36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 193
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 10, 1999
1400
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SINGLE INCOME FAMILIES
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LET'S GROW COMMITTEE
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 2003 WORLD FORESTRY CONGRESS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE DOUGLAS TAVERN
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1405
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLAND
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MCGILL UNIVERSITY
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SINGLE INCOME FAMILIES
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER'S BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDIQUE CREIGNISH CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1410
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JEAN-MARIE NADEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILINGUALISM
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1415
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COLLEGE ROYAL
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FAMILIES
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1420
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CULTURAL DIVERSITY
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFRASTRUCTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1430
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON MANPOWER
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1435
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MIRABEL REGION
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1440
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARKS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1445
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Wood |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1450
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Wood |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Gilbert Normand |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RCMP
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR WEAPONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1455
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Godfrey |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1500
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments During Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1505
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tabling of Documents
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Notice of motion
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1510
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-482. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-483. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-484. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1515
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OTTAWA CITIZEN
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Automotive Repair Tools
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mammography
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1520
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divorce Act
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health Care
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Animal Abuse
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Grandparents
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Protection of Children
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Shellfishers
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Grandparents
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1525
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Grandparents
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance Zoning
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gap Between Rich and Poor
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Freshwater Exports
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate
|
1530
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-65. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1535
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1540
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Suspension of Sitting
|
1715
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sitting Resumed
|
1745
(Division 335)
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPETITION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-393. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1750
1755
1800
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1815
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1840
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
1845
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1850
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transport
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1855
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1900
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1905
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1910
![V](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 193
![](/web/20061116181733im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 10, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for St.
John's East.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate the government-elect of Nunavut:
Paul Okalik, the premier, and cabinet members Jack Anawak, James
Arvaluk, Donald Havioyak, Peter Kilabuk, Kelvin Ng, Edward Picco,
Manitok Thompson.
The eyes of the world are upon Nunavut and I know these
dedicated people will serve their constituents and Canada with
wisdom. I wish them every success.
* * *
SINGLE INCOME FAMILIES
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians now see this Liberal government as the enforcer of a
policy that continues to discriminate against families where one
parent chooses to stay at home and raise the children.
Rather than reward parents for such a noble sacrifice, the
Liberals have entrenched a policy of systemic discrimination
against and declared a tax war on single income families.
Adding insult to injury, Liberal MPs could have voted yesterday
to do something about the problem which they and the Progressive
Conservatives created. Instead of supporting Reform's motion to
end this unfair discrimination, the Prime Minister waved his
magic wand and the the backbench flock of mindless Liberal MPs
obeyed.
So single income families will continue to be cheated.
Meanwhile, Liberal MPs continue to obey their master instead of
focusing on families which are under an intense tax burden and
having difficulty making ends meet.
At election time, families will not forget this Liberal
injustice.
* * *
THE LET'S GROW COMMITTEE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to congratulate and encourage a group of dedicated
people from my riding of Bruce Grey.
The Let's Grow Committee is a group made up of parents,
educators, health care workers and program co-ordinators. They
meet regularly to discuss better ways to support pregnant women
and new families within the communities they serve.
Again this year, this group of dedicated people will form a work
plan which will work toward the goals and objectives to establish
better services to ensure the best outcomes for young children.
They will work to find the funds to begin new programs and to
continue those that have proven to be successful.
As an enthusiastic supporter of interventions to help young
Canadians develop to their full potential, I support the Let's
Grow organization and any organization like it across this great
country.
* * *
[Translation]
2003 WORLD FORESTRY CONGRESS
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 4 Canada
submitted its bid to host the largest forestry congress in the
world in Quebec City in the year 2003.
The 2003 world forestry congress will provide some 175 FAO
member countries and numerous international organizations with
an unequalled opportunity to exchange ideas and experiences,
with a view to improving all aspects of the practice of
forestry. Worldwide, national and regional recommendations will
also be formulated.
Quebec City was the unanimous choice of all of Canada. It was
supported by the Canadian council of forest ministers and of the
national forest strategy coalition. If Canada is selected, this
will be the first time a world forestry congress will be held in
our country.
Our best wishes to Quebec City in its bid to host this congress,
a major event for Quebec and for all of Canada.
* * *
[English]
THE DOUGLAS TAVERN
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, beginning this weekend, for singing and dancing and
all sorts of fun, the Douglas Tavern cannot be outdone. Drop
into the Douglas Tavern, located in the hamlet of Douglas, in my
great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke during the days
leading up to St. Patrick's Day and you will have the experience
of a lifetime. If you do not meet old friends, you will make new
friends.
Affectionately known as The Diddly, it has become the designated
destination for thousands of Ottawa Valley Irish and Irish rovers
from across the country and around the world. Even if you are
not Irish, you will still be warmly welcomed by owners Terry and
Evelyn McHale.
March 17 is almost a statutory holiday in the valley. It is a
day to celebrate the end of winter, the beginning of spring and
the joy of music, laughter, life, love and fellowship.
It may be magnified in Douglas, but that exhilarating exuberance
beats in the heart of every Canadian of every ethnicity.
Mr. Speaker, slainté.
* * *
BILL C-68
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I met with police officers from my home
province of Saskatchewan. They were all members of the Canadian
Police Association.
They expressed many concerns to me, the most alarming of which
was that they felt people were losing faith in the criminal
justice system. One of the reasons they cited was cutbacks in
resources to fight real crime, while hundreds of millions of
dollars are being wasted on gun registration. Seventy-six per
cent of CPA members in Saskatchewan voted against Bill C-68.
Biker gangs, native gangs and organized crime are moving into
Saskatchewan.
Drug trafficking is on the increase. They said people want to
feel safe or they do not want to be there.
1405
They said crimes are not going down, there are just fewer police
to detect them. They said people are so frustrated they are not
bothering to report crimes any more.
When is the government going to start putting tax dollars where
the police think they will do the most good?
* * *
POLAND
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, March 12 the Polish foreign minister will
deliver the ratification of Poland's accession to NATO to
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in Washington. This event
marks one of the first steps in a truly historic process.
Our government was the first among allied nations to recognize
the importance of the Polish people's desire to gain NATO
membership. The government has heard the call of the
Polish-Canadian community and has fully endorsed the principles
behind NATO enlargement.
This demonstration of support can only increase stability in the
region and strengthen the emerging democracies.
Poland's accession into NATO symbolizes the progress it has made
in past years in transforming its society.
This accession also proves that Poland has now reclaimed its
rightful place in the western world.
I would also take this opportunity to salute Dr. Andrzej
Garlicki, the former president of the Canadian-Polish Congress,
Mr. Lucien Konrad, the current president, as well as countless
others who, for over half a century, have worked to attain a goal
that will come to fruition within a matter of days.
* * *
MCGILL UNIVERSITY
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Montreal is the home of McGill University, an outstanding
national and international world-renowned educational
institution.
Sunday on Parliament Hill I had the honour of hosting members of
the Ottawa Alumni Chapter, highlighting the achievements of the
McGill Middle East Program in Civil Society and Peace Building.
This program is partially funded by the Canadian International
Development Agency and was designed by Dr. Jim Torczyner in
conjunction with the McGill Consortium for Human Rights Advocacy
Training.
Four fellows of the master student program, Jordanians, Israelis
and Palestinians, described how their studies enable them to work
together on their communities' common problems of human
development. Their shared goal is to create a better social
infrastructure and democratic institutions in their region.
The people to people program advances the cause of peace by
promoting civil society. It is an undertaking in collaboration
with universities in Jordan, Israel and Palestine by McGill and
CIDA, enhancing the security of the Middle East.
* * *
SINGLE INCOME FAMILIES
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
the record show that the Prime Minister, the finance minister and
the governing Liberals do not value equitable treatment of
parents. They do not allow parents to make equitable choices
about the care of their children.
Last night's motion called for equity. It called for fairness.
It called for an end to a tax policy which penalizes most parents
and rewards other parental choices.
Every Liberal voted against the motion. What did the motion
say? It simply stated that in the opinion of this House the
federal tax system should be reformed to end discrimination
against single income families with children.
The finance minister admitted that the tax code discriminates
against families by saying that the finance committee should
study the matter. But rather than allowing the House to give
that committee a mandate to end tax discrimination, the order
from the PMO came down to oppose the motion and every single
Liberal MP complied.
How can anyone expect anything—
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER'S BUDGET
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
was only to be expected, yesterday's budget of the Quebec
Minister of Finance was a highly partisan affair.
In particular, he claimed not to need the federal government's
money. However, did anyone notice how quickly our cheque was
cashed?
We are pleased that the $1.4 billion in equalization payments
from the Canadian government will be put into such vital areas
as health and education, both priorities for Quebeckers.
I would remind the sovereignists that Quebeckers are sick of the
quarrels being stirred up artificially by the Parti Quebecois
government. Quebeckers are calling on their government to work
in close collaboration, so that they may gain maximum benefit
from their share.
So, sovereignists, stop playing these prereferendum games.
Quebeckers are calling you to order.
* * *
[English]
JUDIQUE CREIGNISH CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today, after one week, parents ended their occupation of
the Judique Creignish Consolidated School, but the issues that
drove them to the desperate act of staging the occupation remain
unresolved.
1410
Judique is not alone. Last weekend students and parents in
Inverness formed a one kilometre human chain to express concern
about the future of their schools. In Richmond County parents
and students are worried about the site of a new high school.
Once again the federal government has created a budget squeeze
with its cuts to transfer payments. This is combined with a
shiftless provincial government more interested in lining its
friends' pockets.
It is another example of the government cutting off an arm and
then telling the person to be grateful when it gives them back
their hand. It is typical of the contempt with which the
Liberals in Halifax and Ottawa treat rural areas, areas most
affected by the cuts to education and other services.
In this case the provincial government is trying to tell us that
the school whose graduates include Natalie MacMaster and Ashley
MacIsaac is to be closed so students get a better music program.
The Grammy count for the graduating class must be down this year.
I take this opportunity to express my support—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Matapédia—Matane.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN-MARIE NADEAU
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, no man is a
prophet in his own country. Today, Jean-Marie Nadeau, a resident
of Moncton, will receive the Ordre des francophones d'Amérique
from the Government of Quebec. This award from the Conseil de
la langue française is being presented to Mr. Nadeau in
recognition of his remarkable contribution to the development of
Acadia.
Jean-Marie Nadeau has worked all his life for the advancement of
Acadians and for the labour movement.
He has served as a member of the Parti acadien, the NDP, the
Société nationale de l'Acadie, and the Société des Acadiens et
Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, as well as numerous community
groups and labour organizations.
This man of principle lost his job as an editorial writer for
L'Acadie nouvelle for his support of striking newspaper staff.
A staunch nationalist, Jean-Marie Nadeau is also one of the all
too few francophones outside Quebec who are not afraid of
sovereignty, who have understood that a stronger Quebec—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale.
* * *
[English]
BILINGUALISM
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the recent row over bilingualism policy in Reform Party
ranks illustrates both the inability of Reform to accept the
reality of Canada and the heavy handedness of the party
leadership when one of its own steps out of line.
The Reform Party's official spokesperson for bilingualism
welcomed the government's policy on bilingualism, only to be
jumped on by the party whip and the member for Yellowhead who
stated that “we aren't a bilingual country” and that bilingual
policies in Toronto do not make sense.
[Translation]
We, the Liberal members from Toronto, are very proud of
Toronto's multicultural character. But we are also determined
to help the French language flourish in our city. This language
is part of our heritage and is spoken by our fellow
Franco-Ontarians as well as many of us, and its existence in
Toronto's schools, theatres and homes enriches us all.
* * *
CANADIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian olympic association is exceeding its mandate by
including in its information guide for parliamentarians a full
section promoting the national identity, in which it says:
While there are linguistic differences and multiple cultures in
Canada, the 300 Canadian athletes that march in the Olympic
stadium form a single people.
This negation of the existence of the people of Quebec shows the
true colour of Canadian federalism.
How could anyone think that Quebec athletes, who are unfairly
treated in terms of the national support they are getting for
their training needs and whose rights are so often trampled,
will believe such a statement?
Quebec athletes are perfectly capable of determining how the
unitary national identity being promoted by the federal
government reflects their own values.
The very predominantly anglophone Canadian olympic association
should limit its activities to contributing effectively and
fairly to the training of the best athletes.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN POLICE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to police forces across Canada. Yesterday,
and again today, I met with policemen from coast to coast who are
in Ottawa raising their concerns with members of parliament.
In my home city of Saint John, New Brunswick, this year is the
150th anniversary of our municipal police force. The force is
currently 175 members strong and it, like so many police forces
across Canada, is doing a fabulous job. This police force is
involved in over 100 community initiatives that range in
everything from fundraising for community projects to proactive
educational crime prevention.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how proud I am of these brave
police officers and officers all across Canada who every day risk
so much to maintain our safety. I say thank you to all police
forces throughout our nation and I congratulate the Saint John
police force on its 150th anniversary.
* * *
1415
COLLEGE ROYAL
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this month the University of Guelph celebrates the 75th
anniversary of its world renowned College Royal, and what a
celebration it has planned. This year from March 3 to March 14
College Royal will attract over 20,000 visitors to the University
of Guelph's beautiful campus. They will enjoy various events,
displays and demonstrations designed by the talented students
from within many of the colleges and departments at the
university.
The University of Guelph is a world class institution well known
for its dedication to excellence in education and research, and
College Royal is a chance to showcase what I believe is the
number one university in Canada. This being its 75th
anniversary, organizers have promised the biggest and best
College Royal yet.
I encourage everyone to take a trip to Guelph this weekend to
enjoy the College Royal open house. They will not be
disappointed.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FAMILIES
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today at the United Nations representatives of this
government are arguing that tax discrimination against single
income families is a good thing. In fact, these Liberal lawyers
are saying that if the government ended this tax discrimination,
stay at home parents would never want to leave the house to get a
real job. That is what they are saying.
Would the Prime Minister care to explain why his lawyers are at
the United Nations today arguing in favour of tax discrimination?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government's position is very clear. We believe in
individual taxation. We do not believe, for instance, that when
a lower income spouse joins the workforce he or she should be
taxed at the rate of the family or the higher income. We believe
in progressive taxation. That is our position. At the same time
we believe in bringing in measures that will help families raise
their children.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we wanted to hear from the real Prime Minister, not the
would-be prime minister. No one believes the Prime Minister
cares about tax fairness for families. He has brought in six
budgets that discriminate against them. He ordered his
backbenchers last night to vote against tax fairness for
families. Today he has his lawyers at the United Nations arguing
in favour of tax discrimination. Why does the Prime Minister not
just admit that his policy is to discriminate against single
income families?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a priority of the Minister of Finance to have a
progressive system of taxation and a policy to help families,
single mothers and so on. Whenever we introduce a measure of
that nature in the House of Commons, that party, which is trying
to get a new name to hide what it is, votes against it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister evades my question. His lawyers are
at the United Nations today arguing in favour of tax
discrimination against single income families. They are arguing
that stay at home parents would not want to leave the home if
they got the tax fairness of the type we are advocating. Does
the Prime Minister agree with his lawyers or not? Is he or is he
not in favour of tax discrimination against single income
families?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a system of fair taxation. We have a system
that can help a family member join the labour force if the family
needs that. We do not want a system that penalizes those who are
obliged to go to work. We do not want the family member who
joins the workforce when the spouse is working to be taxed at the
higher level.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister still did not answer the question.
His lawyers are arguing that one of the reasons for tax
discrimination against single income families is to get parents
to leave the home for the paid workforce. That is their
argument. Is that argument the position of the government? Does
the Prime Minister support it, yes or no?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would
get his facts right. There are no lawyers in New York or
anywhere arguing anything. There are no lawyers anywhere.
1420
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I do not know if the hon. minister had
finished.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will ask this question one more time to one Liberal
lawyer I know is in the House. My question is for the Prime
Minister, who has been evasive all week on this issue and who has
let other ministers answer.
Does the Prime Minister believe that high taxes should be used
to get parents to work outside the home?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a progressive tax system in Canada. We have a
system where we make tax credits available to people who need
them. We have policies that help families. We have tax credits
and so on.
While we have these policies, the Reform Party, trying to change
its name but not its policies, does not want to help the people
in need. That is very well known.
* * *
[Translation]
CULTURAL DIVERSITY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
distressing to note that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has
decided to boycott the meeting in Paris on cultural diversity,
because in this area, the more defenders the better.
Her decision is especially upsetting because Quebec and Canada
concur on many points in this area.
If the minister considers cultural diversity so important and
wants to promote it internationally, would she not do well to
recognize it within Canada itself?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are international rules to be followed. This is an
international conference, not one on the Francophonie.
The French minister did not honour the agreements between France
and Canada. Under the circumstances, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage was quite right to act as she did; I myself even lodged
a complaint with the French prime minister.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
was the case last year in Ottawa, when the government denied
Quebec the right to express its culture, does this attitude on
the part of the Prime Minister not show that the resolution on
the distinct society was nothing but words, an empty resolution
not even worth the paper it was written on?
On the subject of culture, Quebec has something to say. Culture
is within Quebec's jurisdiction and not that of the heritage
minister, or the “ministre de l'héritage”, as the Prime Minister
calls her.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the country we live in has two official languages, one of which
is French, and the Canadian government has jurisdiction over
that.
With respect to the French language, the Government of Canada
protects the interests of the French culture, especially since
the Prime Minister is a francophone from Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government gets all upset when Quebec affirms itself on
the international scene to defend and represent its culture,
which is unique in North America.
Is the tantrum thrown by the Minister of Heritage against France
not evidence of a limited and narrow-minded view of Canadian
cultural diversity, if there is no place for Quebec on the
international scene?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that was a government decision. We communicated with the French
government. We spoke with the office of the President of
France, and the decision was not necessarily an invitation with
the approval of the Government of France.
Under the circumstances, it was Canada's duty to ensure that the
international rules were adhered to by everyone, France
included. We do not invite Corsica to cultural discussions here
in Canada.
1425
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, by boycotting a meeting in Paris solely because Quebec
was invited, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not feel she
is doing a disservice to Canadians, whose interests are not
being served by her empty chair policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada is an independent country. There are international rules
that have to be followed.
The French Minister of Culture did not follow them and so it was
our duty to indicate this to the Government of France, because
in any of our dealings with France, and other countries, we
always comply with the rules of international law.
* * *
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. There is a
special road leading to a special chalet in Grand'Mère built at
public expense on land leased from the town at the price of $1 a
year. I have no doubt that the RCMP built this road for proper
security reasons. There is something odd about this lease. It
runs for 10 years and can be renewed for another 15 years.
Does the Prime Minister expect to be in office until the year
2023, at which time the Minister of Finance will be 85 years old?
Does the Prime Minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with the way the New Democratic Party is performing in
the House of Commons and in the country it would be very easy for
me to achieve that goal.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, at that time the Minister of Finance will be 85 years
old.
[Translation]
The fact is that there is a clause in that lease which allows
the RCMP to sublet the land to a third party. For $1 a year, the
Prime Minister could be the only one to benefit from a road
built at public expense.
Does the Prime Minister intend to personally benefit from that
lease, or will he do the right thing and take that clause out of
the lease?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance will still be younger than Gladstone,
who became Prime Minister of Great Britain at the age of 87. As
long as there is life, there is hope.
Incidentally, when the finance minister's father invited me to
lunch at the Reform Club, in London, he made sure I sat in front
of Gladstone's portrait.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the finance minister said that our banking sector is
very strong and that Canadians can feel very good about our
financial institutions. Yet when the Dominion Bond Rating
Service downgraded the credit ratings of our banks yesterday, it
was saying that the minister is very wrong. The service blamed
the minister's decision to block bank mergers for this
downgrading.
What will the minister do to protect Canadians against the
certain costs of this downgrading?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to see that the Conservative Party is in
favour of the merger of the banks. I think the Minister of
Finance was very well advised and was extremely well supported by
this side of the House to block that merger.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting that the finance minister did not answer this
question. I guess he is very concerned about his own leadership
race and recognizes the vulnerability of his decisions.
The Speaker: Let us stick with the policy.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, Canadians should not have
to pay the price for the finance minister's leadership campaign.
Canadians now face higher borrowing costs and their investment
savings are jeopardized by the blind ambition of the finance
minister.
Will the minister commit to seeking a full study, an expert
review, of the cost of this downgrading on Canadians and table
that study in the House of Commons?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, acting in the best interest of Canadians this decision
was made, and he was very strongly encouraged in his decision by
the Prime Minister, by the cabinet and by the caucus.
The government has been applauded by most Canadians, but
obviously not by the Conservative Party of Canada.
* * *
TAXATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Secretary of State for the Status of Women has some pretty
outrageous things to say about taxing families. She said that
anyone who wants to end this discrimination in the tax system
just wants to keep women in the kitchen. What a ridiculous thing
to say. Her government's policies pit family against family.
Why does this minister use these negative, prejudiced
stereotypes to slur stay at home parents?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not jumping to any
conclusions at all. The hon. member, Reform member, was quoted
as saying “we should try to keep mothers in the home. That is
where the whole Reform Party hangs together”.
What am I supposed to believe when I read that and when it was
also said that today the word is still in essence, the quotation
is still true? I must believe that when we try to pit mothers
who stay at home against mothers in the workforce and when we
take all these divisive statements that are being made by the
Reform Party what we are trying to do is keep women barefoot and
pregnant.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let me say as a Reform woman I am not in favour of being in the
kitchen necessarily, unless I have that choice. When I am at
home I am not in the kitchen; I am at Swiss Chalet. So there.
This minister continues to say that men do not stay home with
their kids. She continues to insult—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton
North.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, this minister has the
gall to say that she will not help single income families until
double income families get more help first. This is nonsense.
Does the Prime Minister agree with these intolerant views or
not?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this caucus and ministers
within the cabinet of this government have been working for the
last two years on the issue of unpaid work.
This is not something that we just dragged up a week ago and
brought to the House. It is something that we think is
important. We are not pitting parents against each other. We
certainly want to see that the work the mother who stays at home
does is valued.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON MANPOWER
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the Treasury Board
wondered whether the federal government was perhaps wrong not to
require enforcement of the Official Languages Act as part of the
manpower agreement.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development agree with the
remarks made by his colleague, the President of the Treasury
Board, who feels it was a mistake to have signed the manpower
agreement with Quebec?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has always
attached great importance to the protection of minority official
language communities in this country.
In the agreement we signed with the Government of Quebec,
English speaking citizens can, on request, obtain full access to
active measures, while all the agreements we have signed across
Canada have required that French speaking citizens be able to
obtain service in French where numbers warrant. This is clear
proof that the agreement signed with the Government of Quebec
meets the objectives we had during negotiations.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, by throwing oil on the fire like this, is the
President of the Treasury Board not building a case for renewal
of the agreement at a future date, contrary to what the Minister
of Human Resources Development has just said?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reviewed
carefully with the Minister of Human Resources Development the
agreement signed and the accompanying letters and I must say
that the explanation given by the Minister of Human Resources
Development is perfectly correct, and that I was mistaken.
* * *
1435
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister thinks that cutting taxes for stay at home
parents is too complicated.
It is not a problem in Alberta. In Alberta they value
parenting. In its budget tomorrow it will announce that it will
double and equalize the benefits, the basic exemptions. That
will completely eliminate tax discrimination in its system
against stay at home families. It will also give all families a
tax break.
If Alberta can do it, why can this minister not do it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite interesting that the hon. member stands up
here and announces the Alberta budget. I am sure the Alberta
treasurer would be very interested in finding his budget scooped
by the hon. member.
The simple fact is that the Alberta government set up a fair
taxation commission that went around the province. Precisely,
the Reform Party objects to an all party House of Commons
committee looking into the same thing.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
know what the minister thinks of committees. His Liberal
committee went to him and said please end tax discrimination.
What did he do? He ignored the report. He threw it in the
garbage.
Last night he forced his MPs to vote against ending tax
discrimination. That is what he thinks of the—
The Speaker: I do not know where the member is going in
his question about forcing votes. I ask the hon. member to go to
his question.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, Alberta ended tax
discrimination. It acted. Why does the minister not do exactly
the same thing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am really delighted the hon. member raised the issue
of the work that has been done by the member for Mississauga
South and a number of other members on this side of the House.
It recognizes that the Liberal Party has been on this issue a
lot longer and in a lot greater depth than the Reform Party ever
could.
I only ask the Reform Party now to play a bit of catch-up,
participate in the all Commons finance committee and take a look
at this issue with the great deal of responsibility that it
requires.
* * *
[Translation]
MIRABEL REGION
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, history
will bear witness to the total and absolute disaster the federal
Liberal government wrought at Mirabel for Quebeckers.
Given that the fiasco at Mirabel is the result of this
government's errors, does the Prime Minister intend to seize the
opportunity offered him by Bernard Landry to save the Mirabel
region and turn it into an international free trade zone?
[English]
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the Quebec
government is working on economic issues that are important for
Quebecers.
The government passed a duty deferral program back in 1996 to
ensure that tax free zones and international free trade zones
could be built. My department has been working for one year with
the airport in Montreal to see how a free trade zone could be set
up in that area. I met on January 17 to see what we could do to
streamline the process to help build an international free trade
zone area.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
they want at Mirabel is for the federal government to do its
part. They want a clear answer. Quebeckers are waiting for the
federal government to clean up the mess it made.
Will the federal government harmonize its taxes with those of
Quebec so Mirabel may become an international free trade zone?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are already working with the people at Mirabel to see what we
can do about a free trade zone.
I can say, however, that while the other side was busy with the
Tardif commission, we in the Government of Canada were working
flat out with Aéroports de Montréal to decide the functions of
the two airports.
We worked hard to make sure we could find a function for the
Mirabel airport. I can say that, at the moment, we will support
the functions developed by Mirabel as well as the conclusions
and recommendations of the Tardif commission.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
six years in a row the finance committee has been asked to end
this tax discrimination. It has never listened. Is it not
obvious that Liberals support discrimination? No free votes.
They defend it at the UN.
Will the finance minister ever stop trying to engineer the
Canadian family and leave the money and the choices with the
parents?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us understand the real agenda of members of the
Reform Party. It is in fact to go from individual taxation to
taxing family income as a whole.
What that would mean is that low income spouses would be taxed
at the rate of the higher income spouse. What it would
discourage is people getting married. It would also discourage
lower income spouses going into the workforce.
Is that their motive? If that is what they want to do then why
do they not stand up and admit their agenda?
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the agenda that is so evident to all Canadians is that the
government across the way is committed to a discriminatory family
tax policy.
The Alberta government has moved ahead in this regard. We have
put forward proposals on it. Why does that Liberal government
continue to ignore the voices of Canadian families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we intend to do is very clear. We intend to make
sure that a progressive tax system continues, that higher income
Canadians pay tax at a higher rate than lower income Canadians.
That is the basis—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We have a question asked and
I think courtesy demands that we at least listen to the response.
I would ask hon. members, please, to lower their voices.
Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is only one question
before the House and that is that members of the Reform Party
have an agenda of abolishing individual taxation and going to
family taxation. They do not believe that lower income Canadians
should pay tax at a lower rate.
If that is the case, why do they not simply stand up in the
House and be prepared to defend what they in fact believe?
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
questioned Monday in the House concerning the case of Mrs.
Castillo, who is to be deported from Canada tomorrow although
she has been in Canada for 18 years and has two minor children
who were born here, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
said that the case was under review.
Tomorrow the deportation order is due to be executed. This
family has been left hanging long enough. The minister must
make her decision known now.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that
question this week. The case is under review. I am awaiting
additional information, and hope to be able to reach a decision
a little later on today.
* * *
[English]
PARKS
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
Newfoundland near Bonavista and Notre Dame Bay there are concerns
about a national marine conservation area.
Would the Secretary of State for Parks please inform the people
of Newfoundland in the House of his response to their concerns?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Miramichi.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland near
Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay they are considering the
establishment of a marine conversation area.
As it is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for
Parks, I would ask him to respond to their concerns about the
establishment of this area.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in line with the legislation before the House now where
we have made a commitment to consult with local communities, the
advisory committee that was appointed has come forward and
indicated that there is not widespread support in that area at
this time.
In view of that advice we will not be proceeding in that area at
this time.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the finance minister keeps talking about committee hearings on
family tax credits.
I have been at hearings of the finance committee where this
issue was raised by stay at home parents. Does anyone know how
they were received by Liberal members? The member for Vancouver
Kingsway told them that they were taking the easy way out. The
member for St. Paul's characterized them as elite white women.
We now hear the Secretary of State for the Status of Women
saying that they are barefoot and pregnant. Does the Minister of
Finance agree with these demeaning characterizations of stay at
home parents?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue is about how
families take care of their children.
I just want to look at the record of members of the Reform Party
when it comes to caring about families.
They voted against the child tax benefit. They voted against
increasing funding for the prenatal nutrition program. They
voted against making child support payments tax exempt. They
called for the dismantling of the CPP which assists people to
stay at home and look after their kids. They promised a $3
billion cut to equalization payments between six provinces to
have—
1445
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the member of the Liberal cabinet whether or
not she is going to apologize to stay at home parents for
characterizing them demeaningly as being barefoot and pregnant in
the kitchen? Will she apologize for her colleague from
Vancouver—Kingsway who said that they were taking the easy way
out? Will she apologize for the member for St. Paul who said
that they were characterized as elite white women, or will she
continue to perpetuate these slurs and these stereotypes?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know, I am merely
repeating what the Reform member himself said. What are we to
make of the statement “We should try to keep mothers in the
home”, and that is where the whole Reform Party hangs together.
I am simply repeating what Reform members themselves said.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two days
ago the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board told
the House that organizers of the farm rally in Regina last
Saturday had insisted that only the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food or himself would be acceptable to represent the
government.
On February 24 rally organizer Sharon Nicholson had written to
the deputy minister of agriculture saying to please accept the
letter as an invitation to attend in the minister's absence.
Will the minister now concede that his response on Monday was
incorrect and apologize to farmers and rally organizers for the
federal government's no show last Saturday?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the organizers of the rally had indicated that ministers
were their preference to attend the meeting. Unfortunately,
neither the minister of agriculture nor myself was available on
the particular day that they had chosen. In fact both of us were
working on other fronts to defend the interests of farmers, the
minister of agriculture on his way to Japan and myself in
Washington.
I understand that on other occasions the organizers had
indicated that deputies were acceptable replacements, but in fact
I was referring to the elected part of the government.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Monday
we were told that only elected officials would have been
acceptable, then today we are told that in fact deputy ministers
would have been acceptable. One of those two statements is
incorrect, so I would simply ask the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board whether his statement on Monday is the
correct one or if the statement of today is the correct one?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday I was referring to the elected people that the
organizers had indicated to us were acceptable. I gather on other
occasions they had also indicated that deputy ministers might be
suitable substitutes.
The point is not really to argue about the substance of any
particular meeting. The point is to develop a program that will
provide meaningful assistance to Canadian farmers struggling with
a difficult situation. That is why the government has put $900
million on the table.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Veterans Affairs has been quoted as saying “The
dignity of veterans will be our utmost and top priority for the
government”. However, on page 24 of the main estimates tabled
in the House, the Department of Veterans Affairs has cut $1
million from the veterans independence program.
Canadian veterans fought to make this country one of the
greatest in the world and have the right to be treated with
exceptional care and dignity. Can the minister tell us why this
program was cut when there is a need for more money, not less, in
the program?
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
estimates are estimates. I can tell the hon. member there have
been no reductions or cuts under the veterans independence
program. Any change that may occur will be as a result of a
reduction in the client base.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for informing us that
there are not going to be any cuts. I have to tell him there is
a need for more money because as veterans get older and we are
closing down veterans hospitals, we need more money, not less
money.
1450
I ask the parliamentary secretary to make sure and tell the
House today that those veterans and the veterans independence
program will be taken care of.
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member does have
that assurance.
It also gives me an opportunity to inform the House that Bill
C-61 will be here tomorrow morning for third reading. The bill
has the support of all members of the House. When the bill does
pass, it will bring extra benefits to veterans and spouses of
deceased veterans.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
According to recent studies, an average of nearly 200 people end
up in hospital every week because of—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): According to
recent studies, an average of nearly 200 people end up in
hospital every week because of accidents relating to
agricultural activities.
Can the secretary of state tell me what the federal government
is doing to promote Canadian farm safety?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Agriculture and
Agri-Food)(Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, farm safety
week this year will run from March 10 to March 17.
Regrettably, there have been many accidents again this past
year. Most of these involve children and seniors, and are often
related to tractors.
Safety on the farm requires good work habits. I encourage all
men and women on farms in Canada to be safety-conscious and to
ensure the safety of their family members, because—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Yesterday the Canadian Wheat Board's response to Justice Estey's
report recommended that the grain transportation system revert to
the regulated system of the 1980s. This is unacceptable. It is
time for the minister to take a stand.
Will the minister support the intent of the Estey report and
move forward, or the Canadian Wheat Board's response and move
backward?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the statutory review on
western grain transportation is moving along well. Discussions
are going ahead.
We have received a lot of stakeholder input that will help
cabinet evaluate the response to Justice Estey's report.
Certainly the views of the Canadian Wheat Board will be
considered along with the views of other stakeholders.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the potential
closure of RCMP offices in Drummondville, Saint-Hyacinthe and
Granby is creating a lot of turmoil. All the community
stakeholders are concerned about the potential departure of the
force, whose work is vital in the fight against organized crime
among other things.
My question is for the Solicitor General. Has the minister had
time since yesterday to see whether the rumours of a move are
true and, if so, could he tell us how centralizing services
outside our regions will increase the quality of services
locally?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not have the response of
whether one detachment will be open or not remain open. That is
an internal matter that will be decided by the RCMP. I can assure
my hon. colleague that on fighting organized crime, the
government has indicated that it will give the police forces the
tools to fight organized crime. We have and we will.
* * *
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Today, former U.S. defense secretary Robert McNamara is in
Ottawa urging that Canada push within NATO for a no first use
policy on nuclear weapons. While the minister has called for a
review of NATO nuclear policy, he has refused to say where he
stands on present NATO policy. When will the minister show
leadership and join former secretary McNamara and others in
clearly calling on NATO to change its dangerous cold war, Reform
supported policy and adopt a clear policy of no first use of
nuclear weapons?
1455
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give you the last part of that
question. I had a very informative meeting with the former U.S.
secretary of defense along with the former head of the strategic
air command. They were very helpful in supplying information
about what is happening in the United States.
I would like to remind the hon. member that once a committee
tables a report, the Government of Canada has a responsibility to
table its response. That response is now being worked on. We
have 150 days. It is part of the cabinet process. As soon as
the timetable is met, we will be tabling a report. I am sure the
hon. member will be very interested in the result.
* * *
BANKS
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
contrary to what the Prime Minister said today, our party did not
support bank mergers. We supported the Minister of Finance
standing up for and defending Canadians and negotiating the best
deal for Canadians on service charges, services to rural
communities, branch access and money for small business.
When the minister had an opportunity to get a better deal for
Canadians, he said no. Now his decision has meant higher banking
charges for Canadians.
Given that he has given up the opportunity to negotiate a better
deal for Canadians, what is he going to do to protect Canadians
now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first the hon. member has just stated his party's
position in terms of approving the bank mergers, which we did not
because they were not in the public interest. Second, the
government will be coming out with its statement of intent within
the not too distant future. The member's questions will be
answered.
I would like to answer one other question. The hon. member
asked why the Prime Minister took the question that he addressed
to me. It is just that we have been talking about this. The
view of the government is that I have been having too much fun
answering the member's questions.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for the past three weeks 3,000 technicians have been on strike at
the CBC. What is the Minister of Labour doing to resolve the
issue?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the mediators I appointed have been meeting with the
employers and the union of CBC since Monday. This is very
encouraging for us. I urge both parties to continue meeting so
that they can negotiate a good collective agreement and we can
put an end to this work stoppage.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, neither the transportation minister nor the minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has taken a stand on the
Estey report. They sit on their hands, say nothing and do
nothing. It is time to come out. Do you want more regulation as
the Canadian Wheat Board is saying, back to the 1980s, or do you
want to move forward with commercial contracts?
The Speaker: I remind hon. members to please address your
questions through the Chair. However, we got the gist of the
question.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have asked the various stakeholders to comment on
the Estey report. We are now evaluating those comments and will
be in a position to have cabinet discussions soon.
This government accelerated the review by one year. We
appointed Justice Estey who was universally accepted by everyone
in the industry. He has come forward with a very thoughtful plan
that can serve as a basis for true reform in western grain
transportation. I would hope that the Reform Party will join us
in that effort.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the President of the Treasury Board.
A battle is being waged between the government and its employees
on wage parity, pension fund surplus misappropriation, dragging
negotiations and regional differences in pay for blue collar
workers.
With public servants out of steam and out of patience, is it not
time the President of the Treasury Board assumed his
responsibilities as employer and negotiated quickly and in good
faith a solution to each of these problems?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to report that over 85% of the public service has concluded
collective agreements with the government.
We have agreed on salaries, working conditions, employee-related
conditions and safety issues. The vast majority of public
servants have said they are satisfied with what has gone on.
Not only is morale high, but we have only one small group of
public servants with whom we are still negotiating, in the hope
of reaching a speedy conclusion.
* * *
1500
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last year, the
federal government transferred the problem of gappers to the
provinces.
New Brunswick's Liberal government is refusing to provide
assistance to new gappers.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Will the federal government take up its responsibility anew and
provide the necessary funding for those facing the problem of
gappers, because this is your responsibility. You are the ones
who have created problems for people.
The Speaker: I remind the hon. member to address his remarks
through the Chair.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very substantial progress has
been made with respect to the problem of gappers, of whom there
were a large number at the beginning of our EI reform.
At the time, there were close to 7,500 of them. To my delight,
this has dropped to 2,000 because of our government's
co-operation with the government of Mr. Thériault in New
Brunswick.
Active measures have been transferred to the Government of New
Brunswick, and I can assure members that it will continue to do
a very good job of helping these people find more permanent
jobs.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
question period the minister for the status of women quoted from
some document and said that I had made some ridiculous remark. I
would ask her if she would table that because I do not believe it
is true.
The Speaker: Did the hon. minister quote from a document?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I quoted from several quotes
by members of the party across the way, but not specifically at
all the hon. member for Edmonton North.
The Speaker: I address myself to the member for Edmonton
North. Is it the contention of the member for Edmonton North
that she was directly quoted?
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, that was my
understanding, but whatever she is quoting as Reform policy is
not true. I am wondering if she could table the document so we
could look at it.
The Speaker: I address myself to the minister for the
status of women. Did the hon. minister say that she was not
directly quoting the member for Edmonton North?
Hon. Hedy Fry: Out of my notes, Mr. Speaker, I made some
quotations made by members of the party opposite. I do not
recall making any direct one from the hon. member for Edmonton
North.
The Speaker: It is a matter of interpretation of the
facts and we will let that sit.
1505
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that probably she was quoting another member
here, possibly me. I think I have the right to ask for that to
be tabled.
The Speaker: Does the hon. minister have an official
document that she quoted from? Yes or no.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, the quotation is from my
notes.
The Speaker: It is not a document and we are not entitled
to look at notes. This point is settled.
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday members of the party opposite asked if I could table
certain documents from which my notes had been taken. I would
like to table those documents if I might.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, in light of what has happened in the House
of Commons over the last two days, I seek some clarification from
the Speaker. Members allegedly quoted from their notes. During
question period those quotes were attributed to members opposite.
Are we saying that as long as we have something in a note form we
can say anything we want about anybody in the House?
The Speaker: No, we are not saying that at all. What we
are saying is that if there is an official document that a member
is quoting from then we are entitled to see this document. We
are saying that on a document if there were notes made we are not
entitled to the notes made on the document. We are entitled to
the document. That is the ruling I made.
Today I understand there is no document from the hon. minister.
She says she just had some notes. I would presume that at that
point—
An hon. member: She said she was quoting.
The Speaker: Order, please. Let me check over the blues as to
exactly what was said during the question period and if it is
necessary, I will come back to the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a
notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act to
implement measures that are consequential on changes to the
Canada-U.S. Tax Convention, 1980, and to amend the Income Tax
Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the
War Veterans Allowance Act and certain acts related to the
Income Tax Act.
I am also tabling an explanatory form of notes. I ask that an
order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report
of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts regarding Chapter
14 of the September 1998 auditor general's report entitled
“Indian and Northern Affairs Canada—Comprehensive Land
Claims”.
I also have the honour to present the 23rd report of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts regarding Chapter 20 of
the December 1998 auditor general's report entitled
“Preparedness for Year 2000: Government-Wide Mission-Critical
Systems”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests the government to table a comprehensive
response to these reports.
* * *
1510
[English]
HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-482, an act to amend the Hazardous
Products Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill
and to say a few words about the significance of it. I want to
acknowledge the work of the member for Acadie—Bathurst who
presented a motion on this subject to the House. I am pleased to
be able to carry on his good work.
This bill amends the Hazardous Products Act. It is about safe
toys for young children and ensuring that babies and toddlers are
not exposed to phthalates. This is about safe products for all
citizens and ensuring consumers are protected from equipment with
dangerously high levels of cadmium and lead.
This bill is grounded in the precautionary principle of do no
harm. It is about safety first. It is about acting now to warn
Canadians of toxic contaminants in products we use every day. It
is about putting the public interest first and safeguarding the
health and well-being of all Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-483, an act to provide for the
taking of samples of blood to detect the presence of certain
viruses
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley for seconding this humanitarian bill.
Where persons engaging in emergency services such as police
officers, firefighters and medical personnel come into contact
with blood products in the actions of their duties, this bill
would enable medical practitioners by order of the courts to take
a blood sample from persons who are injured to test for the
hepatitis B and C viruses and the human immunodeficiency virus
because these are potentially lethal and infectious diseases.
Those practitioners would inform the emergency personnel who were
injured and who came into contact with these blood products of
the test results.
This is a matter of fairness and is supported by emergency
personnel across this country.
I would ask for unanimous consent that this bill be deemed
adopted by the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we will get the bill read the
first time and then we will try the unanimous consent bit.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca have the unanimous consent of the House
to propose this motion be adopted at all stages now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-484, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(consecutive sentence for use of firearm in commission of
offence).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill that seeks to
amend the Criminal Code. Rather than force law-abiding Canadians
into registering their firearms, this bill gets tough on those in
our society who use a gun in the commission of a crime.
1515
The bill provides that an individual who uses a firearm while
committing a crime will receive an additional 10 years. If the
firearm is discharged during the criminal act the convicted
individual will receive an additional 20 years. If someone is
injured, the criminal will have 25 years added to their sentence.
I look forward to the support of members on both sides of the
House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
OTTAWA CITIZEN
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The note that I referred to was taken from a document which I
have just been given.
The document that I would like to table is from the Ottawa
Citizen.
The Deputy Speaker: I take it that we can revert to
tabling of documents for the purpose of getting this done and
consider the document tabled.
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the people in the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who
sincerely believe in equality between men and women and in
justice, I have the honour of tabling a petition demanding that
the government withdraw its appeal against the public service
pay equity decision and give effect to the court ruling
requiring it to ensure pay equity for its employees.
This petition combines with those presented by my other Bloc
Quebecois colleagues.
[English]
AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR TOOLS
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
proactive Liberal, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to
table a petition signed by constituents of the riding of
Simcoe—Grey, as well as concerned Canadians from across our
country.
The petitioners are all automotive technicians who are employed
at car dealerships. As a condition of employment they are
required to purchase and maintain several thousand dollars worth
of automotive tools. At the present time their professional tool
investment and expenditures are non-tax deductible and, unlike
other professions which require similar expenditures, do not
generate any tax credits.
Therefore the petitioners request that parliament readdress this
taxation policy, amending the applicable legislation to allow
current and future technicians to deduct their investment in
automotive repair tools.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first deals
with Canadian voters who express a concern that the concept of
marriage should be a voluntary union of a single male and a
single female.
They call upon parliament to amend the Marriage Act, Prohibitive
Degrees, and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute
that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male
and a single female.
BILL C-68
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition constitutes over 200 pages signed by
Canadians in B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec and deals with
Bill C-68, the Firearms Act.
In brief, the petitioners state that Bill C-68 will provide a
false sense of security by suggesting that it will provide safer
streets while doing nothing to hamper criminal activities and
that it spends hundreds of millions dollars on ineffective
registration that would be better spent on disease prevention and
cure, establishing DNA data banks for police and providing funds
for post-secondary education to enable our young people to deal
with the debt they are inheriting from two decades of former
governments.
Therefore, your petitioners call upon parliament to repeal—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is reading. He is to
give a brief summary of the petition and not read it. I know he
knows the rule and would want to comply in every respect.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I was paraphrasing what is in
the actual petition.
The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal an act respecting
firearms and other weapons and replace it with legislation that
deals with the criminal misuse of firearms and a more effective
expenditure of taxpayers' bucks.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present two groups of petitions. The first is
signed by about 5,000 concerned Canadians who call for the
establishment of mandatory quality assurance and quality control
standards for mammography in Canada.
In presenting these petitions I would like to thank the Breast
Cancer Society of Canada for bringing this important issue to the
attention of the House.
1520
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to present a second group of petitions signed by
several thousand Canadians who call for amendments to the Divorce
Act to ensure that parents do not lose touch with their children
through the present application of the Divorce Act.
In presenting this group of petitions I would like to thank the
National Shared Parenting Association of Saskatchewan.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very honoured to present a petition on behalf of
hundreds and hundreds of Canadians on the most critical issue
facing this country today, that of the quality of our health care
system.
The petitioners call upon the government to preserve medicare,
to enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act and to ensure
that those principles are applied broadly to all aspects of our
health care system.
They urge the government to guarantee national standards of
quality, publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen
as a right.
ANIMAL ABUSE
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to bring forth a
petition from a number of Edmonton and area residents.
The petition calls upon parliament to enact legislation to amend
the Criminal Code to provide increased penalties for serious
cases of animal abuse and to make illegal the practice of
inhumane euthanasia of companion animals.
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the people in the riding of Drummond, who sincerely believe in
equality between men and women and in justice, I have the honour
of tabling a petition bearing 590 signatures demanding that the
government withdraw its appeal against the public service pay
equity decision and give effect to the court ruling requiring it
to ensure pay equity for its employees.
This petition combines with those presented by my other Bloc
Quebecois colleagues.
[English]
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present a petition signed by thousands of
grandparents from throughout southern Ontario.
The petitioners request that parliament amend the Divorce Act to
include a provision, as supported by Bill C-340, regarding the
right of spousal parents, grandparents, to have access to or
custody of the child or children.
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to present two petitions in the House of
Commons.
The first petition is from a member in my constituency by the
name of Donna Goler. She basically states that the petitioners
call upon this parliament to enact legislation to provide
protection for children from convicted sex offenders.
SHELLFISHERS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is from the shellfishers
organization of Prince Edward Island, which calls upon parliament
to direct Revenue Canada, Human Resources Development Canada and
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to harmonize
record-keeping requirements for shellfishers and to inform them
properly of these requirements.
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to
present a petition requesting that parliament amend the Divorce
Act to include a provision, as supported by Bill C-340, regarding
the right of spousal parents, grandparents, to have access to or
custody of the child or children.
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the people in my riding of Québec, who believe sincerely in
equality between men and women and in justice, I have the honour
to table a petition signed by 840 people and demanding that the
federal government withdraw its appeal against the public
service pay equity decision and give effect to the court ruling
that it ensure pay equity for its employees.
This is one of a series of petitions presented by my colleagues
in the Bloc Quebecois.
I also have the honour, on behalf of my colleague, the hon.
member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, who is has
been held up by bad weather, to table this other petition on pay
equity.
These petitioners, from the riding of
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, believe sincerely in
equality between men and women and in justice and demand that
the federal government withdraw its appeal against the public
service pay equity decision and give effect to the court ruling
that it ensure pay equity for its employees.
This is also one of a series of petitions presented by my other
colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois.
1525
[English]
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to introduce a petition signed by many of my
constituents as well as others from across the country.
The petition calls on parliament to ask the government to
include a provision, as supported by Bill C-340, regarding the
right of spousal parents, that is, grandparents, to have access
to or custody of their grandchildren.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions today.
The first petition, with 2,000 signatures, is from people in my
riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, as well as from Saint-Louis,
Kouchibougouac, Saint-Charles and Pointe-Sapin, all of whom are
greatly concerned by the cuts to employment insurance and earn
no income for certain periods of the year. These 2,000
petitioners deplore the poverty this situation causes.
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ZONING
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition contains 700 names and is from the
region of Albert County, Salisbury and Petitcodiac.
The petition urges the government to take the area out of urban
EI zoning and put it in rural where it should be.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians, including some from my own riding of Mississauga
South, on the subject of human rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world
in countries such as Indonesia. They also acknowledge that
Canada is recognized internationally as the champion of human
rights.
Therefore they call upon parliament to continue to speak out
against those who are responsible for human rights violations and
also to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such
abuses.
[Translation]
GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, today, a petition in which the petitioners
express to the House their great distress that the gap between
rich and poor continues to widen despite the economic growth in
recent years.
Accordingly, the petitioners ask Parliament to agree to strike a
parliamentary committee whose specific mandate would be to
examine Canadian parliamentarians' ability to reduce the gap
between rich and poor in the new context created by
globalization and to propose concrete solutions.
[English]
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise pursuant to
Standing Order 36 with a whole stack of petitions.
The petitioners are perplexed. On the one hand the government
has pointed out that it is concerned about the bulk export of
freshwater from Canada, while at the same time it has entered
into an agreement with the Government of the United States to
look into ways and means of exporting bulk water from Canada.
I am summarizing, but basically the petitioners are perplexed.
* * *
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 137 could be made an order for return, this return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 137—Mr. David Chatters:
What plans does the government of Canada
have for the future development and promotion of the following alternative
sources of energy: (a) wind power; (b) geothermal; (c)
solar; (d) co-generation; and (e) ethanol?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all notices of motions for the production of papers be
allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like Motion No. P-59 to be called.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents,
reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos and correspondence
regarding the storage of nuclear waste in Canada.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 97(1), I suggest
that this Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for
debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like Motion No. P-53 to be called.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents,
notes, memos, minutes of meetings, contracts and correspondence
regarding all aspects of the termination of employment of Mr.
Bernard Dussault, from the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions Canada.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 97(1), I suggest that this Motion for the
Production of Papers be transferred for debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
1530
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on December 8 of last year I placed a question on the order paper
with respect to the taxation of tobacco products in Nova Scotia.
Some three months have elapsed since it was placed on the order
paper. I would like to request that the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Government House Leader expedite the response to
this order paper question.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the representation has been
made, but we have moved off questions. We are now on Notices of
Motions for the Production of Papers. Perhaps we could complete
dealing with those.
If the parliamentary secretary wishes
to respond to this point, he can.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to, but to be
honest I missed the number. If the member would give me the
number I would be glad to look into it.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure this could be sorted out
between the members.
Shall all the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of
Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to resume debate on this important topic.
I began last day by talking about the government's approach to
governing, its way of dealing with the Canadian public and with
the provinces. I reiterate that today.
The way the government deals with Canadian taxpayers, with
provinces and with all individuals in the country is
reprehensible. It is an arrogant approach. It sees itself as
the one that has the only answers and it does not give credit to
those individuals who are doing the hard work in the country, the
taxpayers of Canada, the governments of the provinces and the
local governments.
I refer to some of the comments made by the government member
for Broadview—Greenwood last day when he stated that he was an
interventionist and stood proudly in this place to claim so. He
said his government's approach to intervening in the lives of
Canadian individuals and provinces was the way to go.
That is what the Liberal government believes. I reiterate what
he said, that the sectors of the western economic fabric were
reinforced and embellished because of Government of Canada
intervention.
What the member of the government is saying is that the
development of western regions of the country was a result of the
Liberal government, that it did it. That is unbelievable. I
will list the provinces because I am not even sure the member
knows those are the areas he is talking about: British Columbia,
Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
An hon. member: The alienation committee can find it now.
Mr. Grant McNally: Yes, perhaps the alienation committee
can find out on a road map where western Canada is. It is no
wonder the government has to send a crew out to do some kind of
damage control when there are members of the government standing
in this place making these kinds of comments, saying that the
central Government of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, has
been the creators of economic development in the country.
Let us just talk about one example of that interventionist
approach called the national energy program. I am sure members
of the government remember that. It sucked billions of dollars
out of Alberta to fund all kinds of other programs.
An hon. member: $100 billion.
Mr. Grant McNally: It was $100 billion, my hon. colleague
reminds me, that it sucked out of the province of Alberta in the
name of interventionism, in the name of “we have all the answers
for you”. That approach simply has not worked. That is why
there is Liberal alienation in western Canada. That alienation
is growing in all regions of the country with the kinds of things
we are seeing the government do.
We saw reference to that yesterday in the House. We saw it
today in question period talking about the government's continued
discrimination against families, against families that have made
the decision to have one of the parents stay home to look after
the kids. We heard discriminatory and inflammatory comments
being made by the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, the
finance minister and other key members of the government. That is
their approach to governing and it is shameful.
1535
The bill which would seek to establish equalization payments was
done in the same fashion. There was three days of notice that
the bill was coming, after having five years to deal with the
issue. The government has had five or six budgets to deal with
the issue of single income families and remedy the tax
discrimination that it continues to enforce penalizing families
in Canada and it did nothing about it.
The government pays lip service to the things Canadians are most
concerned about yet it fails to take action. The bill is another
example of the way of doing business with the Liberal government.
The people of Canada are growing very tired of this approach.
That is why there is western alienation and alienation in other
parts of the country.
I used an analogy last day of a famous Charlie Brown comic strip
of which we are all aware. There is character named Lucy who
continues to pull the ball away from Charlie Brown just before he
kick it. That is how the Liberal government deals with the
people of Canada. It is holding the football, pulling it away
every time and punishing taxpayers and other individuals as well.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Shame on him for repeating my
remarks.
Mr. Grant McNally: I hear harping from the member
opposite, the member for Broadview-Greenwood, who made those
comments. He referred to interventionist ideas and that big
government has the solution to all problems, which is truly not
the case, as has been played out in history.
I want to end on that note. The government is out of touch. The
bill proves it. We offer a fresh vision and a new approach to
dealing with the governance of the country.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member's
remarks.
First, I would like to correct the record. The member stated
that I was an interventionist. The reality is, and I say this to
all members of the Reform Party, I am a passionate
interventionist. Let us make sure we get that right.
The essence of why we are in the Chamber at the national
government level is to intervene. We are not here to sit back
and watch those who do not have a voice or regions of the country
that need help and sort of let it go, let it happen, let the
municipal politicians do it, let the provincial politicians do
it. No. This is what a national government is all about. This
is what the bill is all about.
I have to correct another reference that the member made in
terms of my remarks yesterday. He suggested that I was not clear
about the Government of Canada intervention and where or how it
related to western Canada. I believe the member made that
statement.
I want to be very specific. By the way, I include my own
province of Ontario, but seeing as the member referred to the
west I want to be specific. Every western province, whether it
is British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, has
benefited immensely by Government of Canada intervention.
It is time the Reform Party realized that is how we build a
nation, by the national government intervening from time to time
to embellish and improve the economy. For the life of me I
cannot understand why the Reform Party wants to walk away from
interventionism. To me, it is part and parcel of our daily
responsibility in the Chamber.
Let us look at the national energy program. It is another
example of where the Government of Canada intervened in terms of
security of supply in energy, the Canadianization of our energy
system and the conservation content of the NEP. Yet these Reform
Party members were knocking it yesterday.
I could go on, but I want to make sure that when members of the
Reform Party are quoting my remarks they understand exactly where
I stand.
1540
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I understand exactly
where the member stands. I was quoting directly from
Hansard, from his comments. He reinforced them again
today. He is saying that he is a passionate interventionist and
asking why it is that we cannot see that is the right way to go.
It is very clear why we do not see that it is the right way to
go. It is because we fundamentally disagree with that
philosophical approach.
The hon. member is saying “Don't worry, Canadians, don't worry,
provinces of Canada, we have all the answers. We are the federal
government. We are the big daddy”. That is the kind of thought
he is putting behind his comment that the federal government is
the one with the answers, that it has the answers and it has the
resources. He fails to point out that the resources he refers to
are the tax dollars of Canadians, their hard earned money. That
is what those dollars are.
The hon. member brags about the national energy program. It
sucked $100 billion out of Alberta to fund all kinds of other
things that in many instances, not all, were wasteful programs.
The member and his government do not understand their approach
and how it has alienated individual Canadians from coast to coast
to coast, particularly in western Canada, in British Columbia,
Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Government members just do
not get it. They think that sending out this rescue team from
Ottawa, this western alienation team, will somehow solve the
problem.
What will solve the problem is when we have the opportunity to
implement the policies which reflect the positive direction we
have for the country, or when the government starts to listen. I
do not think the latter will happen because government members
have had so much time here and continue to be deaf on issues.
We are willing to make a positive change for the future. I am
hoping that members opposite will also be willing to do that.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased today to say a few words on a very important bill
not only for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador but for
all provinces that receive equalization payments. I believe
there are seven provinces in Canada that receive them.
The provinces are very highly dependent on equalization to
better their economic situation within the country. It is very
important to have the bill fully debated today by all members, if
for no other reason than to make the federal government fully
aware of the impact of equalization payments on the seven
provinces of Canada that are recipients of the equalization
formula.
I was told that before the bill came before the House of Commons
the province of Newfoundland requested some significant changes
to the way the formula treats offshore resources, especially
offshore oil and gas. The government, I am told, rejected that
request by Premier Tobin and the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador. There really will not be any substantive changes made
in the bill, probably a few minor housekeeping changes.
Once again the poorest province in Canada, the province of
Newfoundland, will be penalized by the current equalization
formula before it is given the chance to actually catch up to the
rest of the country and to become equal to other Canadians.
This is what we are talking about today. We are talking about
the opportunity that should be given to the have not provinces to
catch up to other Canadian provinces that consider themselves to
be have provinces. There cannot be any chance of a catch-up for
Atlantic Canadians or for that matter western Canadians in
provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan that also receive
equalization payments as. There cannot be any opportunity given
to these provinces to catch up.
1545
There cannot be a chance for equality in the provinces unless
there is some recognition given to the fact that the pool of
money that will keep a province from starving is the same pool of
money that will keep it permanently poor. Newfoundland has been
in Confederation for approximately 50 years. In a couple of
weeks Newfoundland will have been in this great country for 50
years and there is still no recognition of the one basic fact
that the pool of money that will keep a province from starving is
the same pool of money that will keep it permanently poor. That
is the unfairness and the injustice associated with the way the
equalization formula is written.
There will never be an opportunity for the provinces that
receive equalization payments to be brought up to the same
quality of life and the same standard of living that other
Canadians enjoy. They will never have the opportunity under the
current formula to reduce the horrendous unemployment problem in
Newfoundland, which has an official unemployment rate of about
19.7%. That is a very serious situation indeed.
I am not saying that we should change the formula forever and a
day. I am saying there should be some kind of arrangement worked
out with the have not provinces which will see resource revenues
clawed back on a more gradual basis. It is not to have the
federal government take up all of the problems but to have these
resource revenues clawed back on a more gradual basis.
Right now there is a 100% clawback on resource revenues produced
by any given province. That is the basic unfairness for the
poorer provinces. If the federal government wanted, it could
change that to make it a bit easier for those provinces,
especially in the Atlantic area, to become equal to the rest of
Canada.
For instance, a Voisey's Bay development in Newfoundland could
have its resource revenues clawed back on a 50% basis. The Sable
Island gas field in Nova Scotia could be clawed back on a 50%
basis to give Nova Scotia the opportunity to become a little
affluent and raise its standard and quality of life. The federal
government has within its power the ability to do that, but I do
not believe that is going to be done.
In that way there would be an opportunity to bring some fairness
to the current equalization formula and to bring the unemployment
rate and quality of life to the receiving provinces up to
acceptable standards.
A few months ago my private member's bill on Newfoundland's
unemployment problem was selected and debated here in the House
of Commons. The point was made by someone speaking in that
debate that if we had a fairer equalization formula applied to
Newfoundland as it relates to our offshore revenues, not only
would the province of Newfoundland be better off but Canada as a
country would be better off as well.
We have to consider the fact that we are members of this nation.
Any province that becomes better off is a net contributor to our
country. It makes it a bit easier to live within this country
and makes it easier on the taxpayers within this country who
would not have to continually be injecting funds into the have
not provinces.
In the long run there is every reason for the federal government
to want the provinces that receive equalization payments to be
brought up to an acceptable standard. The federal government
could rest a bit easier and would not have that kind of burden
placed upon it.
1550
We are all very much aware that the Canadian equalization
program redistributes the wealth of this nation. Last year the
province of Newfoundland received $975 million in equalization
payments. This year she is going to receive approximately $925
million in equalization payments. It will be a reduction.
One of the reasons we are going to take a reduction in
equalization payments this year is the population factor, the
fact that so many people are leaving our province on an annual
basis. It is of great concern to the province of Newfoundland
that we have a tremendous out-migration every year.
One thing that determines the rate of equalization payments to a
province is the population factor. The population of
Newfoundland has gone down significantly over the last number of
years. Over the past six or seven years we have been losing
people at the rate of between 7,000 and 10,000 per year. That is
quite a decrease in population for a small province like
Newfoundland and Labrador.
If that kind of population decrease occurred in Ontario or B.C.,
it would not be a great big deal but it is devastating for a
province like Newfoundland with a population of half a million to
lose anywhere between 7,000 and 10,000 people a year. It is
devastating not only in terms of losing some very good young
educated people but because of that out-migration the province is
losing equalization payments as well. That is a very big and
important factor for the province of Newfoundland.
The one overriding concern is that the federal government will
deduct dollar for dollar the resource revenues that a province
receives. This will have the devastating effect of keeping that
province permanently poor.
The Deputy Speaker: I neglected to inform the House at
the outset of the hon. member's remarks that we are now into 10
minute speeches without questions or comments. The five hours of
debate have expired.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was very
interested in some of the comments made with regard to Bill C-65.
I would like to read from the Constitution, section 36(2) which
states:
Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the
principle of making equalization payments to ensure that
provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide
reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably
comparable levels of taxation.
The principle of helping each other through difficult times is
an integral aspect of being Canadian. It is something to be
proud of. That is the way in which the country was built.
Neighbour helped neighbour. We are now at the point where
provinces help provinces.
I return to a comment made by the hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood with regard to his passion about the federal
government intervening.
We have a rule book when it comes to relationships between the
federal and provincial governments. That rule book is called the
Constitution of Canada. It is wrong to intervene and violate the
provisions of sections 91 or 92. That is where intervention ought
to halt. It has not halted there. The government, through the
use of its spending power, has intervened into the jurisdictions
of the provinces of this country.
Our job as members of parliament above all else is to protect
the Constitution of this country, the constitutional rights of
every citizen and the constitutional rights of the federal and
provincial governments as set out in sections 91 and 92.
1555
Recently the appeal court of Alberta rendered a decision on the
federal government's Bill C-68. Four of the five judges admitted
that that federal piece of legislation encroached upon the
provincial jurisdiction. Three out of the five said it was all
right. What was their rationale to come to that conclusion?
If we read the judgment, they have accepted the doctrine that is
enunciated by people like the renowned Mr. Peter Hogg who is a
constitutional lawyer. What does he say that justifies that the
only institution of this country that can protect the
constitutional rights of anyone, including the provinces, is the
courts? He said that if the federal government introduces a
scheme under one of its authority heads such as peace, order and
good government, and if it should overlap and encroach upon the
provincial governments, it is okay.
With the greatest of respect to Mr. Hogg and to those who
support that ideology, I completely disagree, particularly when
the provinces do not give their consent for that type of
encroachment.
When we look at the interventionist attitude of members on the
other side, we ask where in the world did it come from. What
they are saying, and I believe this is my understanding of what
the member for Broadview—Greenwood was implying, is that if the
federal government feels that a provincial government is not
doing the best thing for its people in an area of pure provincial
jurisdiction as provided for under section 92 of the Constitution
of this country, it can intervene without the consent of the
province.
The national energy program that practically destroyed the
energy sector in Alberta was an encroachment upon the provincial
jurisdiction of that province. The member is saying that that is
all right.
One of the problems in this country is this thing called unity.
We have problems because when the premiers and the federal
authorities come together, they throw the rule book, the
Constitution of this country, out the window. When we begin to
accept and when our premiers begin to accept the encroachment of
the federal government into the jurisdiction of the provinces
without their consent, it creates tensions which develop feelings
of alienation which lead to feelings and expressions of
separation.
Members of parliament should be standing in this place to defend
the constitutional rights of all citizens in this country and the
components of Confederation, which are the federal government as
well as the provincial governments.
The federal government sticks its nose into provincial areas
unrequested. Yet it ignores those areas that fall under section
91, which is its jurisdiction.
What about interprovincial trade barriers? What about the fact
that it costs the consumers of this country, our children and
their moms and dads, $5 billion to $6 billion a year because the
government allows interprovincial trade barriers to be set up and
maintained. Under section 91 it is the federal government's
jurisdiction to deal with that and it allows that kind of thing
to go on. Why does the government not stay in its area of
authority and let the provinces look after their areas? If this
would happen, then the tensions that lead to disunity across this
country would be eased.
When we want to set standards, let us do it in a co-operative
way. Let the federal government negotiate and use the power of
persuasion and common sense to say to the provinces that it is in
everyone's best interests if we have a standardized health care
system, or a standardized measuring system, or a standardized
criminal justice system.
1600
This bill opens the door for that kind of debate and
intervention. I say to the government, to the people of this
country and certainly to members of parliament that it is our
duty and responsibility to ensure that we are not led down the
garden path by ideologies put forward by extremely passionate
interventionists, if I can use the term used by the member for
Broadview—Greenwood.
The federal government can intervene in provincial jurisdiction
with the authority of the provinces. However, we have had four
provinces and two territories oppose Bill C-68 and other bills
and the only institutions of government that can protect the
constitutional rights of our provinces are the courts of this
land. We, as members of parliament, cannot do it.
That was evident when Bill C-68 was debated and the aboriginal
rights of the James Bay Cree and the Yukon Indians were being
violated. The evidence was very clear that their constitutional
rights were being violated and members of this House could not
protect them. The only protection they had was from the courts
of this land.
With the greatest respect to the Alberta court of appeal, we now
have members on that appeal sitting on the bench saying “Yes,
Bill C-68 intervenes into provincial jurisdiction, but that is
all right”. If the government introduces a scheme under one of
its authority heads and it overlaps into provincial jurisdiction
that is too bad.
What I am suggesting is that when that begins to occur without
the consent of the provinces and the other partners in
Confederation then we are contributing to the disunity of this
country. We are also contributing to the feelings of alienation
that are all too high in some parts of the country. We feel it
every time we hold a public meeting in western Canada.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before I address Bill C-65 today I would like to thank
the hon. member for Crowfoot for putting forward his grave
concerns about how far this federal government is intruding into
provincial jurisdiction. I think my colleague from Crowfoot did
that very adequately, especially in regard to Bill C-68, but it
goes further, as the member is well aware.
Interprovincial trade barriers are another strong case in point.
The government refuses to look at the issue or even to address
it. However, it is not only this government. We have become
mired in this mess through not only this government, but through
previous Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments from
times long past, hopefully never to be repeated again.
Let us have a look at this bill. One of the things I find very
contentious in regard to this bill is that equalization happens
every five years. The government has had five years to study
this bill. It is a large bill and it amounts to a large amount
of money, yet the government decided that we would only receive
three days' notice. There was no draft legislation. We were not
allowed academic input. What bothers me most is that there was
no public consultation.
I have news for government members. The people who pay the
bills are the people who pay their wages. I know they do not
believe this, although I have said it time and again, but the
government has no money. It has exactly what it can gouge from
the taxpayers of Canada. That is the only money it has and that
is the money it uses. When it starts letting out hundreds of
millions of dollars government members should be well aware of
exactly what they are doing.
1605
No one in this House is against helping those who need help, but
most of us would agree that we should do it under a fair system,
one that treats everything and everyone in this country equally.
Let us look at what we are talking about cost-wise. This
program will cost an additional $48 million in the first year
which will rise to $242 million by the fifth year, once the
changes are fully implemented. Funding for the equalization
program will increase by an estimated $700 million by year five.
We are not talking about small amounts of money, no matter what
some members opposite have said. To me $700 million is a large
amount of money.
I might add that I am from the province of British Columbia,
which is a have province. I really have to wonder about that.
Right now we have the highest unemployment we have had in many
years in the province of British Columbia. The logging industry
is in dire straits with massive layoffs. The mining industry is
packing up and running, not only due to federal legislation but
also greatly due to the provincial government that is in power in
British Columbia today.
Speaking of the government that is in power there today, I want
people in the House to know that it is an NDP government, the
so-called caring and sharing government of the working people,
which brings me to another concern I have with this bill.
The bills states that casino funds will be put into the mix. I
want everyone here to fully understand what happened in British
Columbia with regard to charities, with regard to bingo and with
regard to gaming by an NDP provincial government. That
government ripped that right out of those charities and now we
are saying that we will go ahead and introduce it in this
legislation.
I have a great concern that things might not all be on the up
and up with some provincial governments with regard to where
these funds will really go.
The hon. member from Newfoundland said that Newfoundland has a
rate of 19% unemployment. That is high. I had the opportunity
to travel to Newfoundland last year. I travelled across
Newfoundland extensively. I know they are having tough times.
British Columbia as well is having tough times. I cannot say
that it is all the provincial government's fault. I would have
to say that a great portion of it falls right here on the
shoulders of members sitting across the way because of high
taxation. We know that is what kills jobs. What kills
entrepreneurship and what keeps businesses from staying in the
country is the high level of taxation.
It is not hard to see where this government comes from. It is
called tax and spend. I am not saying that the government has to
go this route at all. However, if it would look at the simple
facts, which countries around the world have tried and tested,
and if it were to cut taxation, the level of government revenues
would actually increase.
I say to members across the way, believe it or not. People
start to create jobs then. They have a few dollars in their
pockets to spend and it does not go into the government's pocket.
I know Liberal members do not like to hear that. When it goes
into the government's pocket that means the taxpayer no longer
has it in theirs. That upsets government members terribly.
It is sort of like going back to the old days and knowing that
if we could put something away for our retirement we would live
far better in our elderly years. This government only thinks of
one thing. The more it taxes, the better its members can live in
their elderly years, not the taxpayer. I really have to wonder
about that.
Let us look at the unfairness of some of this.
Let us look at what the auditor general gave the government in
1997 to address. What has it done to date? Absolutely zip.
1610
The auditor general said with regard to the equalization
payments that property taxes vary from province to province.
Property assessment methods vary between municipalities, let
alone provinces. Property assessments are infrequent and done in
different years.
The government is lumping this all in as one, but it varies.
Bring it in under the provincial GDP. Let us open it up, have a
look at it and discuss it. Do not give it to us for three days,
after the government has had five years to study it, especially
when it has done zip. Government members say “Here it is.
Let's get at it”.
I know members on the other side of the House understand that
this is the way Liberals have done business for years and years
and years. However, on this side of the House the times are
changing. Whether they like it or not they are coming into a new
century.
Sooner or later, you will have to take off your shades and
address these problems with your eyes wide open for a change.
The people of Canada are waiting for you people to finally do
that. They have been waiting and waiting and waiting.
Hopefully it will happen before all of you over there are in
line for your old age pensions. Then maybe you will not find out
exactly what a large portion of Canadians have to live with, high
taxation.
I say again that there is nobody in this House from any party
who I know of who is against helping those who need honest help.
Absolutely nothing. However, let us look at this so that it is
proper help and we do not keep ripping off the provinces.
I will say a prayer tonight in the hopes that the government
will finally wake up.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go on to
the next dissertation, I remind all hon. members to address each
other through the Chair.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while my colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap was speaking I
heard voices opposite saying “Where is the solution?”
I will give those members some solutions which are a little
different. I have to speak slowly because, first, I certainly do
not want them to miss this. Second, it will be short and
succinct. It is a new idea. It is my idea. This is not the
party speaking, this is me as an individual.
First, staying with party general philosophy, we believe, as
many Canadians do, that the federal government has its nose in so
many things that it cannot do any of them, not even one of them,
well.
The government interferes in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
It gets involved in the daily lives of people from one end of
this country to the other in an obtrusive manner. What is the
solution to that?
First, it is to recognize that government only functions for one
reason.
An hon. member: Can you not just say thank you?
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member totally,
non-stop, throughout the speech of my colleague who spoke before
me kept saying “Let's have the solution”. “Let's have the
solution”.
Now I stand poised to try to give that to him, but his mouth is
going so fast that he cannot get his ears into gear. That is
probably why they cannot get these solutions.
There is only one justification for any government. That
justification is to do for people those things that they cannot
or will not do for themselves. That is the fundamental purpose
of government.
If we go with that premise, then we start at the federal level
and say that some things can best be done and need to be done at
the federal level. There are also a lot of things that are
currently being done at the federal level, sometimes exclusive of
provincial government, but sometimes inclusive of provincial
governments where there are overlaps.
All governments need to reduce themselves to doing only those
things which the people cannot or will not do for themselves.
Then those items need to be brought back as close to the people
they serve as possible, because after all we keep suggesting we
live in a democracy. If we do live in a democracy, then we
should also recognize that we as elected officials are not the
rulers of people, we are the representatives of people. We are
supposed to represent the will of those people.
1615
How better to do that than make sure the services we provide
them are provided at the closest level of representation possible
so that people have the most input into that process. If the
federal government would do that, reduce to doing about 20 things
and make sure that it does them well and gets out of all the
other things, it could reduce the size of federal government,
transferring those responsibilities and duties to closer levels
of government to the people. If it did that successfully then we
could reach a point where we could return to the way this country
used to be run where there was no federal taxation whatsoever.
Taxation was at the provincial level.
That is the way this country started out. We had provincial
taxation. The federal government of the day back during a world
war said we need taxation to pay for the war effort. The
government does not seem to realize the war is long over. Even
with all that taxation revenue coming in and the war over, it has
run up this incredible debt.
Governments are starting to recognize the folly of deficit
finance. Governments at the provincial and federal levels are
starting to recognize that. Let us keep it going. Let us get
back to the point where we say that there are only certain things
the federal government should be doing. Stop doing all the other
things and give the responsibility back where it belongs to the
provinces and possibly even closer.
If the government does that successfully then we can have
taxation at the provincial level alone. Where then does the
federal government get its money? It gets its money by billing
the provinces a fee for services rendered. It bills them on the
basis of the provincial GDP. There is the equalization,
notwithstanding the truthful comments that my colleague from
Okanagan—Shuswap made about what a disastrous job the current
government in British Columbia is doing.
British Columbia is still potentially a very wealthy province. I
suspect there will soon be a change of government in British
Columbia. We can get ourselves back on our feet again. That
means British Columbia, my province, will pay a little more for
those services than some other provinces that do not have as high
a GDP. As a B.C. taxpayer, I do not have a problem with that.
We are looking in the wrong direction in terms of these
equalization payments of taking money away from everybody and
divvying it up. Look at the taxation system. An individual
making $8,000 or $9,000 a year pays income tax. They cannot live
on the gross amount but they still pay income tax. The
government says it recognizes that they cannot live on that. That
is why we have different types of support type payments to help
these people out. Then on what little money they have left the
government charges them GST. Again it says that it recognizes
that people with that low an income cannot afford to pay GST, so
it created a GST rebate program.
Can people not see the folly of creating a bureaucracy that
takes people's money away on one hand and then creating another
bureaucracy to give them some of that money back, using most of
it up in the collection and distribution process? It obviously
makes much more sense to stop taking it in the first place if we
know we will have to give it back. We can do that and solve the
equalization problem, solve a lot of the taxation problems and
solve a lot of the overlap problems by reducing federal
government to only those things that need to be done that can
best be done at the federal government.
Bill the provincial governments a fee for services rendered on a
provincial GDP basis. That will be the equalization. We will
have a lot more control in our province. In the province of
Alberta, it would give a lot more control. Alberta is another
very responsible province that seems to be running well.
Others can take a page from that. If they cannot run well in
the province, the people have the closest access to do something
about it. It seems when people come to Ottawa they forget they
are here to represent people and take on a life of their own.
1620
That is not official Reform policy but it is an idea that I have
been talking about with people for a long time. I hope the few
Liberals present will give that some serious thought as a
possible alternative to maybe a kernel of a new idea. I know
they will not change their entire line of thinking now on the
basis of this but I hope it does plant a seed in the minds of
some of those people and maybe in the minds of people who are
watching this today to think there are alternatives.
We do not need to keep tinkering trying to make little tiny
fixes on a system that clearly is not working. What we need is a
new look at a new system. I believe if the Liberals honestly
take a look at this and evaluate it properly they will find they
have something they can better work with that is fairer for all
Canadians.
I hope the Liberals are listening. They have certainly quieted
down since I started talking. Let us hope that in addition to
their mouths not working their ears have started.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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 Halifax West, Transport; the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for
Churchill River, Health; the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Employment Insurance.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have another opportunity to
address Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal
Arrangements Act.
What we are really talking about is spending $43.5 billion over
the next five years and this is really the only time this
parliament will get a chance to talk about spending that
atrocious amount of money. We might be sympathetic to a
government that was in a big hurry to implement important
legislation like this but all we see from this side of the House
is a government frightened of making mistakes and, like a deer
caught in headlights, it freezes and does nothing instead.
We on this side of the House certainly have no problem with the
concept of equalization. Equalization grants have been held up
as representing Canadian values and as the essence of Canada,
supposedly the very stuff that makes us a country. Like many
government myths, this one is so thick with rhetoric and
misconceptions that average Canadians, the ones paying for and
supposedly benefiting the most from this redistribution, are
probably unclear what we are arguing about. Canadians are not
sure how this affects them one way or another.
To them we can add just about every expert in this country and
of course the bureaucrats in the finance department responsible
for this complex, convoluted scheme. I believe they have
forgotten what the object of equalization really is and are so
busy inventing new calculations to hand out taxpayer money that
they do not look at what they have done.
We know that section 36 of the Constitution calls for promotion
of equal opportunities and a reasonable level of public services
to all Canadians across the country. These are noble ideals. The
Constitution does not define these terms or set out how these
imaginary levels are to be reached.
Over the years the Liberals have applied this peculiar formula
to the question. If it is simple, make it complex. If it is not
working, it has to be a lack of program funding so add taxpayer
money here. It will all get better.
The announcements made by the Prime Minister and the finance
minister concerning the social union and equalization fit into
this category of fiscal policy. If there are strains in
Confederation it is because they have not layered enough
bureaucracy on it. Is somebody still complaining? Throw some
more money at them and they will shut up for a little while.
There does not seem to be any recognition that the money comes
from the same taxpayer who is already paying into these
provincial coffers or increasingly now paying user fees for all
sorts of public services. There is no federal money versus
provincial money, only taxpayer money. Everyone across the
country can agree that governments are getting too darn much of
it these days.
It is an established principle that whenever a government
involves itself in an economic activity there will be
distortions. We have to accept some of this no matter what we
do. Even if we cut taxes, and I mean really cut taxes, not the
shell game we see bandied about here, we know this will affect
the behaviour of our citizens in different ways.
There is no such thing as no effect, only good or bad effect. It
is sometimes difficult to predict what the outcome might be.
Lower taxes tend to increase investment, savings and debt
repayment, which are all good effects. It is also possible that
people may go on a buying spree with that extra cash and fuel
inflation or increase imports over exports, which is not
necessarily good.
The most important consideration is that lower taxes put the
freedom of choice back into the hands of Canadian taxpayers and
that is a great effect in itself. The key to minimizing the
distortions we see and the political manipulations in this
program, making sure that what we are really trying to accomplish
is actually happening in the real world, is to keep programs
transparent and accountable.
1625
Everyone should be able to understand how and why the program is
set up and be able to make adjustments to changing conditions or
to new information as they gather it. What does this government
do instead? It adds layers of complexity and rushes a flawed
package through parliament before anybody can really get a good
look at it. Government members typically protest that they have
consulted and studied but they conveniently ignore that there is
a big difference between public debate and publicly available
information. The public is not informed about the shortcomings of
the equalization program and is instead flooded with empty
rhetoric like the price of being Canadian, who we are as a
nation, and helping the have nots.
When critics rise up to say the program is not doing what it is
supposed to do, they are accused of not wanting to help the poor
or of trying to split up Confederation or some other such
nonsense as we have heard here lately.
If the government were really interested in helping Canadians
make the best possible lives for themselves it would many things.
The first thing it has to do is make sure it is not engineering
an outcome it claims it does not want. All Canadians want their
fellow citizens to have good and sustainable jobs, access to
education and health care, to enjoy the benefits of living in one
of the world's greatest countries. Make no mistake, they know it
is only fair that their fellow citizens work just as hard as they
do to get these things.
We are famous for our obsession with helping the less fortunate
and I hope we never lose that impulse. I fear that if Canadians
are constantly confronted with the fact that government programs
are often counterproductive or so badly designed that money
intended for the poor ends up in the hands of lawyers,
bureaucrats, lobbyists and so on, anywhere but where it will do
the most good, they will become cynical and lose faith in what
government tries to sell them.
When we consider the size of the underground economy and the
rate of brain drain out of this country, we can see this effect
is already settling in. We all know what happens to some people
who are given something for nothing. Most self-respecting people
want to get off welfare but some take it as a subsidy for a
lifestyle choice and remain in that rut for years. If you are
being given money to continue to do what you are already doing,
naturally you will continue doing it. Why not?
Why should we think provincial politicians will be any
different? We know many of them have worked hard to investigate
options for employment and new wealth. We also know they have
clung to old industries or methods because it has been
politically dangerous for them to make the tough decisions and
because taxpayers from somewhere else are backstopping the
expenditure.
I do not mean to point fingers anywhere in particular or at
anybody. All provinces and all politicians have good and bad
examples. I do not mean to simplify the historical reasons why
one province or region developed the way it did. There can be
many factors contributing positively or negatively at various
times. We are discussing only equalization here, and there is no
question that getting billions of dollars from somebody else's
budget affects the decision making process, political
manipulation if you will.
Bill C-65 adds complexity by roping in more revenue sources than
were originally included. It tries to calculate gross values of
resources without taking into account what it cost to generate
those revenues in each province or region. It includes side
deals to let Nova Scotia and Newfoundland play catch-up with
resource wealth but squeezes mineral wealth into one category. It
does nothing to address the fact that property taxes, one of the
single largest sources of provincial revenue, are calculated
differently not only from province to province but often within
those provinces as well.
The last item is of extreme importance. Property taxes have the
ability to kill investment as fast as any other factor. We have
heard recently how our NHL teams are paying relatively high
amounts and are suffering from this. Ontario has recently gone
through a revision process and many businesses have found their
property tax bills going up by hundreds of percentages. We saw
that a short time ago in Saskatchewan. It really cut deep. This
can kill a small business or a farm. High property taxes damage
the construction industry and discourage development of
manufacturing infrastructure. We see industry moving to the
States.
What does Bill C-65 do? It actually rewards the provinces for
high property taxes. When a government raises this tax it lowers
its value but raises the entitlement of the government to more
equalization money. It is counterproductive. Nobody raises
taxes on the expectation of suffering a loss but we see
governments doing this anyway and being rewarded for their
counterproductive behaviour by the federal level of government.
We have already highlighted how the net effect of equalization
is to hold tax rates higher than desired in the contributing
provinces and allows receiving provinces to shift their tax bills
in artificial ways to maximize those entitlements. In effect
this means that lower income people in the so-called have
provinces are paying extra so higher income people in the have
not provinces can escape the real cost of subsidized programs.
This is not really helping anyone. It is just a transfer of
funds.
Some provinces can offer social programs whose costs are carried
by other Canadians who have no access to those very programs.
This is not equalizing anything for any Canadians.
1630
The Liberals seem to twist this into some kind of cruel
conspiracy, but they are wrong. I am sure they are more
frightened that they will lose the ability to micro manage the
economy and therefore lose their purpose as a governing party.
We can see why they come up with complex bills such as Bill
C-65. The thing they fail to realize is that Canadians already
vote with their feet on this. Brain drain is an excellent
example. Industry moving to the States is another excellent
example. My province of Saskatchewan is another great example.
Our single greatest export is our bright-eyed youth marching off
to Alberta and the States. After all, if we are one big happy
country, why is it considered failed policy if Canadians decide
to go where the jobs are? It is their right. They have to make
a living. They have to go there.
How should equalization work? It must be transparent. All
Canadians should be able to look at the mechanism and understand
it. There is no way they will support it anyway. My party
suggests the macro formula. It is very simplified. We would
look at the province's GDP per capita, not at hundreds of little
variables, and focus the transfers to the provinces where they
are truly needed.
I find it difficult that my home province of Saskatchewan is a
have not province. We are rich with agriculture, high tech
manufacturing, resources and biotechnology. It has a very
educated population. We export them and they head up companies
all over the world. We have a long history of superdevelopment.
When will that province take responsibility for its misdirected
economic policies? Clearly not as long as someone else is paying
the bills from somewhere else.
There are other federal systems around the world. Germany has a
system where the wealthier regions contribute to a pool of funds
that can be drawn on by the less wealthy regions. We have to see
more flexibility in the way we work in this country. We do not
see anything in Bill C-65 through the fog of rhetoric and
complexity that is piled up here.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
remind colleagues what the legislation is about. It is intended
to renew the current five year equalization agreement which
expires on March 31 of this year. It is a typical example of the
government trying to rush things through at the last minute.
Specifically the bill makes technical amendments to the formula
that determines equalization payments. It also maintains
provincial income tax revenue guarantee payments for provinces
that have tax collection agreements with the federal government.
The legislation will allow those payments to be continued beyond
the end of this month until March 31, 2004.
There would not be any need for equalization payments if the
government took a position of encouraging the free market
principle, that people will go where the work is, and started to
enact policies which reorganized how people function within the
country to build a secure future.
I have had people in my own riding say to me it probably would
be doing the country a major benefit as a whole if we worked
through the House to try to entirely remove the need for
equalization payments over a decade or so. The present system
that has been in place for 40 years has done absolutely nothing
to solve the problems of inequality. It just keeps topping up
the money and perpetuates a cycle of dependency, never, ever
making things better.
Common sense tells us that if the money were left in the pockets
of workers and companies in the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and
B.C., which are the have provinces that contribute to everybody
else, they would produce much greater economic benefits offering
even more jobs and needing even more support services from the
have not provinces that presently provide things like dairy
products from Quebec and telephone centre services from the
maritimes.
This is the same principle as the one which says that a dollar
in the hands of an entrepreneur, a parent or somebody who gets to
spend it in the private sector will be much more productive for
the economy than the same dollar given to government.
Governments unfortunately always waste a portion of the money.
They simply shuffle it around in the paperwork and it gets lost.
It is quite obvious that maybe they collect a dollar in taxes but
that dollar never reaches the recipient it is supposed to get to.
It must be obvious even to the most cerebrally challenged
Liberal that some of the money collected in the taxes for the
purpose of equalization will be lost. I do not know how much
that is, but I would be surprised if it were less than 15%.
Wasting money is the government's special skill. I have an
example that was sent to me by one of my constituents, a Mr. Jim
Galozo, last week. He came to my office and gave me copies of
advertisements that were placed by the federal government in the
North Shore News on February 19, 24 and 26.
They were full page advertisements that must have cost $10,000 to
$12,000 each. There were only a few words on the page: “$11.5
billion more is a real shot in the arm for our health care
system” and then “the Government of Canada”. This is a
terrible waste of money as identified by my constituent. It is
the type of waste of money that we see throughout the government.
It is certainly there in the transfer of payments.
1635
I know my constituent, Mr. Galozo, and all my other constituents
do not really believe that the waiting lists a year from now will
be any shorter than they are today. The problems will still be
there.
No wonder B.C. voters get angry over these programs of
equalization. All they see is waste and more waste. Frankly it
perturbs them and puzzles them how we can be sending money to
provinces when they have travelled there and do not see them as
have not provinces.
My colleague mentioned Saskatchewan and the richness of what it
can do for the economy. B.C. farmers are very disturbed by the
fact that they are forced to take butter, cheese and dairy
products from Quebec. The B.C. dairy farmers are not allowed to
make butter or cheese. There is something wrong with that
scenario. Nobody really believes that Quebec is a have not
province. These are real problems that need to be addressed.
I see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sitting here
on one of those rare occasions. She comes in for a lot of
criticism in B.C. as well. She shows so little concern for the
criminal refugee problem in the province that most people think
she might as well be a cardboard cut-out.
The member from Coquitlam has said he has the ear of the Prime
Minister, although I wonder when he has it whether it is attached
to the Prime Minister. That seems to be a problem as well. While
the minister of immigration is here, I hope she will take a
serious look at the problems in B.C. which she could address if
she really put her mind to it. I can see by the expression on
her face that she does not have the slightest intention of doing
so. Since we will get absolutely nowhere with the cardboard
cut-out, I will continue with the bill that is in hand.
As I mentioned the have not provinces are listed as Quebec, Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and
Manitoba. Manitoba will loose about $37 million by the end of
the five year term. Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia do not
qualify at all as have not provinces, so we are picking up the
bill.
Does the government really understand how the people in B.C.
feel? I am a member from B.C. and I know that there are other
concerns from the other have provinces. Speaking for B.C., does
the government really understand how B.C. voters feel when they
have to pay enormous amounts of money, billions of dollars to the
federal government, only to see it transfer to these other
provinces that do not appear to be have not provinces?
British Columbians do not have any problem with assisting
provinces that obviously need help to get out of a depressed
economic situation. Reform has proposed in the past that the way
to correct these economic problems is not to throw money at it
the way the Liberals do and have done for 40 years under the
equalization program, but to do things that actually stimulate
the economy.
For example, in the last parliament the Reform Party proposed
that one way this money should be spent is on developing
meaningful infrastructure, not on the boondoggle giveaway
patronage laden infrastructure the government runs. It would be
the type of infrastructure that would, for example, build a
freeway from the eastern part of Canada down to Boston. This
would start to assist north-south trade.
Last week on one of my flights here I was sitting beside a lady
from Halifax. She was telling me how important the amount of
tourism from the United States is to her small craft store. I
asked her if it would be helpful if there was a decent highway
system that ran north-south to encourage tourism. She thought
that it would be a great idea to put in a major freeway running
through to Boston to get more tourism.
I mentioned earlier about how B.C. farmers are forced to take
cheese and butter from Quebec when they are quite capable of
making it in their province.
1640
During the last provincial election in Quebec, the leader of the
PDQ was on a radio show in Vancouver. The talk show host, Rafe
Mair, asked him about his knowledge of transfers to Quebec. That
leader of a political party in Quebec, the PDQ, said that Quebec
did not get transfers. He had no knowledge of it at all. He did
not even know there were equalization payments that came from
B.C. and were transferred to Quebec. He seemed to be quite
muddled.
In terms of basing equalization payments on the ability of a
province to tax, Alberta should get a transfer payment if that is
the logic. I wonder what would happen if Alberta tried to
introduce a provincial sales tax. Since there is no chance of
Alberta ever managing to introduce a provincial sales tax its
ability to tax is reduced. Maybe it should be a have not
province. The government should add the ability to add a PST to
the other criteria on the list for equalization payments.
I would like to repeat that instead of constantly renewing these
arrangements where we transfer huge amounts of money from one
part of the country to another, we should be looking at ways of
breaking the welfare dependency cycle that gets created by these
payments. We should look at ways of tough love.
Maybe there should be a 10 year phase-out period where the
provinces get their full transfer payments for 10 years but they
have to be working on programs that get them off equalization
payments. The federal government should do its best to assist
them in making that happen.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The vote is deferred
until 5.15 this afternoon.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe that if you were to seek unanimous consent of the House
there would be agreement among all parties to suspend the House
until 5.15 p.m.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the suggestion of the chief government whip. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.43 p.m.)
1715
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 5.15 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-65.
Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mercier
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Valeri
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 204
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Vellacott
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 44
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Anderson
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Byrne
| Chamberlain
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Fournier
| Longfield
|
Marchi
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pettigrew
| Turp
|
Ur
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
COMPETITION ACT, 1998
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative
option marketing) be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that those who are milling
about will want to hear that next week marks the beginning of
consumers week in Canada. It is my pleasure to start the debate
on Bill C-393 which is a law proposed to change the Competition
Act.
This bill has several themes of fairness. These revolve around
fairness where there is no protection of consumers, fairness in a
marketplace where there is little or no competition, and fairness
for consumers against large business interests.
1750
Bill C-393 deals with the business practice known as negative
option sales and marketing. It involves receiving a product
because a consumer failed to say no to the offering of it and
then the consumer is asked to pay for it. This practice known as
negative option marketing or sales is a perversion, a twisting of
what is generally accepted as being the normal rules of contract
or sales, which is that an offer is made, acceptance is given in
the affirmative and the delivery of the service and payment for
that service are reasonably simultaneous.
Those who use negative option sales reverse that method. An
offer is sometimes made, sometimes it is hidden, and sometimes
there is no apparent choice at all. Instead of accepting the
offer, the consumer is expected to say no, that he or she does
not want the service. If a consumer fails to say no, then the
service is provided, the consumer is billed for it and is
expected to pay for it.
We are certainly one of the few countries in the world which
allows federally regulated businesses, or undertakings, as the
Competition Act calls businesses, to engage in this type of
scurrilous behaviour. It is a sleight of hand type sale of a
service. It is often a straightforward case of taking advantage
of consumers who have little means to protect themselves.
Negative option sales occur under many guises or disguises. I
will give some examples of this technique.
One is in the realm of banking. About a year ago the National
Bank in a brochure enclosed in monthly bank statements and sent
to people in a certain area of Montreal was advertising health
care coverage for those travelling outside Canada. Hidden or
buried inside the brochure was an invitation, in fact a
requirement, that recipients say no to the offering, failing
which their accounts were debited $9.95 a month. Thousands of
people did not know they were being charged $9.95 a month for an
offer they in fact did not want.
The end result according to the Consumers Association of Canada
was that following the start of the debiting of accounts,
individual bank branches were receiving between 40 and 50
complaints on any given day. The bank would reverse the offering
but there was no way of quantifying how many seniors and other
people who did not take the opportunity to check their bank
statements were paying for a service which they did not know they
were receiving, for which they did not know they were paying
$9.95 a month and more important for many of them, for which
there was no use or benefit.
Some may think this is preposterous and some may doubt that it
happened, yet the Consumers Association of Canada had hundreds of
complaints involving this one specific case.
A second example is a couple who applied for a bank mortgage to
purchase their first home. Once again, in the mass of paper they
were required to sign, there was an offering, a suggestion—and I
use that term very loosely—that they would buy through the bank,
term life insurance equal to the mortgage amount. When the first
mortgage payment was made, the couple realized that they were
paying an insurance premium in addition to the principal and
interest.
Their omission was their failure to say no to the offering, no
that they did not want the term life insurance. There was no
requirement to say yes. In brief, failure to say no was by the
negative option formula an affirmative, a yes to the insurance
policy.
1755
The third example concerns university students at the University
of Ottawa moving into town in September. The first thing they do
is call Bell Canada to have a phone installed. The phone is
installed and they are simultaneously told they will receive two
months of call waiting free of charge. Their problem is that at
the end of two months the bill starts ticking. At the end of
month three, there is an additional charge of $2.70 tacked on to
their bill when they had purchased a service they did not know
they were buying, they did not know they were paying for it and
they never once said “Yes, I know what I am getting. I want it
and I know what I am paying for it”.
The fourth example is even more insidious. In the summer of
1997 the Toronto Dominion Bank enclosed an eight page brochure in
the bank statements it sent to hundreds of thousands of Ontario
residents, including residents of the city of Ottawa.
The flyer was called “You and Your Privacy”. In its eight
pages the flyer purported to state that the Toronto Dominion Bank
was very concerned about its clients and how it protected and
stored information about its clients. And let us face it. Who
knows more about an individual than a banker? When people build
a relationship with a bank over a period of many years, the bank
has all kinds of information about them, their assets and their
spending habits.
Page seven of the brochure contained a negative option
suggestion. It said that the Toronto Dominion Bank was going to
share all this information that it had collected. In the
relationship as banker and client, it was going to share that
information with its related corporations such as TD Mortgage, TD
Green Line and Toronto Dominion Insurance. Unless the clients
called the bank and said no, that they did not want the bank to
do this, on October 31, 1997 the Toronto Dominion Bank took all
of the information it had amassed from hundreds of thousands of
people over many years and downloaded it by computer to its
subsidiary companies.
Why did this happen? Because it required the consumers to say
no, they do not want this to happen. There is an interesting
twist on this. A gentleman reported to my office that he had
called and said that he did not want this to happen. It was
pointed out to him that because he had a joint bank account, his
wife in addition must say no.
We see from this that large federally regulated corporations are
imposing an onerous and unreasonable burden on people to escape
from a situation or to escape a product they do not want and
which they are being asked to pay for.
The fifth and final example I will use involved cable companies
in this country. If we were to ask any of the eight million
cable subscribers who the masters of negative option marketing
are, the answer would be very clear. It is the cable companies
in Canada.
One can and should ask why we need this bill. The answer is
very specific. This bill is designed to apply to federally
regulated undertakings or businesses which operate in a
marketplace that has little or no competition. This bill is
about giving consumers a fair shake in the face of limited or no
competition. After all, banking, telecommunications and
broadcasting are all areas of business in which there is at best
limited competition, if any at all.
I quote from a February 2 editorial in the Hamilton
Spectator concerning this very bill: “This bill would
change the Competition Act to force federally regulated companies
to get the express permission of customers for any new service”.
It is not a very revolutionary idea to have the customers say
“I know what I am buying. I know what the cost is and what the
implications of it might be and yes, I want it”. What could
possibly be wrong that? To have federally regulated companies
obtain a positive express response of yes before supplying and
charging for a service is the way business is done in this
country and in most countries of this world.
I have to ask why anyone in this place would want to allow it to
be otherwise.
1800
This bill constructs a firewall between the consumer and the
industry and the consumer and the regulator. This bill
recognizes that regulators such as the CRTC have failed to
protect consumers from companies which would provide TV services
and telephone services which are unwanted.
This bill would not allow the sale of health insurance policies
to unsuspecting bank clients. Why would anyone in this place
want to be part of a scheme that would allow this to happen? I
suggest even further that those who would want this to happen
should come forward and say so.
I know there will be those who oppose it on the grounds of the
Constitution, that is to say the federal government does not have
the power to prohibit this. To those people I would simply note
this bill deals only with federally regulated undertakings.
By way of comparison, Bill C-20, currently before parliament,
regulates the sale of goods or the questionable sale of goods by
telephone. It is certainly difficult to recognize that Bill
C-20, a government telemarketing bill, is intra vires while Bill
C-393 would be ultra vires because they both deal with federally
regulated undertakings.
In addition, there are provincial laws which note the federal
powers at the level of telecommunications. For example, the law
concerning consumer protection in the province of Quebec, a law
which is above all provincial, was written several years ago. In
it the rights of consumers are enunciated and it makes very clear
that the law of Quebec regarding the protection of consumers does
not apply to broadcasting. Why? There is no question that
broadcasting is clearly a matter for us in this Chamber to deal
with. Banking is also clearly a matter for us in this Chamber to
deal with.
This is sadly an area of growth according to an Industry Canada
study undertaken recently. After all, what could be easier than
to sell a product where there is no need to market it, advertise
it or persuade consumers they really want it or need it. Most
businesses, in launching a service or product, need to determine
there is indeed a want for the product or a public desire for the
service and that the consumer is willing to put out the money for
it.
What does all this mean in terms of removal of consumer dollars
in a situation where choice is eliminated? Let us consider the
case of the cable industry in 1996 where cable rates, through
negative option techniques, rose about $4 per month per
household. The end result was about $400 million being siphoned
from the Canadian economy into one sector, cable companies and
their program providers, under circumstances where consumers
could not say yes.
In return what did we receive? We saw services which were never
ordered and quite simply were often not even wanted. This was
$400 million of discretionary, after tax dollars, about $50 per
household from the eight million cable subscribers in this
country. This is $50 of which they no longer had any control;
hundreds of millions of dollars to an industry where there is no
competition and in which four corporations control more than 90%
of the Canadian marketplace.
Let us also consider the situation of the unknown purchase of a
life insurance policy to pay off a mortgage in case of death, a
mortgage policy which the consumer has acquired unknowingly but
after the fact becomes aware of it and is paying for it.
1805
It is good and prudent to buy this insurance. If a purchase is
made by negative option that consumer was never given a fair
chance to shop the marketplace and get the best possible price.
It is a matter of working the marketplace for the best possible
deal in terms of service and price. Negative option marketing
and sales cuts the legs out from under this.
The office of consumer affairs at Industry Canada in a study of
negative option sales and marketing observes: “In general,
profits or convenience would appear to be the motivation behind
negative option marketing and/or bundling”. Industry Canada,
the department responsible for the Competition Act, has
recognized the thrust of this business practice. It is all about
profits, money and the ease of obtaining it.
In the September 21, 1996 edition of the Ottawa Citizen
columnist Tony Atherton asked: “How on earth does a country of
barely 30 million souls find itself on the brink of underwriting
a total of 51 specialty channels when it can't seem to support
one national public broadcaster?”
That is a fair question. The answer which Mr. Atherton supplied
himself was: “By now it should be obvious that the usual rules
of economics don't apply to the cable industry. Canadian book
publishers fold, Canadian magazines tiptoe on the edge of
bankruptcy, yet many Canadian cable TV services make money hand
over fist”.
He made the insightful observation: “Lack of demand is not an
issue because cable channels are not in business to meet demand.
They are in business to create it”.
The fact is negative option marketing is selling where there is
no market. Negative option techniques allow sales where there is
no demand. It is a phenomenon which creates both market and
demand where neither exist.
Industry Canada has noted in its discussion paper on this topic:
“Government does need to examine its role in influencing and
promoting this type of market behaviour in view of users' or
taxpayers' expectations”.
This is an appropriate time to raise the spectre of Canadian
expectations in terms of marketplace. In a real marketplace where
there is demand and open and free competition, consumers can shop
for quality, price and choice. When consumers shop for virtually
any product they expect an array or a continuum of choices and
prices. In the realm of banking, telecommunications and cable
there is little to none.
It is interesting to refer to a story published last week, March
6, in the National Post which reported a dispute over
market share between Shaw Cable and Look Communications. Look
has 6,000 subscribers and Shaw has 1.6 million, a real David and
Goliath story. It appears that Shaw is trying to win back those
6,000 subscribers by offering free cable to those who have been
given a choice in the marketplace.
It is even more interesting to note that Look has now gone to
the CRTC to ask it to step in to mediate the dispute. What could
be more ironic, the CRTC mediating a dispute between two
corporations when in the past it has talked about this being a
market matter, a matter of competition.
Canadians want choice but they also realize that in a large
country with a relatively small population choice in certain
industries is not always absolute. Having said that, they do
want to control the circumstances of exercising that choice.
Negative option techniques remove any suggestion of choice. That
is why we in this place must move to give consumers that right.
On the verge of consumers week I quote a press release issued
today by the Consumers Association of Canada about this bill:
“It is timely that private member's Bill C-393 is being debated
in parliament this week prior to world consumers rights day.
World consumers rights day celebrates eight fundamental consumer
rights, of which the right of choice is paramount. A piece of
legislation that bans abusive negative option marketing is a
positive step in the promotion of consumers' right to choice”.
1810
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-393, an act to amend the
Competition Act with respect to prohibition of negative option
billing. I recognize the work of my colleague from
Sarnia—Lambton on this issue.
I know he has worked tirelessly in the interest of consumers and
I respect any member who is prepared to champion an issue despite
pressures from within their own caucus to be dutiful
backbenchers.
This bill is designed to prohibit the practice by federally
regulated businesses such as banks, cable and telephone companies
of implied consent billing. It would restore the traditional
buyer-seller relationship that relies on the consumer's explicit
consent before they can be billed for a product or service and
would prohibit default billing of consumers who do not expressly
decline a product or service. In other words, it would put an end
to what is being called negative option billing.
Before making a decision about supporting this legislation, I
had spoken to many Canadians about this billing practice. It is
clear that this bill has broad support among consumers frustrated
by negative option billing. In particular, there is frustration
with cable providers that bill for new programs automatically
unless the consumer expressly rejects the service.
Consumer groups have cited senior citizens as an example of a
group often unaware that they have the choice of opting out of a
new service and are consequently billed for programs they do not
want or sometimes cannot afford.
While this is just one example let us take a minute to examine
our own lives. How many of us are aware of our own dinner plans
this evening, never mind the intricate details of our cable
bills? The only time we are typically aware of these details is
when we expressly order the products or services. We are often
just to busy to be careful consumers. This is a source of
frustration not simply because of financial costs but because it
is deemed to be a violation of an age old relationship between
buyers and sellers.
It is clear that consumers are looking for protection from
negative option billing. The question is simply how do we provide
this protection. Should it come in the form of Bill C-393 or can
it be achieved through market based reforms? I think a balance
must be struck.
Bill C-393 has its origins as Bill C-288 which would have
amended the Broadcasting Act to restrict negative option billing
by cable companies. These companies can currently act with
relative impunity as they are federally regulated regional
monopolies that are free from the normal constraints of a
competitive market. This new version of the bill is broader and
instead amends competition laws that apply to all federally
regulated industries.
The decision by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton to use the
Competition Act as a means by which to prohibit negative option
billing instead of making changes to the legislation that deals
directly with the perpetrators of this practice is troubling for
me. Competition laws can profoundly restrict economic freedom
and market efficiency, and the general move toward strengthening
these laws should be approached with caution.
This bill should not be seen as a mechanism by which to restrict
attempts made by companies wishing to expand their market share.
We must not allow our competition laws to grow steadily more
intrusive. We must act vigilantly to create competition through
deregulation of our industries in the interest of every Canadian
consumer.
The original purpose of this draft legislation in the form of
Bill C-288 was to amend the Broadcasting Act. This dealt much
more directly with the source of the problem and would be the
preferable course by which to protect consumers against negative
option billing.
Negative option billing is a practice common to federally
regulated industries that enjoy market protection such that they
restrict or limit the consumer's ability to seek out alternative
providers of a product or a service. Therefore the deregulation
of federally legislated industries should be the first step to
eliminating negative option billing and other practices that do
not properly serve consumers.
I would much rather have been more supportive of an initiative
that worked to limit government in increased consumer choice
rather than an initiative that extends the scope of government
further into the private sector.
1815
The Reform Party supports limited government and free
enterprise, but recognizes the important role of government in
creating an economic environment, with fair and transparent
rules, that protects both consumers and businesses. However, we
differ from the governing party in that we believe that markets
serve consumers well as long as competition is permitted.
Bill C-393 is a band-aid solution made necessary by the Liberal
resolve to maintain protectionist policies and regional
monopolies in federally regulated industries such as cable,
telecommunications and banking, despite the fact that these
policies hurt consumers. However, sometimes a band-aid solution
is needed until the disinfectant can be found.
Before I conclude, I want to provide an example that illustrates
the power of competition to end negative option billing, in case
my colleagues in the House have their doubts.
I am sure we are all familiar with Columbia House Records. This
is a company that made its money through negative option billing.
After signing up with the bulk music distributor, consumers are
sent cassettes and CDs on a monthly basis. If they do not send
the selections back to the company, they are billed for the
merchandise.
This is not a pure example of negative option billing because
the customer agreed to these billing terms by signing up with the
company. However, the point that is relevant is that consumers
were so hostile to this form of billing that the Columbia House
sales began to decline.
Soon a competitor entered the market and advertised that it
would not engage in negative option billing at all. When faced
with this competition, Columbia House very quickly revised its
negative option billing practices.
In other words, the drive for profits in a competitive and
deregulated industry will give more power to consumers to seek
favourable terms. It is the invisible hand of capitalism at
work.
To conclude, it is clear that the Liberal mismanagement of
federally regulated industries has created an economic
environment in which consumers suffer the ill effects of limited
competition.
While this bill regrettably increases the power and scope of the
Competition Act and restricts private sector decision making, it
should receive the qualified support of the Reform caucus until
such time as these industries can be deregulated.
After this deregulation, competition will ferret out those
businesses that conduct their affairs in a manner inconsistent
with consumer interests.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to be very clear. We have a great
deal of sympathy for the intent of the member for
Sarnia—Lambton's bill, which is to ensure that consumers have
control over what services businesses supply them with. The
Bloc Quebecois will not, however, be in favour of Bill C-393 any
more than it was of Bills C-216 and C-288, for the reasons I will
now give.
The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has expanded his bill.
Once again, incidentally, I would like to point out that we have
considerable sympathy for him in particular, since he was great
friends with a woman I considered my friend here in this House.
But the Quebec consumer protection legislation, Loi sur la
protection des consommateurs or consumer protection act, is
clear, and already bans the practice he wishes to ban with his
bill.
The relevant section of the act reads as follows “No merchant,
manufacturer or advertiser can demand any money for goods or
services provided to a consumer, when the consumer has not
agreed to receive such goods or services”.
Our stand is that this legislation does not apply merely to
businesses classified as coming under provincial jurisdiction.
There was, for instance, the case of the supreme court decision
on Irwin Toy's appeal of the ban in the consumer protection act
on advertising aimed at children. The supreme court agreed that
Irwin Toy was not entitled to run ads that went against the
consumer protection act.
1820
Commenting on this decision and talking about telecommunications
businesses lawyer Pierre Trudel wrote:
I mention in passing that, having the industry critic as the
Competition Act was amended, I was on several occasions told
that the Competition Act was not consumer protection legislation
and that it simply concerned relations between competing
businesses. I have a transcription in which Mr. Flaherty
himself said: “It is not consumer protection legislation”.
Our second argument, the stronger, which will bring us back to
the heart of the argument, is that, for the Bloc Quebecois and I
hope for many others in this House, this bill will conflict—if
not more—with the CRTC's authority.
I would point out here that the CRTC has a job to do, a mission,
including in section 3, that “French language and English
language broadcasters, despite a certain communality, differ in
terms of operating conditions and in the long run in terms of
their needs”.
Need I point out that the operating conditions of broadcasters
are not the same in North America and in Canada in English and
French. That is why the chair of the CRTC argued before the
Senate that it had the power to prevent the use of negative
option marketing, which it had not used for consumer protection.
Representatives of the Association des consommateurs québécois
told the committee that, although the intention was certainly
good, although the grounds for introducing the bill might be
noble, and although there would be advantages in English Canada,
in French Canada and in Quebec, it was another matter. One of
them said:
We are sure that the authors of the bill never examined or
understood the disastrous impact of the bill on Canada's
francophones. They would surely have wished to take them into
account had they understood. In the final analysis, we are
relying on their good faith, and we therefore hope that they
will see the validity of our position.
The speaker goes on to say:
Need it be repeated that, for consumers in Quebec, choice of
programming means not just in English, but obviously in their
own language as well?
We believe that the CRTC has long understood this fact and that
this is why it has refused to impose a single set of regulations
across the country ... instead taking an approach that recognizes
that the francophone market has different needs.
I could go on at length. This was Ms. Drolet's testimony.
Parliamentarians must take this extremely important dimension
into account. I know that they did not do so when they voted on
Bill C-288, but I repeat that, now more than ever, francophone
viewers need the continued protection of the CRTC.
1825
In fact, when to our dismay Bill C-216 and then Bill C-288 were
passed, Quebec's then Minister of Communications, Mrs. Beaudoin,
said how extremely sorry she was that this had happened.
She said “Although the specific purpose of the bill is to
prohibit negative option marketing, it has a much greater impact
because it prohibits every other marketing method except pay per
view television and particularly because it involves such
limited distribution that no new French language service will
every get off the ground”.
Minister Beaudoin spoke of her concerns about the negative
effects this may have on the supply of French-language television
services. She said “The French language specialty channels, of
vital importance in the current context of open availability,
need a critical mass of viewers if they are to be created and to
survive. The federal bill will, in fact, deprive any French
channels, including the four new ones, of that critical mass”.
This is the first hour of debate. The bill will be debated
further, and we would ask the hon. members of other parties, and
of the other language in particular, to consider the market
conditions in Quebec.
I would conclude by saying that the CRTC did not act on its own
authority in deciding on this approach to competition; it was
the government's approach, and the French-language media must be
allowed to live, not just to merely survive, within that
context.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as the New Democratic Party spokesperson for consumer
affairs I am pleased to speak to Bill C-393 which was proposed by
the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
In the last parliament the NDP caucus supported the member's
earlier effort to ban negative option billing through Bill C-216,
a private member's bill that was seeking to do the same thing at
the federal level as had already been done by the NDP government
of British Columbia which amended its consumer legislation to ban
negative option billing in that province.
The current bill proposes to amend not the Broadcasting Act, but
rather the Competition Act to ensure that negative option billing
or negative option selling and marketing is prohibited in all
sectors under federal jurisdiction, including telephone services,
cable television services, financial services and so on.
Banning negative option billing is a way of telling the
providers of those federally regulated services that, where their
customers are concerned, yes means yes and no means no. There is
no implied consent in silence. If they want to charge customers
for a new service, they have to be asked first. Ask them nicely
and make the sale by convincing them that they need it or want
it. The service has to be sold, not forced down people's
throats, who are then charged for it. The rules cannot be
changed in the middle of the game without their permission. It
is just not fair from the consumer's perspective. That is a
principle with which I agree.
There are some members who are concerned that this bill will
defeat the licence that was recently approved by the CRTC for the
Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. This approval was the
creation of the network, APTN, and it requires the cable
companies to carry this channel on their basic package. I am
assured by members, and in particular the sponsor of this bill,
that Bill C-393 will not impact on the CRTC's order to include
APTN on cable companies' basic services.
It was a most significant and sad day in the last parliament to
see the earlier version of this private member's bill, which
achieved the extraordinary step of being approved by the House of
Commons, effectively killed by the unaccountable, unelected
Senate which made a somewhat pointless amendment and sent the
bill back to the House where it died on the order paper when the
election was called in April of 1997 for June.
1830
I was a member of the House at that time and I well remember the
public outrage in the winter of 1995 when the cable companies
introduced new specialty channels and restructured their cable
package lineups. Let us face it. Winter is cold in Canada
sometimes, except in Saskatchewan where I come from, and people
like TV.
The cable companies removed some channels from their basic cable
lineups and were expecting their customers to pay extra for them
unless they read the fine print and cancelled the services, all
this with the approval of the CRTC.
New channels were also introduced into what was a much more
hostile environment than the channel originators probably
deserved simply because people were so appalled at the negative
option billing.
I heard a lot of negative comments about that in my constituency
office. No wonder the bill enjoyed support on both sides of the
House. Since senators do not have constituency offices, or even
constituents to whom they are accountable, it is also no wonder
they did not respond to the outrage but responded instead to
their friends, the giant cable companies.
In the town of Lumsden, after receiving numerous phone calls
from very angry cable subscribers, I personally met with Image
Cable Systems and persuaded it to hold public meetings with its
customers in Lumsden. Subscribers who attended the meeting said
overwhelmingly that they did not support the proposed changes to
the cable lineup and Image Cable Systems retracted its initial
billing.
What made the customers most angry was simply the fact that they
were never asked in the first place what they wanted. I am
pleased to see the measure before us in parliament and pleased
that the member has seen fit to include other federally regulated
industries in its scope. I agree with him that we are also
seeing the phone companies and some banks testing the waters with
these kinds of marketing schemes. It needs to stop now.
Let us remember that most federally regulated industries are
granted certain privileges to conduct business in a protected way
for they provide essential services to the economy and the people
of Canada.
In return for this privilege, which often means they are
guaranteed certain levels of profit as well, they have a higher
duty to conduct their business in an ethical way. Because the
bill proposes to change the Competition Act, we should have
disposed of any concerns that the legislation somehow intrudes
into the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is very clear that
the federal government is responsible for competition policy and
federally regulated industries.
Perhaps it is time for parliament to take some time and
undertake a more comprehensive review of competition policy and
the Competition Act. Private member's Bill C-384 sponsored by
the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, which proposes another
change to the Competition Act, ought to be before committee for
study in the next few months.
I have had longstanding criticisms of the ability of the
Competition Act to deal with pricing in the retail gasoline
market, for example. With the changing nature of the
international economy, the simultaneous trends of increased
mergers and acquisitions, and the growing number of small
businesses in our economy we need a much more active competition
policy to ensure that the marketplace works well for consumers
and for small business owners.
I have raised the concerns of independent gas retailers in
Saskatchewan with the Competition Bureau, concerns that affect
consumers in my province in particular. The number of
independent gas retailers has declined dramatically. I would
argue, not coincidentally, that we now have the highest gas
prices of any jurisdiction in Canada even though our tax regime
is identical to those of British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario.
I understand the Competition Bureau is investigating for the
criminal investigations branch.
Also this week the leader of the New Democratic Party, my
leader, the member for Halifax, raised very grave concerns about
the impact of Sobey's assuming control of 75% of the food
wholesale market on the east coast. The takeover of Oshawa Group
by Sobey's controlled Empire Ltd. would mean that small family
restaurants and corner stores will become price takers from one
food wholesaler. That hurts them and it will hurt consumers
dramatically. It is a competition issue and it is a consumer
issue. It is time we made a comprehensive re-examination of the
whole policy area.
I want the government to stand up and fight for ordinary
Canadians by establishing a comprehensive consumers protection
act. We are the only country that does not have one to protect
consumers. Instead we have an act that protects giant
multinationals and huge corporations from the people and
guarantees them huge profits. That is unacceptable in this day
and age.
1835
We do not have one-tenth the amount of competition legislation
the United States has. I am not saying that more is better but
what we have now is not, as I am told every day, working for
anybody but the large corporations and the very wealthy families.
In summary, I support the principle of the member's bill. I
hope it receives wide support from the House once again and is
not stalled in the unelected, unaccountable, unacceptable Senate
of Canada.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak tonight to second reading of Bill C-393, an act to amend
the Competition Act as it deals specifically with negative option
billing.
First, I congratulate the member for Sarnia—Lambton for
sponsoring the bill. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the
member's views on matters as diverse as the Senate, child custody
or other topics of debate tonight, in negative option billing one
cannot help but admire his determination in pursuing these
issues.
We need more members like the member for Sarnia—Lambton in the
Liberal caucus. We need more members who challenge the status
quo, defy the establishment when need be and stand up for the
interests of their constituents.
As others have attested, Bill C-393 had a previous life in the
35th parliament. In that parliament, the member for
Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216 which would have amended the
Broadcasting Act. The legislation was sparked by public outrage
at the cable companies imposing negative option billing through
the addition of specialty channels at the beginning of 1995.
As such, Bill C-216 dealt solely with cable television. Despite
opposition from many powerful interests, the member for
Sarnia—Lambton persevered, managing to guide the bill through
first and second reading as well as committee and report stage
before it passed the House.
Unfortunately for the member's efforts Bill C-216 was still
under review by the Senate when the prime minister called the
1997 federal election. Bill C-216 was effectively killed by the
member's own government which was not under any pressure to go to
the polls only 3.5 years into its first mandate.
There may be some, perhaps even the member himself, who would
blame the Senate for the death of Bill C-216. This is a
misguided view because the Senate was playing its
constitutionally mandated role to review legislation from the
House.
There have been too many occasions in the past several years
when the Senate has undeniably improved legislation, correcting
errors not addressed on the House side. The Liberal government's
so-called Pearson airport legislation and more recent amendments
to the Judges Act are but two recent examples. Until the Senate
is either reformed or abolished, we should stop attacking its
members for trying to the job to which they were named.
Bill C-216 is history. We are now debating Bill C-393. As
previously mentioned, the bill would amend the Competition Act to
ban negative option billing in a whole host of sectors: certain
financial institutions, broadcasting undertakings,
telecommunication firms and insurance companies.
In particular, Bill C-393 protects a basic consumer right, the
right to express consent before purchasing a new product or
service. What this means in plain language is that consumers
cannot be billed for a product or service without their clear
consent.
The member for Sarnia—Lambton and organizations such as the
Consumers' Association of Canada make a compelling case against
negative option marketing practices. I think many of us would
agree that this type of marketing reverses the traditional
buyer-seller relationship. With negative option billing
customers are offered new products or services and are required
to opt out or expressly decline these new offerings to avoid
being charged for them.
From a legal standpoint negative option billing relies on the
concept of implied consent. By not responding to the
solicitation the consumer is deemed to have given his or her
consent. It is fair to say that negative option schemes rely on
market inertia to sell new products or services to an existing
client base.
It is therefore a justifiable claim that negative option billing
further concentrates market share with the dominant industry
players instead of fostering competition in an open marketplace.
1840
Bill C-393 applies to federally regulated businesses such as
banks, cable and telephone companies. Under the law select
financial, insurance and broadcasting companies would not be
allowed to use a lack of consumer response to negative option
billing inquiries as consent to buy.
The bill wisely allows provincial governments to prohibit
negative option marketing within their jurisdictions. Provinces
such as Quebec have already taken steps in this direction, a
point that was highlighted by the Bloc in the last parliament and
also tonight.
While provincial governments have progressed somewhat in
addressing these dubious marketing efforts, there is a noticeable
lack of such consumer protection at the federal level. Cable
providers are still using negative option billing in regional
markets despite previous assurances to the contrary.
Industry Canada's office of consumer affairs has warned that
negative option marketing has the potential to be an important
tool in the financial services sector. The department's August
1996 discussion paper on this subject stated:
Examples include the sending of unsolicited credit cards and
changes in account structure made without consumers'
consent.... The new technologies could allow industry to profit by
slipping new charges and services past unsuspecting customers.
In 1997 the Toronto-Dominion Bank employed a negative option
technique to deprive bank customers of their privacy. The
National Bank reportedly used a similar scheme to sell travellers
health insurance to existing customers by debiting their accounts
for $9.95 per month.
I am pleased that Bill C-393 recognizes that there are
situations in which a consumer benefits from a negative option
billing arrangement. However, for this to be the case, consumers
must be able to make informed decisions and give express consent.
Bill C-393 proposes certain steps to be taken for a negative
option scheme to be legal. The bill proposes fines for those who
contravene the act. Bill C-393 has received the support of the
Consumers' Association of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy
Centre and the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada.
Although Bill C-393 is strong on consumer protection I would
like to know the views of such organizations as the Canadian
Chamber of Commerce, the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters
Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the
Canadian Bankers Association, among others. We must always be
prudent as parliamentarians not to impose an excessive amount of
laws and regulations on the private sector.
We already have the sad example of the federal cost recovery
program which was introduced by the Liberal government. While
the move to user fees for the private sector was initially
welcomed by businesses of all shapes and sizes, the government's
chosen structure has proven to be ineffective, disparate,
incompatible and costly. As a result this program cost the
Canadian economy over $1.3 billion from our GDP and 23,000 jobs.
Let us always be careful in bringing in government intervention
no matter how well intentioned it seems at the time. Furthermore,
I would like to know how the bill would impact upon the provision
of French language broadcasting services.
The chairwoman of the CRTC, Françoise Bertrand, warned the
Senate transportation and communications committee that Bill
C-216 could result in a lack of marketing flexibility that would
hurt the financial sustainability of French language services in
Quebec and across the country.
I am sure that all members of the House, especially
bilingualism's newest friends in the Reform Party, would want to
ensure that Bill C-393 does not similarly threaten French
language broadcasting.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I
offer qualified support to Bill C-393 at second reading. The
overall intent is extremely positive. The legislation would
significantly increase the level of consumer protection. I urge
all members of the House to put aside partisan interests and
support moving the bill along to the industry committee where it
would be given closer scrutiny on issues such as the one I have
raised this evening.
Again I applaud the member for Sarnia—Lambton. We need more
initiatives from Liberal caucus backbenchers.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise this evening to address the matter currently before the
House. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the
member for Sarnia—Lambton for his continuing work and long term
interest with respect to this matter.
1845
Bill C-393 embodies a very simple premise. That premise is that
the consumer should have the right to say no. In short, only I
have the right to accept goods and services and only I have the
right to share my personal information with others. No one else
should presume to have that authority without my express
permission. Negative option marketing endangers this. In plain
language, self-protection is what we are debating here today.
It seems simple enough. If I wish to sell a person a product or
a service I must first convince them that they require the item
and then get their delivery approval and eventually their
payment.
This simple formula has been the basis of our capitalist system
for centuries. With this in mind it might surprise many of my
constituents and indeed Canadians in general to discover that
although this formula is used frequently, it is no longer used
universally.
Before I continue it should be noted that first British and now
Canadian common law in simple terms states that anything that is
not specifically prohibited is permitted.
We need to clarify the current legislative regime with respect
to this matter to account for this. Some of our provinces have
already taken appropriate steps to rectify this.
I strongly feel that it is time for the federal government to
standardize this protection right across Canada and Bill C-393
would do exactly that.
It is also a popular misconception that a signature is required
to validate an agreement. This concept is brought into question
when one applies the notion of the negative option billing or
approval process.
We should all be familiar with the mail order tape and video
clubs. One of my staff members is involved with one of the more
popular Canadian compact disc clubs. He tells me that every
month he is issued a card that names a specific music selection
referred to by the club as the selection of the month. He is
given approximately 20 days in which to respond to the mailing.
Should he fail to reply, the item and the bill is shipped to him.
In short, the said company considers his lack of response to be a
purchase agreement.
At a glance this does not seem to be a bad arrangement.
However, suppose the mailing was delivered to the wrong address
or even lost. My employee would receive the compact disc and the
invoice without ever having the option to refuse.
Another such example would be the cable TV package. As we will
all remember, not too long ago some of the major cable providers
utilized the negative option billing concept to sell unsuspecting
viewers a new programming package. As I recall, public outcry
was so substantial in this instance that the cable providers had
to backtrack on this plan.
It has become clear that the public is demanding change. Again,
I would suggest that this bill advocates that type of change.
The list of examples seems to go on endlessly. I was recently
reading a publication released by the Toronto Dominion Bank
entitled Your Information and Your Privacy: See How TD
Protects Your Privacy. This document assured me as a consumer
that the protection of my personal information was of paramount
concern for the bank. The document even went so far as to say
that the bank would never sell customer lists or my information
to other groups or individuals. I cannot tell hon. members how
pleased I was to read this. I cannot stress enough how upsetting
it can be to discover that personal and confidential information
had been released by an individual, group or institution that I
trusted to sources that I would not have invested with that
trust.
We can all name many examples of this type of information
pillaging. Many Ontarians will remember how, in the not too
distant past, the Ontario Ministry of Finance sold a list
compiled from information contained on private tax rolls to
outside interests. I remember the angry callers who approached
both my constituency office and myself asking if I could do
anything to help them. Today, by supporting this bill, I am
attempting to ensure that this never happens again.
Getting back to the TD publication, after assuring me that the
bank would not violate my trust, the document went on to say
“For your convenience, if we do not hear from you by October 31,
1997, we will proceed with sharing your information within the TD
group and may contact you occasionally with offers of products
and services we believe will be of interest to you”.
In essence, this brochure tells me that the bank will throw
itself on the tracks to protect my confidence, but it also tells
me that it intends to release my information to others for
alternative marketing purposes. That is wrong.
I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that consumers
should not be given a full range of options. I simply believe
that they should be required to provide express consent before
incurring the expense or before the personal information is used
for purposes other than the one that it was originally secured
for.
I would respectfully encourage my colleagues to add their
support for this bill to that of groups such as the Insurance
Bureau of Canada, the Public Interest and Advocacy Centre and the
Consumers Association of Canada. It is the right thing to do and
as legislators the negative option is not available to us. No
response when this vote is called will mean no sale for Bill
C-393.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1850
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
TRANSPORT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents in Halifax West to
raise with this government the issue of the future of the port of
Halifax. In response to my question in the House of Commons on
November 19, 1998, the Minister of Transport said “We are
certainly open to suggestions”. I do have a number of
suggestions and a number of questions that I know many people in
Halifax would want this government to answer.
Late last month the intergovernmental affairs minister claimed
there would be federal cash available for Halifax if it won part
of the super port pie. I am concerned about the impact on
Halifax's ability to win part of the super port contracts if this
federal government is unwilling to show to the industries
concerned in more detail the depth of its commitment to this
economic development opportunity for Halifax.
This could be a half billion dollar investment in the economic
future of Halifax. Estimates suggest that already the port of
Halifax supports 7,000 jobs directly and indirectly and generates
almost a third of a billion dollars in economic activity
annually.
Upgrading the port to handle post-Panamax super ships would do
much to help with the economic development of the region. These
super ships are too wide to navigate the Panama Canal. One
encouraging fact is that Halifax has natural harbours deep enough
to accommodate the 50-foot depth that the Maersk and Sealand
container companies suggest is needed to handle their super
ships. At 45 feet New York hits bedrock.
People in my riding have already raised the issue of the
environmental impact of a super port. I want this government to
be clear that it will support a complete, fair and thorough
environmental impact assessment before it moves one teaspoon of
earth should this project go forward. While I join others in
looking forward to a major economic boost for the region, it must
be done in such a way that protects long term environmental
interests. The assessment must be fully open to public
participation and the public must easily have all the relevant
information available to it. No corner cutting can be allowed if
we are to properly ensure that long term economic planning walks
abreast of long term environmental planning.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address some
of the concerns that have been with raised with respect to the
port advisory committee process in Halifax. These comments are
directly related to the comments made by the member from the
opposition.
The role of the port advisory committee was to develop a user
nomination process in response to the requirement in the Canada
Marine Act to consult with users on certain board appointments.
This nomination process has been reflected in the letters patent.
The purpose of this process was to solicit names for user
representatives to Canada port authority boards and to forward
nominations to the Minister of Transport for consideration.
Port advisory committee members will not be appointing directors
to the Halifax port authority. The authority is an agent of the
crown and the majority of directors are appointed by governor in
council. In addition, the province and the municipality each
appoint a board member.
To ensure the process was inclusive, port managers were asked to
contact users and invite them to attend a nomination meeting. In
addition, an advertisement was placed in the local newspaper
advising of the port advisory committee nomination meeting.
With respect to the composition of the port advisory committee,
a broad cross-section of port users was represented, including
members of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce and the Halifax
Shipping Association. The list provided by the port advisory
committee was used by the minister in making his recommendations
to the governor in council.
As with the provincial and municipal appointees to the Halifax
port authority board, each user representative will serve the
board with a view to the needs of the Halifax port authority as a
whole. I am sure that at no time will these competent
individuals lose sight of some of the concerns mentioned by the
hon. member from the opposition.
1855
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
follow up on a question I asked on December 7, 1998. It was in
relation to the fact that the United Nations committee had made
it clear the Friday before that the Canadian government did not
take good care of the disadvantaged members of its society, and
recommended a reform of employment insurance.
At that time I asked the federal government to reform employment
insurance. We are in March now and still waiting for the
Minister of Human Resources Development to show us some light at
the end of the tunnel.
One cannot be satisfied with the response I was given at the
time by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, particularly when he spoke of relief for low income
families, that is 400,000 taxpayers, when there are 800,000
people who do not qualify for employment insurance. He mentioned
the youth employment strategy, but these are short term, not
long term jobs.
Today, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development what
he intends to do about gappers, and the black hole. He answered
this question by saying that only 2,000 workers were affected.
Does the minister know what is going on in his department?
In my riding alone, there are 3,100 people who could be called
gappers, not to mention those in the riding of my colleague, the
hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. Does the minister know
what is going on? The only reason there are only 2,000 gappers
left is that they are being eliminated.
Camille Thériault, the premier of New Brunswick, said that
newcomers will not be eligible. This is what is happening in New
Brunswick.
I am asking the Minister of Human Resources Development to look
at this issue and wake up. There are people who are suffering.
These are individuals who contributed to the employment
insurance fund. The minister must realize that seasonal workers
are suffering.
There is a problem in Atlantic Canada. There is a problem in
Saskatchewan, with only 19% of the unemployed qualifying for
employment insurance.
There is a problem in Ontario, where only 23% qualify for
employment insurance. How can the minister rise in this House
and say such terrible things? Why is he not able to look after
human resources and employment insurance issues, instead of
trying to defend himself by saying “There is no problem. We are
creating jobs. We are creating this. We are creating that”.
He should come and see the hardship the Liberal Government of
Canada has caused. Now, the provincial government is making
matters worse.
I will end on that note. I hope the minister will wake up and
take a serious look at this issue.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government understands that some families who are unemployed or
living on EI live in difficult situations. We have tried to be
sensitive to their circumstances. That is why for example we
introduced the family income supplement which tops up the EI
benefits of about 220,000 low income claimants with children,
two-thirds of whom are women.
I must ask the member opposite to recognize that the overall
objective of the EI program is more than just giving the
unemployed EI benefits for as long as possible. Instead, it means
ensuring that people can have the skills and opportunity to work
and can feed their own families. Merely giving people income
support and keeping them on the economic sidelines year after
year will not improve their lives or enable them to benefit from
new opportunities in our economy.
We are trying to help those people get the skills needed to earn
a full income because we believe this is the truly compassionate
thing to do.
While EI is an essential part of our social safety net, it is
not the only solution. Our net is strong and fair because
different programs exist to meet different needs.
1900
EI is supported by a number of other programs to help unemployed
Canadians get a job. For example, there is the $7 billion the
government puts in for low income families through the Canadian
child tax benefit. For youth we invest $155 million every year
to help young Canadians get on the job experience. For people
with disabilities we invest, along with the provinces, $430
million to help them find and keep a job. For those trying to
adjust to the new working conditions of the new economy we have
set aside $2.1 billion for active measures.
This is how we are showing compassion, by ensuring a
comprehensive set of measures exists to meet different needs.
The fact that unemployment is at its lowest level in over eight
years tells us that our approach is working and we hope the trend
will continue.
HEALTH
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on November 5, I asked the health minister a question relating to
MMT and Ethyl Corporation.
I asked the minister a specific question on when a comprehensive
study would begin to determine the health effects on Canadian
children. He responded: “As more is known about the health
effects of MMT, government policy will reflect those research
results”. Four months have passed and the health minister has
not announced any effort to determine the possible health effects
MMT poses on Canadian children.
In November I was honoured to host a parliamentary breakfast
sponsored by the Council of Canadians and the Sierra Club of
Canada. Members from all political parties attended this
important event. The guest speakers were Dr. Donna Mergler, a
nervous system disorder specialist at the University of Quebec in
Montreal, and Dr. Herbert Needleman, professor of child
psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh's
school of medicine.
Dr. Mergler is an expert on the effects of manganese on the
human population. Dr. Needleman is recognized internationally as
a key figure behind the removal of lead from gasoline in the
1970s to protect the world's children.
These distinguished speakers drew upon their respective
histories and expertise to call on this country to act with
precaution and to conduct intensive studies in relation to MMT
fuel additives. They outlined the potential similarities of
lead's adverse health effects on humans that MMT may pose. They
urged Canada's leaders not to repeat the mistakes that the
repeated delays with lead fuel additives created. Millions of
children were unnecessarily exposed and suffered a variety of
neurological and physical effects.
The health minister has demonstrated this government's refusal
to act proactively or to in any way show leadership, political
will or vision. When the need to protect Canada's children
requires a precautionary approach this government disappears.
For example, the issue of metals and chemicals in children's toys
was ignored for a year by the minister until independent lab
tests proved the danger and the government was forced to act.
The government has also resumed toxic PCB shipments to Swan
Hills contrary to a company official confirming that there will
always be fugitive emissions, dioxins and furans spewing
throughout the countryside.
The government continues to ignore reality. Sick children are
not relocated from beside this country's infamous toxic waste
site, the coke ovens and Sydney tar ponds. At a time when the
government tells the Canadian public that precautionary principle
is policy, we know by its inaction and delay that this is not
correct.
Several weeks ago the EPA in the United States initiated a new
series of studies into MMT. The majority of European countries
and the United States do not use this product. We are guinea
pigs for a corporation and a government that have lost direction
in the face of trade and profit.
After four months of further government delay to protect
Canadian children, what studies have been reviewed by Health
Canada, if any? Has the health minister drawn any conclusions
from the recent reports from Denmark on the potential health
effects to workers from manganese operations? Has the minister
looked at the study from British Columbia that may show a marked
increase in manganese concentrations in soil collected along
thoroughfares since MMT became a fuel additive replacement for
lead?
Did the minister bother to read the peer review in the infamous
Toronto study relating to MMT that raised serious questions about
the report's validity? Will the minister or any other minister
in the government today take precautions on MMT for the sake of
Canada's children? The government's track record states no.
1905
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I start by stating very clearly
that the health of Canadians, particularly the health of Canadian
children, is a priority for Health Canada.
The government's decision to delist MMT was in response to a
ruling by a panel established under the agreement on internal
trade. In acting on the panel's recommendations the government
also moved to resolve Ethyl's NAFTA claim.
Health Canada conducted a thorough review of the health effects
of manganese that could be attributed to the use of the gasoline
additive MMT and published those findings in December 1994. The
review considered all age groups, including children and the
elderly, and concluded that the vast majority of Canadians are
exposed to levels of manganese that are well below a level of
concern as determined by Health Canada and the World Health
Organization. I remind the member that the report is an
assessment of the health impact of MMT and not an endorsement of
its use.
In developing the conclusions reached in the report, Health
Canada reviewed the science contained in over 200 published
research papers. Departmental scientists were satisfied that the
database was sufficient to achieve and reach valid conclusions on
the subject of MMT. As with all scientific issues, gaps exist in
our knowledge.
The department is also aware of other studies being planned or
already in progress which might provide new information on this
subject. We are aware of the studies and of the learned
scientists the member referred to in his opening remarks.
I assure the member and all those watching this interesting
debate that Health Canada will continue to examine all available
studies as an ongoing effort to reassess the 1994 risk
assessment. We believe that is appropriate. I assure the House
that any health developments will be reflected in the
government's policy toward fuel additives.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the health and safety
of Canadians are always a priority with Health Canada.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
March 2, I put a question in the House to the Minister of Human
Resources Development on employment insurance.
I pointed out to him that his government had given
responsibility for the programs to the province, but without
attaching conditions when it transferred the money, which
resulted in a great muddle.
Based on the response my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst was
given earlier, it is clear that the government understands
nothing at all.
They might understand something if they came to New Brunswick to
see the situation, but we know the minister is afraid of coming.
We might ask why he is afraid. He says there are only 2,000
gappers.
I think we ought to define the word “gapper”. Gappers are
people whose EI benefits are cut before they start working
again. The unfortunate part is that, when the minister called
his officials today, they forgot to tell him what a gapper was.
I am explaining it to him, and I hope his parliamentary
secretary will pass on the definition of gapper, because we have
a serious problem.
He said there are 2,000 gappers in the province. I know that in
the Moncton and Beauséjour—Petitcodiac ridings there are 12,000,
or 11,954 to be exact.
I got these figures from department officials.
These are not statistics, they are active files. They do not
include maternity leave or sick leave. They are applications
for benefits, active applications from people who will run out
of benefits before their job starts. It is not hard to
understand. There are not just 2,000 in New Brunswick. The
minister has to come and see. We know he is afraid.
Today, I presented two petitions. There were 2,700 names of
people from my riding, people who are concerned about cuts to
employment insurance, people from rural regions that have been
included in urban areas. Still the minister refuses to make
changes.
In the department, they talk about investment in the regions.
They neglected to say how much they had taken out of our regions
following the cuts to the employment insurance program. New
Brunswick loses $275 million a year.
My riding is out $35.8 million a year, and they would have us
believe no one is going hungry.
Two weeks ago, I visited a number of food banks. Demand was up
sharply in seven out of eight. And what was the major reason
for this increase? EI cuts. So, when the minister says there
are 2,000 gappers, the other 10,000, or 15,000, or 16,000, or
20,000 are getting their meals from food banks.
1910
I also learned from my visits that, when people turn to the
welfare department of Camille Thériault's government for
financial assistance, they are given a chit for the food bank.
It is truly disgraceful that a provincial government treats
people this way.
The federal government is taking these people's last penny away,
then the provincial government does the same thing. Both are
Liberal governments; one would sometimes think they were in
cahoots. Camille says not to worry, that these people should be
sent his way because food bank workers are very generous
nowadays.
We must congratulate the volunteers and all the families that
give food to food banks because, without their support, many
people would suffer from hunger, since neither the province nor
the federal government is looking after them.
The government says that many women are covered. The fact is
they contribute, but they do not qualify for benefits. I am not
making that up, I can see what is going on. Women hold part time
jobs. Therefore, how can they work the 910 hours required? The
minister must come to see the reality in New Brunswick, because
he will never understand what is going on until he comes and
sees it for himself.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Canada is sensitive to the needs of seasonal
workers. Their needs are one of the reasons we changed the
employment insurance system to an hours based system in the first
place. Today seasonal workers can benefit from having all their
long hours of work count under employment insurance.
Another reason we implemented reforms to the EI act was to
reduce dependency on EI as a regular income support program and
instead give people the tools they need to get back to work. That
is why we invested $2.1 billion in active employment measures to
help people find jobs.
Now that the labour market development agreement with New
Brunswick has been signed, we are providing that province with
almost $240 million over three years to help people get back to
work. The province is now responsible for the delivery of these
programs.
Last year the Department of Human Resources Development made
available up to $5 million in transitional assistance to the New
Brunswick government to help workers affected by the gap, the
so-called gappers of whom the member speaks. In addition, the
Government of New Brunswick has announced its own $5 million
seasonal workers adjustment initiative.
In 1994 about 7,500 seasonal workers were affected by the gap.
Since then this number has been on the decline. Based on the
number of participants in the program last year, it is estimated
that about 2,000 people were affected by the gap in New
Brunswick.
I can understand why the member opposite is disputing this
figure because according to her definition a gapper is a person
who does not get EI before his or her job starts. I assure the
House that no Canadian gets EI before his or her job starts.
They get EI when their job ends.
Our general strategy seems to be working because over 35,000 New
Brunswickers have been added to the labour force since October
1993. We feel this is a fact to be celebrated.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.13 p.m.)