36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 110
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 27, 1998
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| LAND MINES
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| ARMENIA
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| BISHOP FRANJO KOMARICA
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CANADA'S ARMENIAN COMMUNITY
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1405
| CANADIAN SPECIAL OLYMPICS ORGANIZATION
|
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| CALGARY DECLARATION
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| AIR POLLUTION
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| QUEBEC'S SENIOR CITIZENS WEEK
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| CALGARY DECLARATION
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
1410
| UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| GLOBALIZATION
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| AIRBUS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| REFORM PARTY CONVENTION
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1425
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
| Mr. Dick Harris |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| BPS CALL CENTRE
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| THE SENATE
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1440
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1445
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| YEAR 2000 COMPUTER BUG
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1450
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CALGARY DECLARATION
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1455
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| THE JUDICIARY
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| TOBACCO LEGISLATION
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
1500
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Order Paper Questions
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
1505
1510
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1515
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| The Speaker |
1520
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments during Question Period
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| The Speaker |
| Millennium Scholarships
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Human Resources Development and Status of Persons with
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| Industry
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| PETITIONS
|
| Public Safety Officers
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1525
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Goods and Services Tax
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Pensions
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Raymond Bonin |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Osteoporosis
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| Allowance for Mothers
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1530
| Bioartificial Kidney Project
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Refugees
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-36. Third reading
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1535
1540
1545
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1550
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1610
1615
1620
1625
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-36. Third reading
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1650
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1715
1745
(Division 179)
| Amendment negatived
|
(Division 180)
1750
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-235. Second reading
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1755
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1800
1805
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1810
1815
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1820
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1825
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1830
1835
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
1840
1845
1850
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1855
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1900
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| Nuclear Waste
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1905
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 110
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 27, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will
now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Sackville—Eastern Shore.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
LAND MINES
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I call on
all members of the House to join me in congratulating all
parliamentarians of the Republic of Croatia for unanimously
ratifying the Canadian led treaty to ban anti-personnel land
mines.
One of the first countries to support and join the Ottawa
process, Croatia became the 12th country to ratify this
convention.
A foremost victim of land mines, up to three million mines were
laid in areas of the country, blocking the safe return of
refugees and displaced persons and further hampering attempts at
development and reconstruction.
Through partnerships with other states, Canadian de-mining
technology and expertise can help to eliminate the dangers of
existing land mines in this region.
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
has been a lot of talk lately about the declining role of
parliamentarians at the hands of judicial activism.
In the case of Rosenberg v Canada, a lesbian challenged the
constitutionality of the Income Tax Act, since it forced Revenue
Canada to refuse to register her employer's private pension plan
if it extended death benefits to same sex partners. In a
unanimous decision on April 23, the Ontario Court of Appeal
decided to read a same sex definition of the term spouse into the
act.
I feel that the government has an obligation to defend its
stated position on the definition of spouse and if an appeal
fails then this issue should be put before parliament.
As the former justice minister himself said while defending the
need for Bill C-33, “we shouldn't rely upon the courts to make
public policy in matters of this kind. That's up to legislators,
and we should have the courage to do it”.
This issue comes down to one question: Is the current justice
minister going to let the courts decide on the redefinition of
the term spouse or is parliament?
* * *
ARMENIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to commemorate the 80th
anniversary of Armenian independence.
On May 28, 1918 the Armenian nation threw off the shackles of
oppression of the Ottoman Empire and re-established itself as an
independent nation on the world stage.
Today Armenians throughout the world join together to celebrate
the birth of the modern Armenian state. As we gather to
celebrate this important milestone we will pray that the growth
of democracy and the rule of law will continue to flourish in
today's Armenia.
Armenians have fought countless battles and endured immeasurable
hardships to sustain our language and culture and, in fact, our
very existence as a nation.
Happy Anniversary, Armenia.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Armenian]
* * *
[English]
BISHOP FRANJO KOMARICA
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to call on members of the House to join me
in welcoming Monsignor Franjo Komarica, Bishop of Banja Luka,
Bosnia-Hercegovina.
During the war which engulfed Bosnia-Hercegovina, most of those
in Bishop Komarica's diocese were subjected to ethnic cleansing
and their homes open to systematic destruction.
Monsignor Komarica has long been an outspoken advocate of a just
and peaceful solution to the conflict in Bosnia and a harmonious
co-existence between all of its peoples.
Despite the threat to his personal safety, the bishop worked
courageously to intervene and prevent the outbreak and escalation
of large scale conflicts and oversaw the distribution of
desperately needed humanitarian aid to all citizens in need.
I applaud Bishop Komarica for his defence and assistance of all
victims of war in Bosnia-Hercegovina and I welcome him to Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA'S ARMENIAN COMMUNITY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May 28 is a
significant date for the Armenian community in Canada.
On that date, in 1918, the Republic of Armenia was created
following the tragic events in which more than one million of
their fellow citizens were killed.
[English]
Although the new republic was annexed by the Soviet Union soon
after, May 28, 1918 remains an important date for all Armenians.
Today the Republic of Armenia is once again an independent
country, having declared its independence on September 23, 1991
from the former Soviet Union. Even though the Armenian economy
has been strained by recent changes and is currently undergoing a
difficult process of economic restructuring, the future now looks
brighter for the new republic.
1405
On this day I wish to pay a special tribute to my constituents
of Armenian origin who are model Canadians and proud of their
rich culture and linguistic Armenian heritage.
I invite all my colleagues to celebrate this anniversary
together with all Canadians of Armenian origin.
* * *
CANADIAN SPECIAL OLYMPICS ORGANIZATION
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the Canadian
Special Olympics Organization.
These very dedicated people provide programs of tremendous
benefit to individuals with mental challenges.
The special olympics is one of the most respected charity help
groups in all of Canada and this is due to the thousands of
dedicated volunteers who donate so much of their time to this
very worthy cause.
I am proud to host in my riding every year the Prince George
special olympics charity golf classic which has raised more than
$100,000 for our special olympics organization over the last five
years.
I salute the many special olympics volunteers and especially the
special olympics athletes who, with grit and determination, say
“Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in my
attempt”.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
Ontario became the eighth Canadian province to send a clear
message in favour of national unity by supporting the Calgary
declaration.
“We recognize Quebec's unique character”, said the Ontario
legislature. The provinces are once again reiterating that
Quebec belongs in the Canadian federation.
As for the Bouchard government, it has instituted a so-called
non-partisan parliamentary commission on the Calgary declaration.
Why did nine of the thirty persons who were approached decline
the sovereignists' invitation to take part in this bogus
commission? This speaks volumes about the non-partisan nature of
this commission, which Premier Bouchard would have us believe
in.
* * *
AIR POLLUTION
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, air pollution
advisories are being issued more and more frequently across the
country. Montreal has already had two smog alerts so far this
year, which is somewhat unusual this early in the season.
Children and older people as well as those with respiratory and
cardiac problems are the most vulnerable. Recent data show that
up to 1,800 Ontario residents die every year from air pollution.
Immediate action is required to ensure that Canadians can
breathe cleaner air. Air pollution is a source of concern for
all Canadians and should be a priority for all governments.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the results of a survey on grain marketing in
Saskatchewan was recently made public. I thought members who
helped ram Bill C-4 through the House would be interested in the
results.
Sixty per cent of the respondents thought there should be dual
marketing for wheat; that is, the Canadian Wheat Board should not
be the only company the western farmers can sell their wheat and
barley to.
Sixty-one per cent thought there should be a provision for
producers to sell a portion of their production outside the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Fifty-four per cent thought the wheat board would be effective
in a dual market.
Fifty-three per cent felt they did not know enough about the
changes to the wheat board passed in Bill C-4.
I think members on the government side will pay more attention
to these survey results when they learn that the survey was
conducted by the leader of the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S SENIOR CITIZENS WEEK
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since this is
Senior Citizens Week in Quebec, I take this opportunity to
salute all senior citizens in Laval and Quebec and to thank them
for their contribution to our society's development.
Two years ago, the federal government announced a seniors
benefit program that would provide minimum annual payments of
$11,420 to a person living alone, and $18,440 for a couple,
which is clearly below the poverty line.
With the support of Bloc Quebecois members, seniors groups have
questioned the formula used to calculate these benefits. They
have criticized the federal government for jeopardizing the
financial independence of elderly women and penalizing seniors
with other sources of income.
We want the Minister of Finance to follow up on these concerns.
Seniors can be assured that we will be vigilant during the
review of that program.
I wish you all a good week.
* * *
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, we
learned that unemployment has gone up in Quebec. Instead of
trying to find concrete solutions, the PQ government has decided
to set up a parliamentary commission on the Calgary declaration,
a document in which it does not even want to believe.
In this morning's edition of La Presse, an editorial writer
says: “There is in fact a direct link between the two events.
Politics is killing the economy in Quebec. We will not succeed
in lowering the unemployment rate, in efficiently fighting
poverty and in giving back to the state enough financial leeway
as long as we continue to bleed ourselves dry over this
political debate, which is getting us nowhere”.
1410
I leave it up to Quebeckers to make up their own minds about the
PQ decisions, which go squarely against their own interests and
seem to be unanimously supported by Bloc Quebecois members.
* * *
[English]
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, human rights
and the family are the topic of the Canadian Council of Refugee's
semi-annual conference. Participants from Canada and abroad will
attend and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
The Canadian government is concerned with trade and not human
needs or problems. This government must advance policies that
represent the values of Canadian citizens rather than reacting to
the hysteria of right wing politicians and enforcing detentions
and deportations.
A refugee claimant who has passed the medical and background
checks should receive landed immigrant status at the most three
years after filing a refugee claim. A large number of refugees
are in limbo and waiting for basic human rights such as the
pursuit of work, education or travel. We must not close our
doors to those seeking refuge.
* * *
MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the
Minister of National Defence, the hon. member of parliament for
York Centre. He was recognized last Thursday as the recipient of
the American Public Works Association's Distinguished Service
Award. The award recognizes members of government for their
far-reaching positive impact on public works programs, services
or policies through distinguished public service commitment.
He is the first Canadian to win the award in the 104 year
history of the APWA. The minister certainly deserves it for the
work he did as minister responsible for infrastructure when he
launched the Canada infrastructure works program, a model program
for intergovernmental co-operation. He spearheaded the effort to
rebuild Canada's infrastructure and provided $2 billion in
federal money. The program delivered the money where it was
needed most, at the municipal level.
In his current portfolio the minister mobilized 15,000 Canadian
forces to support public works officials during the ice storm of
1998.
Please join me in congratulating the Minister of National
Defence.
* * *
[Translation]
GLOBALIZATION
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, members of
the political and economic community met this week to look at
certain aspects of globalization in terms of economic
imperatives at the world conference in Montreal.
The members of a popular lobby group, l'Opération Salami,
vigorously expressed their resistance to globalization, which,
according to them, is creating its share of injustice.
One phenomenon, two visions: a world where everything should be
done to facilitate economic exchange, because it is the
guarantee of prosperity, or a world where community well-being
means protecting the social values that have come from
democracy.
When groups demonstrate to such an extent to express their
viewpoint, it is time for us, the politicians, to look at the
phenomenon of globalization and especially at its impact on our
social values.
This is tangible evidence that we parliamentarians should adopt
the solution I recently proposed, which is to create a
parliamentary committee to study the consequences of this new
reality.
* * *
[English]
AIRBUS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of tomorrow's supreme court ruling
on a case involving Karlheinz Schreiber in the ill-conceived,
politically motivated airbus investigation, many questions remain
unanswered.
It is increasingly clear that Kimberly Prost, retired Staff
Sergeant Fiegenwald, mysterious convict Mr. Palosi and the
equally credible Stevie Cameron are not the main players in this
entire debacle.
We know a former prime minister has been harassed and defamed by
the current government's administration and, when challenged on
the merits, this same government only offered a qualified
apology, paid the bill and now presses on with renewed vigour
like an addicted gambler doubling his bets in the hope of
covering his debts.
The affront to public sensibility and personal vendetta
continues. The questions remain. Why has this dragged on? When
will the government show good faith and abandon this dead end
trail, saving Canadians further tax dollars? In light of Air
Canada's decision to purchase more airbuses, does the government
fear for the future integrity of the current Prime Minister,
given the Liberal history of involvement with the airbus which
dates back to 1971?
* * *
REFORM PARTY CONVENTION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this week in London, Ontario, one of Canada's most important
democratic activities is taking place. Canadians from every
corner of the country and from every walk of life will be
gathering to discuss the state of our country and to develop
innovative policy at the 1998 assembly of the Reform Party.
1415
Assembly 98 delegates will speak freely and candidly about the
problems facing their country. Unlike the Liberals, Reformers do
not need to be whipped into line and smile for the cameras.
Reformers take pride in speaking their minds on any issue,
including an open debate on all aspects of our own party.
Reformers believe in an efficient and accountable government,
and accountability starts with the individual. I invite members
opposite to tune in and watch the proceedings of Assembly 98.
They will see accountability, autonomy and the ingenuity that
will continue to shape Canada for generations to come.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the health minister said that albumin, used to treat burn victims
imported from the U.S. Alpha Therapeutic Company, is safe and
“at no time have American authorities prohibited the sale of the
products of this company”.
In one hour I found two product withdrawals from this company in
one year, and one of them was albumin. Has the government
learned nothing from the tainted blood tragedy?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the important point here is that the albumin being imported into
Canada has been inspected by the American authorities and by the
Canadian authorities and has been found to meet safety standards.
The member as a physician should know that albumin is an
important product for the health of many Canadians. Because of
the shortage of licensed suppliers and at the request of
physicians, Health Canada through the special access program has
permitted importation of this product from Alpha, which is an
American company.
This product has been inspected by the American authorities, by
the Canadian authorities and has been found to be safe.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, remember he
said no withdrawals and there were withdrawals.
The same company has such a bad safety record in the U.S. that
on voluntary standards which they would normally comply with the
FDA had to go to court to force them and the parent company,
Green Cross in Japan, to get down on their knees and apologize
for the Japanese tainted blood scandal.
Why are we allowing outsiders to tell us that these blood
products are safe?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as usual the member is not listening. What he is doing through
his fearmongering is upsetting people who rely on this product.
I have said to the House and I say again to the member, if it
does any good, that because of the shortage of this supply from
licensed suppliers doctors have asked Health Canada to permit the
importation from Alpha.
The American authorities have examined the very product being
imported. Canadian authorities have examined that product and
have found it to be safe.
Let us not instil unnecessary fear on the part of innocent
Canadians who rely on these products for their own health and
safety.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is
not testing this blood for safety. We are trusting someone else
to say that it is safe.
The same company's founder said “Money is more important than
blood”. That is not good enough in Canada.
Why are we trusting and repeating the errors of the past when it
relates to tainted blood?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can do no more than rely on the facts. I urge the member to be
responsible in the way he is dealing with this issue.
Please, we are dealing with innocent Canadians who need this
product for their health and safety. Please, the officials have
told me expressly that Alpha has an albumin product that has been
approved for marketing in Canada but does not have a licensed
importer.
This product has been approved for importing into Canada. It
has been approved by the Americans. Surely the member will be
responsible enough to deal with the true facts of this matter
instead of using it for narrow political purposes.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister must have trouble sitting down these days with
$15 billion in his back pocket.
The Premier of Ontario calls his EI tax grab stealing from
Canadians. How much longer will Canadians have to wait—
Some hon. members: Withdraw.
The Speaker: My colleague, as you know, we cannot use the
words of somebody else if they are words that we would not be
allowed to use. I would ask you not to use the word again in
question period.
1420
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Ontario
said he obtained the money through very questionable means. How
much longer will Canadians have to pay to fatten the finance
minister's election fund?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the course of the last year the government has
reduced the employment insurance premiums from $2.90 to $2.70,
one of the largest reductions in history.
At the same time we have reduced income taxes for 83% of
Canadians and we have put $1.5 billion into the Canadian health
and social transfer, all at the same time eliminating the
deficit.
Now the question is if the hon. member would decrease
unemployment insurance premiums more, which of those other
options would he not have chosen?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this really does not have to be. The fact is the finance
minister has kept premiums artificially high, milking business
people and workers and all the while ending up killing hundreds
of thousands of jobs in the Canadian economy. That is what
payroll taxes do.
Canadians want a date. They want to know when they can expect
real cuts to EI premiums, not the nickels and dimes the finance
minister just mentioned. When are we to get real cuts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since we have taken office the unemployment insurance
premiums have gone down from where they were at $3.30 to $2.07.
That is $4.2 billion. That is not nickels and dimes.
The issue is if the hon. member would reduce the unemployment
insurance premiums more, would he have increased taxes? Would he
not have eliminated the deficit, or would he have done what most
of his party would do and that is eviscerate the health care and
the education systems of the country?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
surplus in the employment insurance fund will be up to almost
$20 billion this year.
In the meantime, the government is depriving thousands of
unemployed workers of benefits. The Premier of Ontario is
apparently even considering taking Ottawa to court for using the
money in the employment insurance fund for purposes other than
the ones intended.
How can the Minister of Finance continue to line the
government's coffers with money from the employment insurance
fund, putting money from workers and employers to uses other
than those initially intended, when the very legality of this
move is being called into question?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, the reserve in the employment insurance fund was used
for the transitional job fund, to create jobs. Is the leader of
the Bloc Quebecois against that?
The government's ledgers show that we have eliminated 400,000
taxpayers. Is that not what he would like to see?
We have lowered taxes for 83% of Canadians. Is that not what he
would like to see? We have increased transfers to the provinces
by $7 billion over a five-year period. Is all this not to his
liking?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are not against job creation, but he is talking about the
transitional fund, which is completely empty.
And the government has been able to do all this because it has
dipped into the pockets of the most disadvantaged members of
society.
What does the minister have to say to unemployed workers and
their families, with the banks making exorbitant profits and him
raking in more than all the banks together from the pockets of
unemployed workers, from the pockets of those who can least
afford it? We are talking about over $6 billion a year. This
is unacceptable.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois says he wants to create jobs.
Alain Dubuc had this to say in this morning's edition of La
Presse: “Politics is killing the economy in Quebec. We will not
succeed in lowering the unemployment rate—as long as we
continue to bleed ourselves dry over this political debate,
which is getting us nowhere”.
If jobs are what is wanted, then the threat of a referendum has
got to go.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1425
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, the Minister of Finance announced that he had some
decisions to make concerning the indecent surplus in the
employment insurance fund.
It was high time he woke up, for the surplus was beginning to
exceed the levels allowable by law.
May we know more about these famous decisions the minister
intends to make about his surplus, a surplus that has always
been immoral and is now becoming increasingly illegal?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is it
immoral to fund the transitional job creation fund? Is it
immoral to put money into health and education? Is it immoral
to help young people, those who need work, single mothers? If
that is the Bloc Quebecois' idea of morality, it is not one
shared by Quebeckers nor Canadians.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
immoral to continue to give such answers when there are
thousands of unemployed people in distress.
And while he was answering my question—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has the
floor.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, in the minute it took for the
Minister of Finance to reply to my question, the employment
insurance surplus increased by $12,000?
During oral question period, it will have increased by $700,000.
By the end of this month, the amount stolen from the unemployed
will total $85 million.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: When will the minister stop siphoning off
money from the unemployed?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is not going to create any employment by working
himself up into a state.
Since we assumed power, there have been 1.2 million new jobs,
453,000 new jobs in the last year—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: You look out for your boats, but not for the
unemployed.
Hon. Paul Martin: —have been created in Canada. This is how
jobs are created, by investing in education and in the health of
Canadians, in—
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
emergency provisions allow the health minister to permit the use
of unlicensed blood products in exceptional circumstances on a
case by case basis.
However the health minister is permitting unlicensed albumin to
be used routinely and extensively in hospitals across the
country. Instead of accusing those concerned of fearmongering,
why does the minister not act before, not after another blood
tragedy?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member does not understand the system.
It is not the products that are licensed. It is the importers
that are licensed. Products are approved or disapproved. In the
case of albumin from Alpha, it has been approved by both American
and Canadian authorities. They have applied safety standards and
they have approved the product.
1430
Would the member confine herself to the facts. We had her
calling over to the department last week. We sat her down with
the officials. We gave her all the facts, instead of engaging in
what she is doing right now, and as the member for Macleod is
doing, which is creating fear on the part of Canadians who take
this product without regard for the facts.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that
don't worry, be happy, somebody else is minding the store
attitude of the minister shows that he has not learned a thing
from the Krever inquiry.
If the albumin meets Canadian standards, why is the government
still importing it under the emergency measures? The minister
refuses to inspect and test its unlicensed albumin. Why not
enforce the Canadian law, inspect the sites, test the samples,
trace the lot, and just enforce the law?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the reason the Alpha product is being permitted into Canada under
the special access provision is that all the licensed importers
are out of product. Physicians have come to Health Canada and
said “Please let us use this product”, even though they do not
have a licensed importer. We looked at the product and it has
been approved, as the Americans approved it.
The question is, is it safe? The authorities have examined it.
They have applied standards and they have said it should be
approved. That is the issue, not whether the product is
licensed. Products are not licensed. They are either approved or
not approved and this product has been approved.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I just
heard the Minister of Finance say that he had created jobs in
health care and education. I would like to tell that to all the
doctors and nurses who have had to leave our part of the country
and go to the United States to work.
We have been asking the finance minister to stop taxing jobs by
keeping EI premiums higher than needed for two years. Back in my
riding we have the highest unemployment rate that we have had in
30 years.
The EI fund is not supposed to be used to pad the government's
books. Now that the EI surplus is at least $12 billion, will the
government reduce this job killing tax to $2 today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hate to point this out to the hon. member, but in fact
when the previous Conservative government took office from the
Liberals the rate was at $2. I hate to do this but in 1989 under
the Tories the rate was $1.95. In 1990 it went up to $2.25. Then
it went up to $2.80. Then it went up to $3. When we took office
it was going up to $3.30 and we would not let it happen. That is
why it is at $2.70 today.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
to tell the hon. finance minister that when we were in power we
had 4,000 people working at the shipyard and now we do not have
people working at the shipyard. We just lost Atlantic Sugar a
week ago.
I want to say to the minister that the government's own actuary
has said that the EI premiums need not be any higher than $2.
Media reports indicate that government officials are saying that
the finance minister will have to amend the EI act if he wants to
keep padding the books at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers.
Is that what the minister is planning to do, or will he cut
those premiums and put more money back in the pockets—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it unfortunate to have to correct the historical
record, but in fact when the hon. member's party was last in
power there was a deficit in the unemployment insurance fund of
$6 billion.
I would also like to point out that in the Canadian economy over
one million jobs were created in the last four years. In the
last three years of the Tory regime there were over 200,000 jobs
lost in the Canadian economy.
1435
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in fact the only thing left in the $15 billion EI
surplus is an IOU from the finance minister. Today when asked if
he felt good about ripping off the surplus from Canadian business
and workers he said that we have choices to make.
Why does the finance minister think it is such a good choice to
continue ripping off business workers in the EI surplus when he
knows very well that these payroll taxes are killing jobs and
killing investment in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every year since we have been in office we have cut
those premiums. We have demonstrated our desire to do so.
The choices have to be made. The one the Reform Party ought to
face up to is that you cannot do everything at once and at the
same time make sure that the country's books stay in the black.
I ask the hon. member when he stands up on his preamble, would
he not have cut taxes? Would he not have put money back into the
Canadian health and social transfer? Would he not have put more
money back into education? Would he not have eliminated the
deficit?
* * *
BPS CALL CENTRE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, human
resources bungling cost taxpayers $1 million and Newfoundlanders
124 jobs when the BPS call centre went belly up. Now we have
learned that the $1 million earmarked for company salaries did
not even get to the employees. The Newfoundland government is
picking up the tab.
Since the minister is forcing taxpayers to pay twice for jobs
that no longer exist, why will he not tell us where the money
went?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of this
particular case that taxpayers would be paying twice for jobs.
This is a very vague and ambiguous question. I will look into the
particular case.
I can tell the member that the transitional job fund has created
thousands of very good and solid jobs in difficult regions in
Canada. We are very proud of having created those jobs all over
the country. I am very sorry that those members are not happy to
see a government that is investing in helping unemployed
Canadians to go back to work. That is what Canadians expect of
us.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, when we raise questions about the dramatic
drop in employment insurance benefits, the Minister of Human
Resources Development says he has compensated for the drop by
adding active measures directly linked to the transitional jobs
fund.
Will the minister confirm that, despite his fine words and his
promises, there is not one cent left for Quebec in the
transitional jobs fund?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the transitional jobs fund is
clearly an extremely popular program that has created thousands
of jobs in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
It is a transitional fund intended to last three years, that is,
until March 31, 1999. It is to be expected that funds lasting
until March 31, 1999 will be committed now, if they are to be
spent by March 31, 1999.
The funds are committed, but they have not yet all been spent.
They will be spent over the coming months until March 31, 1999.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, did the minister just confirm that a meeting
was recently held for the heads of employment centres, where
they were told that the fund that was supposed to last until
1999 has already dried up and will remain dry until 1999?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said was that there are
$300 million in the transitional fund, $95 million or 30% of
which is for Quebec and has to last until March 31, 1999.
It is committed at the moment, because, understandably, if we
want to spend it by March 31, 1999, we have to make commitments.
There is nevertheless some manoeuvring room, because the costs
of projects are sometimes less than forecast. So there is some
flexibility, but less so at the end of the program than at its
start. This is how responsible management works, generally.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
managed to chase Andrew Thompson out of the Senate last fall, but
it looks like Allan MacEachen just does not know when to leave.
Legally he should have retired two years ago when he turned 75
years old, but we find out now that he is on Parliament Hill. He
has an office, computers and free government telephone services.
Surely 12 years is enough at the Senate trough.
I ask the Prime Minister, when will the Liberal Party pay back
the taxpayers of Canada for this—
The Speaker: The question is out of order.
The hon. member for Roberval.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Minister of Human Resources Development recognized that his
government had deliberately made it harder for young people to
qualify for employment insurance, so that they will stay in
school.
The minister claims in all seriousness that the government made
cuts to the employment insurance program for the good of young
people.
My question to the Minister of Human Resources Development is
this: Is it truly his government's intention, through its
employment insurance reform, to deny benefits to three out of
four young people, so as to force them to go back to school?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are also giving an insurance
premium holiday to any business that will hire young people, in
an effort to help young Canadians enter the workforce. That too
is part of the employment insurance reform.
What I said yesterday is that we, on this side of the House,
have ambitions for our young people. We want them to have access
to the labour market, and we know that this will be achieved
through greater skills and knowledge.
What I said yesterday is that, when it is too easy to get EI
benefits, this becomes an incentive to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
does not seem to understand that these young people have worked,
paid premiums and are thus entitled to employment insurance
benefits, whether he likes it or not.
Does the minister not find it unacceptable that young people who
decide to enter the job market and who unfortunately lose their
jobs are forced to go back to school because the minister says
so? If these young people are not entitled to employment
insurance benefits, why does the minister make them pay
premiums?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if young people are not eligible
for employment insurance benefits, it is precisely because they
have not yet entered the labour market. This is obvious.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: The fact of the matter is that those
who have not accumulated the required hours of work do not
qualify. I think that when—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Anyone will agree that an employment
insurance system that is too readily accessible is an incentive
for young people to enter the labour market too soon, sometimes
before they are ready. This is something I have seen personally
in many regions of Quebec. That is why we have greater ambitions
for young Quebeckers.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the minister of defence if he could confirm
that Canadian forces surgeon general Wendy Clay has been charged
with at least one criminal offence.
1445
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the matter is under
investigation.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not asking about an investigation. My understanding is that
the investigation is passed. The surgeon general has been
charged with obstruction of justice and possibly the destruction
of evidence.
I ask that the minister confirm whether that is the case.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that being the case.
The information I have is that the matter is under investigation.
As the hon. member knows from his policing days, until the
investigation is completed there is nothing further that can be
said about it.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
is the day the government is going to impose its millennium
scholarship bill on us.
It never tried to bargain in good faith with the Government of
Quebec despite its very reasonable proposal. It never listened
to the collected representatives of the education community in
Quebec. It did not even deign to answer a letter from the
premier or react to a unanimous motion by the Quebec National
Assembly.
Why is the Prime Minister stubbornly ignoring the Quebec
consensus headed by the rector of McGill University, the
national Assembly's unanimous resolution and even Mr. Bouchard's
appeal to honour Quebec's jurisdiction in this area?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
answered Mr. Bouchard today. Over the next ten years, our plan
is to help 100,000 Canadians reap the benefits of education, an
essential requirement for the 21st century.
* * *
YEAR 2000 COMPUTER BUG
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are grounds for concern about the disastrous consequences
that may occur worldwide when we reach the year 2000.
[English]
Canada is not yet ready for the year 2000 and could face power
grid disruptions and breakdowns in the business, health and
communications sectors.
Would the Prime Minister tell all Canadians in the public and
private sector of the importance of becoming year 2000 ready?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to thank the members of the House of Commons Industry
Committee who are addressing this problem and are attempting,
with the help of the Minister of Industry, to alert Canadians so
that everyone will be prepared and there will be no problem when
the year 2000 arrives.
[English]
It is a serious problem and we are doing our best to alleviate
it. Canada is in a better position than most countries. It was
a subject that was debated in Birmingham at the G-8 meeting.
Everyone around the world has realized that if countries are not
ready for the year 2000 problems will develop.
I am happy to report that we are ahead of other countries but it
does not mean we will be ready. We must make sure that everyone
remains—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Yesterday the minister refused to answer my question concerning
the granting of refugee status to a convicted hijacker and seven
others currently held in an Israeli jail.
Rather than duck and weave, will the minister today assure this
House that she has no intention of granting status to these
individuals?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will always examine requests
from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees to help
refugees throughout the world.
That said, we are also going to respect the Immigration Act and
to make the necessary medical, criminal record, and security
checks. It is therefore very clear that we will never admit
anyone to Canada who is going to represent a danger to
Canadians.
I believe that the hon. member of the opposition is still trying
to perpetuate the myth that refugees are—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, of these eight people, one of them is a hijacker and
some are spies. These are not normal refugees.
Will the minister assure the House and all Canadians that they
will not be accepted in this country?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the information given by the
member is completely false. This is a way for him and his party
to create rifts all the time. When we want to help genuine
refugees, we will do so but not against the protection of
Canadians.
* * *
1450
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this government's failing grade on the environment reflects on
the leadership of the Prime Minister.
The environment commissioner warned that if the performance does
not improve, the environment and our health will be threatened.
Yet the environment minister seems to be unwilling to make
substantial changes.
How does the Prime Minister expect that this problem will be
solved if the environment minister does not even realize there is
a problem?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never denied that there are
problems in the environment in Canada. It is my role to work
with the government to ensure Canadians have better quality air,
water and natural ecosystems.
Our department has worked very hard, has worked with Canadians
from coast to coast at grassroots level to improve our
environment. We will continue to do so and bring in policies and
measures to do so.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is the Prime Minister's responsibility to protect the health
and safety of Canada.
The environment commissioner warns that inaction will be
disastrous. The lack of resources and measurable targets will
lead to an accumulative deterioration of our health and
ecosystem.
Will the Prime Minister rise today and commit human and
financial resources to revive the integrity of our environment?
It takes guts to restore a gutted department.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to the
environment and we will continue to meet the existing challenges.
As human beings become more engaged in the environment in
Canada, there are more challenges. We have specific targets to
try to meet all the challenges and assure Canadians of a good
environment.
The environment affects Canadians' health and it is important to
all of us in the government.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
asked the finance minister to cut EI premiums on October 7,
October 31, November 7, November 28 and December 1. The minister
has refused.
High payroll taxes kill jobs. Will May 27, 1998 go down as
another day that this minister refuses to give Canadians the tax
breaks and the jobs they need?
The minister is trying to build a war chest on the backs of
unemployed Canadians. Does the minister honestly believe that
significant payroll tax reductions would not lead to job growth
in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if that is the position of the member's party, why was
that not the position it took when it was in government?
We have reduced payroll taxes $4.2 billion more per year than
when that government was in power. We will continue in this vein
because reducing personal income taxes, reducing payroll taxes
and investing in health care and education are the priorities of
the government.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, listen
to this quotation: “Whatever may be the situation in the past,
we are now confronted in this country by very serious problems
and the government should address these problems. They should
not seek refuge in history”. That was from Paul Martin Sr. in
1956 in the House.
I have a news flash for the minister. Ten cent cuts are not
good enough.
In Halifax in March the minister said that significant payroll
tax reductions would not lead to job growth. Yet in his budget
he reduced payroll taxes for youth significantly. Why is it good
enough for young people but not good enough for all Canadians?
If payroll taxes will not lead to job growth, why did he give—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can certainly understand why the hon. member would not
want to discuss his party's history. A $42 billion deficit is
now down to zero. Unemployment of 11.5% is now down to 8.4%.
Consumer confidence is up. Retail confidence is up. Business
investment is surging. That is today. It was not the case six
years ago.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very proud to say that yesterday Ontario became the eighth
province to adopt the Calgary Declaration.
The Bloc Quebecois, however, is trying to make us believe that
few Canadians support the declaration.
1455
[English]
My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
What is the significance of this declaration, this vote in favour
of the declaration and the message it sends to all Canadians?
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, in supporting the Calgary Declaration,
Ontario's legislative assembly and the leaders of the three
major Ontario parties expressed very forcefully the feelings of
the people of Ontario towards those of Quebec. The three
leaders spoke as great Canadians, as real statesmen.
Prime Minister Harris said “If we work together, Ontarians and
Quebeckers can certainly keep this country united”.
Opposition leader, Dalton McGuinty, said:
[English]
“We believe that it is better to grow together than to grow
apart”.
[Translation]
Finally, the leader of the NDP, Howard Hampton—
The Speaker: The member for Yorkton—Melville.
* * *
[English]
THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the ruling of the Ontario court of appeal last month
in the Rosenberg case, the judges changed the meaning of the term
spouse in the federal Income Tax Act.
Does the justice minister believe it is right for unelected
judges to make changes like this, or should those changes be made
by this parliament, by the elected representatives of the people
of Canada?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I know it is hard for
the official opposition to accept this fact, under the
Constitution of this country the judiciary has an important
constitutional role to play. In the Rosenberg case the judiciary
was doing what it was constitutionally obligated to do, interpret
and apply the law.
* * *
[Translation]
TOBACCO LEGISLATION
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one year after
its promises in the last election campaign, all signs are that
the government is finally getting ready to announce what it
plans to do to offset the impact of its tobacco legislation on
sports and cultural events.
On the eve of the Montreal Grand Prix, and in light of the many
questions we have asked, will the minister undertake to make his
announcements himself right here, out of respect for the House,
particularly as he will probably need our support to get his
future amendments through?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
introduce the amendments when the government is ready.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the employment
insurance program belongs to the workers of this country. The
surplus currently amounts to $17 billion.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Does he agree with me that this $17 billion surplus is, in fact,
money stolen from the workers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the request of the auditor general, the employment insurance
fund has been consolidated with the government's financial
statements since 1986.
Having said that, as the hon. member knows full well, this fund
is used by my colleague to finance the transitional jobs fund.
That has been made quite clear.
We are using it, but we have also reduced EI premiums since we
came to office. Lower interest rates, which benefit all
Canadians, lower taxes and investment in transfer payments to
the provinces clearly show—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fundy—Royal.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the environment
commissioner's report on the government's mishandling of the
environment clearly stated that if the performance of the
government does not improve, the environment and the health of
Canadians will be damaged. It is a sad situation when there are
more than six traffic officers to patrol Parliament Hill looking
for parking violations while this government has only one
environmental assessment officer for the province of New
Brunswick.
Does the Prime Minister want to be known as the Prime Minister
of parking lots or as a Prime Minister with a genuine interest in
preserving Canada's environment?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a very important priority for this
government to look after its environment and to improve it where
there are deficiencies.
1500
We have made commitments to make sure Canadians have clean air
and clean water. We have policies and regulations in place. The
people in my a department work as a team. People are designated
a certain position, but we work as a team, and we do enforce our
regulations and our policies.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege. I have given
the Chair a copy of the grievance that I bring to the attention
of the House and I have also contacted the office of the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government to
indicate to him that I wanted to rise today on a question of
privilege.
In the past, in your wisdom, you have offered guidance on
similar matters and I would hope for the same today. Needless to
say, if you determine that I do have a question of privilege I am
willing to move the necessary motion to bring this matter to the
appropriate parliamentary committee.
It is a long and honourable custom in the House that members of
parliament are to provide other members factual information and
only the truth. It is part of the law of privilege that a member
of this House in the performance of his or her duties can expect
the truth from ministers of the crown, even if the truth should
be that ministers cannot or will not answer the question raised.
Either we as members of parliament on all sides are entitled to
rest secure in the knowledge that we are going to receive the
truth in ministerial replies or we are not. Parliament is
dependent upon ministers providing truthful information so that
they and the government as a whole can be held accountable. This
doctrine is the hub around which much of our parliamentary life
revolves and lies behind our existing practices of parliamentary
disclosure of official information.
In essence, it means that ministers have to provide truthful
information about the exercise of their responsibilities in order
that an account can be rendered in parliament.
Over the years different mechanisms have been developed for the
disclosure of information, parliamentary Order Paper questions
being a prime example of the mechanism for eliciting factual
information.
A failure to provide to the House truthful information is
considered a grave offence. After a careful review of various
precedents, in 1978 Speaker Jerome summarized in the form of a
question what I think is still the convention of this House. I
quote:
1505
Does that lead to the conclusion that, by virtue of an act or
omission, the House or a member has directly or indirectly been
impeded in the performance of its functions or his duty, or that
there has been a tendency to produce such a result? If I find
so, then I really have no choice but to find, prima facie, that a
contempt has been committed.
Conventions governing responses to written parliamentary
questions have been established to govern the disclosure of
information by government to parliament. Such conventions have
recognized that a balance must be struck between the legitimate
requirements of government to have a certain degree of privacy
for the proper conduct of its business and the need to ensure
that parliament has the factual information which it requires to
scrutinize the executive and hold ministers to account.
It is right for members and for the Chair to ask themselves if
sanctioning the tabling of obviously false information to
parliamentary questions strengthens or weakens our parliamentary
institutions. A parliamentary democracy cannot function unless
parliamentarians are permitted to know what their government is
up to.
An approach to written parliamentary questions that does not
respect the fundamental feature of our system will undermine
rather than strengthen Canadian parliamentary democracy.
Where does it leave us if we disregard the fundamental
principles of ministerial responsibility?
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will remind honourable members that
to assume that any member of the House ever states anything but
the truth would be in itself a breach of the standing orders of
this House.
I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that I
placed Question No. 33 on the Order Paper last October. The
answers given by the government to Question No. 33 appear to be,
in whole or in part, simply false. I am concerned that the
government's response hinders and obstructs the work of
parliament and its members and has the effect of diminishing
respect for this House.
The question inquired into what involvement ministers of the
crown had in an issue that arose in 1995. Sport fishing lodges
in July and August 1995 refused to comply with the requirements
of the Fisheries Act. The act required lodges to provide
accurate and timely catch data to the department of fisheries so
it could manage the chinook fishery on an almost daily basis.
Mr. Speaker, 1995 was a year much like 1998. In 1995 chinook
were expected to return to spawn in dangerously low numbers. In
1998 it is coho.
The government states in its response to parts (a), (b), (d) and
(f) of Question No. 33 that no minister of the crown or their
staff other than the fisheries minister and his staff were
involved. Departmental documents suggest otherwise.
The department of fisheries has provided me, under the Access to
Information Act, documents that go to the credibility and
veracity of the claim that ministers of the crown and their staff
were not involved. The documents refer to ministerial
involvement. The documents have fisheries managers complaining
of political pressure. The documents reveal a meeting or
meetings between a minister of the crown from Victoria and his
political staff and the lodge owners. The documents detail a
possible threat from the Minister of Industry to go to the Prime
Minister to have fisheries officers stand back while the Oak Bay
Marine Group flouted the law and let conservation be damned.
Mr. Speaker, you have been very patient with me and I will
quickly cite specifics.
A July 21, 1995 briefing note prepared for and given to the
minister, the member for Victoria, states:
Meeting with David Anderson's office, the Sport Fishing Institute
and representatives from Queen Charlotte Island lodge operators
regarding management ventures implemented in Areas 1 and 2.
Another note, dated July 25, reads:
This indicates that responses to (a), (b) and (f) are in whole
or in part false.
Another document reveals the fisheries minister's office
demanding ammunition to fend off the Minister of Industry who was
threatening to go to the Prime Minister. It reads:
1510
Judd Buchanan has convinced John Manley's office that our actions
regarding Queen Charlotte Island sports fishery may be punitive
and unjustified. Manley's office and Buchanan are suggesting
that they might take this issue directly to the Prime Minister.
The political aid acting in the name of the minister of
fisheries concluded his demand to the regional director general
for the Pacific region with:
We would like this information by the end of this afternoon.
Please contact me as soon as possible to let me know what we
might expect.
Finally, in reply to Question No. 33(d), the government told the
House that no ministers or their staff participated in the
Pacific salmon management teleconference calls once the sport
fishing lodges refused to supply vital catch data in July and
August.
Part (d) asked if ministers of the crown or their staff
participated in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Pacific
salmon management teleconference calls in 1995 which considered
the refusal of the lodges, including the Oak Bay Marine Group, to
provide such data.
Departmental documents made available by the department of
fisheries under the Access to Information Act indicate that the
current minister of fisheries, then in another portfolio and a
minister of the crown, did through his political staff
participate in these management conference calls at a time when
the lodges were refusing to provide the department of fisheries
with the necessary catch data such that the department could
manage the fishery to protect fragile chinook stocks.
I quote from a document entitled “Speaking Points for the
Deputy Minister”:
On August 15, [1995] the bi-weekly salmon management conference
call between departmental officials was extended to include
participation from—Minister Tobin's office and Mark Cameron,
Minister Anderson's office.
Again, the response given to the House to part (d) of Question
No. 33 is incorrect.
The current minister of fisheries, then and now the lead
minister from British Columbia, and a spokesman in cabinet for
the Sport Fishing Institute, a lobby organization of lodge
owners, and for Bob Wright, the largest lodge operator on the
west coast, did through a member of his political staff
participate in these management discussions once the lodges had
refused to obey the requirements of the Fisheries Act.
Mr. Speaker, in a question of privilege on the accuracy of
responses to written questions by a previous minister of
fisheries, Mr. Tobin, on December 13, 1994 you stated:
I do not in any way minimize the seriousness of this question of
privilege raised—He surely has a grievance which perhaps can be
corrected without proceeding to a complete point of privilege. I
hope the hon. member for Delta and perhaps the member for
Kingston and the Islands and the hon. Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans might come together to resolve this particular grievance.
I want the House to understand that I do take this very seriously
when a member feels that he or she is in any way impeded from
performing his or her duties as members of Parliament. I would
give this assurance that I will return to the member from Delta
if indeed he does not get a response to his grievance in
discussions with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and
the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In conclusion, I am concerned that such obviously false
responses should be allowed to stand on the parliamentary record.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we have here is more an
issue of debate, rather than one which is otherwise. Hon.
members opposite, both in oral and in written questions, have
differences in what they believe to be accurate or otherwise.
The information I have as Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons is that the information provided by my hon. colleague,
the minister of fisheries, is in fact accurate. If the member
feels that he has new information that indicates otherwise and if
he wants to write to us to seek further clarification, there is
certainly nothing that stops him from doing so.
Clearly, there is no intention either on the part of the hon.
minister of fisheries, myself or anyone else in the government to
provide information that is anything other than correct. We
still believe that the information that was tabled in the House
of Commons is correct.
Finally, the facts which we brought were gathered after
considerable research. That does not mean that anyone is beyond
making a mistake, but the information that we have now is that
the information is accurate.
1515
I do not believe that it is necessary for the member across to
whom we listened very patiently, notwithstanding his heckling, to
continue to make accusations against others.
If the issue was one of making accusations with regard to one's
adherence to the Fisheries Act, I could heckle a few from my
vantage point across to him.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
realize that on certain questions of privilege or on certain
points of information there is always a chance we could debate
such issues as the efficacy of some policy or whatever, but this
question of privilege does not deal with that.
The question of privilege brought forth by the hon. member deals
specifically with the contradiction between an answer to a
question on the order paper and information gathered through
access to information channels.
When you review this question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I
believe you will see that one is in complete contradiction to the
other. It is not a matter of debate of policy or a debate on the
issues. That would be just a political argument.
I would argue there is enough question, based on the evidence
when you look at it, that you would allow the hon. member to put
the appropriate question, which is to refer it to a committee to
have it properly examined.
I realize the government member says that we can write to him.
Of course that is what the question on the order paper was
already about.
There is enough question now as to the answer and the veracity
of the answer that I would hope a committee of parliament could
examine it to see what is at the bottom of these two obviously
conflicting arguments. One is from access to information and the
other is from the answer to the question on the order paper.
The Speaker: Of course I want to listen to any
question of privilege and I do listen attentively. From what I
heard today this is a dispute of the facts.
We have an hon. member saying he put a question in and he
received an answer. The answer he received does not coincide
with the facts that he believes he has.
We have the hon. government House leader standing up and saying
that to the best knowledge of whoever prepared this and to his
best knowledge these are the facts as they are stated. You put
the Speaker in a position where he becomes an ombudsman for a
fact determination.
You mentioned a ruling that I made in 1994. I ruled also as
reported at page 9426 of Hansard on February 9, 1995 when I
said:
This is not the first time there have been disputes over replies
to order paper questions or over the content of documents tabled
by a minister. For example, I refer hon. members to three
rulings, the first on February 28, 1983 at pages 23278-9 of the
Debates; the second on February 21, 1990 at page 8618; the
third on May 15, 1991 at page 100. I must point out, however,
that in none of these cases was the matter found to be prima
facie.
Speaker Fraser noted on May 15, 1991 in his ruling:
The hon. member has raised an issue which is not an unusual kind
of issue to raise. The hon. member is not satisfied with the
response given. The difficulty that is always with the Chair in
these cases is that there are often very great differences of
interpretation on answers given. It is not a question of
privilege. It is a question of disagreement over certain facts
and answers that were given.
The hon. member will know that I did listen to his arguments. I
listened to the opposition whip and I listened to the government
House leader. In my view this is surely a dispute over the facts
but it is not a question of privilege.
* * *
1520
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. During question period the member for
Edmonton North asked a question that you ruled was out of order.
I felt that the question dealt with the administration of public
funds. It dealt with the role of a citizen, not an elected
official, not a member of the Senate, but a regular Canadian
citizen who was using public facilities for—
The Speaker: Any time I intervene on a question I
wait as long as I can to hear what the question is. I even give
it a pretty long preamble before I get there.
In this case I ruled the question was out of order. I believe
it was. I would refer the hon. member to citations 409 and 410
of Beauchesne's.
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to request the
unanimous consent of the House to table the agreement in
principle proposed by the Quebec government to the federal
government on the issue of the millennium scholarships, and the
motion unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly.
The Speaker: Does the House give its consent to allow the hon.
member to table the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[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 eight
petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third
report of the Standing Committee of Human Resources and
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
INDUSTRY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure today of presenting four reports.
First I would like to present, in both official languages, the
eighth report of the Standing Committee on Industry relating to
Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make
consequential and related amendments to other acts.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Industry relating
to a recommendation to the House on Bill C-20, an act to amend
the Competition Act and to make consequential and related
amendments to other acts.
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 26,
1998, the committee has considered the main estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1999.
The chair wants to thank members of the committee for their
efforts in that review. The plans and priorities of two
departments and 11 agencies were examined by the committee which
devoted 14 meetings and more than 24 hours to the study of the
1998-99 budget estimates.
Further I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 21, 1998,
the committee has considered Bill C-37, an act to amend the
Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
The committee has agreed to report it without amendments.
* * *
PETITIONS
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present two petitions today signed by a number of
Canadians including some from my riding of Mississauga South.
1525
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that our police officers and firefighters are required to place
their lives at risk on a daily basis as they execute their
duties, that employment benefits of police officers and
firefighters often do not provide sufficient compensation to the
families of those killed in the line of duty, and that the public
also mourns the loss of those killed in the line of duty and
wishes to support in a tangible way the surviving families in
their time of need.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to establish a
public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of
families of public safety officers including police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition has to do with families. The petitioners
would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for pre-school children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society.
The petitioners also concur with the National Forum on Health
discussion paper which says that the Income Tax Act discriminates
against families who choose to provide care in the home to
pre-school children.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home to pre-school children.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions to present. The first one I present pursuant to
Standing Order 36 deals with the multilateral agreement on
investment.
The petitioners are completely freaked out that the government
will try to pull a sneaky one and reintroduce this agreement.
They are very concerned.
They want it registered clearly that they are against the MAI
completely and totally and never want any signature to be
attached to that document from Canada.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is on another matter. The petitioners are again from
Kamloops. They are concerned about the ongoing GST situation.
They are suggesting that now the government is in a surplus
situation it should start phasing out the GST. If there is one
way to send a clear signal that the government is serious about
providing some tax relief, a GST reduction would give immediate
tax relief to virtually every Canadian from coast to coast to
coast.
The petitioners are very excited by this prospect and hopeful
the government will act.
PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my last
petition is on another matter. The petitioners are from cities
and communities throughout British Columbia. They are concerned
about the state of the retirement system of Canada.
They point out that many seniors are living below the poverty
line with the incomes they receive. They want the government to
consider looking at the retirement system to ensure that every
senior citizen has an adequate retirement pension.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition to present from residents from Gogama, Ontario.
They request that parliament impose a moratorium on ratification
of the MAI until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are
held across the country so that all Canadians can have an
opportunity to express their opinions about it.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing
Order 36 on behalf of many of my constituents and others in
Saskatchewan who are concerned about the continuing existence and
continued testing of nuclear weapons which pose a significant
threat to the health and survival of human civilization and the
global environment.
The petitioners are requesting that parliament support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
OSTEOPOROSIS
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present petitions
originating from the Women's Institute in Washago in my riding of
Simcoe North.
These petitions contain 197 signatures and call upon parliament
to request the government, through the Medical Research Council,
to increase and adequately fund the remaining years of the
Canadian multi-centre osteoporosis study.
ALLOWANCE FOR MOTHERS
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to rise today to
present a petition on behalf of my constituents, people from
Dalhousie, Campbellton and Eel River Crossing.
They call upon government to give a $12,000 allowance to mothers
at home. In order to finance this allowance the Bank of Canada
must issue new money that would not be borrowed but issued debt
free, interest free and tax free. This new money would be given
out free like a dividend to all the mothers who stay at home.
The production of our country is evident enough to correspond to
the issuance of new money and this would boost our country's
economy.
1530
BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY PROJECT
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition from approximately 500 people who
support a bioartificial kidney project in Canada. They believe
that such a project would eventually eliminate the need for
dialysis or transplantation for those suffering from kidney
disease.
These signatures were collected in such places as the Rosemount
Memorial Gardens, Comstock Funeral Home, Three in One Management
Services, Black Belt Family Fitness, Peterborough District
Association for Community Living, Cheers Coffee and Donuts,
Amicus Ministries International, Paget Denture Clinic and the
Morrow Building Farmers Market.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that it
is permissible to give a brief summary of the petition and the
names of the petitioners possibly, but to go into who collected
the petition sounds perhaps a little beyond the bounds. I know
the parliamentary secretary is a stickler for the rules and would
want to follow them very closely.
REFUGEES
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this petition
that I am presenting concerns undocumented convention refugees
and has over 800 signatures.
The petitioners would like the government to implement the
December 1996 recommendation from the Standing Committee on
Citizenship and Immigration so that undocumented convention
refugees would get their status not later than two years after
being accepted as a convention refugee. What has been happening
is that they have been left in limbo. Many refugees have been
left marginalized without landed status.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question
No. 83 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. Bill Blaikie:
What steps has the Government of Canada taken to encourage
Mexican Government compliance with the law on dialogue and peace
on Chiapas and the San Andres accords following the Acteal
massacre in December 1997?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): The
December 22, 1997 massacre in Acteal, Chiapas dismayed all
Canadians, and the Government of Canada has condemned it in the
strongest terms. The day after the massacre, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs discussed Chiapas with the Mexican foreign
minister by telephone. During Team Canada's January 11-14, 1998
visit to Mexico, Chiapas was raised directly with President
Zedillo in a meeting with the Minister for International Trade,
the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa and the
premiers. The Canadian government has since raised and will
continue to raise the issue of Chiapas with Mexican officials.
In mid-March, the Mexican government proposed constitutional
amendments on indigenous rights and culture. Theses amendments,
according to the Mexican government, fulfill its obligations under
the San Andres accords. The amendments will be debated in the
Mexican congress.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, as has
already been done on numerous occasions, I rise today to ask the
parliamentary secretary once again for an answer to Question No.
21, which is still on the order paper.
I am certain that the parliamentary secretary is doing
everything he can to comply with the request, but the government
does not seem to want to answer this question. Could the
parliamentary secretary tell us when we might expect an answer?
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite
correct. He has asked about Question No. 21 on previous
occasions. I would point out to him that in dealing with well
over 100 such questions we are batting about 75% at the present
time. We are working as hard as we can on these matters.
I assure him that I have been following up his concerns on
Question No. 21 with great diligence.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
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.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Finance)
moved that Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of
the budget tabled in parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 is a comprehensive
bill incorporating a diverse number of measures that relate to
the 1997 and 1998 budgets. Each however is important to building
a strong economy and a secure society, two goals our government
has pursued since coming to office in 1993.
For example, the government believes there is no better
investment in the future than investments in education, knowledge
and innovation. The establishment of the Canada millennium
scholarship foundation in Bill C-36 is proof of this commitment.
This is the single largest investment ever made by a federal
government to support access to post-secondary education for all
Canadians.
1535
Elements of the Canadian opportunities strategy, which is
designed to provide Canadians with greater access to the
knowledge and skills needed for jobs and opportunities in the
21st century, are included in this bill.
The government also believes that equality of opportunity means
a good start in life. This is why the national child benefit
system, which was developed to provide better support for low
income families with children, is also part of this bill.
Other measures in Bill C-36 include changes to old age security,
increased excise taxes on tobacco products, air transportation
tax reductions, tax arrangements with aboriginal governments, and
measures dealing with Canada's international obligations and the
Hibernia oil project.
Since debate has already taken place at second reading and in
committee, I will limit my remarks to a brief overview of this
bill.
I will begin with the Canadian opportunities strategy. The aim
of the strategy is to help ensure that all Canadians, especially
those with low and middle incomes, have equal opportunity to
participate in the changing labour market. This means reducing
the financial barriers and other obstacles to acquiring skills
and knowledge. I will take a moment to talk about some of the
specific measures of the Canadian opportunities strategy.
Bill C-36 establishes the Canada millennium scholarship
foundation which will provide scholarships to students in
financial need and who demonstrate merit. The scholarships will
improve access to post-secondary education for low and middle
income students. The foundation will operate at arm's length
from government and, in consultation with provincial governments
and the post-secondary education community, will decide how the
scholarships are designed and delivered.
The government's initial endowment of $2.5 billion will provide
more than 100,000 scholarships annually for 10 years to both full
and part time students, beginning in the year 2000. Full time
students will be eligible for an average of $3,000 a year with
individuals potentially receiving up to $15,000 over four years.
This could reduce student debt load by over half. On a related
issue, Bill C-36 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance
Act, the Canada Student Loans Act and the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act.
Agreement was reached last December at the first ministers
meeting that the 1998 budget had to include measures to reduce
the financial burden on students. The 1998 budget followed up on
this commitment and several of those measures are contained in
Bill C-36.
First, interest relief will be extended to more graduates.
Second, the repayment period will be extended for those who need
it. Third, for borrowers who remain in financial difficulty,
there will be an extended interest relief period. Fourth, for
individuals still in financial difficulty after these relief
measures, the loan principal will be reduced. These measures
together will help up to 100,000 additional borrowers.
Bill C-36 also legislates the Canada education savings grant,
another important component of the Canadian opportunities
strategy. This grant will make registered education savings
plans one of the most attractive savings vehicles for parents to
save for their children's education. It will provide for a 20%
grant on the first $2,000 in annual RESP contributions made after
1997. It will provide that grant for children up to the age of
17.
Bill C-36 addresses the problem of youth unemployment by giving
an EI premium holiday to employers who hire additional young
Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24 in the years 1999 and
2000. This measure will increase youth employment opportunities
and reduce payroll costs for employers by about $100 million a
year in 1999 and 2000.
Bill C-36 also deals with a new Canada child tax benefit. Hon.
members will recall the government's commitment to the national
child benefit system which was announced in the 1997 budget.
Under the new system, the federal government provides an enriched
Canada child tax benefit while the provinces and territories
redirect some money into better services and benefits for low
income families, especially the working poor.
The government proposed a two step process in the 1997 budget
whereby the current $5.1 billion child tax benefit would be
enriched by $850 million to create a new Canada child tax benefit
by July of this year.
1540
Beginning last July the working income supplement was increased
by $195 million. Working income supplement benefits are now
provided per child instead of per family. This coming July over
1.4 million Canadian families with 2.5 million children will see
an increase in their child benefits. Families earning up to about
$21,000 will receive Canada child tax benefits of $1,625 for the
first child and $1,425 for each additional child.
Once discussions have taken place with the provinces,
territories and Canadians, the Canada child tax benefit will be
enriched by an additional $850 million, a commitment made in the
1998 budget.
I would like to turn now to some changes in this legislation
which relate to seniors. The government remains committed to
providing a secure retirement income for its senior citizens.
Starting in 1999 the payment year for both the guaranteed income
supplement and the spouse's allowance will move to July from
April. This will give GIS recipients three additional months to
file their income statements with the government and reduce the
possibility of underpayments. The payment period for war veterans
allowance will also change from July in one year to June of the
next. These changes will improve services to low income seniors,
eliminate government duplication and increase fairness.
Another component of Bill C-36 addresses the issue of First
Nations taxation. The Kamloops Indian band will now have the
authority to levy a 7% value added tax on all fuel, alcoholic
beverages and tobacco products sold on its reserves. The
Westbank First Nation will be able to impose a similar 7% tax on
all alcoholic beverage sales on its reserves. It already has the
authority to tax tobacco products.
In addition, with the approval of the governor in council, the
Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue will be
able to enter into tax administration agreements with aboriginal
governments that want to tax.
I want to mention the two amendments to the Excise Tax Act
contained in this legislation.
First Bill C-36 increases federal excise taxes on tobacco
products which will add an extra $70 million annually to federal
revenues and will help to discourage Canadians, particularly
youth, from smoking.
The second amendment reduces the air transportation tax and
clarifies the rules relating to the elimination of the tax later
this year. This measure is part of the government's program to
commercialize air navigation services in Canada.
On the international front, the recent Asian crisis reinforced
how crucial it is that the International Monetary Fund be able to
support a stable international financial system. It also
reinforced the importance of our government having the ability to
participate in internationally co-ordinated efforts to resolve
short term liquidity crises.
As a result this legislation amends the Bretton Woods act to
ensure adequate resources for the IMF to fulfil its mandate of
preserving monetary stability. The amendments also give the
government additional means to participate in co-operative
financing arrangements with other countries to supplement IMF led
assistance packages.
At the same time consultations between the Minister of Foreign
Affairs and the Minister of Finance will be mandatory prior to
Canada providing any financial assistance to institutions covered
under the International Development Assistance Act. Consultation
with the Minister of Finance will improve control over the growth
of contingent liabilities associated with Canada's participation
in these institutions.
Action taken through international institutions is critical if
we are to benefit from a stable global financial system. That is
why in addition to the action we can take at home, such as that
found in Bill C-36, our government is working in concert with
other governments around the world to address economic stability
issues.
Sparked by lessons from the financial crisis in Asia, the
Minister of Finance has proposed that a global banking
supervisory body be set up to monitor the stability of financial
institutions around the world. This idea has received
considerable interest and support with the latest endorsement
coming from last weekend's meeting of the APEC finance ministers
in Kananaskis, Alberta.
Turning to other aspects found within Bill C-36, there are
provisions to allow the Canada Development Investment Corporation
to sell the government 8.5% interest in the Hibernia oil project
when market conditions are favourable.
1545
In addition, the bill provides the authority to wind up CDIC
following the sale of its remaining principal asset, the Canadian
Hibernia Holding Corporation.
These are highlights of Bill C-36. As I stated at the
beginning, each is key to help build a strong economy and a
secure society, goals the government has pursued since 1993.
These are goals the government will continue to pursue as we
complete this mandate.
Many Canadians are waiting to benefit from these measures. I
urge my hon. colleagues to pass the legislation without delay.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
begin by seeking unanimous consent to split my time with
the member for Calgary Southeast.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Now
that my colleagues across the way have agreed to that I am afraid
I am going to have to be less than charitable about why we need
to do that.
Bill C-36 is about a number of things. It is the budget
implementation act. It is about things like the millennium fund
and all kinds of measures the government discussed in the budget.
The first issue I want to talk about is that the government has
moved closure on this bill. Therefore my colleagues and I are
forced to split our time so that we can speak at least twice on
the third reading of Bill C-36. Otherwise we simply would not
have the chance to do that.
When these government members were in opposition they routinely
chided the Conservative government of the day for the times it
moved closure. But now the Liberal government has actually
exceeded the former Mulroney government in the number of times it
has moved closure. I think it is 41 times since it came to
power just over four years ago.
The hon. House leader for the government said when he was in
opposition “I am shocked. This is just terrible. This time we
are talking about a major piece of legislation. Shame on those
Tories across the way”.
A member from Kingston said “What we have here is an absolute
scandal in terms of the government's unwillingness to listen to
the representatives of the people in the House. Never before
have we had a government so reluctant to engage in public
discussion on the bills brought before the House”.
We throw that back at the government and say when in opposition
this was completely unacceptable. As members pointed out, on
major pieces of legislation there should never be closure. We
should be allowed to debate these things.
We are now talking about the budget. We believe that citizens,
through their representatives, should have the ability to call
the government to account for some of the things it has decided.
We are talking about decisions to spend hundreds of billions of
dollars. To move closure so that we have a scant two hours to
debate the budget implementation act at third reading is
unbelievable and completely anti-democratic. The government
should be ashamed.
In order to talk about the millennium fund, I am afraid I have
to go back in history a few years. When the government was
running to be the government in the 1993 election, the current
Prime Minister, then the leader of the Liberal Party, said in the
leaders debate that he would not cut transfers to the provinces
for health care and higher education.
He told the leader of the Reform Party that if it were up to him
he would raise the transfers to the provinces.
1550
History shows that not only did the government not raise
transfers to the provinces, it cut them by $7.5 billion, a 40%
cut for health care and higher education. The impact of that was
devastating. We saw people in the provinces rebel. The were
extraordinarily upset. We saw people picketing and marching on
provincial legislatures.
I think the people were misguided. They should have been on the
lawn of Parliament Hill because when the provinces are faced with
cuts of $7.5 billion they have no choice but to make cuts
themselves in health care and higher education.
Unfortunately the government blatantly broke a major election
promise and now it has chosen to introduce the millennium
scholarship fund in the vain attempt to convince people across
the country that it somehow cares about higher education.
When Canadians start to look at the details of the millennium
scholarship fund they will be extraordinarily disappointed. They
will find it helps precisely 7% of all students today trying to
upgrade their skills so they can get a job in the modern
workforce. But the government has carried on as though this is
going to help everybody.
It could have helped everybody if it allowed the provinces to
keep these transfers and the provinces could have given them to
everybody in the form of lower tuition costs, and that truly
would have helped everybody.
Now we have the government saying it is going to help 7% of the
students who return to school. Granted, a lot of those students
are part time but nevertheless they need skills upgrading to get
a better job.
The government's argument is that this will help 100,000 people
through scholarships to individuals. That is only 25% of the
full time students, leaving 75% to be completely excluded.
This huge memorial fund to the Prime Minister is really going to
help very few of the people who should be helped and could have
been helped had the government allowed the money to stay in the
pockets of the provinces and be used to reduce overall tuition
costs.
The Reform Party and colleagues in the Conservative Party, the
Bloc and the NDP brought forward a number of serious proposals to
hold the government accountable on how the millennium scholarship
fund would be used. Unfortunately when we brought these forward
at report stage the government moved closure, cut off debate and
these very serious helpful proposals never had a chance to be
discussed.
Unfortunately again the democratic will of parliament was
thwarted. I believe the democratic rights of Canadians to have
these things discussed by their representatives were thwarted.
We are in situation now where the government will completely
ignore all the suggestions that came forward from the various
opposition parties via the witnesses who will be most affected by
changes brought about by the millennium scholarship fund. They
will never find their way into legislation.
The moves to hold the fund more accountable will not be
discussed. They will not be looked at by the government. The
suggestion that the auditor general be the auditor in charge of
the fund may not ever be accepted by the government. The
suggestion that the millennium fund be subject to access to
information will be completely ignored by the government.
That is what happens when a government moves closure on an
important piece of legislation like a budget. It is absolutely
ridiculous and it is an affront to people who believe in the idea
of democracy. We are extraordinarily disappointed in how the
government has dealt with this whole issue.
But it even goes beyond that. Not only did the provinces take
the heat when the government cut transfers back in 1995, all the
heat for what the federal government had done, now the government
is going to end up letting down all Canadians once again. I
would argue it is going to let down many of the very students it
proposes to help.
1555
What students are going to find out when they graduate from
universities, after having taken advantage of the millennium
scholarship fund, is that many of the jobs they have been trained
for simply do not exist in Canada, which is why we have a massive
problem with brain drain today.
My colleagues in the Reform Party have spoken on this issue many
times in the past. I know my colleague from Calgary Southeast
has talked on this before. Many of their own family members have
had to go across the border to the United States most often, also
around the world, to apply the skills they have received because
of the generosity of taxpayers in this country. These students
take this subsidized education and go across the border. One of
the best examples is the university class at the University of
Western Ontario where I think it was one-third of the entire
graduating class in computer sciences was scooped up by
Microsoft.
Canadian taxpayers via the millennium scholarship fund end up
subsidizing the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, because he
is the one who benefits by all these people who earn their
education at taxpayer expense. How much sense does that make?
What point is there in putting together a millennium scholarship
fund if we are only going to graduate students to send them south
of the border and never have the ability to take advantage of all
those skills within Canada and all the benefits that would bring
to the economy? What is the point of that? I do not think it
makes any sense.
The government has failed utterly and completely to deal with
the demand side of the equation. It is taking faulty steps in
dealing with the supply side by providing these funds, but it has
done absolutely nothing on the demand side. These highly skilled
people, doctors, lawyers, computer scientists, nurses, engineers,
technicians, our brightest and best, are being driven out of this
country by an economic regime and a tax regime that is simply too
difficult to live with. Why would they try?
I received an E-mail from a young man, 23 years old. He has a
wife and child. He at the age of 19 went to the United States to
apply his tremendous skills as a computer technician at various
companies. He worked in silicone valley in California, got tired
of that and wanted to come home. He ended up taking a job for
less money than he was making in the U.S. He was making $75,000
U.S. in silicone valley. He came to Toronto to accept a position
for $65,000 Canadian.
He sent me the E-mail when he received his first paycheque and
had a look at the government tax bite. That is the problem this
government has consistently failed to address. Now this young
man with his tremendous skills is considering whether he really
does have a future in Canada after all. He is considering taking
his family and his tremendous skills and all the benefits that
will reap for the economy and moving back to the United States.
I think that is a terrible indictment of this government and this
government's failure to deal with the huge economic problems that
people in this country have to face every day.
That young man is extraordinarily lucky. He has these abilities
and these skills and he has I gather a tremendous natural talent.
He is able to parlay that into all kinds of job offers. But not
everybody has that. So we have a different set of problems for
people who do not have those skills and do not have those
abilities, who have not had the chance perhaps to get an
education. Those people are in a situation that is far worse
than my friend the computer programmer.
1600
They are in a situation where they are competing with hundreds
of thousands of other people who do not have very many skills for
jobs.
We have an unemployment rate of 8.4%. Today in question period
I heard the finance minister boasting about the 8.4% unemployment
rate. I would not boast if I were him because we simply need to
look across the border to the United States to see that it has an
unemployment rate about half what ours is, 4.3%. Here we are,
economies that share a tremendous amount of trade, very similar
economies, except its economy is far more efficient than ours.
Its puts hundreds of thousands of people to work whereas hundreds
of thousands of our people have to sit on unemployment insurance
and welfare. That is a human tragedy of tremendous scope.
When a budget is brought down, one of the first things to be
done should be to address issues like unemployment and high taxes
that cause unemployment. I know what my friends opposite will
say. They will say they did bring in tax relief. They will
point to the cuts they made to the surtaxes.
What they fail to point out is that according to their own
budget papers, the cut in income taxes through the reduction of
surtaxes in this budget year will be more than erased by the
phenomenon of bracket creep.
Right away taxpayers are still worse off this year. In other
words, taxes are still going up this year compared to last year.
That does not even take into account the whole issue of Canada
pension plan premiums which are marching inexorably upwards 73%
over the next six years, the largest tax hike in Canadian
history. Where does that leave workers? It leaves them looking
for jobs on the unemployment line. That simply is not
acceptable.
I turn now to the issue raised today not only by members of the
opposition but by the premier of Ontario and by Statistics
Canada, the EI surplus.
I point out to my friends opposite that the employment insurance
fund is there to ensure that in the event of a downturn there are
adequate funds set aside so that the fund can provide benefits to
unemployed workers. That fund is now at about $15 billion, way
more than is necessary to take workers through even the toughest
recession. In the next several months that fund will continue to
grow.
The government does not actually have that money sitting in an
account. It has essentially spent it, so there is an IOU. In
other words, if there is a downturn in the economy they will have
to borrow $15 billion. We should be very clear about that. This
is another example of the government's so-called prudence.
The government is now using the overage, the extra premiums,
coming in not for unemployment insurance, not for benefits, not
to give back to the workers who are supplying it, including the
small business people, the very people who create jobs. It is
keeping it. What will it do with it? It is putting it away to
use it for its election slush fund down the road. I think that
is completely unacceptable. That is a breach of the deal that was
made implicitly between governments and workers.
The deal was that money should be returned to them in the form
of lower premiums so that they can keep it in their pockets, so
they can use that money for the things they want to use it for,
things like providing for their education, providing for their
retirement. Unfortunately the government thinks it knows better.
We are in a situation today where the finance minister could not
bring himself to say that we are going to start to reduce payroll
premiums in a serious way so that workers are not so heavily
burdened.
I also point out the impact that high payroll taxes have on
business.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business points out
regularly that payroll premiums are a job killer. It points to
the government's finance department economists who say that
payroll taxes like EI premiums are a job killer. Joe Italiano is
one of the people I will point to. We qutote him in our document
which we have made widely available to the public. My friends
across the way laugh when I say that but it is a fact. When we
have 8.4% unemployment we should have the government taking steps
to deal with those sorts of issues.
1605
This government has failed completely to deal with the issues
that are the most important to Canadians. It has failed to deal
with the issue of taxes and debt. It has done nothing about the
debt issue. Instead it has tried to blind people and mislead
them with all this talk about the millennium scholarship fund. I
do not think Canadians are buying it. I encourage my friends
around the House to vote against Bill C-36.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for allowing me to split the
time with my colleague for Medicine Hat.
I begin by condemning this government for allowing itself to
trample on democracy and democratic deliberation by invoking
closure and time allocation on Bill C-36. This evening we will
be gathered in this place to vote on a bill that is not just any
normal bill. It is not some kind of housekeeping amendment. It
is not some kind of technical legislation. This is legislation
that authorizes the expenditure of billions and billions of
dollars earned not by the government, not by the members
opposite, but by Canadians.
We are authorizing the government in this bill this evening to
use the coercive power of the state to take away the fruits of
those people's labours. If there is one founding principle of
liberal democracy, it is the principle of no taxation without
representation. That is what they said when the entire concept
of liberal democracy came about in the late 18th century.
But this government has a different idea of what liberal
democracy is. Now that it is Liberal democracy, they think
democracy means the government will authorize, without adequate
debate, without proper procedure of deliberation in parliament,
the taking and spending of billions and billions of dollars from
taxpayers who now come home with less than they did 15 years ago
because of the tax burden imposed by this and previous
governments.
Do not take my word for it or our word for it when we inveigh
against the undemocratic invocation of closure 41 times since
this government took power. I ask my colleagues opposite to
reference what their caucus colleague said when they were in
opposition. They were principled when they were in opposition.
They spoke out against the invocation of closure and time
allocation.
My hon. colleague quoted from certain statements made by the
current government House leader when he was in opposition and by
the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. The member for
Kingston and the Islands said in debate in this place on February
19, 1993: “I suggest that the government's approach to
legislating through closure is frankly a disgrace. It cuts back
the time that the House is available to sit and then it applies
closure to cut off the debate”. He called it a disgrace. He
was right then and we are right now by using the same word. He
also said on April 23, 1993: “This is not the way to run a
parliament. This is an abuse of the process of the House”. That
was a Liberal then, a Liberal today.
1610
The current minister of external affairs said in 1993 that the
government's invocation of closure displays the utter disdain
with which the government treats the Canadian people. I stand
here and echo the words of the minister of external affairs six
years ago. It does demonstrate a disdain for the Canadian
people.
On Monday night of this week we voted on dozens of amendments
that had been rushed through the report stage of debate in this
place, serious, substantive amendments that elected
representatives of taxpayers had spent time constructing to try
to hold the government more accountable and to make the operation
of government more efficient. Only one member of each party had
an opportunity to speak on dozens of amendments. They were not
allowed to address each amendment but just groupings of those
amendments. That is not the democratic process properly
conceived or executed.
Not only is the government invoking closure undemocratically, it
is invoking closure on a bill which gets a failing grade from the
auditor general of this parliament. I am not talking about a
member of the opposition or about some columnist or critic. I am
talking about the man charged by all members and all parties of
this place to monitor the books of the government to ensure they
comply with generally accepted public sector accounting
principles. The auditor general, a man of integrity, has said
the section of Bill C-36 authorizing the creation of the
millennium scholarship fund does not comply with but rather
contravenes the most basic principles of public accounting.
Some will say who cares about how you account for the numbers,
which year you put it in, where it appears in the public
accounts. Some people will say it is a technical argument, that
the opposition does not have anything else to talk about.
There is a very important principle here. Parliament
is an institution which goes back hundreds of years in history
and essentially is an institution which was created as part of an
effort by the commoners to have a real check and balance on the
executive power, the power of the crown, to expend public funds
without public scrutiny. Our job is to ensure that the bills we
authorize are conducted with proper accounting principles, with
full transparency so the public can see and know how its money
is being spent with confidence. The auditor general has said
we cannot have confidence in how Bill C-36 and the budget of
this year construe the millennium scholarship fund.
He said: “I believe believe that the accounting change for the
millennium scholarship fund will open the door for governments to
influence reported results by simply announcing intentions in
their budgets and then deciding what to include in the deficit or
surplus after the end of the year once preliminary numbers are
known”. What he was saying was that by authorizing the
expenditure now and booking it in the current fiscal year 1998-99
but not expending it until the fiscal year 2000, we are playing a
shell game with the public finances. That too is a disgrace.
Without even getting to the substance of the bill, which is bad
enough, the government is closing down debate to rush through a
bill the auditor general will not permit. I dare say that if the
previous government, the Mulroney government, had made a similar
effort the Liberal Party and all Canadians would have risen up in
contempt.
My hon. colleague from Medicine Hat discussed at some length the
provisions of the bill as they relate to payroll taxes, so I will
not reiterate his eloquent remarks. However, let me focus on
another part of this bill and the budget which it implements.
The debt projected for the current fiscal year by this
enormously fiscally responsible government is $583.2 billion. The
finance minister talks a great deal about how we are going into
debt reduction. However, when I look at the budget I see that in
the next fiscal year, 1999-2000, the debt is $583.2 billion.
Then I look in his budget at fiscal year 2000 and guess what? He
has brought the debt all the way down to $583.2 billion.
1615
It is amazing that this man of fiscal rectitude, this champion
of debt reduction has scheduled in the fourth fiscal year through
his projections that the debt will come plummeting down to $583.2
billion. What does that mean? It means we will continue to
spend $45 billion a year in debt interest costs, money that comes
from taxpayers that does not finance one single worthy social
program or contribute to education, training or infrastructure
investment. The $45 billion which this budget and this bill
authorize for the current fiscal year does the following.
Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent for the following
motion:
That for the remainder of this session motions pursuant to
Standing Orders 57 and 78(3) shall not be receivable by the
Chair.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to present the motion?
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is not consent.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, I am delighted now that
we have made a motion that at least one Liberal has decided to
appear and to listen to the rest of the debate on the budget.
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the
absence of members opposite, those debt interest costs will be
$45 billion in tax dollars for this year, next year, the year
after, and the year after that. That amounts to two full years
of CPP benefits for every pension beneficiary in the country.
Just the interest this year amounts to two and half years of GST
revenues.
Seventy-one per cent of all personal income tax revenues paid
this year will go just to finance the interest on the debt. All
that we spend in benefits for old age security, the Canada health
and social transfer for education and health care and employment
insurance, the three big social programs administered by the
federal government, are the amount equivalent to what we will
spend on debt interest because of this budget and this bill.
The debt interest costs are equivalent to the entire annual
budgets of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
The debt interest this year alone is equivalent to the entire net
debts of all provinces, except for the three largest provinces.
The $45 billion interest bill is enough to pay for all Canadian
hospitals, all physician charges and all drug and pharmaceutical
costs for an entire year.
That is how much this government has chosen to spend on debt
interest because it has not made the right and difficult choice
to reduce the debt and to prioritize spending.
What we spend on debt interest through this budget would be
enough to cut taxes on an average of $3,200 a year per taxpayer,
not per household. It is closer to $6,000 a year per household.
It is enough to provide for a $30,000 a year endowment for every
poor child in Canada.
The Liberals talk about their millennium prime ministerial
endowment fund, heritage fund, or I do not know what spin name
they have given it. If they had started earlier in the 1980s
when they were in power to make the difficult choices and if they
had continued on today, we would not be spending $45 billion a
year in interest. Then families could keep $6,000 a year in
their pockets, or we could set up an endowment of $30,000 for
every poor child in the country.
1620
If we were to convert the annual interest bill into $100 bills
and we stacked them up one on one, the pile would be 118
kilometres high. The pile would be 214 times higher than the CN
Tower.
That is the status quo which we are going to let sit there, that
huge debt which is festering. This government and its spin
machine talk at great length about prosperity in the Canadian
economy and growth of jobs and so on but they have fallen prey to
the very same fatal hubris of the Mulroney government. The
Liberals believe arrogantly that they have managed to defeat
something called the business cycle, the notion that in a market
economy or any economy there are ups and downs.
Unfortunately there will be a downturn sometime in this economy.
The finance minister speaks as though he is a Pollyanna. He
speaks about a new golden age where this country will have 20 or
30 years of uninterrupted growth. I am an optimist and I wish the
minister were right but any rational, objective reading of
economic history in this or any modern country will indicate that
it simply will not happen.
There will be a downturn in our economy at some point, a
recession at some point. Government revenues will drop at some
point and social expenditures will increase at some point. Should
that happen while we are still sitting on a $583.2 billion debt
with $45 billion in interest payments and the highest income tax
burden in the G-7, it will be too late.
We have not solved the problem, the problem that Reformers came
here to solve in 1993, the problem of overspending, the problem
of overtaxation and the problem of too much debt.
We say here today as this government rams this bill through this
parliament that it is time to stop and get our heads out of the
sand. We have to realize the Mulroney government made precisely
the same mistake in 1988 when it thought it was facing a decade
of future growth. That government decided to let it go easy on
the spending side. It decided to let up on the fiscal reins as
this government is doing in this bill and this budget today. We
are paying the price today with a $600 billion debt and $45
billion in interest payments.
It is time for us to remember the fundamental principle of the
terrible lesson we have learned with the fiscal history of this
country in the past two decades. We have not yet solved the
problem. That problem is still very much the $583 billion debt
which the government leaves completely untouched, an act of
fiscal irresponsibility which is almost unparalleled in the
history of this country.
What have the Liberals done on the tax side? They talk about
tax relief. Whenever we ask the finance minister he stands up
and blathers about how he has given the child tax credit and all
this stuff but most of what they call tax cuts are in fact tax
expenditures. They are government cheques that are being cut.
That is the Liberal accounting.
If we account for the $10 billion annual increase in CPP
premiums and the enormous effect of bracket creep which sucks up
$2 billion to $3 billion a year out of the pockets of taxpayers
just through inflation, what we find is that this is actually a
tax increase budget. When we calculate the total net effect of
the CPP payroll tax, the EI tax, the bracket creep higher income
tax revenues and everything else and what they call their tax
cuts, when we add it all up what we end up with is this budget
being a tax increase budget. It is the fifth consecutive tax
increase budget from a government that promised in the 1993 and
1997 elections not to raise taxes. Another promise broken.
Another trust betrayed.
Since 1993 the government has taken a cumulative $49.1 billion
from the pockets of taxpayers amounting to an average of $3,500
per taxpayer. That is more than was being taken. That is an
increase over the enormously high tax burden of this government's
predecessor.
When we take into account this budget and the future years
projected in the budget documents, the government, when it closes
its books in the fiscal year after the next one, will have raised
taxes by a cumulative total of nearly $80 billion.
That is $80 billion, or $5,700 per year for the average taxpayer.
Compare that to what we have proposed in the official opposition
which is to cut personal income taxes by $12 billion a year, or
$2,000 for the average family by the year 2000.
1625
Another little feature, or technical flaw as we might say, in
the budget bill is the change being made to what is called the
child care tax deduction. The government has decided to raise by
$2,000 the amount parents can deduct in the cost of paying a
third party to care for their children. That is fine. We respect
the choices of people who decide to do that.
There are millions of Canadian families and parents who make the
sacrifice to stay at home and raise their children to do what
they believe in their conscience is best for their children. Do
they get the benefit of the $2,000 additional deduction or even
the $5,000 deduction that is there now? They do not get one red
cent of it. They are told if they give up the second income they
get no consideration under the tax code. It is a two tier tax
code, one for the daycare choices the government supports and the
other for families who want to make choices for themselves.
This bill is a disgrace. Closure is a disgrace. The lack of
disclosure is a disgrace. The public accounting principles that
are manipulated here are a disgrace. The unfairness for families
is a disgrace. The $583 billion the government is passing on to
future generations is a disgrace. That is why I and my
colleagues will be voting against it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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 Huron—Bruce, Fisheries; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment
insurance; the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Nuclear
waste.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have the honour
to inform the House that a message has been received from the
Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed
a bill to which the concurrence of this House is
desired:
* * *
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an
act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in
parliament on February 24, 1998, be read the third time and
passed.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I was in a good mood when I got up this
morning, but this is a sad day, almost a day of mourning, for
Quebec in this parliament today. Anger is brewing.
We are at third reading of a bill that will violate Quebec's
jurisdiction over education. To make its centralizing vision
clear and show how it totally disregards Quebec's provincial
jurisdiction in this area, the government has decided to wrap up
third reading in two hours. In practical terms, this means
walking over the consensus, which is unanimous in Quebec.
Representatives of every student federation, deans of
universities, people involved in all the various areas of
education, came to tell us the same thing about this bill.
I will attempt to demonstrate to this House today why this is
such a sad day for Quebec. In so doing, I will be sharing my
time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I seek the
unanimous consent of the House to do so.
1630
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I would like to use certain facts
and certain references to illustrate the importance of what the
federal government is doing today.
At the 1964 federal-provincial conference, Quebec's position with
respect to the federal student loan and bursary program was made
known. According to the Premier of Quebec of the day, Jean
Lesage, “Under the circumstances, in order to resolve the
problem posed by the federal student loan policy, Quebec demands
that the Government of Canada hand over to it, in the form of
tax equivalencies, those amounts it would have reimbursed in
interest payments on loans to Quebec students. We would accept
as the basis for determining this equivalent amount the relative
proportion of the population of Quebec”.
On leaving the conference, Premier Lesage declared “We most
certainly cannot accept that the federal administration would
err, regardless of whether or not it was in good faith, by
invading an area that is indisputably under our jurisdiction and
one which, what is more, we have been handling for the past
three years. There is only one solution which would avoid the
conflict which both sides most certainly wish to avoid, and that
is tax compensation according to the Diefenbaker-Sauvé formula,
which was used not long ago to resolve a similar problem to the
real advantage of both governments. This is a solution that can
be applied immediately, to spare us the complications and even
serious disputes which would otherwise inevitably arise”.
This warning by Mr. Lesage, as he left the federal-provincial
conference, was heard by the Canadian Prime Minister Lester B.
Pearson.
In a telegram, Mr. Pearson said to Mr. Lesage “The federal
government hopes to introduce shortly legislation to extend
family allowance benefits to children aged 16 and 17 who are
dependent either because they are unable to work for physical
reasons or because they are still in school. In addition, the
federal government intends to propose arrangements to permit
university students in each province to obtain guaranteed bank
loans up to the amount approved for a given student by the
authorized provincial body”. The key sentence in the telegram
reads “Any province preferring to confine itself to its own
loans program may receive equivalent compensation”.
Since 1964, Quebec has developed the best student financial aid
program.
This has been confirmed by all those involved, from both inside
the province and from the other provinces in Canada: “We want a
loans and bursaries program. We want scholarships because our
students have an average debt of $25,000 when they finish their
studies, whereas in Quebec, the average debt is $11,000”.
They reported a succession of debates in Quebec. Students have
demonstrated several times to make sure that the plan they end
up with will suit their needs. Over the past 35 years, we have
developed a plan that is based on students' financial needs. In
Quebec, no one ever tried to include the notion of merit in it.
Today, the federal government wants us to pass a bill that will
create the millennium scholarship foundation.
These scholarships will include the notion of merit and will be
distributed by a foundation that will reach agreement with
certain provinces.
Why do you think the government chose this course of action
rather than simply changing its student loan program into a loan
and scholarship program and allowing Quebec to continue to
exercise its right to opt out with full compensation? Why did
it take this approach? Because the government wanted to be
visible. The only valid reason was to ensure its visibility.
1635
The Quebec government decided to show magnanimity. It said “we
will give you that visibility”. During the negotiations, Mr.
Bouchard told the Prime Minister “we will appoint negotiators if
this is what you want. They will look at how this can be
achieved and then we will propose concrete solutions to meet
your visibility criterion”.
During the negotiations, Quebec said “if it means putting the
Canadian flag on a cheque, so be it”. But this was still not
good enough. Why? Because throughout the negotiation process,
the Minister of Human Resources Development had no mandate to
amend the act in any way, shape or form.
During clause by clause review of the bill, we debated for a
whole day and said “Before reviewing this bill, should we not
wait for the outcome of the negotiations with Quebec, to see
what amendments may be made to the legislation?” The Liberals
did not propose any amendments.
This is a perfect bill, one that requires no amendment at all.
Yet, the members of the majority who sat with us in committee
did see that there was indeed unanimity, but on the Quebec side.
We are fully aware that this bill is designed to prevent Quebec
from opting out with full compensation, and that Ottawa wants to
achieve visibility at the expense of the needs everyone in
Quebec agrees on.
Moreover, this will really hurt students, because it will again
create dissension. We will end up with a dual system.
Students are going to be applying for $3,000 federal government
scholarships on the basis of financial need, but also on the
basis of their marks and their merit. We do not know how merit
will be defined. When these people apply for the $3,000 in
Quebec, how will they be treated?
The situation is unacceptable. The government is not thinking
about changing a program that does not work; it is thinking
about changing, replacing and upsetting the best system in
Canada. This is completely unacceptable.
The proof is that, this afternoon, I received a release from the
Fédération étudiante universitaire et collégiale du Québec,
signed by its president, Nikolas Ducharme. It reads as follows:
In its handling of the millennium scholarships issue, just as in
its handling of the hepatitis C affair, the federal government
must be the envy of certain authoritarian regimes.
We are deeply disappointed with the attitude of the Prime
Minister of Canada. Quebec students view democracy as coming
from the people. When the people make a request, when citizens
speak, when those they represent are critical, elected officials
must listen.
The Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec,
the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec, the Coalition de
l'éducation, the business community, the Parti Quebecois, the
Liberal Party of Quebec, Action démocratique du Québec, and the
National Assembly of Quebec have all spoken out against Bill
C-36, and the Prime Minister has not listened.
And here is what students are asking the Prime Minister:
When we see the anger of students, we realize that it is because
they are the ones, ultimately, who will have to apply for these
scholarships.
They will be in the situation of having to apply to two
different governments for the same thing. I do not know whether
all members have seen what a loan and scholarship application
looks like. Each educational institution has to have someone to
help the students. There are student loans and financial
assistance advisors performing this function in cegeps and
universities.
They are now going to have the pleasure of dealing with two
forms, rather than just one, with two governments, and wondering
whether they have the right to forward personal information to
this private foundation. How are they going to deal with all
this?
The situation is completely unacceptable. It is too bad that
the government has taken this attitude, because we would have
liked the negotiations to have produced essentially the same
results as in 1964, when the federal government finally listened
to what Quebec wanted.
It took the same kind of pressure.
1640
I quoted Mr. Lesage's statement a few moments ago. He even
mentioned the possibility of legal proceedings. Well, this time,
the Premier of Quebec opened the door to the Prime Minister of
Canada, on May 15, 1998, by sending him a letter in which he
explained to him exactly what was going on. He even proposed an
amendment that would allow Quebec to withdraw with full
compensation and to assume its responsibilities in this area.
As I was saying earlier, Quebec's position is not only that of
the provincial government, but also that of the National
Assembly.
Here is the motion passed by the National Assembly:
That, for the benefit of Quebec students, the National Assembly
urgently ask the Federal Government and the Quebec Government to
resume the negotiations regarding the millennium scholarship in
order that an agreement on legislative amendments respecting the
following principles may be reached:
(a) The part granted each year to Quebec students is determined
by means of a formula based on demographic parameters;
(b) Quebec selects the students who shall receive a scholarship;
(c) The scholarships are forwarded to the recipients in such
manner so as to avoid all duplication and to ensure the
necessary visibility to the Federal Government.
Furthermore, the National Assembly acknowledges the Quebec
Government's intention to allocate the amounts thus saved in its
scholarship programme to the funding of colleges and
universities.
I think the message is very clear. There is a consensus. I could
make an interesting comparison and point out to the Liberal
majority that this consensus is even stronger than the one that
existed regarding school boards. There are no opponents in
Quebec in this case. The Liberal majority could not find a
single witness that would come and tell the committee that this
is a good idea.
A few years ago, after the referendum, this House adopted a
motion on distinct society. If the federal government really
wanted to show its good faith regarding the distinct society
issue, it would not go any further with this bill.
It would say “We have to resume negotiations with Quebec. We
have to accept the amendment with the right to compensation. It
would be the first time in several years that we can show our
willingness to use a different approach with Quebec”.
I think it would be important for the Liberals to think about
that. They may wonder why they have so much trouble getting
members elected. It might be because they are losing touch with
the grassroots. It is hard to get the whole picture from only
part of the National Assembly, from the other side or from a
party with only a handful of members, but in this case we have a
unanimous motion passed by the National Assembly, a unanimous
position taken by the Quebec education coalition, led by the
president of McGill University.
This is not a debate between the sovereignists and the
federalists, but between those who want the current Constitution
to be respected and those who want it to be violated. This is
the situation we find ourselves in.
English Canada does not understand that, when Quebec joined
Confederation, jurisdiction over education was something to be
cherished, something nobody could touch, then or in the future,
as it is directly linked to the notion of a people. No nation in
this world would entrust the education of its people to some
entity other than the government in which it has a majority.
Quebeckers will never accept that.
Now, the federal government had decided to bulldoze the Quebec
government and the people of Quebec. It wants to impose its
will, but it is actually shooting in its own net.
I pledge to systematically remind everybody in Quebec that the
federal government, in this debate, chose to ignore the
unanimous consensus reached by all Quebeckers.
It took 35 years to build that consensus. It was not built in
the last year, or over the past five years. It has been building
since 1964, since Quebec and Canada reached a consensus on the
advisability for Quebec to have an independent financial
assistance system.
That was 34 years ago.
1645
Today, this consensus is being cast aside. This is it. Through
the Liberal majority, the Canadian government has decided to
impose its approach on Quebec in the area of education. This
action will have far-reaching consequences. This is a historic
moment, a grave moment that Quebeckers are not about to forget.
In the years to come, we will be able to tell all Quebeckers
“This government in which you do not even have a majority voice
has decided to step into what you felt is the most important
area and, while this fundamental jurisdiction is covered by the
Confederation pact, to disregard this pact”.
This is turning out to be a money issue. The federal government
has the power to spend and it spends whichever way it pleases.
We have seen what this attitude has led to in recent years.
The millennium scholarship foundation may be a suitable concept
for the other provinces of Canada, but it is not for Quebec,
where it has been unanimously rejected. That is why I move the
following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting
all the words after the word “That” and substituting the
following:
“Bill C-36, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, be not now read a
third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on
Finance for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 2 to 46 creating
the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion is taken under
advisement and a decision will be announced as soon as possible.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague
from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his
excellent work on the issue of employment insurance for the
benefit of the unemployed in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
When a situation as dramatic as this one arises, it takes people
like my esteemed colleague to document the issue fully, to ask
pertinent questions of the minister responsible, and to demand
equally pertinent replies.
Employment insurance is a very serious matter, and one that is
well documented. I am sure that, some day, logic will win out
and the minister will make decisions accordingly.
As my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques said, we are starting another black chapter in the
history of Canadian federalism.
1650
It is rather surprising, when one thinks of the business of the
millennium scholarships, that there is one man, and one man
alone, who has been a character in all of these black chapters
in the history of federalism: the present Prime Minister of
Canada.
He was there for the night of the long knives, he was
there when the Constitution was patriated to the detriment of
Quebec. He was there, floating about in the back hallways and
everywhere else with his cell phone and pager during the debate
on Meech Lake, and he had a hand in its failure. The present
Prime Minister was a presence throughout.
Today, with a major and fundamental intrusion into an area of
jurisdiction that is exclusive to Quebec, once again we find the
Prime Minister of Canada, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice,
right in the middle of things, as the main booster of the
millennium scholarships.
It is most unfortunate that a single man can do so much harm to
the people of Quebec and to the history of the long battle by
the people of Quebec to make the federal government mind its own
business. It is, moreover, virtually unprecedented in the
history of Canadian federalism for the very essence of the
Constitution, the British North America Act which gave exclusive
jurisdiction over education to the provinces, and to Quebec in
particular, to be trampled underfoot with such arrogance and
cynicism.
We have just finished a three week stint with the Standing
Committee on Finance, during which we heard testimony from
people speaking on behalf of others. The 14 Quebec witnesses
represented no less than 1.2 million people in business and
education. In fact they represented everything that moves and
has an interest in education.
For three weeks, these 14 organizations and others from across
Canada came to say that supporting a scheme such the millennium
scholarships was out of the question. These organizations,
including some Canadian ones and some illustrious Canadian
university professors, came to say that if the millennium
scholarships were good for Canada, they were bad for Quebec.
Now, this is something.
Even after three weeks of such intense work, the Liberals did
not even move one single amendment, even though there is
unanimous opposition to this in Quebec.
Every single witness told the federal government to mind its own
business.
Essentially, the witnesses had four messages. First, the
millennium scholarship scheme reveals a deep lack of
understanding of Quebec reality. I would like to quote from the
FTQ's brief; it said that “as it stands now, Bill C-36 shows a
lack of understanding on the part of the Canadian government of
Quebec loans and grants system and Quebec's priorities in
education”.
This is an understatement. Year in and year out, student loans
in Quebec alone amount to approximately $500 million. On top of
that, the Quebec government pays out grants to students to the
tune of $253 million.
The system has been in place for over 30 years. And now we have
a bill that ignores this reality, Quebec expertise and the
extraordinary results, which in the opinion of the Canadians
testifying before the Standing Committee on Finance, tops those
of all the other provinces. The government is dismissing all
that.
The second problem is the duplication. Quebec has had an
administrative structure for loans and grants for over 30 years.
There are educational and administrative experts in a whole
network of loans and bursaries, who are among the world's most
specialized. Now the system is being top loaded, as we say in
good French. The federal government is introducing a new
parallel structure, federal this time, to administer a $2.5
billion fund.
Do you know what it will cost to administer this millennium
fund?
It will amount to 5%. Five per cent of the total budget of the
fund will go to administer this new federal program in a sector
that is Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction. That figure represents
twice the cost of administering the Quebec system of loans and
bursaries, and they talk about effective management of federal
funds.
1655
Another major problem haunted the deliberations of the finance
committee, and it is that the millennium scholarships bear no
relation to the needs of students in Quebec and even less to the
needs of the education system.
If the Liberals really wanted to help students cope with their
debt load and gain easier access to education generally, the
intelligent approach would have been to limit cuts.
For the past four years and until 2003, the Minister of Finance,
who continues shamelessly to collect a surplus of up to $20
billion in the employment insurance fund, has been and will be
stealing money from students and the entire Quebec and Canadian
educational system, for by then he will have cut $10 billion
from higher education.
The best way to help students and ensure their access to
education is for the government to return to the system what it
took from the provinces. This would have been an intelligent
way to intervene in the sector, while maintaining provincial
jurisdiction in the educational sector.
There is another problem with this fund. In recent years, the
Minister of Finance has got us used to figure juggling. He has
us used to being given figures that have nothing to do with
reality or the government's annual financial statements.
It is the third time that he cooks up figures in such a shameful
way.
Each time, the auditor general gave him a stern warning, but
cynicism and arrogance are contagious. Indeed, the cynicism and
arrogance displayed by the Prime Minister have now spread to the
Minister of Finance and the whole cabinet. The Minister of
Finance ignores the criticisms of the Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants and those made by the auditor general on
three occasions for basically the same reasons.
The Minister of Finance posted to his 1997-98 budget—which ended
on March 31—all the funds, a total of $2.5 billion, earmarked
for the millennium scholarships. He led us to believe that they
would start spending this money immediately. The fact is that
the foundation will only start awarding these scholarships in
the year 2000.
So, an expenditure that would be made only two and a half years
later was charged to the 1997-98 federal budget.
This is not standard procedure. Financial statements no longer
mean anything. We can read them, but we cannot really find out
about the government's revenues and expenditures, because the
minister cooks up the figures. This is the third time.
He did so when the maritime provinces harmonized the GST with
their own sales taxes. The minister was to give $800 million to
the maritime provinces the following year, because they had
agreed to harmonize the GST with their own sales taxes, but he
had already charged the whole $800 million to the budget of the
previous fiscal year. He did the same thing with the innovation
fund.
At some point, he will have to stop cooking the books. The truth
will have to come out, because this is complete nonsense.
Neither the financial statements nor the estimates make sense
any longer. And I am not the only one to think so.
After the Minister of Finance brought down his last budget, all
the editors said that it made no sense to forecast, year after
year, no surplus in government operations, when we know the
surplus will keep increasing, starting this year with a
$4 billion surplus in the federal budget. It does not make any
sense to put “zero, zero, and zero” in the estimates for the
next three years. Will he stop laughing at the taxpayers some
day?
He does it again with the millennium scholarships; he cooks the
books and hides the real budget surplus and all the drastic cuts
to education. He keeps doing it and still maintains that he has
to fight the deficit, when in fact, since the last fiscal year,
we have a surplus that will increase in the future.
1700
Not every day do we—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, maybe you could ask the members
who want to have a meeting to hold it in the lobby. It would be
better for everyone.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would ask hon.
members to hold their meetings outside the House so we can hear
the member who is speaking.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, I was saying that a new chapter
has been written in the dark history of the federal system, as
illustrated by all the arguments I and every other speaker from
Quebec have submitted. They have also unanimously rejected the
proposed millennium scholarship fund.
It is not every day that the Premier of Quebec and his education
minister lead a delegation to come to meet with the Prime
Minister of Canada here, in Ottawa, to see if they could agree
on a mutually acceptable position, which would at the same time
satisfy the federal government's need for visibility. That is
all there is to it: the federal government wants to be visible
in what it does for students in the hope of winning them over to
the cause of Canadian federalism.
What are they taking students for?
Students can see that behind this need for visibility there are
measures which have been penalizing them big time for the past
four years.
The premier and the minister of education of Quebec came here to
meet with the Prime Minister of Canada. They tried to smooth
things over and made several concessions. They also put on the
table proposals that would respect Quebec's jurisdiction while
giving the federal government the visibility it desired. That is
all it is after. It does not care about efficiency or helping
students. Just the same, a negotiating committee was set up.
Week after week, the lead negotiator on this committee did not
show any real desire to define a mutually acceptable position.
In the end, little fed up with all the fine talk, and a little
fed up that things are not moving ahead, the minister of
education has decided that enough is enough, that the federal
Liberals do not really want to work out any new arrangements.
As my colleague mentioned just now, the National Assembly even
passed a unanimous motion that allowed the federal government
its visibility but that also ensured some respect for the
Government of Quebec's jurisdiction, ensured that it was Quebec
that was responsible for the administration, as well as
providing the lists of millennium scholarship fund recipients.
We also had a share, based on the demographic figures, of the
$2.5 billion that would have gone to Quebec. This was passed
unanimously by all parties present in the National Assembly.
Once again, this is an indication of the consensus that was
clearly evident during the discussions of the Standing Committee
on Finance, when witnesses from Quebec appeared before the
committee.
There are even Canadian supporters, as I mentioned earlier. John
Trent of the University of Ottawa, for instance, who is a vocal
opponent of the sovereignists, who is certainly no friend of the
Bloc Quebecois, said, and I quote “The fund will inevitably lead
to federal-provincial duplication and overlap with existing
programs. It is in direct competition with Quebec's loans and
scholarships program, which many consider superior”.
When people like him speak in our favour, speak in favour of
Quebec, and add their voices to the consensus in Quebec, that
says it all. The government is demonstrating unprecedented
arrogance and cynicism.
As my colleague mentioned earlier, there have been several
attempts by the federal government in the past to interfere in
the field of education, which comes under the exclusive
jurisdiction of Quebec. Every time, the federal government
understood. The federal leaders, who were less arrogant and
less cynical than our leaders today, understood in the past that
education was sacred to Quebec, that we would not allow the
federal government to interfere in this sector.
1705
One of the most important federal conferences in the history of
Canadian federalism was held in Quebec City in 1964, on March 31
to be exact.
I remember that it was given front page coverage by the Globe
and Mail on that date, because it considered this an historic
event on a number of levels, including the fact that it marked
the discussion of new arrangements between the federal
government and the provinces, Quebec in particular, with respect
to taxation, the establishment of a new order if you will, in
federal-provincial relations and the respect of jurisdictions
such as education.
At that time, Messrs. Pearson and Lesage, two intelligent men
who were willing to talk to each other, exchanged views during
this federal-provincial conference because, in 1964, the federal
government wanted to inaugurate a federal program of student
loans and bursaries.
I was surprised to find, in rereading the opening remarks by
the Hon. Jean Lesage, the Premier of Quebec at the time, that
they could have been made today.
If I may, I will quote a few passages from those opening remarks
by Mr. Lesage.
The fact that the federal government offers only student loans,
not bursaries and loans as seems to have been the case at one
point, may at first appear to be an attempt to avoid the
constitutional problem bursaries would have presented. In fact,
because supply falls within its jurisdiction, the federal
government can give the impression that it is remaining within
its jurisdiction by giving loans rather than bursaries.
We do
not believe this gets around the constitutional problem. The
students themselves have felt this, because they have openly
opposed the new federal policy.
The millennium scholarship project has also been opposed
recently by students.
I will now continue.
The difficulty arises, not from the fact that there are loans,
but that they are interest-free loans for students. These loans
will be made by financial institutions—
For these two reasons,
the Government of Quebec cannot accept application of the
federal program as it is proposed at present.
We have, moreover,
already set up a student aid service involving sizeable amounts
of bursaries and loans to students every year.
We are therefore already making a particularly significant
effort in this area, not to mention the huge sums of money we
devote to other sectors of education every year.
Under the
circumstances, in order to resolve the problem posed by the
federal student loan policy, Quebec demands that the Government
of Canada hand over to it, in the form of tax equivalencies,
those amounts it would have reimbursed in interest payments on
loans to Quebec students. We would accept as the basis for
determining this equivalent amount the relative proportion of
the population of Quebec.
From that conference on, therefore—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would point out to the
hon. member that he has only one minute remaining.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, at this conference the then
Quebec premier was very reluctant as is the current Quebec
premier.
But Mr. Pearson understood. As a result of their discussions,
barely two weeks after the end of this important federal
provincial conference, Mr. Pearson sent a telegram to Mr. Lesage
allowing Quebec to withdraw, with full compensation, from a
program in an area under provincial jurisdiction.
We are still hoping that the current Prime Minister will stop
being so obtuse, cynical and arrogant and lend a favorable ear
to the consensus in Quebec, to allow, as was the case at the
Quebec conference when Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member but his time has expired.
I must also inform the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques that his amendment
is in order.
1710
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to
say from the very start that I am so bloody mad I could spit at
the moment. If we are very quiet we can hear the jackboots of
the Liberals trampling over the democratic rights of the citizens
of this country. We can hear them in the hallways. A dark
fascist cloud hangs over this institution today as the Liberal
government has brought in closure on this bill and the
representatives of 30% of the voters of Canada will not be heard.
They will be muzzled. The 30% of the people who voted
Conservative and the 30% of the people who voted New Democrat
will not be heard on this multibillion dollar budget bill. We
say that is wrong. It is disgusting. It is anti-democratic. It
is simply wrong and it is unparliamentary.
That is not where it ends. This is the final stage of an
anti-democratic sweep by the government.
After the legislation was introduced, after post-budget
considerations that were essentially ignored, we heard 88
representatives who came before the finance committee with a
whole set of very positive recommendations for change. There were
88 interventions. Amendments were brought forward. Did
government members listen to a single one of those 88 interveners
who proposed changes? Not a single period was changed. Not a
comma was changed in the legislation. It makes a mockery of the
system. It is a slap in the face to all of those witnesses who
appeared before the committee. I say that is wrong and
undemocratic.
I have to be careful because I could get worked up. I have a
whole speech that I am supposed to read on behalf of my caucus.
The Conservatives had a representative who wanted to make a
speech today, but we are unable to do that. We are not allowed
to. There is something wrong with a system which says that 30%
of the electorate is simply cut out of a discussion on this
budget legislation. It is wrong and it is something the
government has to change.
I thought the Tories were bad under Mulroney. We were up here
day after day saying what a bunch of scumbags they were because
they were introducing closure, introducing time allocation,
cutting off democracy and making a mockery out of this place.
The Liberals are actually worse. It is unbelievable.
I have a couple of comments about the legislation. To start
with I want to talk about the millennium scholarship fund. Let
us acknowledge that this millennium scholarship fund, at best, is
going to help about 7% of students who need help today. As a
matter of fact, it is a lot less than that. About 7% of college
and university students may get assistance. Ninety-some per cent
will never see the benefit of this.
Does the government take its commitment to education seriously
by reinstating transfers to the provinces for education? No it
does not. Does it take its position seriously by doing what
every OECD country does by providing federal leadership on access
to education? Does it do that? No, it does not. It brings in
this little flashy millennium scholarship fund. I can see it
now. All the cheques will be signed by the Prime Minister and
sent out to all of the students as a good public relations
gesture.
Yes, it will help a handful of people in need, but will it help
provincial governments in terms of their tuition fees? No, it
will not. Will it help the thousands and thousands of young
people today who are indebted up to their eyeballs, the average
debt load being $25,000? Will it help them? No it will not.
Then it refers to the employment insurance fund. We find out
today that the employment insurance fund will have a surplus this
year of about $16 billion or $17 billion. By the end of the year
it will be about $19 billion. By next year there will be a
surplus of about $25 billion.
That is stealing money out of the hands and pockets of employees
and employers across this country. No wonder we have the deficit
under control. Money has been taken out of the pockets of the
hardest working people in the country. It is wrong.
The government says that it is going to provide an incentive to
encourage employers to hire young people. That is going to help
1% of the hundreds of thousands of young people who are out of
work today. One per cent may benefit from this initiative.
That is hypocrisy. By saying that they are going to do
something, that they are going to help 1%, is like taking a slap
in the face for every unemployed young person. That is wrong.
1715
I could go on. I have a whole speech I could give, and I have
not even started yet, but I cannot because the government has
brought in closure and says that certain MPs—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that at
this point I have to interrupt the hon. member.
[Translation]
It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, May 25, 1998,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of third reading of the bill
now before the House.
[English]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Pankiw
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vautour
| Wayne
– 95
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 142
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Collenette
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Guimond
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lebel
|
Parrish
| Proud
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you might
find unanimous consent in the House to apply the results of the
vote just taken to the motion now before the House in reverse
order.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 142
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
|
Pankiw
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Solberg
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vautour
| Wayne
– 95
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Collenette
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Guimond
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Lebel
|
Parrish
| Proud
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
1750
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.50 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
COMPETITION ACT
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-235, an act to amend the Competition Act (protection of those
who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who
compete with them at retail), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here to speak
to this bill. The bill was initially introduced in the House of
Commons last year but, because of the election and time
constraints, we did not have an opportunity to get back to it.
on the order paper, but Bill C-235 is from the 36th Parliament.
[English]
This bill becomes even more important when we consider the
recent tactics by a number of industries but specifically the gas
industry. We have witnessed across the country some very
disturbing trends occurring with respect to retailing of gasoline
products.
The problem is really something I think we can see occurring in
other areas such as the travel industry with respect to
reservations. A number of travel agents have spoken to members
of parliament about the problems there. We have also heard
rumours recently about the impending actions taken by the U.S.
government perhaps at some point down the road with respect to
Microsoft.
The problem that exists here is really one of predatory pricing
and price discrimination. For the purpose of this bill we want
to deal specifically with what it does. It would provide for the
enforcement of fair pricing between a manufacturer who sells a
product at retail, either directly or through an affiliate, and
who also supplies product to a customer who competes with the
supplier at the retail level. This bill provides a supplier's
customer with a fair opportunity to make a similar profit as the
supplier at the retail level in a given market area.
Just last week in Toronto and in many regions across the country
a number of independent gasoline retailers told me and expressed
to other members of parliament how difficult it really is to stay
in business when the supplier you are competing against is the
very person who is determining the cost at which you are going to
receive the supply.
If that supplier deems it is important to increase market share
at your expense, then it will not be very long before predictably
you will be out of business.
1755
The Liberal committee on gasoline pricing has crisscrossed the
country. It has come up with a number of ideas that it will
eventually bring forward.
The bill speaks for itself. In the view of many in this House,
there is a very clear indication that there is a shortcoming in
the act.
In 1986 the restrictive trade practices commission came to the
conclusion that there was a need far from what the provinces are
doing today to enforce and to strengthen legislation in the
Competition Act as it relates to section 50.
We realize this is the first hour of debate and I am honoured we
have had an opportunity to look at this. I am equally delighted
that the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business had the
fortitude and the quite common quite sense to deem this bill
votable.
Current measures in the federal Competition Act dealing with
predatory pricing and price discrimination clearly have proven to
be insufficient in combating these activities and in providing
adequate protection for those in the industry. It is fair to say
that the cumulative effect of legislation is not to bring about
restriction in price or governance of price. The idea is to
ensure that legislation exists so that there are effective ground
rules and more important, that legislation in this country
ensures and fosters a free market and at the end of the day
adequate supply and demand. When it comes to predatory pricing,
it is clear to many that we need change and that change should
happen as soon as possible.
Thousands of mom and pop type gas station owners across this
country are watching this bill very intently. It is not because
it is something that would allow them to line their pockets, not
because it would allow them to make a profit at the expense of
the consumer, but it is because their survival hinges on our
ability here this evening to provide legislation that adequately
protects them against the practice of below cost selling. This
is occurring at an alarming rate. We only have to go to the
major centres across the country to know that.
When we tear away at this country's small businesses, or through
neglect of our obligation here in terms of legislation we allow
these people to die on the vine by a thousand cuts, we
effectively have surrendered our obligation to protect people who
want nothing more than to be competitive and to be efficient and
at the end of the day to provide a product that every consumer
needs. This bill is designed to protect certain people who have
to compete against their own suppliers, but at the end of the day
this bill is designed to protect consumers.
It is very clear in regions of this country where there has been
the ultimate demise of many independent retailers of gasoline
product, where they have been eliminated, such as in Newfoundland
or New Brunswick, there has been a corresponding trebling in the
cost of gasoline. It has nothing to do with taxes. It has
nothing to do with competition. It has to do with the fact that
we are seeing in this industry the emergence of an oligopoly
which is dangerous in its very essence and is certainly dangerous
to the interests of consumers.
I encourage members of parliament to look at the legislation, to
look at what the Competition Bureau said in 1986 in the Bertrand
report.
I want to thank each and every colleague for making this a
votable bill. Let us not fail small business in this country. Let
us make sure we continue to make competition viable in Canada.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
with a lot of interest in this bill.
I think the hon. member when he first started on his crusade with
regard to gasoline prices undertook something that had an awful
lot of appeal. What has happened in the process of the bill is
quite different from where the hon. member started. We would
have to look at this from the point of view that I personally and
the Reform Party that I represent in the House clearly support
vigorous and open competition in the marketplace. We encourage
that and we want to make sure there is competitive pricing,
competitive promotion and that we enforce competition law as it
exists at the present time.
1800
We also recognize there is a perception on the part of certain
independent gas retailers that the competition that exists is not
fair and that there is a lack of competition in some cases and
the very same thing exists in the minds of some customers and
consumers.
I would like to advance to the hon. member that his intention
was great but Bill C-235 fails to resolve that issue. It stops
short of looking at the real issue behind the lack of competition
in the marketplace. The issue is not the Competition Act as has
been proposed because the Competition Act lays out very clearly
provisions preventing predatory pricing, abuse of dominant
position or unfair practices.
It is necessary for us to know to what the Competition Act says.
Section 78 in part (a) refers specifically to what
anti-competition really means. It includes any of the following
acts. Part (a) says it is squeezing by a vertically integrated
supplier which is exactly what Bill C-235 addresses: “squeezing
of the margin available to an unintegrated customer” which in
the example is the independent gasoline retailer “who competes
with a supplier for the purpose of impeding or preventing the
customers entry into or expansion in a particular market”.
That is precisely the issue the hon. member is trying to
address. He is suggesting the Competition Act does not cover
this issue. I submit it does. Part (i) reads: “selling articles
at a price lower than the acquisition cost for the purpose of
disciplining or eliminating a competitor”.
It does not take a genius to figure out what that really means.
The intention of the hon. member is certainly commendable but the
current legislation provides for exactly the kind of thing he
wants to prevent. I agree that we should not have that and that
is why section 78 exists.
Under section 50 of the Competition Act we have very serious
consequences for a company or individual engaging in
anti-competitive behaviour. The hon. member in his initial
comments made the observation that the Competition Act needs to
be enforced and must be efficient in its application. I could not
agree with him more.
If the issue is one of enforcement it seems that is exactly what
it is. The current provisions under sections 50 and 78 have
comprehensive enough coverage that they can deal with all the
things the hon. member wants to deal with in Bill C-235. The
issue becomes one of the willingness to enforce that legislation,
to actually say if this is done then there is a consequence.
Part of the reason for the perception that competition does not
exist is the act is not being enforced.
The member suggested this has nothing to do with taxation. It
has a lot to do with taxation.
1805
Before I go into the taxation part I would like to suggest one
other issue. That has to do with the most recent article that
columnist Diane Francis wrote for the May 26 issue of the
Financial Post. She suggests that one of the reasons
Canada has some of the difficulties it has with regard to the
Competition Act is in Canada there is not the kind of anti-trust
legislation that exists in the United States. I agree with that.
I believe the time has come for us to examine very seriously
whether we ought to be looking at the issue of whether industries
and certain players in the marketplace are becoming too large. If
we allow an oligopoly to develop where an industry becomes so
big, a player in a particular sector becomes so big that it
virtually dominates the marketplace and dictates the prices of
services and product in that sector, we ought to look very
seriously at whether that oligopoly ought to continue.
I alert the Minister of Finance in this connection when he
considers later this year the proposed merger of the banks. It
seems to me we ought to look at that as well.
I want to come back to the taxation issue. The hon. member told
us very clearly that it has nothing to do with taxation. Let me
suggest that the excise tax on gasoline can be blamed for higher
prices at the pumps more effectively than anything else. I will
cite some facts. More than 50% of the average price of gasoline
at the pumps actually is excise tax. The residual effect is that
the profit margin for suppliers and retailers is reduced. If we
are looking for negative forces on the marketplace then we need
look no further than on the effective of excessive taxes on
industry, the business person and the consumer.
In the case of gasoline pricing and profit margins for both big
and small players everyone is being hurt by excessive taxes. The
only player who comes out unscathed in the entire process is the
tax grabbing Liberal government.
That tax grabbing hurts the consumer by raising the prices at
the pumps and by cutting into the profit margins of big and small
business. That is the issue. The typical gasoline retailer
realized an average gross profit margin of three and a half
cents on the sale of a litre of regular gasoline in 1996. That
amounts to 6% of the average pump price. The taxes meanwhile
averaged 28.6 cents a litre more than 50% of the average pump
price at that time. Both refiners and gasoline marketers have
seen profit margins fall as a result of price competition despite
rising crude oil prices since 1991.
There is a very practical issue here that we need to look at as
well. Average consumers will ask how on long weekends and during
vacation periods can prices go up.
Crude oil prices can rise and the lag between the rise in world
prices and the price at the pump has a very short time span. But
when the price drops on the world market it takes a long time
before the price falls at the pumps. These are the issues we want
to look at in a very serious way.
I commend what the hon. member is trying to do, but I submit
that it is the wrong way to go at the issue. I encourage him
first to suggest to his colleagues to reduce taxes and get the
money back to the taxpayers so that they can afford to buy
gasoline and that the margin for the businessman increases rather
than decreases.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to tell the hon. member that, in principle, his bill is a step
in the right direction.
1810
Since debate on the proposed reform of the Competition Act
appeared to be headed toward a weakening of the existing
provisions of the act and not their strengthening, it is
refreshing to see a member across the way introduce a bill to
strengthen those provisions.
However, there are still a number of unresolved issues. For
instance, clause 50.1(2)(a) of the bill states:
(i) the supplier's own cost of marketing at retail, and
(ii) the supplier's reasonable return on the retail sale,
What is “reasonable”? What is the “cost of marketing at
retail”?
This remains vague. I do not know how to address this problem,
but it is nonetheless important.
Incidentally, I would like to point out that this bill does not
completely solve the retailers' problem. I think it is also the
opinion of the Association of Independent Distributors of
Petroleum Products that this bill does not completely solve the
problem.
In Quebec, to address the overall problem, we have established
the Régie de l'énergie, which, more than a year and a half ago
already, set for gasoline in Quebec a floor price that takes
into account the wholesale price in the Montreal area,
transportation, taxes, and so on.
This way, to help independent retailers, oil companies cannot
sell their gasoline for less than a set minimum price.
I realize we can also discuss that principle, but the idea is to
listen, each year, to the stakeholders and see how the market is
evolving.
If we agree that we cannot allow a monopolistic or oligopolistic
market, we must take measures so that independent retailers can
thrive and not merely survive. Times are very hard for many of
them right now. I know that a number of them are desperately
trying to survive and are counting on a review of the floor
price that will be conducted by Quebec's energy board. After
all, we have to define a guaranteed margin of profit, otherwise
independent distributors will not survive.
I did hear arguments such as “we have to think about
consumers”.
It is true. But at the same time, let us not forget that
consumers also include the producers who need revenues.
If we only think about reducing prices, regardless of the impact
on employment, economic development and small and medium size
businesses, then we can have lower prices, but we will also have
growing income gaps, as well as major social and economic
problems.
Therefore, I support in principle the bill introduced by the
hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. I wish him luck. But I do
want to discuss the issues raised by his bill. I congratulate
him on his work, because—and I agree on this with the hon.
member to my right, no pun intended—we really need to look at
how small and medium size businesses in the oil and other
industries can survive.
1815
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge on this
bill and for the opportunity to say a few words about the subject
of gas pricing in Ottawa.
As the hon. member noted in his opening remarks, Bill C-235 is
directed at ending predatory pricing practices of the oil
companies which also own refineries and retail outlets, the
so-called vertically integrated companies. We think particularly
of near monopolistic practices such as the Irvings in the
Atlantic region.
I note a recent letter from David Collins who is with the Wilson
Fuel Company Limited to our caucus to support the upcoming
introduction of this bill or amendments to the Competition Act.
About these amendments he says in part:
—amendments provide some much-needed definition to the concept
of predatory pricing. As local independent marketers of
petroleum products, we have found ourselves singled out to face
retail prices which are below those made available at wholesale.
The result has been to discipline our company into retail price
conformance. (This) bill would provide firms such as ours some
form of legal recourse to remedy such a situation.
Mr. Collins goes on to say:
It is interesting to note that the U.S. market is far more
“regulated” when it comes to the marketing of petroleum
products than it is in Canada. The Americans also enjoy lower
prices on average.
He concludes by saying:
(The) bill goes only part of the way toward bringing Canada's
regulations in harmony with those afforded to the U.S. consumers.
I also recognize and applaud the work of some folk in Atlantic
Canada who have been fighting this stranglehold on the market to
which I referred a moment ago. I will particularly single out
Elizabeth Weir, the leader of our party in the province of New
Brunswick, and John Holm, the house leader in Nova Scotia, for
the work they have done in the recent past on the whole matter of
predatory pricing.
The bill that is before us would provide for the enforcement of
fair pricing between a manufacturer that sells a product at
retail either directly or through an affiliate and supplies a
product to a customer that competes with the supplier at the
retail level. This provides a supplier's customer with a fair
opportunity to make a similar profit as the supplier at the
retail level in a given market area.
I note in passing that we have a member in our caucus, the
member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, who has also done a lot
of work on the unfair pricing of gasoline in Canada generally but
specifically in the province of Saskatchewan. He has been
arguing for some time that what we need is a commission to
regulate the wholesale and retail prices of gasoline, taking into
account both the public interest in having reasonable and
consistent pricing and the need for manufacturers, distributors
and wholesalers to have reasonable costs covered. The commission
could also conduct hearings on competition in the oil industry
referred to it by the competition tribunal.
In Canada we accept that some prices of goods or services which
are central to our well-being and to the economy in general and
often controlled by monopolies or near monopolies should be
regulated in the public interest. I am thinking, for example, of
telephone and cable television costs.
1820
Naturally the oil companies do not agree. They recently
launched an ad campaign, as I understand it, in Ontario and in
eastern Canada to explain some of the things that drive Canadians
crazy on an annual basis about the oil and pricing regime as it
has existed ever since I can remember.
I will give three examples. Why do prices go up just before
seeding season or the harvest season in my part of the world on
the prairies? Why do they go up across the country just before
summer long weekends? Why, when Saskatchewan is clearly a net
exporter of oil products, do we end up paying a higher price than
we do in Ottawa when the tax regime is exactly the same in both
provinces? Today in Regina the price at the pump is 56.9 cents
as compared with 49.9 cents in Ottawa.
It is interesting to note that these ads that are running in
eastern Canada are not running in the west. I would offer it is
because the oil companies simply cannot answer that last one,
that Saskatchewan is a net exporter yet ends up paying 7 cents a
litre higher than is currently being paid in Ottawa.
As the agriculture critic for our caucus one of the things that
is a real bugaboo for people on the prairies, especially at this
time of the year—and it is nice to see some of the other members
of the standing committee on agriculture here tonight—is the
high input costs being paid out as we speak, as farmers are out
on the land putting their crops in the ground. Among the highest
are the costs for fossil fuels.
We in this caucus believe that the bill introduced by the member
for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge is a good bill. It is worthy of
support. We commend him for the work he has done and for
encouraging us as a parliament to continue to work on this very
important issue.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to say a few words in this debate on behalf of my
colleague, the member for Markham.
I acknowledge as well the efforts of my colleague from
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge in sponsoring the bill, an act to amend
the Competition Act which is a protection for those who purchase
products from vertically integrated suppliers that compete with
them at the retail level.
As ominous as vertically integrated suppliers sounds, I think we
owe it to all stakeholders to give every consideration to the
intent of the bill. Beyond the intent we must also look at the
bill's effectiveness.
Essentially Bill C-235 is attempting to accomplish fair pricing
between a manufacturer that sells a product at retail either
directly or through an affiliate and supplies product to a
customer that competes with the supplier at the retail level. The
bill's sponsor is also hoping to achieve an opportunity for a
supplier's customer to make a similar profit as the supplier at
the retail level in a given market.
Another major goal of the bill is to prevent anti-competitive
acts such as predatory pricing and price discounting in
industries where suppliers of products compete with their
customers at the retail level.
Canada has not been oblivious to issues which are addressed by
the bill. The Competition Act, implemented by the previous
Conservative government to replace the Anti-Combines Act, deals
with the inherent issues of Bill C-235 without making any
amendments. The issues of price discrimination, price
maintenance and abuse of dominance are already addressed by the
act.
Let us deal with the issue of fair pricing first. The problem
with the legislation is that it would create an artificial profit
margin. By guaranteeing pricing to competitors based on any
formula which includes retail pricing, the bill would be creating
a floor price below which no one could go.
The elimination of the ability to engage in discounting would be
a peculiar approach to addressing fair pricing. The result would
in fact be higher prices which certainly is not in the best
interest of the Canadian consumer.
1825
The Liberal government has already overburdened small and medium
size businesses across the country with outrageous reporting
requirements either in the area of sales tax, payroll taxes,
Statistics Canada or any other number of government bureaus or
agencies which enforce different degrees of compliance.
Legislators must begin searching for ways to ease the paperwork
burden and let Canadian businesses get back to their core
services, and this would not happen under Bill C-235. Quite the
opposite would be the case.
Let us imagine how the government could possibly begin tackling
the issue of what constitutes proper wholesale prices, profit
margins and marketing expenses of firms. Quite simply it could
not be done. We would be creating another level of bureaucracy,
an extra burden of government and an enormous enforcement cost.
I realize the bill is generic in its wording but it is clear
that it will have a great impact on the retail gas industry. The
result would be to abandon market based forces as the proper
determinant of gasoline prices and instead move to a cost based
formula.
In effect we would be shackling the marketplace with a central
command approach to economic questions. The reality is that the
Competition Act must above all else focus on achieving desirable
results for consumers. It should not be used to undermine the
legitimate outcome of competition such as low prices. We believe
this would be the result of Bill C-235.
The M. J. Ervin report, the Canadian retail petroleum marketing
study, produced many issues of note on this subject. For
instance, since 1994 Canada has enjoyed retail gasoline prices
which on a pre-tax basis are among the lowest in the world.
Between 1986 and 1995 gasoline jumped by 4 cents a litre and over
the last six years operating margins have declined by 7 cents a
litre.
All these outcomes are a result of having dynamic change and
innovation in our gasoline industry, dynamic change which has
benefited many Canadian consumers. The reality is that healthy
competition exists in the industry.
One of the unique aspects is known as corner competition or the
tub thumping effect where prices will get knocked down for a
brief period of time but a correction will come about and prices
will increase again.
If the House were to pass Bill C-235 we would in effect be tying
the hands of suppliers from all affected industries. They would
be unable to change prices in response to market forces. This
could lead to vertically integrated suppliers making the decision
that the burden of compliance is too great and therefore they
would cease supplying competitors. This would result in less
competition and higher prices.
For all these reasons we have to say that the Progressive
Conservative Party will not be supporting the bill.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
today I am addressing the House on the subject of private
members' Bill C-235, an act to amend the Competition Act.
Unfortunately I cannot support the bill.
1830
I wish to congratulate my colleague, the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, for his work in preparing this bill
and for his laudable efforts to find solutions to the problems
facing many of our small and medium size businesses. While his
efforts were well intentioned, the proposed means to resolve this
issue will not bring about the results he seeks and will most
certainly have serious adverse consequences on the Canadian
economy in general and on a number of specific industries which I
will explain shortly.
Bill C-235 seeks to prohibit vertically integrated companies
from selling their products to retailers competing against them
in the same market at prices which would inhibit the retailer's
ability to make a profit similar to that enjoyed by the
vertically integrated supplier.
The bill also seeks to prohibit vertically integrated suppliers,
by virtue of their dominant position, from coercing retailers
into adopting a specific pricing policy.
According to the bill, both of these proposals would be effected
by amending sections 50 and 78, respectively, of the Competition
Act.
The bill as it is currently worded will potentially apply to
every vertically integrated supplier no matter what industry it
is in. My colleague across the way also explained that earlier.
While many of us are aware of our colleague's interest in
providing assistance to independent gasoline retailers, we should
ask ourselves if tying the hands of all integrated players in the
Canadian economy is not unlike using a bomb instead of a fire
cracker. Do we really wish to see our selection of tires, auto
parts, jeans, electronics products, computers or green plants
diminished by overbearing government regulation? Do we wish to
push some firms out of the Canadian economy because they find our
laws burdensome? I think not. Indeed, we wish to encourage
Canadians to open and expand their businesses and create jobs.
We wish to welcome foreign investment as a further stimulus to
job creation and to the Canadian economy.
Furthermore, did we not adopt a policy of deregulation in the
1980s? We have been furthering that agenda for some time with
the specific purpose of cutting down the costs of doing business
in Canada in a attempt to provide Canadian businesses with an
equal chance to compete in foreign markets and to meet import
competition here at home. To be more specific, experience has
shown us that in markets where similar legislation has been
enacted prices for the products covered by the legislation have
risen. Higher prices of inputs to major manufacturing in Canada
would harm the overall competitiveness of the economy and inhibit
Canadian firms from competing on a level playing field with
foreign firms not subject to the same constraints.
Allegations that vertically integrated suppliers have retailed
their product below cost have rarely, if ever, proven supportable
upon close analysis. Forcing these suppliers to underwrite the
return expected by competing retailers could easily lead to the
supplier's legitimate refusal to sell their products through
independent retailers. In a nutshell, there is little good to
come out of these proposals.
In addition, these amendments would discourage price wars which
can be of benefit to customers. The resulting price
inflexibility would introduce price rigidities, impeding the
ability of businesses to quickly react to changing market
conditions—and we all know that market conditions change
continuously—and set their prices accordingly.
The amendments would force companies to check with their
accountants and financial controllers to determine whether a new
price offering would cover all their market costs and mandated
rate of return even if short term requirements to sell off
product or meet competition in the marketplace was urgently
needed.
Looking specifically at how regulators would administer such a
law, I draw the attention of members to the following scenario.
The competition bureau would be expected to act upon any
complaints arising from each and every price increase at the
retail level of products covered by these proposed sections of
the act. Just looking at price changes at the pump, which happen
as often as three times a week, in the 20,000 markets across
Canada, we can expect the annual administration costs of
investigating and pursuing such complaints to be easily in the
billions of dollars.
1835
Add to that the price increases for tires, car batteries,
computers or plants, or the myriad products sold at stores like
Price Club, and the costs could soar. I doubt very much that
this is what was intended by the proposal.
Furthermore, I have studied the sections of the Competition Act
which relate to abuse of dominance and price maintenance.
Sections 50(1)(c) and 78 on their own, without any amendments,
are currently drafted in a manner which addresses the concerns of
the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. Predatory
pricing, which is defined as selling products at prices
unreasonably low, having the effect of substantially lessening
competition, or pricing which is aimed at eliminating or impeding
the expansion of a competitor is a criminal offence under the act
as it now stands.
In addition, abuse of dominance in situations where substantial
lessening of competition results is a civil provision. One of
the subsections of that provision deals specifically with the
issue of dominant vertically integrated firms squeezing the
margin available to non-integrated customers and competing with
the suppliers for the purpose of impeding or preventing the
customer's entry into or expansion in the market.
Since these provisions already respond to the issues raised in
the proposed amendments, I ask why we need to add redundant
provisions to an existing law.
Finally, the Competition Act already has a provision which deals
with coercive pressure to resale a product at a price dictated by
the supplier. This provision, known as price maintenance, is
criminal in nature, allowing for greater use of the provision
when warranted by the director of the competition bureau and the
Attorney General of Canada to deal with competitive problems in
gasoline markets.
As a matter of fact, on January 26, 1996, Mr. Justice David
Dempsey imposed a fine of $50,000 against Mr. Gas Limited, a
local Ottawa gasoline retailer, for having influenced upwards, by
use of a threat, the prices charged by one of its competitors in
Ottawa, Caltex Petroleum Inc. Since this prosecution Ottawa has
become a very competitive gasoline market which last year had the
lowest average gasoline prices in Ontario. I give this example
to show that there is already a very effective provision in the
Competition Act to deal with gasoline suppliers attempting to
coerce their competitors with respect to prices.
Historically the competition bureau has undertaken 11
prosecutions under the price maintenance provision in gasoline
markets and has been successful in obtaining 9 convictions. This
is obviously an effective provision in the Competition Act.
Canadian business does not need new duplicate regulations.
The price maintenance provision has also been used successfully
in literally hundreds of prosecutions. The business community,
in general, knows its content and what conduct is expected of
them to stay within the law. A new, similar provision to price
maintenance, which one of these amendments contains, only
complicates the life of business persons and adds no additional
benefit for the economy, consumers or small gasoline retailers.
We are not here to determine for our citizens what a reasonable
rate of profit is today. The market does that. Economies which
have tried to establish so-called planned economies have recently
lived through the utter failure of their efforts.
We need to find solutions that encourage innovation, new and
efficient entrants, consumer choice, new jobs and economic
growth. Let us work together toward that end and not adopt the
proposals before us today.
In conclusion, I would like to again congratulate the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for his hard work in studying gasoline
prices. I am sure he will continue to do good work in that area.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to address a matter that has again and again been
brought to the attention of the members of this place, a matter
that seems to have induced public anger as only a few other
issues have been able to do.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate for me to say that I am on
my feet today as a result of the constant public and media
attention afforded to this topic.
1840
The issue to which I refer is the matter of gasoline pricing and
the factors that affect petroleum price setting in Canada.
I am pleased to lend my personal support to private member's
Bill C-235 which is currently before us. On an historical note,
this is not the first time this particular piece of legislation
has been placed on the Order Paper. Bill C-235 was first
introduced in the 35th Parliament in 1997 as Bill C-238.
Unfortunately, the bill had not been fully considered when the
House dissolved for last summer's election. As a continuation of
that process, last October the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge reintroduced the aforementioned
measures with the hope that we would now have the opportunity to
fully debate them.
It would be inappropriate if I failed to acknowledge the
tremendous initiative and leadership demonstrated on this matter
by our colleague, the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. Not
only did this member commit to the establishment of the caucus
committee on gasoline pricing, he also agreed to act as our
chair.
As chair he was guaranteed long and irregular hours, a hectic
travel schedule and an endless barrage of what was at times a
hostile media assault. Without his determination and guidance I
know that the so-called gas caucus would never have come to
fruition.
Bill C-235 would establish a legislative basis for the
enforcement of industry-wide fair pricing policies. I submit
that the proposed measures would go a long way toward improving
the industry's rapidly emerging anti-competitive atmosphere.
However, these concrete and long overdue alterations also promise
to have a profound trickle down effect at the pumps, a result
that, especially with summer looming, I believe we can all
applaud.
In an effort to promote fair pricing rather than just cheap
pricing, Bill C-235 clearly establishes regulations for a
manufacturer who sells a product at the retail level and one who
sells either directly or through an affiliate while at the same
time supplying the product to a customer who competes with the
supplier at the retail level.
To simplify it, this bill would give the customer a fair
opportunity to make a profit similar to that of the supplier,
hence ending the practice known throughout the industry as
predatory pricing.
In addition, this bill would also establish a policy of
governance which would label any supplier who attempts to bully
or coerce a customer in the establishment of retail marketing
policy as one who has committed an anti-competitive act. That in
a nutshell is what this bill aims to resolve.
Over the course of the past several months the Liberal caucus
committee on gasoline pricing has extensively toured the country.
During that time we conducted a comprehensive series of public
hearings. Further to that, when in Ottawa we devoted a
considerable portion of our efforts and time to direct
consultations aimed at providing us with access to a wide
cross-section of the opinions held by consumers, retailers,
wholesalers and specialized interest groups.
Although the formal results of the aforementioned study will
soon be put forward in a report, at this time I can say that one
of the most common sentiments expressed to us was a sense of fear
resulting from the rapidly depleting pool of competition within
this industry.
The Department of Industry holds the primary responsibility for
ensuring that the provisions of the Competition Act are enforced.
Even though the department has in good faith conducted numerous
investigations into specific case violations of the Competition
Act, I fear that this would be similar to arming our currently
active duty military personnel with only black powder muskets. In
essence, the musket was at one time the most effective tool
available to the police and military, however, that is no longer
the case. It is not that the musket operates any differently
today than it did 100 years ago, but because the situation around
us has evolved so dramatically we need to develop new and
innovative ways to deal with the new and innovative problems we
are faced with today.
This analogy applies to the Competition Act more than most of us
would care to admit. The Canadian oil industry looks very
different today than it did only a few short years ago. This has
occurred in part as a result of the aggressive tactics and the
predatory pricing policies of the industry majors. The resulting
instability has placed the smaller independently owned dealers in
serious jeopardy of becoming a thing of the past.
One might wonder why parliament should concern itself with the
loss of a private, small and independently owned business. The
loss of one outlet, although not preferable, does not impact
tremendously when viewed in the context of the grand scheme of
things. However, when we start experiencing the loss of hundreds
or even thousands of them, alarm bells should start ringing.
The industry majors will freely admit that the little guy is
their best single source of competition, the most
effective method of keeping them honest. With that in mind would
it not stand to reason that each time the market loses an
independent that safeguard is weakened?
1845
It is regretful that over the course of the last 20 years a
disturbing trend has emerged within the industry. We are losing
independently owned establishments left, right and centre. Some
would argue this is a result of the reduced access to capital or
any number of other factors that small businesses routinely face.
I say the banks will not lend money because of the increasing
risks involved, risks that are skyrocketing because of unfair
competition within the market. The point is if we do not act
immediately to rectify the problem, we run the risk of missing
the boat on this issue. When the independents are gone they will
be gone forever.
My point is very basic. The Competition Act as it exists today
is not properly equipped to deal with the complicated issues
being generated by this sector of our economy.
The oil industry is unlike any other area of commerce. As such,
it requires highly specialized rules of governance, rules such as
those contained in Bill C-235. Bill C-235 is not a blanket
solution for all the regulatory problems that face us as
legislators. However, it is an important first step. Later this
month the committee will be formally releasing a comprehensive
report that will include a synopsis of the problems that exist
within the oil industry along with a series of potential
solutions. We need to take the initiative and move forward with
this step now if we are to prove to the public that we are
committed to resolving this matter.
I recall the gas prices of last summer and how my constituency
office was flooded with angry calls demanding that I do something
to deal with the exorbitant and rapidly fluctuating pump price of
gasoline. I could unfortunately do little to ease the concerns
of my constituents as the Competition Act applies only in
instances where there is collusion. It is an act that represents
only a very small part of a much larger problem.
Since that time I have taken an active role as a member of the
committee. In January I hosted a well attended public
consultation session in my riding with the gasoline pricing
committee. Further to that I have been on my feet in the House
on several occasions to present constituent petitions asking the
government to enact legislation that would require the oil
companies to justify in writing to the Minister of Natural
Resources the reasons for any substantial fluctuation in the pump
price per litre.
I have said it before and I will say it again. If we opt for
inaction then we opt for a continuation of the unfair,
anti-competitive and highly unjustifiable pricing policies of
this country's major oil companies. That is totally unacceptable
to me and it is totally unacceptable to the constituents I
represent. I want to clarify that I am not attempting to paint
the majors as evil villains. I want to ensure adequate statutes
are in place to ensure they are accountable to individuals who
rely on them and their products.
In rural Canada as in many other sectors of this nation, public
transportation is simply not available. Services are miles apart
and therefore personal transportation is a necessity rather than
a luxury. We would not stand for unwarranted and unexplained
vacillation in the price of food, home rental costs, medicine or
other basic essentials. Why have we accepted it with gasoline?
We need to establish accountability.
I urge each of my colleagues to support Bill C-235. It is a
good bill deserving of our support. I understand that pump
prices are low right now, as low as they have been in months, but
that is not the point. This bill is not demanding bargain
basement prices. It is calling for fair prices. High or low is
not necessarily the issue. Often as a result of predatory
pricing extremely low prices cause the most difficulty for the
aforementioned independents. Selling at less than the rack price
allows the majors to undercut their competition, hence
eliminating any recognizable profit margin. We are all aware of
what profit loss means to a business.
A continuation of predatory prices is a prime example of short
term gain for long term pain. Right now parliament has the
ability to prevent a looming disaster. If we wait for all the
competition to be eliminated from the market then what we have
remaining is an uncontrollable monopoly that has the ability to
unilaterally dictate the price and availability of one of the
country's most essential commodities.
I reiterate my support and gratitude for the actions taken and
proposed by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
I will be supporting this bill. I sincerely hope that each of my
colleagues will be doing likewise.
1850
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.50 p.m., 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
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
FISHERIES
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise to speak on the long term viability of the Canadian
freshwater fishery.
I am delighted to see that this issue has started to attract
real political and public attention. I am also pleased to
declare that this new focus has started a dialogue between
stakeholders and government, hence promoting constructive
criticism of the effectiveness of the program, the public image
an the spending habits of DFO.
The Great Lakes commercial and recreational fisheries are among
the world's finest. It is estimated that the Ontario sport
fishery alone annually contributes over $60 million in GST to the
federal treasury alone, a figure that does not consider the
millions of tourist dollars and other economic spinoffs that
result from the fishing industry. In short, the Great Lakes offer
Canadians much more than fish.
The standing committee recently completed a tour of the Great
Lakes region endeavouring to examine the geographic locations
that are most dependent on the fishery. To this end, we invited
stakeholders to come forward with their ideas and comments. I
would describe the trip as productive. However, what we
witnessed and what we were told can only be described as
troubling.
DFO's public image seems to be floating belly up. Power
devolution and spending cuts have decimated DFO's Ontario
operations and as a result we encountered the perception that DFO
has only a minuscule impact on the daily lives of those involved
in the industry, an impression that seems to grow with every
dollar cut from DFO's Ontario budget.
I regret having to sound alarms. However, we must take note of
the emerging trend in Ontario. I do not advocate casting away
money. However, I do believe that strategic investment is needed.
The committee recently put forward reports on the failing status
of the east and west coasts fisheries, fisheries that only a
short time ago sustained millions. Those reports outline a bleak
coastal situation. If one believes in foreshadowing, then these
documents could have implications here. In essence, by opting
for inaction we opt to continue along a path toward the end of
this country's freshwater fishery.
In 1492 Columbus wrote that the fish in the Grand Banks were so
plentiful that they slowed his ships. What a difference a few
years can make.
I would be remiss if I failed to congratulate the current
minister for his actions on this matter. This minister has taken
a personal interest in the affairs of DFO in Ontario. The
minister recently stated that the government remains committed to
protecting the inland fisheries resources, particularly of the
Great Lakes. To prove his sincerity, shortly thereafter he
announced an increase to the sea lamprey control budget, a move
applauded by stakeholders across all Ontario.
The aforementioned represents a first step. However, there is
much yet to do. The committee will be presenting a report on the
status of the Canadian freshwater fishery based on information
provided by individuals and groups that understand the issues
better than almost anyone here, the frontline stakeholders.
I recently presented a motion in committee calling for the long
term adequate and priority funding of the sea lamprey control
program which was adopted unanimously by the committee. Members,
including the parliamentary secretary, eagerly await the
minister's response to this motion.
We must work to resolve the many potentially devastating issues
facing our fishery. The Great Lakes are a substantial inland
resources. With that in mind it is our duty to take a proactive
leadership role in their management. By working co-operatively
with stakeholders, with the U.S. through the international joint
commission and by consulting the province of Ontario we will
ensure the sustainability of this resource.
I have lived my entire life only a few miles from Lake Huron. As
such, I am acutely aware of the pivotal role the lakes play in
the socioeconomic development of their bordering communities. I
urge members to realize this fact also. It is time to fish or
cut bait.
If we do not have the infrastructure, personnel and funding in
place to effectively manage the Great Lakes, we must make it
available. Failure is not an option. We must learn from our
past mistakes and move to ensure that the Great Lakes continue to
be a valuable asset to the people and to the economy of central
Canada.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I recognize the
hard work of the member for Huron—Bruce on both the fisheries
committee and on his trying to achieve and arguing for funding
for the sea lamprey program in the lakes.
1855
For members who may not be aware of this issue, sea lampreys are
parasitic eel like fish that as adults attach themselves to other
fish species and feed on their prey's body fluids. This is why
they can cause great harm to fisheries resources and why the
Great Lakes fisheries commission has worked over the years to
control them. After spending four to seven years in a larva
phase a sea lamprey lives one to one and a half years as an
adult. It is during the adult phase that sea lampreys cause the
most harm, killing up to 40 pounds of fish before they return to
the rivers to spawn and die.
The main method used by the Great Lakes fisheries commission to
control this parasite is to apply a lampricide in the rivers
where the adult animals spawn. Although toxic to sea lamprey,
the chemicals used have minimal effects on plants and other
aquatic organisms.
As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced on April 1 of
this year, the federal government has renewed its support for the
Great Lakes fisheries commission. The federal government will
contribute $6 million in fiscal year 1998-99 to continue the sea
lamprey control program, an increase of over 14% over the last
year. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans commitment to sea
lamprey control is also not limited to funding for the Great
Lakes fisheries commission. In addition to direct support for
control of the parasite, the department carries out freshwater
science programs that provide indirect support to the commission.
The hon. member would like a long term commitment with respect
to funding for a sea lamprey control program in the Great Lakes.
I am sure he would—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the time
has expired.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise this evening on this
adjournment motion to ask the government for additional
information on the entire question of unemployment insurance.
The Bloc Quebecois has decided to make this week in parliament
employment insurance week. We have poured our energies into
drawing the government's attention to the experiences of the
unemployed.
I think we have succeeded. We have pointed out totally
unacceptable situations, such as the fact that only 41% of those
unemployed are receiving benefits. Even worse, only 26% of
young people paying premiums actually end up receiving benefits.
This is totally unacceptable. And the government has not
denied it.
The only reason offered by the Minister of Human Resources
Development is that employment insurance requirements were
tightened to keep students in school. I consider this an insult
to our young people who have finished their studies and are
entering the labour market. Is the minister unaware of what
these people do as a job? When they enter the labour market
they find precarious jobs, short term contracts for a few weeks
or a few months.
In the first year they have to work 910 hours to be entitled to
employment insurance, that is 26 weeks of 35 hours each. If it
were possible, it would be 62 weeks of 15 hours, but there is no
such thing as a 62 week year. There are only 52 weeks in a
year.
In the end, with the new criteria, young people are
systematically excluded, and three out of four unemployed young
people do not receive benefits. That is totally unacceptable.
The week was encouraging because employment insurance and what
the unemployed are going through drew public attention and
because the Bloc hung on and made its point and got public
support.
The sad part is that the minister talks about concentrating on
active measures. They are important, but the federal government
has delegated them to the provinces to a large extent under
manpower agreements.
However, the federal government has not delegated what it calls
passive measures.
Making sure someone has a decent income between jobs is not what
I would call a passive measure. I think this kind of measure is
essential to ensure that an unemployed person has a decent
income and is able to meet his or her daily financial
obligations.
1900
Employment insurance is also an active measure because it keeps
people off the welfare roles. It is a known fact that, when
people are forced to rely on welfare, when they receive welfare
benefits over an extended period of time, it is much more
difficult for them to re-enter the labour force. They lose touch
with the existing networks. They are no longer used to compete
for jobs. These are difficult situations.
The employment insurance program prevents people from having to
rely on welfare. It is not a gift. Employment insurance is an
acceptable social safety net that allows people to stay in the
system.
For a long time, there was an agreement in Canada whereby
resource based regions, such as the maritimes and certain parts
of Quebec, would develop our natural resources in areas such as
agriculture, forestry and tourism. On the other hand—and I will
conclude my remarks on that note—central regions would have
year round jobs. This agreement was broken by the employment
insurance reform—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
member but his time has expired.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in reply to my hon.
colleague I would simply like to repeat what was told to him a
short time ago. It is something which I think the hon. member
understands very well.
Since March 1997 social assistance caseloads have declined in
the provinces throughout Canada. The most recent figures from
the Government of Quebec show that 436,200 households were on
social assistance, which is the lowest number of cases since
January 1993.
Some EI recipients eventually turn to social assistance, but a
proportion of social assistance recipients have always been
persons who either did not qualify for EI under the old rules or
have exhausted their EI benefits. The vast majority of EI
claimants, however, do not exhaust their benefits. They find
other employment within 40 weeks of becoming unemployed.
As was told to the hon. member just on Monday, the government's
employment insurance reform included bold new measures to help
modernize the system and to better help Canadians to find and
keep a job.
First, we chose to invest more funds in active measures such as
wage subsidies or self-employment assistance to help Canadians
return to work as quickly as possible. These measures have a
proven track record in helping people find jobs and get back to
work.
Second, we have broadened the eligibility for these measures so
that all Canadians who received EI or UI in the last three years
can now benefit from these active measures as can people who
collect maternity or paternal benefits during the last five years
and then withdrew from the labour force to care for their child.
These are very important measures that I am sure the hon. member
will appreciate. We have actively engaged the problem of
unemployment, especially youth employment, and we are succeeding
in the battle.
NUCLEAR WASTE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the people in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington and
Canadians all across Canada are very concerned about our
environment and what we as a society and as a country are doing
to our environment both good and bad.
People know and understand that we need to do everything
possible to protect and preserve our environment. People know
and understand that we must not make decisions which will have
harmful effects on our environment. People also know and
understand that we need to pass on a clean and safe environment
to future generations of Canadians. We owe this to our children
and to our children's children.
The disposal of nuclear waste is a concern which is important to
all Canadians. There is more than 1.2 million bundles of spent
fuel, nearly 30,000 tonnes, in temporary above-ground storage at
nuclear facilities across Canada. A lot of work has gone on to
find a solution regarding proper and safe disposal of this kind
of material.
I remind the House that the Atomic Energy Board of Canada Ltd.
supported by Ontario Hydro has spent a considerable amount of
time and resources on research to prove that creating enormous
vaults inside the granite of the Canadian Shield is the best and
safest method of disposal of nuclear waste.
The Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. research showed that technology
behind the proposed burial was safe. However Canadians remain
sceptical and are not convinced that the solution was absolutely
foolproof.
1905
Accordingly a Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel
decided it could not endorse disposal of nuclear waste in this
manner. The panel is quoted as saying “While the safety of the
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited concept has been adequately
demonstrated from a technical perspective, from a social
perspective it has not”. In addition the panel said “the Atomic
Energy of Canada Limited concept in its current form for deep
geologic disposal does not have broad public support and does not
have the required level of acceptability to be adopted as
Canada's approach for managing nuclear fuel waste”.
As a federal government we need to make a decision on how to
provide long term management of nuclear waste. It is important
that we do so knowing that nuclear waste can remain harmful to
the environment and health for up to 500 years and radioactive
for as long as 10,000 years.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is straightforward.
What does the government plan to do to dispose of nuclear waste
in Canada?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for a very
important and pertinent question. The member has raised the
question on the floor of the House of Commons on several
occasions. He has also met with the Minister of Natural
Resources to discuss the matter in person. I think the House
should show its appreciation and respect for the hon. member's
very diligent interventions on this issue.
Let me be quite clear that the present practice of storing
nuclear fuel waste at the reactor sites throughout Canada is done
in a very safe, efficient and responsible manner. However the
Government of Canada wants to be more sure that we have an
appropriate long term solution for the waste that is created in
our Atomic Energy of Canada Limited facilities as well as
facilities throughout Canada.
We would like to develop the concept of deep geological disposal
of nuclear waste in the granite rock of the Canadian Shield. This
was a proposal which was investigated under a public review of
this concept which was initiated in 1998 under the federal
environmental assessment and review guidelines order.
An eight member Canadian environmental assessment panel chaired
by Mr. Blair Seaborn held public hearings in five provinces which
have a nuclear interest. On March 13, 1998 the Seaborn panel
released its recommendations to the government regarding the
safety and acceptability of the AECL concept.
The Seaborn panel report found that from a technical
perspective, safety of the geological disposal concept had been
adequately demonstrated from the conceptual stage of development.
However the disposal concept in its current form did not enjoy
broad public support.
The panel recommended that a nuclear waste management agency be
established quickly. The panel also recommended that the first
steps for such an agency would be to deal with the stated lack of
broad public support necessary to ensure the acceptability—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the time
has expired.
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 7.07 p.m.)