and seek financial guarantees for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. This is a very important central theme when it comes to nuclear power. This is important because in May 1995 the auditor general estimated that nuclear waste disposal solutions will cost at least $10 billion, I repeat $10 billion, over the next 70 years. He estimated that the federal government's share of this cost would be around $850 million minimum, and that this cost could increase if the federal government had to assume responsibilities for nuclear waste producers who fail to meet the clean-up and decommissioning obligations.

(1955)

This bill requires that all reactors and mines produce decommissioning plans by as early as January 1, 1997 which include cost estimates for so-called cradle to grave waste management responsibilities associated with the facility. This is a very good initiative embodied in the bill.

In a cursory look at the bill itself, the language in clause 24(5) needs to be strengthened to ensure that licences necessarily contain a condition that the applicant provide a financial guarantee in a form and to an extent acceptable to the commission itself.

Every effort must be made to ensure that the real cost of nuclear power production is absorbed by the producers and consumers. It must not be externalized, postponed or pushed into the future to be paid for at some later date by the Canadian public.

At the present time, the decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal costs at Ontario Hydro are carried as an internal debt. In other words, as far as I was able to determine, no real dollars are being set aside for future decommissioning. Perhaps it is being done on paper, but that is the extent of the provision being made right now for future generations. When needed, Ontario Hydro would then borrow the money.

I have been informed by the Minister of Natural Resources that it is Ontario Hydro's intention to change this practice in the near future and to begin to set aside real dollars in an external fund. This is an urgent matter. When the time for decommissioning comes, one is not certain that the utility will be in a position to borrow the required funds. Only through setting aside dollars in an external special fund that is known and visible to the public can the long term interest of the public be properly served.

In addition to setting aside real funds for decommissioning reactors, the cradle to grave management of nuclear waste also requires that an appropriate amount be set aside for that purpose. Here again the auditor general has warned us of the magnitude of the nuclear waste problem over the next decades. It seems only reasonable to say at this stage that the new commission must ensure the necessary funds be made available.

For example, there are some 130 tonnes of radioactive sand in Elliot Lake which must be stabilized. By contrast in the United States, there are only 200 million tonnes of radioactive tailings. By law there, the tailings must be properly stabilized. Mining companies have already spent $2 billion to accomplish this. Here in Canada the mining company in Elliot Lake is talking of posting

some $4 million in the form of a bond to cover the stabilization of the tailings. You can see the difference in approach, Mr. Speaker.

(2000)

It is hoped the new commission will ensure that in both the private and the public sectors-I hope the production of nuclear electricity will be in the public sector-the full cost of nuclear power will be paid by producers and consumers from start to end, from production to the final disposition of the spent materials, from cradle to grave as it is commonly said.

Another aspect of this bill requires attention. Bill C-23, which is entitled an act to establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts, allows for the incorporation of provincial laws in the nuclear safety and control act and the delegation of administration and enforcement to the provinces. This legislation could lead to the devolution of regulatory powers for nuclear energy to the provinces. With provincial budget cuts of the magnitude that have been announced, for instance in Ontario, one wonders whether the delegation of administration and enforcement is desirable and in the public interest.

Premier Harris and his government have shown a real interest in deregulation in areas of environmental protection and public responsibility by government. For instance, the Ontario government's red tape commission is presently examining proposals to increase toxic effluents from mines into water bodies. Second, the omnibus Bill 26 opens up conservation areas for development. If this were not enough, omnibus Bill 26 shifts the liability for abandoned mines and tailing sites from the private to the public sector.

The risks associated with nuclear power are, as we all know, to be watched. They require direct federal regulatory approaches. They require a federal presence, a federal responsibility in order to ensure the safety of Canadians and their environment.

In a cursory review of the bill, I notice that clause 24 needs to be strengthened. I would say the same for clause 42 which deals with indemnity and liability under the Nuclear Liability Act, and for clause 46 which deals with the treatment of contaminated land.

The Nuclear Liability Act must be mentioned in this debate because it is an act that needs to be revisited. It needs to be strengthened. The liability in our statutory legislation is too low. Times, costs, inflation and other factors require that the government bring this legislation to the House and modify, increase and modernize the approach that was perhaps adequate when that legislation was passed a few decades ago but is no longer adequate now. Therefore I urge the government to bring the Nuclear Liability Act into this House with the necessary amendments.

(2005 )

I would like to make two points. First, the nuclear industry is most likely the most subsidized industry in Canada. It has received, since its inception, over $5 billion of direct payments. Even now, in times of austerity, we will find an item in the budget of the Department of Natural Resources for a direct grant which exceeds $100 million, maybe in the range of $142 million or $145 million. Last year it was twice as much. It is an industry that is constantly being subsidized by the public at large. It is a subsidy that must come to an end. If everybody has to tighten their belts, from those who have to go on unemployment insurance to those who receive pensions, then the subsidies to industry also have to stop.

Second, our dependence on oil and nuclear sources of energy has to be examined and gradually changed. We need to plan for the future by shifting our dependence from the non-renewables such as fossil fuels and our dependence on the renewables as represented by the rather costly and, at times, dangerous nuclear source of energy to renewable sources.

However, in order to do that research and development have to be activated. Emphasis should be shifted from the continuous support for nuclear and fossil fuels to sources that range from biomass to solar and other forms of energy that are definitely within reach if the funds are put into research and development that are required in order to enhance and accelerate the process of reaching these potential alternatives that are definitely available to humanity.

Therefore, I hope this bill represents a temporary measure. It recognizes our dependence on nuclear power. I call on the government to ensure that this dependence is not increased, that the constant subsidization of the nuclear industry is eliminated, that we ensure that the liability is adequate, and that we move to the discovery of technologies that will provide Canadians and society at large with clean and safe sources of energy.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I know the members opposite are keen to hear another speech on Bill C-23, the nuclear safety act.

As members know, I have a new role within the party and I do not have a lot to do with this bill, but I did spend several months as the critic in the natural resource area and did quite a bit of work in this area. Therefore, I would just like to make a few comments before the bill passes.

As has been mentioned already by our critic, Reform members will be supporting this bill, but there are a few things we would like to see changed. However, this is a good bill and long overdue.

The comments made by the hon. member for Davenport were, by and large, very accurate and very well taken. His concern with the

decommissioning costs, with the true costs of the creation of electrical power from nuclear energy being reflected in the cost to the consumer, is an accurate statement and something that has not been done. It has created an enormous liability for the federal government and provincial governments, but specifically for the federal government as it is on the hook for billions of dollars. That is an unfortunate and should have been addressed years ago. This bill starts the process of correcting that but it has been a long time coming.

(2010 )

We can do a few things to strengthen the bill. It has been mentioned by several people that the bill has been a long time coming. The minister promised it a year ago, again last fall and it finally came in this spring. We are grateful for it after a 50-year wait. It increases some of the fines and punishments that can be dished out. The existing punishments are ridiculously low. A maximum of $10,000 can be charged under the old act, which is a laughable amount.

The bill deals with the overlap and duplication of arrangements between provinces and the federal government. However, Reformers have several concerns about the bill.

First and most important is the treatment of radioactive waste. I mentioned that the bill has been a long time coming. While we have been waiting, in the last year or two there have been developments which are placing the federal government and the taxpayers on the hook for big bucks. It is going to end up costing a lot of money.

This has been delayed not only by this government but by previous Liberal governments that had introduced bills and then let them die on the Order Paper. It was introduced by the Conservatives who also let it die. Now finally, hopefully, we can get through the bill quickly and get royal assent.

In 1994 the Atomic Energy Control Board Secretary General J.G. McManus said about the old Atomic Energy Control Act:

The deficiencies of the Atomic Energy Control Act have been noted by the courts, the media, special interest groups and parliamentary committees. They include the lack of formal powers for AECB inspectors, an inadequate ceiling on the $10,000 on fines, no stated provision for public hearings, lack of explicit power to recover the cost of regulation from the users, an inability to hold polluters financially accountable for their actions or for the AECB to initiate remedial action and recover the costs-the AECB is handicapped by its statutory underpinnings which reflect the needs of another age.

There are no nuclear reactors in British Columbia. It is not a big issue and I doubt that it ever will be because I do not think that there is a chance to get public approval for a nuclear energy plant in British Columbia. I cannot foresee that day. However, people in B.C. are very environmentally concerned and this is very high on their list of concerns. As taxpayers they are also concerned about the amount of money that may be required to fix this long lasting nuclear problem.

Nuclear waste is a big problem. To dispose of low level waste in Ontario is going to cost at least $300 million. That is just an estimate. If anything goes wrong in the transportation or the disposal it could be much higher. That is just $300 million to start.

I have been to the high level waste test sites where they are trying to find ways to dispose of the high level wastes in Pinawa. To bury this high level waste will cost from $13 billion to $16 billion and that is just an estimate. If track records mean anything it is likely to be much higher. The problem for everybody across Canada is that the tab will have to be picked up by the Canadian taxpayer.

I think members on the other side are trying to make the nuclear sign with their hands. So I will go on for a bit longer about this particular cause.

Over the last 20 years if there had been a fund established to look after the decommissioning costs of the nuclear sites and the wastes generated, then this would almost be a housekeeping bill. No one would much care about the details because at least the dollars would have been looked after. However, there was nothing set up 20 years ago and billions of dollars are going to have to be paid by a generation that did not benefit from that electrical energy.

(2015)

This is a principle which I would hope the Liberal government would pay attention to on more issues. The government is now concerned that the generation which will benefit from this electrical power should be the one that pays for it. If we translated that into other government legislation, we would not have a national debt which is pushing $600 billion.

If the government was concerned about ensuring that the generation which is benefiting from programs or benefiting from government largesse was the one paying the bills, who could argue with that? However, governments have saddled future generations with excessively high tax rates and problems such as this one which will cost billions of dollars to correct.

When I talk to high school students about this intergenerational transfer of wealth and the fact that people in the federal government have been satisfied to saddle them with these bills, they are upset. We cannot blame them. They will be paying the taxes, the pensions, UI premiums and everything else at excessively high

rates. When I mention to them that there will be another $13 billion or $15 billion for a nuclear clean-up and that their environmentally conscious generation will have to pay the bills which their fathers and grandfathers ran up, they are not impressed. It is not right.

The principle should be that if we create an environmental mess, we should clean it up. If the government has a problem, it should pay for it now. It should not ask our children and our children's children to clean up the mess which is being created now. Procrastination has created the problems. It is unfair both financially and environmentally to put off what should have been done a long time ago.

With respect to the funding of the clean-up, there is no fund in place. It is a real problem. There are some bookkeeping entries and yes there is an obligation. However, as the hon. member for Davenport has pointed out, there is no fund. If it is going to cost $10 billion or $20 billion to clean up this mess and we ask where the money will come from, the government will say that it will come out of general revenue when the time comes. That may be 10 or 20 years from now. If that is not another intergenerational transfer of wealth I do not know what is.

The government is going to ask somebody to pay for it down the road. When we think of the clean up of the tailings from mines, the clean up of some sites such as the Bruce power plant and so on, we should start setting aside a significant amount of dollars now so that the current consumers and producers will fund those clean-ups. Reformers believe that the policy of pay as you go certainly applies to environmental clean-ups and definitely to the nuclear industry.

In April I received a letter from the Saskatchewan minister of energy and mines, the hon. Eldon Lautermilch. It was in response to a letter I had written to him concerning this legislation. He said that there was concern about overlap and duplication in the regulation of the uranium mining and milling operations and that therefore they were disappointed with the limited provisions within the act to delegate administration to the provinces.

That lack of ability to delegate responsibility is something we will address in committee with an amendment to try to at least give the power to delegate. In other words, we will try to reduce the amount of duplication between the federal and provincial governments and allow the federal government to delegate to the provinces on that issue. Saskatchewan would be the major benefactor of that.

(2020)

We have suggested that the act could be amended to allow for a clearer division of responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments in the whole area of the clean up of the tailings from uranium mines that have now been decommissioned. There are problems with leaching and with who is responsible for the clean up. On the one hand it is a provincial resource and on the other hand it has been regulated by the federal government. We have to solve the financial mess and the environmental mess that goes with that.

We have general concerns about the independence of the board from politicians. We do not want a board that is made up of people who have been appointed because they have a paid up Liberal card. We want to make sure that people who are appointed to this board, a superboard with superpowers, will be qualified and will be the right people.

We have suggested that board members not be appointed by a House of Commons standing committee but could be approved or vetoed by the committee. In other words, let us have people who have general qualifications. They could come before a committee and say what they were going to do and why they should have the job regardless of their political background and we could be satisfied with their qualifications. That would be an improvement as well.

We have a small problem with the make up of the board. In 1985 the Nielsen commission said the board was too small and the size of the board has been increased somewhat. That was a good idea but it has still been left that just two members have to be full time members. We think two full time members on this board is not going to be enough. This board is going to have a lot of powers and a lot of responsibilities. With the responsibilities the board has been given under this act, more members will be need.

This new act is going to add legitimacy to this commission. The confidence Canadians have in the nuclear industry will increase if they see that the commission has powers and follows through on some of the problems that the member for Davenport, the auditor general, the Nielsen report and other reports have consistently identified for all to see.

To give Ontario credit, hearings on the nuclear industry have been held from time to time and in times past all these hearings have been public hearings. But the act does not specify that any hearings relating to the nuclear industry must be public hearings. It should be changed so that hearings must be held. Canadians can then be assured that the process is very open and that nothing is hidden from them and nothing is being done behind closed doors.

I know the government, given its track record for example on constitutional issues, would never want to do something behind closed doors I am sure. Well maybe I am not entirely convinced but certainly that is an amendment we will be proposing because we want things out in the open.

In conclusion, we welcome this act. As it goes to committee we are going to find widespread agreement on the act.

I will put in a little plug for my private member's bill which also deals with the nuclear industry and the need for liability insurance in order to protect the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian public. There is some room for that which is not addressed in this act. There is a necessity to update the nuclear industry regulation into the 21st century so that Canadians can have confidence that the regulation and control of the industry will make it as safe as possible.

(2025 )

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

* * *

REGULATIONS ACT

Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill C-25, the new regulations act, be approved in principle.

Let me say how pleased we are to have had the benefit of prestudy by a subcommittee of the government operations committee in the last session. Even though the subcommittee's hearings were interrupted by the prorogation, the input we received has allowed us to make some slight technical modifications to the bill that result in an overall improvement without altering the substance of the bill. We are very much appreciative of the assistance provided by the government operations subcommittee and the members of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations who sat on the subcommittee.

Regulatory reform continues to be an area of broad interest to Canadians. There are many avenues which the government is pursuing in a way to improve the way it regulates. The new regulations act offers important improvements to the Canadian system of regulation established almost a quarter of a century ago by the Statutory Instruments Act. This act will streamline the regulatory process and reduce delays in the current process by which regulations are made at the federal level in Canada. This will allow regulations to be changed more readily to respond to new circumstances and needs.

Although these reforms were announced as part of this government's broader efforts toward building a more innovative economy and improving jobs and growth, the problems created by the current regulatory process have been identified many times during the past few years. Calls for changes have been most recently heard in the course of the public consultations that took place during the government wide regulatory review in 1992 and 1993. As well, the reforms aim to modernize and reform the legal framework for regulation making at the federal level.

The Statutory Instruments Act was designed for an earlier era of regulation. It is complex, cumbersome, slow and overburdened and this imposes a real cost to all Canadians. Outdated and inappropriate regulatory schemes can impact negatively on respect for law, competitiveness and economic growth as well as upon the working relations of the regulated private sector and government regulators.

Outdated regulatory schemes that are not well tailored to changing circumstances increase the government costs of obtaining compliance. Delays in modernizing and improving regulatory schemes reduce the ability of government to respond to new developments in the fields of health, safety, the environment, international trade and federal-provincial relations.

(2030 )

The negative impact of a slow and cumbersome regulatory process is also experienced by Canadian businesses because of outdated and inappropriate regulations that tend to reduce competitiveness and economic growth, generally speaking.

The limitations and the delays that are created by the existing regulation making system result in hidden, but very real, costs to all Canadians in the form of increased expenditure of revenues spent in enforcing outdated and inappropriate regulations and reduced competitiveness in the global marketplace.

No one could seriously dispute that the current regulatory process must be reformed in order to keep pace with the current realities of regulation in the 1990s and into the 21st century. Bill C-25 will improve the regulatory process for the benefit of all Canadians. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that reform of the Statutory Instruments Act calls for a careful balancing of different interests.

In the new act, the objectives of streamlining, simplifying and expediting the regulation making process are achieved without compromising equally important goals of ensuring adequate opportunity for notice, public comment and effective oversight by Parliament of the creation of binding, subordinate legislation.

It is important, therefore, to emphasize that the reforms being proposed in the regulations act are largely technical improvements that would not radically alter the existing process. Rather, they will clarify existing legal uncertainties that give rise to debate and delay, simplify steps where appropriate and modernize the process.

I would like to emphasize that the new regulations act will preserve and strengthen the fundamental principles and objectives of the Statutory Instruments Act, which provides legal safeguards necessary in making binding laws such as regulations.

These objectives include ensuring the legality, transparency and accessibility of regulations and providing a meaningful opportunity for parliamentary oversight of the executive in the exercise of this law making power.

The new act will improve the capacity of government to respond quickly and effectively to public concerns as well as to changing rapidly for the circumstances of the global economy. It will also reduce the overall volume of regulations that go through the system and provide an expedited process, where appropriate, and allow for a more effective use of incorporation by reference. It will create a framework for achieving important administrative improvements in the way government departments handle regulation making as well.

By facilitating amendment or replacing an outdated regulatory scheme, regulating departments will be better placed to implement new ideas about how to regulate more effectively, and at a lower cost, to all Canadians.

The reforms found in Bill C-25 will create a new regulations act that will be better tailored to the contemporary regulatory climate.

I would like to briefly outline some of the key elements of reform that are found in this bill. They are a simpler, more principled definition of regulation and other plain language improvements; an appropriate view of different classes of documents, including an expedited process for documents that do not require legal review; a revised exemption power that will now be subject to an express public interest consideration; a codification and clarification of the law by expressly authorizing the incorporation by reference of international and other standards into regulations, subject to an express accessibility requirement; a modernized process that allows for the creation of an electronic registry of regulations; and finally, maintenance for government accountability for regulations through parliamentary scrutiny.

(2035)

The new regulations act will relieve the system of documents that do not need to be subject to the regulatory process or at least to the whole process, either because they are not substantive or truly regulatory in the sense of establishing generally binding rules of conduct, or because their legality and accessibility are assured in some other way. This will allow the attention as well as the resources of the regulatory process and of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations to be focused on the important legal instruments that warrant that attention.

With respect to the provisions on incorporation by reference, it is important to understand that they do not create a new regulatory technique. They merely clarify and codify a legal technique that is currently being widely used across Canada, and whose legitimacy has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. This technique is widely employed in Europe and has been advocated by the Standards Council of Canada and many international bodies, including the International Standards Organization in Geneva.

Incorporation of standards into regulations, particularly as they are amended from time to time, is an important way for government to promote the goals of international and intergovernmental harmonization of regulatory standards. Reliance on the expertise and timeliness of international and interprovincial standards writing organizations is of significant value in promoting Canadian competitiveness, particularly in contexts of rapid technological change. The usefulness of this technique in promoting Canadian competitiveness was recognized in the 1993 report of the finance subcommittee on regulations and competitiveness.

I am confident that ministers and cabinet can be relied on to ensure that incorporation by reference of standards that exist as of a certain date or as amended from time to time will be employed in appropriate circumstances and that the bodies creating the standards are expert and reliable such that Canadians will be satisfied with the standards that are being adopted.

While these provisions on incorporation by reference simply reflect the current law and practice, I would like to draw members' attention to the fact that we are also proposing a significant improvement over the current practice in that the new regulations act would create an expressed statutory duty on regulating departments to ensure that incorporated materials are accessible.

I also want to emphasize that the improvements offered by Bill C-25 will not be at the cost of the equally important objectives of the regulatory process, including necessary parliamentary review of regulations. The new act will not only preserve but strengthen the role currently played by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations by providing that all regulations that meet the new simplified but principled definition of regulations will stand permanently referred to that committee, together will all other documents that are required to be registered. The standing joint committee will be free at any time to call for review and

comment on regulations that incorporate materials, and in so doing will have access as well to the incorporated material. The structure of the current Statutory Instruments Act limits the instruments that are referred to the standing joint committee in a way that the proposed act will not do.

(2040)

Clear cost savings and environmental benefits will result from the proposed electronic registry with a reduced reliance on paper. The registry will also ultimately provide regulated communities, interest groups and the public generally with quicker and more direct means of consultation and commentary on proposed regulatory changes.

We are well aware that not all Canadians are computer literate yet and that access to laws published in paper form will continue to be the method of choice for many Canadians. Therefore, I would like to emphasize that the proposed electronic system is intended to supplement and not replace the existing system of paper, publication and access. Regulations will continue to be widely available in paper format. They will be published in the Canada Gazette which is accessible through local libraries and by subscription. Under the act paper copies can also be requested from the Office of the Clerk of the Privy Council or from the departments responsible for the regulations.

The regulatory process provided for in the Statutory Instruments Act is too complex and burdensome to be able to keep pace with the changing regulatory needs. The overall effect of the reforms contained in Bill C-25 will be less stress on the existing system by reducing the number and volume of regulations subject to the general regulatory process while preserving the important value embodied in the original scheme.

The result will be a system that is more responsive and efficient, which will be in a better position to give the federal government a renewal that modernizes the existing regulatory process and put in place regulatory schemes that better address the need and the interests of Canadians, both the general public and the regulated communities.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have to speak to Bill C-25, entitled Regulations Act. This bill had been introduced in the House last fall under the number C-84. Before that, there was the famous Bill C-62, the Regulatory Efficiency Act. I think the hon. member for Fundy-Royal remembers it. Bill C-62 died on the Order Paper and, as he was saying, Bill C-84 was introduced last fall.

I believe the hon. member for Fundy-Royal should remember the saying that the bird that sings best does not always sing the longest. He would certainly have heaped less praise on Bill C-84. I would just like to remind him that I was a member of the sub-committee he mentioned. That sub-committee convened once to set up and, a second time, for about half an hour, in the building facing us, to meet the officials who came to explain the bill to us. Unfortunately, that meeting was interrupted by the bell calling us in. We came to vote and, after that, we never heard about the sub-committee on Bill C-84.

We had made some recommendations to the justice department, particularly to the solicitor general of Canada. We had told him it would be worthwhile to examine that bill in committee, before second reading, because of its effects on the daily lives of businesses, of citizens, of all Canadians. That committee should have been made up of members of the Joint Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.

(2045)

As you know a committee was created some 20 years ago, pursuant to Standing Order 90, I believe, namely the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which I co-chair with Senator Lewis. The main purpose of this committee is to scrutinize all regulations under federal legislation. The work load of the committee is staggering. Every year, we must study between 800 and 1,000 statutory instruments. We report to the House and make recommendations to the department concerned. We have a team of lawyers working for the committee.

This committee of experts would have been in the best position to give advice to the House. We know what happened last fall. The House adjourned for the Christmas recess. In February, the session was prorogued to the end of February. All the bills which had died on the Order Paper reappeared on the legislative agenda under a different number and Bill C-84 became C-25. In spite of these cosmetic changes, the content of the bill is still the same.

When I told my colleague opposite that sometimes the bird that sings best does not sing the longest I meant that, if I were him, I would not have dared to praise this bill and present it to the House as if it were the best thing since sliced bread. On the contrary, I believe the member should think twice about it, and I am going to give him arguments which hopefully will make him change his mind.

Mr. Speaker, your silence tells me you support my approach. Silence gives consent, obviously. Through you, I will make my arguments known to the member for Fundy-Royal. Regulation is defined as a series of rules established and enforced by the state to limit or clarify the nature of a society's economic and social

activity. Regulation is made following the adoption of a law. That is our rule, the one we know now, the one that has always prevailed in this Parliament.

In practice, most regulations are drafted and adopted by Cabinet. There are an average of 800 new regulations each year. They deal with all kinds of things, some very significant, others less significant, from the diameter of dimes to the fission of the atom. Regulations are always important and must be consistent with the spirit and letter of the enabling act. So, in practice, regulations are proposed by Cabinet and adopted by the governor-in-council.

Regulation has become the most common form of public intervention. It would be unthinkable to monopolize the House and its 295 members every time a regulatory change is needed. If the House was called upon to make these changes, it would soon be completely paralysed. The regulatory process is something useful that we all want.

It is governed by the Statutory Instruments Act. The revision process was initiated in January 1993 when the finance committee called for a comprehensive review of the regulatory process. Bill C-25 is the final result of this reform undertaken more than three years ago.

(2050)

As I said earlier, it is almost identical to its predecessor, Bill C-84, which was introduced during the first session of this 35th Parliament. In December 1993, the subcommittee on regulations and competitiveness of the Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons released its report entitled Regulations and Competitiveness, in which it included the results of its analysis of the impact of regulations on competitiveness.

The then Conservative government gave the report a rather good reception. The Bloc Quebecois does not deny the fact that the current process can sometimes, and I would go as far as saying quite often, lead to delays and thus additional costs. So, it was in everyone's best interest to try to review the regulatory process so that our corporations which rely on it could benefit from it, by reducing their production costs or simply their operation costs.

The objectives of the parliamentarians were to develop a regulatory system that could produce a high quality product while eliminating all the garbage by improving the drafting, implementation and evaluation of regulations.

Since several recommendations found in the subcommittee report support a more comprehensive framework for the regulatory process and for the role played by the Treasury Board president and secretariat in that process, the government should have included in Bill C-25 additional obligations at some other stages of the regulatory process.

For instance, the government could have racked its brains a bit more-although that is not its forte-and tried to elaborate some more on the decision to regulate. It could have asked parliamentarians or the appropriate authority to hold hearings and consultations, to develop the regulations and do a cost-benefit analysis of the regulations.

It could also have defined the powers of the Treasury Board president and secretariat. Thus the government would have respected the will of the elected members of the last Parliament and put into place a more restrictive legislative framework for the civil servants. Remember this: the legislative framework is the watchdog of the subdelegation of powers as we see it.

If we let the civil servants do as they want, without any legal restriction whatsoever, we may after a while find ourselves with legal monsters, a court overload never ever seen before and administrative costs a hundred times higher than those we wanted to avoid in the first place with this defective regulation.

What I understand also is that, since the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility, the federal government keeps its money and sees to it that others foot the bill. It legislates on principles but never on anything more definite. It says: ``The courts will decide.'' But the provinces are the ones who pay the courts. They are the ones who pay the judges. That costs a bundle.

What is saved with one hand is spent with the other. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal did not dwell on that because he is not known for helping taxpayers or the provinces save money.

As it is, Bill C-25 does not provide any framework for the regulatory powers of the Treasury Board. Several stages of the regulatory process, that is, the decision making, the preparation of the regulation, the consultation of all those concerned and the cost-benefit analysis, remain the responsibility of the civil servants pursuant to Bill C-25.

The President of the Treasury Board is under no legal obligation to develop such directives and the regulatory agencies are under no legal obligation to respect them. This is swell.

I will take Bill C-25 as is but I will not examine it in detail.

(2055)

I will not do a clause-by-clause review. However, I must admit there are some good things. First off I said we must try to reduce costs associated with the regulation process as well as the repercussions it can have on businesses.

Section 2 of the old Statutory Instruments Act gave an ambiguous definition of statutory instruments or regulations. It was confusing. Sooner or later, lawyers from the department or the

private sector take the matter before the courts. Then people complain about the cost.

Therefore we have grouped under the word ``regulation'' general implementation texts established under a federal law and creating unilaterally binding rules of conduct. This is fine, but we must still take into consideration the way the government sees privatization.

It happens on a regular basis. Airports are privatized. We have autonomous Crown corporations like Post Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada, Telesat Canada and numerous other agencies which are creations of the federal government but still have powers of their own. Their enabling act empowers them to adopt standards and to legislate.

These people, companies, interests, are not touched by Bill C-25. This was a concern for the Standing Committee on scrutiny of regulations, of which I am a joint-chairman. We received complaints from people affected by the regulations. We could easily see there was something wrong. The legislator's intent had not been respected.

Since their regulation did not stem from a statute of Parliament but rather from an independent agency, we could not check it or make recommendations to the House. Bill C-25 does not change that; the situation will be the same and could even get worse. We talked, for example, about the corporation created from scratch by the federal government to provide air navigation services. That corporation, like others, will be exempt from control under Bill C-25.

Already Bill C-25 has the pernicious, and I almost said perverse and secret effect of excluding all parliamentarians from the decision making process. This is again a new approach, a Liberal type of neo-federalism whereby management is all done behind closed doors. They make regulations which, more often than not, give preference to major contributors to their slush fund.

They can adopt standards that apply only to them, that are profitable only for them. They can do it secretly, without publishing the information so the adversaries will not know about it, so that the Tories will not know that Mr. Bronfman gave to both the Liberals and the Tories. Nothing is published, all is kept secret so everything looks fine.

I can see where they are going. They come here and sit down and say that the past can vouch for the future. It is easy to say that with a $600 billion debt. It was not the Bloc Quebecois that invented all those standards. My great-grandchildren will still be paying for that debt.

They can very well brag and say that if God had not created them, the world would be coming to an end, but I disagree. It might be the beginning of a better world, since the debt might not be so huge.

I listen to the member for Mount Royal- You know, I think I preferred the great Groulx to Pettigrew.

Mr. Pettigrew: So you prefer that type of approach?

Mr. Lebel: I was referring to the priest.

(2100)

The regulatory process can be very onerous at times, but democracy has a price. All of us would like everything to be democratic, but we would rather not pay for that. Unfortunately, human beings will be human beings, Mr. Speaker. I know from your silence that you agree. I am sure my remarks are accurate, and I can assure you I have the best intentions. Even the Prime Minister would not stand up to contradict me. And the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel will not do so either, because they know I am right. These people know that governing a country is important, and that the implications are enormous. Sometimes, when we make miserly economies, we run the risk of stalling the economy and doing more harm than good.

I let the hon. member across throw me off track, but I will now go on. I was commenting on a few clauses in the bill. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal has praised incorporation by reference.

It is not that simple. Clause 19 or 20 of the bill, I believe, deals with incorporation by reference. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel will no doubt agree that this procedure can be interesting when you need to incorporate things like automobile standards. Instead of putting them in regulations, it is more simple to say that we accept the standards set in such and such a book of specifications by General Motors on such and such a date. That is fine, but incorporation by reference can also have unwanted consequences.

You will recall an incorporation by reference involving the number 6803, which states that calculating pension income for someone who has worked in the U.S. for some years and might be entitled to a pension requires reference to American Government Order no. 6803 to determine the amount of pension. Order 6803, however, may be cost of living indexed, and we who have referred to it, to an authority outside of Canada, attempt to comply because we are not the ones to decide, a foreign government is.

It might have been wise to state, and I am in agreement with the government on this, that when there is incorporation by reference, this may include a foreign government such as the U.S. Government. This is not done, however, and so we find ourselves before the courts, who will tell us that it is unacceptable for a regulation passed in the United States to be applied by reference to Canadians.

There will also be another problem. Some will say that the regulation was adopted in English only in the United States. Does that not contravene section 133 of Canada's Constitution? This is going to be another problem. The intent was to lower the standards,

and then we will be forced to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court from 9 to 27 overnight.

So you see, in an effort to make savings, we are going to find ourselves with additional expenditures. Thus, although we start out with good intentions, when laws are badly written, we end up with legal monsters of a sort. It does not look like anything. We cannot make head or tail of it. We do not know what it is. After all, it probably does not amount to much. This could, however, reward and benefit friends of the party, who, thanks to vague and ambiguous documents, could end up getting some kind of norm applying only to them.

(2105)

One of my constituents, for whom I have the greatest respect, told me he had heard that the post office in Chambly was for sale. It could have been. When you do not need a post office any longer, you sell it. He was interested in bidding for it. So, I called Canada Post to ask if the post office was for sale. I was told that, no, they had not decided to sell it. So I ask for an assurance that if ever it is put up for sale there will be a public call for tenders. They replied: ``Oh, no, Mr. Lebel, we cannot give you that assurance''. If they wanted to, the post office could even be given away. They are not under any obligation to follow the regulations of the House of Commons, to call for tenders, etc. If they want, they can give it away even if people are willing to pay a good price for that post office.

The only rule Canada Post Corporation has to abide by is that it must come before the House of Commons every year to say it is making profits. As long as there are profits, nobody complains. That is what I was told and I know these people are acting in good faith. They will not give the post office away. However, I know that legally they could do so because they do not come under the control of the House of Commons.

All we are doing here is giving them some appropriations when they are in the red. However, we do not ask them anything when they are making money. In this way, it is always the taxpayer who pays.

What I just said pertains to incorporation by reference. There is another aspect to this bill. It also deals with the publication of bills and regulations. The rules are changed by saying: ``The Governor in Council may, by regulation, exempt from the application of the regulatory process a regulation or class of regulations that was prescribed under- the- Act as exempt from examination, registration or publication under that Act immediately before its repeal''. There was none. There were not many, but there were still a few.

It says a regulation may be published, but also that it may not be published. No one can be convicted on the basis of the publication of that regulation, if means had not been taken to make it known appropriately. But this provision is rather vague. It says that people should know about a regulation even though it was not published. They should have realized that; they are smarter than that. There is no strict rule. That is the bill's greatest flaw.

I said at the beginning of my speech that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal should not have been so full of praise; I wonder if he did read the bill.

The Prime Minister is still sitting; he is not rising to his feet because he knows I am right. He will not rise. The leader of the opposition agrees with me on this. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel will not rise either for the same reason. As for the Prime Minister, he is not rising because he agrees with me and will probably send you back to the drawing board since, as you know, this kind of wording makes it impossible to save money.

Mention is made of defence mechanisms. ``No person may be convicted of an offence or subjected to a penalty for a contravention of a regulation''. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, who is responsible for international affairs, should listen. He should pay attention to clause 11. The Prime Minister may even step in at this time. Listen to this: ``No person may be convicted of an offence or subjected to a penalty for a contravention of a regulation that was not published in accordance with section 10 on or before the date of the alleged contravention''.

(2110)

We are reasonable people. We do not want to convict someone who committed an offence unwittingly, someone who did not comply with unpublished regulations, regulations hidden in the minister's office. Fortunately not in the office of the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel.

However, it says here that this person can be convicted of an offence if it is proved that, on or before the date of the alleged contravention, the person had actual notice of the substance of the regulation or reasonable steps had been taken to bring its substance to the notice of persons likely to be affected by it.

Again, what constitutes reasonable steps? Whatever seems reasonable to us invariably seems unreasonable to them. I guess the opposite is also true: What is reasonable to them can seem unreasonable to us. How can an agreement be reached then, if not through a tribunal, which will have the unenviable task of determining what is reasonable and what is not? I say to the Minister for International Cooperation that this is what I call poorly designed legislation. And I know that his department would not go for this kind of an enactment. He could not show up in Europe with something like this; they would send him packing, and I know he can do better than that.

I must tell the minister that we, the humble people living in Canada, do not find it easy to submit to such legislative imperatives. It is not easy, especially when we are told that, from now on, the regulations will be hidden and will be administered in such a

way that the taxpayer will not even know what is happening. It is their friends who will benefit. It reminds me of what family trusts did with $2 billion and was discovered two or three years after the fact.

In any case, I can tell you that my father did not benefit from these $2 billion. Look elsewhere, but not in our house.

There is something wrong in all this, and yet it is still going on. And this is nothing, just think of Bill C-62. I wonder if we are not having the same problem with Bill C-64, or Bill C-25 as it is now called, as we did with Bill C-62 regarding the standards of practice, since what is not prohibited in a statutory instrument is permitted.

So, there was a general outcry. The media were quick to react, saying that this was not possible, that it was impossible to pass a measure such as Bill C-62. The minister backed off. He could no longer go ahead. He was knocked out, if I can put it that way.

I wonder if, with Bill C-84, we are now once again facing the harmful effects of Bill C-62, but in an even more insidious way. This would really be dangerous. We would be missing an opportunity to reduce costs and all that, setting absolutely unbelievable precedents and leaving the door wide open to astronomical legal costs to correct these situations through the courts.

Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill. We could not vote in favour of it, despite the fact that initially I detected some rather interesting ideas in it, but there are too few good ones as opposed to bad ones.

My mother, who is not as young as she used to be, was very well brought up. She did not want us to use certain words. One day, I got a nail through a foot and the wound looked real bad; my mother, not wanting to call a spade a spade, said that the wound was full of rust and bad stuff. Well, this is it: your bill is full of rust and bad stuff. You should amend it and put forward something palatable, reasonable and transparent. I am sure that this time the Prime Minister, even at this late hour, will jump up and applaud his ministers' initiative.

The Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. member concluded his remarks? Concluded.

The hon. minister wants the floor on a point of order.

Mr. Pettigrew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

(2115)

The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the hon. member has finished his remarks. The minister wishes to raise a point of order, and he now has the floor first.

Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, being a new member of Parliament, I would like some advice. The hon. member opposite has repeatedly mentioned a member who is not here, suggesting that he should jump to his feet because of the outlandish statements he made during his speech. I wonder if this behaviour is parliamentary.

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my colleague that the last speaker never mentioned the presence or absence of another member. If the hon. member is present, then he will no doubt jump to his feet, but if he is absent, the expression was no doubt used in a figurative sense. But since nobody mentioned the presence or absence of that other member, I think this is not a point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: This is interesting but it is quite obvious that the hon. member did not say that the member in question is not here. The hon. member for Joliette is quite right.

[English]

Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, judging by that last little go round you can tell this is a long, hot summer night. We are so fortunate to be here in the House discussing Bill C-25, which could only come from the minds of Liberals. The bill is a very complex piece of legislation. It is difficult to read, it is difficult to interpret and it is difficult to discuss. It is typical Liberal legislation.

As a matter of fact the bill could almost be called frightening from the perspective of the average Canadian. Understanding the intent of the bill, which is suspect in itself, and based on reading the text, it is a challenge.

We Reformers are up to challenges from the Liberals when they bring in complex legislation, thinking that perhaps the average Canadian whom we represent is not going to understand it. We are the watchdogs. We are leading the charge for average Canadians. We attempt to clarify complex bills with which the Liberal government tries to fool the people.

Despite the complexity of the bill, it is clear that the government is following a trend which has already been set in other parliamentary democracies, like Australia. It is hard to believe but the trend is toward simplification and streamlining of the regulatory process. That is also hard to believe coming from the Liberal Party. It is to make the regulatory process more compatible with the present day needs of commerce, government and the public.

Goodness knows, if there is one thing the public, commerce and government need is more simplified regulations. Any chamber of commerce, any business organization will tell you it costs Canadian consumers and businesses billions and billions of dollars a year because ineffective and unnecessary regulations are still on the books that some government in the past has put in place.

What this country really needs, and what this government should do, instead of trying to put in complex legislation, is do a cost test on every regulation we have and find out whether it is really worthwhile or whether it is just sitting there in a redundant state. There is no doubt that streamlining and simplification, in itself, are both desirable and necessary. However, we found a flaw in this bill and it is a deadly flaw. There is no provision for disallowance. In other words, the regulatory committee, the watchdog of the regulations, cannot disallow a regulation that is unlawful or ultra vires.

(2120)

My colleague, the member for North Vancouver, sits on the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. It is a committee made up of members from the House and from the Senate. The task of the committee is to examine regulations that have been made by the government and its departments in order to determine whether they are legal and consistent with the intent of the legislation under which they are made.

The vast majority of the regulations that pass through the committee are entirely in order. They may not be good regulations but from a legal point they are entirely in order. They generally require no comment.

A small percentage have to be followed up with the department involved. Quite often the problem is simply a matter of correcting minor differences in the meaning between the English and French versions of the regulations or clarifying the meaning if a misinterpretation is a possibility.

As I said, under this bill the committee does not have the power to disallow a regulation which is ultra vires or unlawful. This power is rarely used, but nevertheless is a very important power for the committee to retain. I think most Liberals would agree with me on this. The regulation watchdog must have the ability to enforce its decisions or those decisions could be rendered meaningless.

Bill C-25 makes the provision for regulations to be referred to the committee, but contains no provisions for disallowance. This means that even if the committee found that a regulation was illegal, it simply could not disallow the regulation.

It is the failure to include a disallowance procedure that makes Bill C-25 significantly different from the streamlining legislation passed in Australia. That government had the foresight to put in a disallowance clause so that the committee could do some meaningful work and make some meaningful decisions.

My colleague from North Vancouver, in his wisdom and in his common sense, introduced a private member's bill that would add a disallowance procedure to Bill C-25.

Everyone in this place knows that the chances of a private member's bill, no matter how good it is, no matter how much

common sense it contains, no matter how it would help democracy in this place, no matter how much it would make the lives of Canadians better, no matter how much it would make the lives of Canadian business people better, has very little chance of getting through this House.

The reason sits right across the way. This Liberal government allows very few private member's bills to proceed. I can talk personally about that. I knew halfway through this speech I would get to this private member's bill problem.

My Bill C-201, for example, deals with the sentencing of drunk drivers who kill. Liberals know it is a bill that the Canadian people want. They know it is a bill that is long overdue. They know it is a bill that is going to create a deterrent to people who drink and drive, and as a result, kill.

(2125 )

A Liberal legal mind is telling me that because of some legal complication my bill cannot be put through. Despite these legal minds in the Liberal Party or maybe because of these legal minds in the Liberal Party, they are unable to understand what the average Canadian wants.

We have presented thousands and thousands of names on petitions demanding that Bill C-201 go through, at least to committee. This Liberal government, through the whip, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, has not allowed any Liberal member who wanted to speak in favour of this bill to speak. That is shameful, absolutely shameful.

My colleague from North Vancouver introduced a private member's bill that would add a disallowance procedure to Bill C-25. Everyone in this place, because of the hard headedness of this Liberal government-I take that back, soft headedness-

Mr. Solomon: Empty headedness.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will be more kind than my friend from the NDP, although he is correct.

No matter how much merit it has, the Liberal government will not let that private member's bill go through. As a result of its decisions Bill C-278, the private member's bill to have a disallowance procedure in this legislation, was defeated by that party.

The real responsibility for the failure to provide a disallowance procedure lies fairly and squarely with the Minister of Justice. This is not the only mistake that has made since he came to this House.

The Minister of Justice, despite several requests by our party, still has not explained why he refuses to incorporate that disallowance procedure. He has simply not allowed that procedure to go through, and has given no rationale or explanation.

The Liberal government and the Minister of Justice missed a tremendous opportunity when they left out the disallowance clause in this bill. As Reformers, the watchdogs of the Canadian people, the watchdogs of Canadian business, the watchdogs of all that is right and just in this country, we say shame on the Liberal government. We cannot support a bill that has a fatal flaw in it. This bill has a fatal flaw in it and we will not support it.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The Deputy Speaker: The deputy whip for the government has requested the division on the motion be deferred until tomorrow at the end of Government Orders.

Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think if you would ask you would find unanimous consent in the House to further defer the division until next Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, is there unanimous consent to defer the division until next Tuesday?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

_____________________________________________