EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 139
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 21, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL SPACE DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE FRANK DOWLING
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVES
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN FISHING
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1405
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE KENNETH K. CARROLL
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Fontana |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MADELEINE GAGNON
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COM DEV INTERNATIONAL
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
1410
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VOLVO
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH CENTRES
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1415
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCUEIL BONNEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1440
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1445
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1450
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1455
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1500
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GREENPEACE
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transport
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1505
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1510
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ivan Grose |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-445. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-446. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1515
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-225
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tobacco Sponsorship
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1520
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Iran
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bank Mergers
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1525
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Property Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOLIDAYS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-370
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1530
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1555
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1600
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
1635
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
1650
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1725
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-283. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1750
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1755
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1800
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1815
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1820
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1825
![V](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1830
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 139
![](/web/20061116174727im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, October 21, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL SPACE DAY
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Space Agency has a walk-in
type exhibit of the international space station on display on
Parliament Hill until tomorrow.
It is part of Canada's ongoing celebration of National Space
Day, held on October 16, which allows us to voice pride in our
nation's achievements in space, as well as being a source of
inspiration for our youth.
In 1996 the space industry employed 5,000 across Canada,
contributed $1 billion in annual revenues and enjoyed a 30%
export ratio, the highest in the world.
The Canadian space program provides countless opportunities for
academic, economic and social growth. In fact this industry is
both directly and indirectly responsible for many high paying
jobs in my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale.
I encourage all of my colleagues to visit NASA's educational and
interactive display.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
Wednesday I rode along with an RCMP officer of the Kelowna
detachment. First there was a security alarm at the superstore.
Next he investigated a complaint from a woman who was being
harassed by her ex-boyfriend. Then there was a domestic dispute.
“Oh no, but let's go”, the officer said.
With gentle language yet firm authority and command of the
situation the officers—we had backup—separated the disputing
parties and restored peace at least for that night.
Next we picked up a man who was off his medication. Earlier
that night he had tried to enter a stranger's house. We took him
to the hospital.
We investigated a break and enter.
This was but a small sample of what our police officers do every
night. Our streets are safe because of the dedication and
actions of these men and women.
It is too bad that the government has cut funding for the RCMP.
Instead the government is wasting money on a useless gun
registration program.
* * *
THE LATE FRANK DOWLING
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on September 29, at the age of 84, Frank Dowling died at Credit
Valley Hospital of complications from heart disease and cancer.
Mr. Dowling was the first mayor of the town of Streetsville, a
distinct community within my riding and the city of Mississauga.
He lived in Streetsville all his life and served the community as
an elected official and volunteer.
First elected to the village council in 1948, he became the
first deputy reeve in 1956 and then reeve in 1958. When
Streetsville became a town in 1962, Mr. Dowling was elected
mayor. His efforts ensured that Streetsville maintained its
unique character despite being amalgamated into the city of
Mississauga in 1974.
Always the community activist, he served as president of the
Streetsville Lion's Club and director of the Peel Children's Aid
Society.
Mr. Dowling was a compassionate and dedicated person. He was an
honest man who truly cared about others and his community. He
will be missed by many.
* * *
NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVES
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week was National Co-op Week.
In recognition of this event I invite members of the House and
all Canadians to celebrate the contributions of the men and women
who have chosen co-operative enterprise as their way of promoting
the social and economic well-being of Canadian communities.
Some 10,000 Canadian co-operatives are a powerful social and
economic force in Canada today.
Co-operatives have proven themselves to be a major job creator.
In 1996 they employed more than 151,000 Canadians and generated a
combined business volume of $36.3 billion.
I wish to congratulate all those in the co-operative movement
for their considerable achievements over the past year and I
invite all Canadians to join in the celebration of co-ops in
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I announced some good news for the economy, and I will
again today. This morning, Statistics Canada reported a 0.2%
decrease in the consumer lending index for August-September, the
biggest monthly drop in the past year.
Last Wednesday, the Minister of Finance announced that the
Canadian Government had succeeded in having its first budget
surplus in 28 years. Our government is managing public funds
cautiously and efficiently.
Solutions like the ones certain opposition parties are calling
for are out of the question. They would put us all back into
debt. We have no right to betray the trust of the Canadian
people.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN FISHING
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what is it about dealing with foreign fishing issues
that makes our minister of oceans fold up like a deck of cards?
Whether foreigners are grabbing fish bound for Canadian waters
on the west coast or engaging in a scorched earth policy on the
east coast, the minister continues to put other fisheries ahead
of our own.
Now we find that the minister has given the Makah natives a
licence to hunt grey whale in Canada with an illegal high-powered
50 calibre weapon. In effect he is helping to destroy the
international ban on whaling, licensing the use of an illegal 50
calibre weapon in Canada and putting Canadian lives in danger.
Even the Humane Society is complaining.
1405
Rather than extending a welcoming hand to Americans involved in
this hunt the minister should be filing a formal protest to make
sure the hunt never happens.
The minister has changed his mind four times on this hunt.
Change it again, Mr. Minister. Do the right thing. Stop the
hunting of grey whales.
* * *
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in honour of Women's History Month in
Canada I would like to add my voice to those who support the
initiative. I believe that it is important to the young women of
our country. They need role models and mentors to meet the
challenges of their adult lives with confidence. What better way
to learn than through the stories of their foremothers?
As mathematicians, firefighters and astronauts, as lab
technicians, architects and farmers, women are increasingly
defying the stereotypes about what constitutes women's work.
These women are following in the footsteps of trailblazers like
Harriet Brooks, Canada's first woman nuclear physicist.
By uncovering the often overlooked stories of women's diverse
contributions to society we acknowledge women's role in history.
We support a better understanding of what women do today. We
open up the future for young women. More important than that, we
change not only who but what goes into Canadian history books.
* * *
THE LATE KENNETH K. CARROLL
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with the death of Kenneth K. Carroll on October 3, 1998, London,
Ontario, Canada lost its premier nutrition biochemist.
Dr. Carroll was born in New Brunswick and came to the University
of Western Ontario as a student. He received the first Ph.D.
ever at the UWO.
Dr. Carroll performed a lifetime of pioneering work on the links
between dietary components and disease and disease prevention,
specifically with relation to breast cancer. He was the founding
director of the Centre for Human Nutrition at the university. He
trained numerous graduate students, postdoctoral fellows,
technologists, research associates and visiting professors. His
lab was an international training centre. He worked
energetically every day, right up until shortly before his death.
Dr. Carroll was a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and
received the lifetime achievement award of the American Oil
Chemists Society in 1995.
Plans have been developed to establish the Ken Carroll chair in
human nutrition at the UWO.
Dr. Carroll was a highly respected and internationally sought
Canadian scientist who brought honour—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, many Canadian farmers are worried that they will not be
able to feed their families or keep their farms. Farm commodity
prices have collapsed and many farmers' 1998 income will only be
25% of what it was two years ago. Yet the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food and this government continue to say
“Don't worry”.
This government refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food continues to state that
the net income stabilization account will be sufficient to
address producers' concerns. The minister must know that NISA
accounts will not even cover farm expenses. We must begin to
discuss solutions to this emergency today. We cannot afford to
wait until producers are forced off the land.
I call on the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to admit the
problem and admit that his safety net program is inadequate to
deal with this crisis. I call on this minister to sit down and
discuss real solutions to the emergency. The minister can start
tomorrow when we start considering international trade issues at
the agriculture committee.
* * *
[Translation]
MADELEINE GAGNON
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Madeleine
Gagnon was elected to the Académie canadienne-française in 1987.
She has been the recipient of numerous literary awards,
including the Governor General's, the Arthur-Buies, and those
given out by the Journal de Montréal and Aquimédia.
This prolific writer, teacher and speaker has frequently been
invited as a keynote lecturer at a variety of Canadian and
European universities.
A native of Amqui, Madeleine Gagnon returned there for the
inspiration of her literary works. A superb role model, she is
a source of great pride to the people of her birth place, which
she has always depicted so masterfully in her books.
For all of these reasons, her excellent literary reputation in
particular, Madeleine Gagnon is the ideal person to ensure that
the Amqui municipal library develops to its full cultural
potential.
Congratulations, Madeleine.
* * *
[English]
COM DEV INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week
COM DEV International of my riding of Cambridge and National
Defence signed an $8.6 million R and D contract to provide
Canada's armed forces its own cutting edge military satellite
communications system.
1410
With its new Beam*Link processor technology, COM DEV Space
Group's military satellite payload subsystem will be 30% more
efficient and will boost the commercial export success of
Canadian industry.
This is one of several projects DND and COM DEV have
collaborated on since the early 1980s and will help to position
COM DEV to secure future American military satellite contracts.
I applaud COM DEV, the Minister of National Defence and R and D
for their activities.
* * *
VOLVO
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at
5.30 this morning Volvo employees in my riding took over the
plant. It should never have happened.
This Liberal government planted the bomb, lit the fuse and
walked away. This government planted the bomb when it decided in
the last round of world trade talks to lower auto tariffs. It
lit the fuse by fostering NAFTA and now Volvo says “Goodbye
Canada, hello Mexico”.
This government walked away, making no contingency plans for
what happens next. These workers are afraid for their future and
their families' future.
Volvo told the workers that if they uttered a bad word about the
plant closing they would lose their severance.
Now I understand Volvo plans to deny severance to compensate for
years of work if an employee is lucky enough to find another job.
Now we have an occupied plant and police involvement.
In September I asked the industry minister to get involved in
finding solutions to the Volvo mess. I and the people involved
in this crisis are still waiting.
* * *
[Translation]
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, October
being Women's History Month and this year's theme “The Business
of Women: An Evolving Story”, I would like to acknowledge the
courage and imagination of all the women who made it into our
history books, these repositories of our collective memory, as
well as the many other women who did not.
Longueuil has a rich tradition of women who made their mark,
including Simone Monet-Chartrand in the fields of human rights
and literature, Jeanine Lavoix-Picard, the first woman elected
municipal councillor, and the famous hat marker Yvette Brillon
in the entrepreneurship category, to name but a few.
Women in business are nothing new, but today we can say they
have become leaders in terms of job creation and economic
growth. The “business of women” means entrepreneurship, of
course, but also all the work done by women in their own homes
and communities.
October is the month to remember all the women who have
contributed to our evolution.
The Speaker: It is not often that one of our members has a baby.
Congratulations, Caroline.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
YOUTH CENTRES
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday, October 19, I attended the opening of a new workshop run
by the Montreal youth centres, in my beautiful riding of
Verdun—Saint-Henri, at Pointe-Saint-Charles to be precise. These
youth centres have decided to work together to help young people
who are not properly prepared for the labour market.
Indeed, young people between the ages of 18 and 24 living in
low-income neighbourhoods have one of the highest unemployment
rates on the island of Montreal. According to Statistics Canada,
it was close to 21.2% in 1996. From March 1998 to March 1999,
Human Resources Development will be funding the project to the
tune of $147,156, or 58% of the project cost.
Our young people must be well prepared because, the youth
unemployment rate being what it is, they are facing a major
challenge—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Shefford.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, November 24,
1989 saw this House unite in a rare gesture of solidarity around
a matter of national urgency and unanimously pass a resolution
expressing its common desire to eliminate child poverty by the
year 2000.
Despite this clear and, I repeat, unanimous resolution, Canada
now has 500,000 more poor children than it did in 1989. In
fact, the child poverty rate has increased from 14.5% to 21%,
meaning that one child in five now lives in a poor family.
I find these statistics alarming and once again urge the
Minister of Finance to give priority to children in the next
federal budget by indexing the national child benefit, among
other things.
* * *
1415
ACCUEIL BONNEAU
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are some occasions where agreement among all
political parties is readily forthcoming, one example being the
rebuilding of Accueil Bonneau.
Every year, the extraordinary team of volunteers at Accueil
Bonneau serves 250,000 meals and snacks. Accueil Bonneau is a
wonderful example of people working together in the fight
against poverty right here in our community.
The solidarity and almost superhuman effort of those who rolled
up their sleeves last June and have now rebuilt this welcoming
shelter deserves our admiration.
Bravo to the many volunteers and to all politicians in Montreal.
We thank them, and mention in passing that our government was
also involved in this profoundly humane gesture of solidarity.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
60% of Canadians think that the APEC clamp down is a matter worth
investigating because it deals with the issue of human rights and
a potential cover up in the Prime Minister's Office. However he
responds with jokes and attacks on students, the media, the
opposition and anyone else who even dares question him.
Since he refuses to voluntarily appear before the inquiry, how
will Canadians ever know the extent of the Prime Minister's
involvement in the APEC deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is an inquiry going on under the laws of
parliament. It is in process at this moment. We want the
commission to do its work. It has started to hear witnesses. It
has asked to have documents from my office and everything that
was available.
Everything has been made available, and my chief of staff and
other persons are available to the commission. Let the
commission do its work. It is the way that we will get at the
truth for the benefit of all Canadians.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is fine to talk about the conduct of the RCMP and what is
going on at the investigation, but the Prime Minister's
involvement is what Canadians want to know about.
The Prime Minister is not going to be able to just “little
guy” his way out of this. Canadians want to know about his
conduct and his involvement.
Will the Prime Minister stand and talk about his conduct in the
affair? How is the big guy going to talk his way out of this
one?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very simple; we are not afraid of the truth at
all. On the contrary, we want Canadians to know exactly what
happened there. That is why we want the commission to do its
work.
I know when opposition members see the commission making
progress they are afraid to know the truth. We are not afraid of
the truth at all because we know that if the police have done
something wrong we will be informed.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if the Prime Minister is not afraid of the truth, he should get
himself on an airplane and get out to that inquiry and tell it
exactly what the story was. That is the problem.
It seems to me that the government and the solicitor general
have already determined what the truth is. We want to know about
the Prime Minister's actions, not the RCMP. We know they are
being investigated.
I ask the Prime Minister right here, right now, what was the
level of his own involvement in this, or is the Shawinigan
schemer just going to say “It is none of your business?”
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1420
The Speaker: It is Wednesday and we know it. I urge all
members to try to keep their words a little more reserved.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was there as Prime Minister of Canada hosting the
heads of government of all members of APEC. It was one of the
most important international meetings held in Canada.
I was the host of all heads of government, including the
President of the United States, the President of China and the
Prime Minister of Japan. I wanted to make sure they had a good
meeting, that they would have a peaceful discussion—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The Prime Minister, if he so wants, has more
time.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, all these nations
were at this international meeting to discuss the extremely
important problem of the crisis in the Pacific at that time. My
role was to chair that meeting. Everybody said that it was a
very good meeting.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the RCMP was asked to release all relevant documents and tapes on
the APEC affair, but a majority of the audio tapes of the RCMP
radio transmissions around the affair is not available.
According to a source within the RCMP “Jean Carle wants this”
and “Jean Carle wants that” are all over these tapes. Jean
Carle was the director of operations for the Prime Minister. Is
that why these tapes are missing?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the counsel to the commissioners said that they are very
satisfied with the co-operation they are getting from the
government. They are having access to all kinds of information.
There have been no problems in that regard at all.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
all the officers who were on duty that day heard the name Jean
Carle this and Jean Carle that. Yet surprisingly any of the
documentation, tapes or transcripts that have been revealed by
the commission to this point do not include his name.
My question is very straightforward. If Jean Carle was giving
direction to the RCMP about the operation, who was giving Jean
Carle his direction?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the counsel has said that there has been no
problem in that regard. I understand the gentleman in question
is appearing before the counsel himself.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General found themselves in
hot water over the “Peppergate” affair, the president of the
Liberal caucus is now blaming the young victims' lawyers. This
is crazy.
Not only should the students be grateful not to have been hit
over the head with baseball bats, but their lawyers should
apologize for not working for free. Where will the government's
arrogance stop?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a matter of fact the complainants in this case were
the people who requested this hearing.
The public complaints commission was established to deal with
these kinds of issues and that is exactly what it is doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during the Somalia inquiry, the government took aim at Justice
Létourneau. During the tainted blood inquiry, the government
took aim at Justice Krever. Now, in the “Peppergate” inquiry,
the government is taking aim at the young victims.
Is it not sad to see that, whenever its actions are called into
question, this government's only defence is to blame others,
without ever admitting that it was wrong?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
can assure the Bloc Quebecois leader that we never targeted
Justice Létourneau and Justice Krever. We took their
recommendations into consideration.
1425
In this case, the students are represented by the commission's
lawyer. The commission was set up to allow any citizen to file a
complaint against the police without having to hire lawyers to
represent him or her.
The court officer is there to serve the students, and he stated
that he would provide them with all the services they—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlesbourg.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP
has lawyers paid with public funds, the Government of Canada has
lawyers paid with public funds and even the CBC cameraman has a
lawyer paid with public funds. In the end, the only ones
without lawyers are the students who got beaten up in Vancouver.
Why does the Prime Minister not realize that his position is
untenable?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the complainants in this case have the public complaints
commission.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are
going to talk about that very thing.
The Solicitor General said yesterday that the commission's funds
could not be used to pay a lawyer for the students.
How can the Prime Minister let people think that the commission
can look after representation for the students, when his
Solicitor General has said the very opposite?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said yesterday, we have increased the amount of
money available to the public complaints commission by some
$650,000 to facilitate the process in the way that parliament
originally intended.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday we had the very disturbing announcement by CN of a
permanent layoff of 3,000 workers. This was on top of another
recent announcement by Volvo in Halifax of closure. All these
were done only in the name of preserving shareholder value.
The Minister of Finance often lectures Canadians on their
responsibility to seek work. Does he not feel that corporations
have a responsibility to maintain employment in this country and
not lay off people permanently or otherwise simply to increase
their shareholder value? Is there not such a thing as corporate
responsibility in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decisions that are taken by private corporations are
decisions which reside within the capacity of those corporations.
That being said, I have said on numerous occasions that the
downsizing which has taken place over the last two or three years
in many cases is the equivalent of dumbsizing. In fact, it leads
to lack of employee loyalty. It leads to absenteeism. I do not
think it makes a lot of sense.
This is not to deal with this particular issue, but it certainly
deals with a movement that we have seen throughout North America.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the reason CN is a private company is that the treachery
of the Liberal Party sold off the CNR and made it for all intents
and purposes an American owned company that now operates without
giving two hoots about Canada.
Does the Minister of Finance not see that this was a mistake?
Will he be speaking to CN about operating in the interests of
Canada and not in the interests of its 60% American shareholders
thanks to the Liberal Party of Canada?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am quite affronted. The hon. member talks about
treachery when he knows he is talking about a decision
democratically taken by members of the House of Commons to
privatize Canadian National Railways. I think he should withdraw
that slight of CN and members of the House.
As the Minister of Finance has said recently there are some
troubled waters. There are ups and downs in the economy and what
CN is doing is reflecting a downturn in revenues.
Let us hope that this will only be temporary and that those
people will be rehired at a later date.
* * *
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister must be aware that one of his patronage appointments
committed a most repugnant act.
John Frecker, deputy chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board,
has admitted to giving a nazi salute and a sieg heil comment to
another board member who is a Holocaust survivor. Such behaviour
is disgraceful and should not be tolerated.
The Prime Minister appointed Mr. Frecker. We know the Prime
Minister likes shaking hands with dictators who abuse human
rights, but will he do the right thing here and will he replace
John Frecker immediately?
1430
The Speaker: I am going to let the minister of
immigration answer the question if she wants to.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an unfortunate incident
occurred on the Immigration and Refugee Board. The commission
chair—and I would remind the House that this commission is a
quasi-judicial tribunal—requested an outside inquiry, which was
carried out revealing no general problem within the commission.
The individual in question offered an apology to the entire
staff of the commission. Accordingly, as far as I, the minister
responsible, am concerned the matter is closed.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we are
aware of the apology but that is not enough. The Immigration Act
allows for a public judicial inquiry to investigate the need for
disciplinary action against members of the refugee board. Instead
of a public inquiry the same lawyer who is representing the
government on APEC affairs was hired to do a report on the
Frecker case. The refugee board hears the cases of people
fleeing genocide, murder and torture and so on.
Why was there no public inquiry into Frecker's actions. Is this
another cover-up like APEC?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party is blowing the situation out of proportion.
It was handled well by the chair of the Immigration and Refugee
Board. The people involved in the incident accepted the
individual's apologies and, as far as the commission is
concerned, the matter is closed.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to RCMP tapes Jean Carle was the man giving the orders
to the RCMP at APEC.
My question is to the Prime Minister and it is very simple. Did
he give Jean Carle the green light and order the clamp down at
APEC, yes or no?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as everyone in this House knows, there is an inquiry
going on in Vancouver. It is being done in the way that
parliament feels these kinds of issues should be dealt with. The
commission counsel has access to $650,000 additional dollars to
make sure everyone has the assistance they need to ensure this is
done fairly.
I wish hon. members would let us get to the truth.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Prime Minister. The only thing we want to hear
the solicitor general say when he stands up is “I resign”.
The Prime Minister is the only man in Canada who can clarify
this issue. Let us try it again. Was Jean Carle acting on the
orders of the Prime Minister, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Carle will be a witness. He volunteered to be a
witness. Let him appear in front of the commission. The
commission will hear him. Mr. Carle was responsible for the
operation because it was a summit receiving 18 other leaders of
the world. Mr. Carle had to be communicating with everyone. He
is a witness. He volunteered to be a witness and he gave all the
documents the commission asked him for.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development
used to tell us to wait for his study if we wanted to know the
changes to be made to his program. Now he is using that study
to disguise reality and to cover his colleague in finance, who
wants to get his hands on the EI surplus.
Does the minister admit that the reality presented in his study
is that, out of 100 unemployed workers who have paid into the
fund, only 43 drew benefits?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong, and
he knows it. The hon. member is mistaken, and he has understood
nothing in the study. Let us be clear, and I will make it clear
for once and for all: 78% of those who contribute to employment
insurance draw benefits from our system.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to have a look at the
table on page 47 of his study, and then he will make no more
ridiculous statements like that one.
The minister should tailor the employment insurance program to
the new needs of the labour market. When we see that only 43%
of unemployed workers who contributed to the plan received
benefits in 1997, does the minister acknowledge that his program
has been tailored to fit the Minister of Finance's need of funds
far more than to fit the needs of the labour market?
1435
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it blows me away to see how
incapable the Bloc Quebecois members are of doing their homework
and reading the most elementary of studies.
The contributor-recipient ratio is not a good tool for measuring
the efficiency of the system. The 58% of unemployed they refer
to are people who never contributed to the employment insurance
system. They are young people who are coming on the labour
market but have not yet taken part in the labour market. They
are self-employed workers, who are not covered, and for whom
employment insurance was never intended. They are people who
have been out of work for more than a year and have not
contributed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeland.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
international drug cartels have targeted our refugee system as an
easy mark to get their dealers on to our streets.
Last week Vancouver police arrested 72 drug dealers, most of
whom were refugee claimants. Rather than taking action to fix
the situation our immigration minister says it is not her
problem, it is a police problem.
I would like the minister to stop passing the buck and to admit
this problem is her responsibility and not that of the police.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our department is very aware of
the present state of affairs in Vancouver and is concerned about
drug trafficking.
Despite what the opposition member just said, it was my
department that created a committee last May to co-ordinate the
efforts of all agencies involved, including the police, in order
to find out exactly what is going on.
The Immigration Act provides us with all the tools we need, and
if foreign nationals are found guilty of crimes in Canada, we
will be able to deport them.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I will tell the minister what is going on because I was on the
streets of Vancouver and I saw what was happening.
Refugees are abusing this system and dealing drugs on our
streets. The police are calling for action. Officials in her
own department are calling for action. She sits by and pushes
papers. Why does she not push these pushers out of the country?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I trust that, as Canadians,
Reform Party members subscribe to our justice system and its
presumption of innocence.
Someone charged with a crime is not immediately presumed to be a
criminal. The judicial process must be allowed to take its
course. But the moment people are sentenced, it is very clear
that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will take
action.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Human Resources Development has already told us that young
people will no longer have access to benefits as the result of
his reform, because, and I quote “Every time we give young
people ready access to the employment insurance system, we do
them no favour”.
Is the minister not ashamed at having all the young people pay
contributions, when, for their own good, they are essentially
denied access to benefits?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Human
Resources Development in a responsible government, I consider it
vital to not help young people gain easy access to a precarious
life where they move from one little job to another. That is
what I said.
As for those who have contributed, most
of them get their contributions back at the end of the year when
they are not covered.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I understand
from the minister is that he is looking out for the welfare of
the young people, but in exchange he wants to take money from
their pockets to give to the Minister of Finance. That is
unacceptable.
Let us take as an example a young person who has
worked ten hours a week at McDonald's. Will the minister
acknowledge that this young person had not been contributing
before and now he is, except that he no longer qualifies for EI.
1440
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is vital that the system be
fair and help young people get somewhere in life.
We are being criticized for having set up an hour based system.
We did change from a system based on weeks to one based on hours
and I think this arrangement has helped women in particular,
because they work in part time jobs, which are now covered,
whereas they were not in the past. This is a much more
interesting situation.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I met with many farmers in the last while and they have
a message for the minister of agriculture. There is a farm
income crisis on the prairies. Average net farm income in Canada
dropped 55% last year and will drop 50% this year. Farmers also
told me that NISA and crop insurance do not cut it anymore.
Will the minister admit there is a farm income crisis on the
prairies, yes or no?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have for a number of months been
having discussions with the farm leaders and the provinces to
discuss the unfortunate situation as far as farm income is
concerned.
What the farmers are fortunate for is the fact that the Reform
Party is not the government because in the last election it said
it would cut funding to departments like agriculture, fisheries
and natural resources by $640 million and then it would take away
from the departments another $690 million. Aren't farmers
fortunate that Reform is not the government.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this minister knows that the bureaucrats would have been
the ones who lost the funding, not the farmers.
I cannot understand why this minister is not listening. The
Saskatchewan legislature had an emergency debate yesterday. All
parties passed a resolution. This minister ought to be listening
to what is happening on the prairies. It is about time he got
his head out of the stubble field.
The average NISA account is not even enough to pay for the
fertilizer and the fuel next spring. Does the minister not
recognize that there is a serious farm crisis in incomes that
needs to be addressed now and not talked about?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I have had
discussions with my colleague in Saskatchewan and all my
colleagues and farm leaders across the country. As recently as
last week the safety net review committee met all day long in
Ottawa. We have had discussions with those people and I am
calling other meetings in the very near future to act on this in
a very proactive way in partnership with the producers, the
provincial governments and all those involved.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Let us take a look at how women fare in his employment insurance
system. This woman is a waitress in the Lower St. Lawrence
region; she is pregnant and under preventive withdrawal from
work. She worked enough hours to qualify for regular benefits,
but not for maternity leave.
How can the minister defend a system that penalizes pregnant
women? Is this not a shameful and scandalous situation that
should be changed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, moving to an hour-based system
benefits women in particular.
Until recently, women who worked part time were not even
eligible for maternity leave, as 15 hours of work were required
to qualify.
* * *
1445
CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development.
Last week, an important announcement was made regarding the
networks of centres of excellence. Could the secretary of state
tell this House what economic spin-offs this investment will
have?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are now 14 centres of excellence across
Canada. As a result of the announcement I made in Quebec City
last week, three new centres were added, representing a $41
million investment: one for mathematics, another for arthritis
and finally, one called a geoid, with its administrative centre
in Laval.
These centres stand for state-of-the-art research. They stand for
partnership, as universities work together with industry and the
private sector, across the country. The centre of excellence for
arthritis will address the needs of 8 million affected
Canadians. This is good news.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest you turn all their lights on so they do not miss their
turn.
According to access to information, the government granted
$22,000 in media expenses after the shooting of Connie and Ty
Jacobs on the Tsuu T'ina reserve. I am wondering if this money
could not have been put to better use, like counselling for
families.
Could the minister explain what specifically was this $22,000
intended for?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said many times in the past, we are working
together with both the province of Alberta and the AFN to get to
the bottom of what happened on the Tsuu T'ina reserve. We look
forward to working through this over the course of the fall at
the request of the community.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
more than six months of investigation into the shooting of Connie
and Ty Jacobs on the Tsuu T'ina reserve it is finally coming to
an end at noon today Alberta time.
And I thought the solicitor general was going to resign the next
time he stood up.
Regardless of the outcome, the families have demanded from the
very beginning that there be an independent investigation into
the entire social and economic problems that this reserve faces
and which led to this tragedy.
Will the minister find the money, $22,000 or whatever it takes,
and recognize the family's concerns and—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been working on this for quite some time. We
are simply waiting for the other legal actions to play themselves
out. Consequently, when this happens we will be able to move on
with a broader inquiry.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Two months before the APEC summit, Robert Van Derloo, the
executive director of the federal APEC office, wrote “PMO has
expressed concerns about the security perimeter at UBC, not so
much from a security point of view but to avoid embarrassment for
APEC leaders”.
My question is for the Prime Minister, not his cover the
solicitor general. Is this statement true?
1450
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said many times, there is a process in place.
It is called the public complaints commission. It is what
parliament established to get to the truth in matters like this.
It is doing its job even as we speak and I look forward to
finding out the results.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will try again with the Prime Minister.
On November 25 of last year, the same day as a TV cameraman and
UBC students were pepper sprayed, the Prime Minister said “I do
not think APEC will ever have human rights on its agenda”.
In view of the brutal arrests, beatings and water cannon attacks
on demonstrators in Malaysia, does the Prime Minister believe
that human rights should be on the agenda of the upcoming
Malaysia APEC summit? Yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said and I repeat that it will not be on the agenda.
I will have the occasion to speak with the prime minister of
Malaysia. I will express the concerns that have been expressed
here in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself. We think they should
respect human rights, particularly in the case of the minister of
finance for that country.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Smoke in the cockpits of airplanes continues to be a problem.
The FAA just produced a study in the U.S. called “Aging
Transport Non-Structural Systems Plan”. It says that a more
complete description of undesirable wiring system conditions is
needed and that observations for chafing, broken clamps, sagging,
interference, contamination, cracking and splitting need to be
addressed.
I ask the Minister of Transport what actions have been taken to
address these FAA concerns.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is concerning a lot of people
in the wake of the Swissair accident.
The FAA last week made some comments and quoted some proposals
about better quality of insulation in the interior of planes.
Transport Canada as a regulator in Canada is working with the
FAA in developing new standards. That work is not yet completed.
It would be premature to enact new standards or put new standards
in place until we are absolutely satisfied that we have all of
the information available.
We hope to be able to have some recognition of this work in the
coming months.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the FAA report goes on to say that current maintenance
practices do not adequately address wiring components and there
is currently no systematic process to identify and address
potential catastrophic failures caused by electrical faults in
the wiring systems.
Considering that the FAA has determined that inspections do not
address the wiring failures adequately, will the minister now
appoint a group or committee to focus on this very issue of aging
wires?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we do not have to appoint a committee to deal
specifically with this. We have working committees at Transport
Canada engaged in all facets of airline safety, every day, every
week of the year.
Safety is the number one priority for Transport Canada. We are
trying to ensure that all the planes that fly meet the safety
standards. We believe that they do. That does not mean to say
there cannot be new methods of insulation, or new wiring that
would be better in newer aircraft.
All the commercial aircraft that are flying in Canada today have
been certified by Transport Canada, the FAA or other regulatory
agencies. They are certainly safe to fly in.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The Canada-wide acid rain strategy signed on Monday has been
criticized for lacking specific solutions. What is the federal
government doing to reduce acid rain and its devastating effects
on our lakes and forests in Canada?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, acid rain continues to be a very serious
issue in Canada and the continent. It has a very serious impact
on our natural resources, our forests, our fisheries and our
human health.
At a meeting this week with ministers of the environment and
energy, we agreed to develop a strategy for further reductions of
acid rain in the post 2000 period. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to set targets and timelines.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the
hepatitis C compensation the health minister used the figure of
22,000 victims in the period 1986 to 1990. Through access to
information we found out that that is not correct. The very
maximum is 11,700 and it could be as low as 6,600.
1455
Could the health minister explain to all Canadians why he used
these numbers that were absolutely false?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while the member was looking through access to information, there
were public documents published this summer for all the
epidemiologists representing all the interested parties. It went
through a public process to estimate all those infected through
the blood system.
All those numbers are published through newspapers. Perhaps the
member ought to look up the local newspaper instead of worrying
about the access to information.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister claims that his reforms sought to adapt the
employment insurance program to the new realities of the labour
market.
How can the minister make such a claim, considering that he is
forcing parents who have decided to stay at home to raise their
children to work 30% to 117% more hours to qualify for EI
benefits, when they go back to work?
What are we to think of a program that penalizes women in
particular?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, women were at
the core of our reform, and we are helping them more by using a
system based on the number of hours worked.
Earlier, someone alluded to maternity leave, but forgot to point
out that access to active measures and training was extended to
five years for women on maternity leave.
We made all kinds of improvements for women, and we are
absolutely confident that our system will continue to serve
Canadians well. We will continue to monitor its implementation,
and we will report in January, as—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.
Last week in Toronto, 17 of 19 emergency rooms were turning
patients away. Today in Ottawa paramedics warned that overloaded
hospitals are putting patients at risk. One nurse said the
emergency department is like the canary in the mine, the first
place you see the problems from funding cuts.
The finance minister would not commit to health care funds at
the finance committee last week. Will the minister put $2.5
billion in transfers for health care in the coming budget before
any more lives are put at risk?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have made clear that health care is one of the central
priorities of the government.
The Prime Minister has said plainly that health care will be the
focus of our next major reinvestment, and that is a commitment on
which we intend to follow through.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
Today, the Canadian public education movement known as Campaign
2000 met with the national caucuses of all parties in this
House, in order to raise awareness of the alarming rise in child
poverty in Canada.
What measures does the minister plan to take in order to reverse
this extremely alarming trend with its disastrous effects on the
most vulnerable members of our society?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is well aware of
the problem of poverty in Canada.
Later this afternoon, I myself will be meeting with the Campaign
2000 representatives, who are doing an excellent job of raising
Canadian awareness of the importance of poverty, child poverty
in particular, which is a priority for our government.
This is why we, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance,
have designed a new national child benefit which will, over the
next two years, mean an additional $1.7 billion investment in
the battle against child poverty.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Federal, provincial and territorial ministers of energy and the
environment have just finished two days of meetings in Halifax.
Would the minister tell the House what progress has been made to
enable Canada to meet its Kyoto commitments to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was a very positive, cordial and productive meeting.
Ministers reviewed the progress being made by 15 analytical
groups that involve 450 Canadian experts representing every
province and every sector of the Canadian economy. They are all
working on every aspect of the climate change challenge.
We also worked on credits for early action, on international
negotiations and on public outreach and engagement. We also
announced the details of Canada's climate change action fund.
That fund brings our federal investment toward climate change
solutions to more than $200 million annually.
* * *
1500
GREENPEACE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Greenpeace activists boarded a freighter in California
carrying newsprint from British Columbia, chained themselves to
the cranes and prevented the freighter from docking and
unloading.
Last week we had a very similar incident in Connecticut. It was
handled with dispatch by U.S. authorities without much fanfare.
But this is all part of the Greenpeace $1 million boycott
campaign aimed at British Columbia forest products.
How is the government going to ensure that Canadian ships have
continued access to U.S. ports with these activities going on?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an issue that involves a number of departments
and agencies within the Government of Canada and obviously within
the U.S. government.
Our thrust will be twofold: first of all to ensure that buyers
around the world understand the true story about Canadian
forestry practices so that they can understand that forestry in
Canada is conducted in a sustainable manner; and second, we will
insist that our trading partners, like the United States, live up
to their obligations and allow Canadian ships to land when they
are supposed to.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Speaker: I have the honour to table a copy of the
Standing Orders of the House of Commons reprinted in September
1998, including all the amendments since June 1997 and an
amended index.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the
provisions of Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, copies of the government's response to
the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport entitled
“The Renaissance of Passenger Rail in Canada”.
* * *
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in both official languages a number of order in
council appointments which were recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
1505
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the
delegation of the Canadian interparliamentary union group which
participated at the 19th working committee and general assembly
of the ASEAN Interparliamentary Organization which was held in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from August 24 to August 28, 1998.
I have the distinct privilege to present, in both official
languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian
interparliamentary union group which travelled to Bangkok,
Vientiane, Laos and Cambodia from August 28 to September 3 in
support of Canadian action on anti-personnel land mines.
I take this opportunity on behalf of all parliamentarians to
congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs who will receive
later this week in Lisbon the north-south prize of the Council of
Europe in recognition of his strong commitment to this struggle
for democracy, global interdependence, solidarity and human
rights. It is a well-deserved award. I recommend this report
for reading to all members.
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present
to the House, in both official languages, the report of the 100th
interparliamentary conference which was held in Moscow, Russia
from September 7 to September 13. I commend all delegates who
worked so hard to move on international issues which are so
important to all of us.
The Speaker: I have a report from the member
for Toronto Centre—Rosedale. I will make an exception to our
rules that you must be on your feet. The hon. member will be
able to deliver his report sitting down.
[Translation]
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present
to the House of Commons, in both official languages, the report
of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the seventh
annual meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization
on Security and Cooperation in Europe, held in Copenhagen,
Denmark, from July 7 to 10, 1998.
[English]
This report contains resolutions concerning Kosovo, the economic
charter of the OSCE and the support of OSCE missions in various
unstable or emerging democracies. After active debate and the
participation of many members of our delegation, many of whom are
in the House today, we can say that this meeting provided an
opportunity for Canadian parliamentarians to meet representatives
from European and Eastern European countries, to make important
contacts and exchange views that will be of value to all
Canadians, and to contribute to the development of human rights
in an important part of the world.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday,
April 21, 1998, your committee has considered private member's
Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act. Your
committee has agreed to report that bill with an amendment.
The committee greatly appreciates the very hard work and
professionalism of the member who presented the bill, the hon.
member for Brampton West—Mississauga. The committee also
greatly appreciates the work of the parliamentary secretary and
the justice department, which bent over backwards to accommodate
the wishes of parliament and the work of this private member.
1510
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the 17th and 18th reports of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts respecting chapters 3, 4 and 7 of
the April 1998 report of the Auditor General.
I might say that any constituents who are interested in the
armed forces should read chapters 3 and 4 which are involved with
equipping and modernizing the Canadian forces and buying major
capital equipment. I would invite them to call either my office
or the office of their member of parliament.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests the government to table comprehensive
responses to these reports.
* * *
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-445, an act to change the name of the electoral
district of Stormont—Dundas.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this bill which
is an act to change the name of my electoral district of
Stormont—Dundas.
Under redistribution, an area formerly known as Charlottenburg
township was added to my riding. With the support of my
constituents, I would like the riding to be renamed to
Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburg.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-446, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (removal
of foreign investment limit for registered retirement savings
plans and registered retirement income funds).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important private
member's bill that I am putting forward. The intent of it is,
first of all, to protect, preserve and enhance the ability of
Canadians to save for their retirement.
If we believe that truly is the purpose of the registered
retirement savings plan and the RRIF, then I think we should
support this bill. It would give Canadians who have access to
about 2% of capital markets in their own country a chance to
spread their investment portfolios around.
Second, I point to a Conference Board of Canada study which says
that Canadians would be far richer in their retirement savings if
they had access to other markets around the world.
Finally, I simply want to say that ultimately all of this money
would come back into Canada when people dispose of their RRSPs.
It would leave the Canadian treasury and Canadians, in general,
better off. Therefore, I seek the support of my colleagues in
putting this forward.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek the
unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill C-370, which is
No. 5 on the order paper.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is
it agreed?
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: Perhaps I did not explain it correctly.
This is a motion, with unanimous consent, to withdraw a private
member's bill. Is there unanimous consent?
An hon. member: No.
* * *
1515
PETITIONS
GASOLINE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition organized by Norm Tufts and signed by residents of Grand
Band, Parkhill, Thedford and London.
The petitioners note that the use of MMT in gasoline has been
proven to foul within emission control devices and adversely
affects engines performance resulting in higher smog levels. The
petitioners call on parliament to set new national clean fuel
standards for gasoline with zero MMT and lower sulphur content.
BILL C-68
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present today. The first one deals with Bill
C-68. It has 100 signatures from the citizens of my riding of
Lethbridge.
The petitioners are concerned with Bill C-68 for the following
reasons. Bill C-68 will do nothing to stop the criminal use of
guns, it is not a cost effective way to control crime, it puts
thousands of jobs in jeopardy and is opposed by police on the
streets in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Yukon.
The petitioners call on parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and
redirect the money to proven methods of gun and crime control and
it is my pleasure to join them.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present the following
petition on behalf of the citizens of Lethbridge. There are
1,750 signatures on this petition.
My constituents believe that some of the greatest problems in
our society are the problems surrounding marriage and family
life. As family life goes, so does the rest of society.
Troubled families produce a troubled society which is what we see
happening in our nation today.
In order to protect the nucleus of society the petitioners call
on parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the marriages
act so as to define a statute that a marriage can only be entered
into by a single male and a single female. It is my pleasure to
support this petition.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by over
1,000 residents of Alberta and British Columbia who express
serious concern about rampant human rights abuses in Indonesia
and in particular about serious looting, rioting and the death of
more than 1,300 people last May.
The petitioners note that hundreds of ethnic Chinese women were
raped and they point out that there is a long history of
discrimination against ethnic Chinese living in Indonesia.
The petitioners call on Canada as a human rights leader to speak
out on this and they urge parliament to appeal to the president
of Indonesia to enact and enforce laws so as to protect the
safety and rights of the ethnic Chinese, to bring those
responsible for these atrocities to justice, to apologize and
compensate the victims and to form an autonomous committee
promoting racial harmony.
The petitioners call on Canada to modify our current immigration
regulations to help respond to this humanitarian crisis. I
certainly echo their call.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a second petition which is
signed by residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas
noting the concerns around the multilateral agreement on
investment.
The petitioners point out that through this agreement the rights
of Canadian citizens and the power of the Canadian government
will be greatly suspended and superseded by those of foreign
investors and multinational corporations.
The petitioners therefore call on parliament to consider the
enormous implications to Canada by the signing of the MAI and put
it to open debate in the House and place it for a national
referendum for the people of Canada to decide.
I note that today it appears the MAI is dead at the OECD but
nevertheless I believe this petition is important to register the
ongoing concerns.
BILL C-68
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to present a petition signed by the residents of South
Shore. These constituents believe that this government should
repeal Bill C-68 on the grounds that it does nothing to deter
violent crimes and that the money would be better spent on
putting more police on the street.
BILL C-225
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a
second petition signed also by residents of South Shore. These
constituents believe that this parliament should enact Bill
C-225.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present a petition from constituents from the town of
Brooks and the town of Tilley calling on parliament to define in
statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single
male and a single female.
TOBACCO SPONSORSHIP
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition is from constituents of Medicine Hat calling on
parliament to reject any bill that would weaken the sponsorship
provisions in the Tobacco Act. The petitioners point out that
tobacco sponsorship advertising is a way for tobacco companies to
associate a positive lifestyle image with a deadly product.
1520
There are some 30 names on that petition.
ABORTION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another petition from the constituents in the towns of Taber
and Grassy Lake calling on parliament to hold a referendum on the
issue of medically unnecessary abortions.
They point out that there were 106,000 unborn children who lost
their lives in abortions in 1995 and they expressed their concern
over that.
I also have two petitions from constituents—
The Speaker: It's like baseball. Three strikes and
you're out. The hon. member for Yukon.
IRAN
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition of over 80 pages of signatures. The petition states
that Canada should declare Iran as an unsafe country and that
government stop all deportations to Iran immediately.
The petitioners ask this because in the last 20 years the
Islamic republic of Iran has executed over 100,000 women, men and
children in Iran and has assassinated hundreds of its opposition
members abroad as well.
They ask this since no one is allowed to openly express
political positions in Iran without danger of execution.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to Standing Order 36 I would like to present two
petitions. The first one asks the government to support Bill
C-225, an act to amend the marriage and interpretation acts so as
to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
JUSTICE
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): The next petition,
Mr. Speaker, is signed by hundreds of petitioners and it asks
that the government change the Young Offenders Act to reflect the
concerns of the citizens of Canada by lowering the age limit and
transfer those accused of crimes of violence to adult court and
publishing the identity of violent crime offenders. I am pleased
and honoured to support both these petitions.
The Speaker: Of course, my colleagues, it is not
necessary to either support or not support petitions.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I would like on behalf of well over 100
constituents from the riding of West Nova, to present a petition
calling on this government to respect the Canadian human rights
tribunal decision on pay equity that would see mostly low income
female federal public servants be compensated for years of
discrimination they endured in the workforce.
They call on the government to immediately comply with the
orders of the Canadian human rights tribunal in the matter of pay
equity.
BANK MERGERS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
signed by many constituents calling on parliament and the
Minister of Finance to stop the mega bank mergers.
The constituents are very concerned that if these mergers
proceed they will adversely affect the jobs and social well being
of our communities and small businesses across Canada and that
they will change drastically the financial landscape of our
country in a very negative way.
BILL C-68
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present 705 more pages of petitions with
16,486 more signatures of concerned citizens from seven different
provinces.
About half these petitions are from the province of Quebec and
the petitioners find it regrettable that they cannot find an MP
in Quebec to present these petitions calling for the repeal of
Bill C-68.
My constituents have asked me to keep a running total of the
repeal Bill C-68 petitions I have introduced. This year I have
introduced 1,509 pages with 35,321 signatures.
These petitioners request parliament to repeal Bill C-68, the
Firearms Act, and redirect the hundreds of millions of tax
dollars being wasted on licensing 8 million law abiding,
responsible firearms owners and registering 21 million legally
owned guns to real crime fighting measures.
These 35,000 petitioners also provide the government with a list
of higher priority criminal justice programs where these billion
dollars of public money could be much better spent such as
putting more police on the street and fighting organized crime
and biker gangs. Many people are appalled that the RCMP is
cutting back on essential services while the government has
wasted $200 million more on gun registration.
1525
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition I am pleased to present has 311
pages of petitions with signatures of 7,644 concerned Canadians
from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and my home province of
Saskatchewan.
For those who are keeping track that is a total of 11,918
signatures of people who are demanding better protection of
property rights in federal law. These Canadians are concerned
that there is no provision in the charter of rights and freedoms
that prevents government from taking anything they own without
compensation. They are concerned that there is nothing in the
charter which restricts the government in any way from passing
laws which prohibit the ownership, use and enjoyment of their
private property or reduces the value of their property.
These petitioners request parliament to support my private
member's bill which would strengthen the protection of property
rights in federal law and which died after only one hour debate
in the House.
The Liberals opposed the motion to even study the concerns of
these thousands of people and it is not a lost cause as I will be
reintroducing the bill.
The Speaker: My colleagues, of course I give you as much
room as I can, but I wish we would not editorialize. These are
after all petitions and should be presented as such.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I seek the support of the House to return to motions in
order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill
C-370.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
HOLIDAYS ACT
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill C-370
which is No. 5 on the order paper.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 117
.[Text]
Question No. 117—Mr. John Duncan:
In the last five years, on the west coast of Canada, how many
licences have been applied for, have been issued, have been
denied, and have been revoked by the minister under the
regulations to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act allowing
foreign fishing boats into Canadian waters, broken down by year
and by foreign country and by reasons that the licences were applied
for and by reasons that the licences were issued?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
The attached tables list the licences issued under the coastal fisheries
protection regulations allowing foreign vessels into Canadian
waters and ports on the west coast of Canada:
1. Table I—Foreign vessels licences issued by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, Pacific region, during the period 1993
to 1997. The licences issued to joint venture processing and
transport vessels for participation in the Pacific hake
over-the-side fishery were under section 5(1)(a) of the coastal
fisheries protection regulations. The licences issued for port
privileges were under section 5(1)(a) of the coastal fisheries
protection regulations primarily to obtain fuel and supplies.
The three licences issued to New Zealand in 1997 were under force
majeure.
2. Table II—Import landing licences issued to U.S. fishing
vessels during the period 1996 to 1998. These licences are
issued under section 5(1.5)(a) of the coastal fisheries
protection regulations.
DFO Pacific region maintains records only of the licences
issued. None of these were revoked. Records of telephone
inquiries by agents of non-qualified countries under the coastal
fisheries protection regulations are not kept; most of these were
on behalf of U.S. fishing vessels seeking entry into Canadian
waters for the Pacific hake fishery or to deliver groundfish to
Canadian ports; callers were informed that formal requests for
entry would be denied.
Table I
Foreign Vessel Licences Issued*
1997
Joint Venture Processing Vessels
Poland 7
Joint Venture Transport Vessels
Poland 3
Russia 4
Latvia 3
Bahamas 1
Port Privileges
Russia 2
Poland 2
New Zealand 3
1996
Joint Venture Processing Vessels
Poland 10
Joint Venture Transport Vessels
Poland 5
Russia 6
Cyprus 1
Ukraine 1
Port Privileges
Russia 1
1995
Joint Venture Processing Vessels
Nil
Joint Venture Transport Vessels
Nil
Port Privileges
Nil
1994
Joint Venture Processing Vessels
Poland 7
Chinese 7
Joint Venture Transport Vessels
Poland 4
Latvia 2
Japanese 1
Port Privileges
Nil
1993
Joint Venture Processing Vessels
Poland 6
Joint Venture Transport Vessels
Poland 4
Japanese 2
Bahamas 1
Russia 2
Port Privileges
Nil
* 1998 statistics not yet available
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-38 in
the name of the hon. member for Skeena be called.
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all documents,
reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence and
briefings related to the aboriginal endowment fund.
1530
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Motion
P-38, I ask that it be transferred for debate.
The Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to
stand.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions for
the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House resumed from October 1 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a
consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to talk about Bill C-43, the Canada customs and
revenue agency. I want to talk a bit about revenues and how they
are applied and a bit about the agency. I also want to give a
good example of application of revenues.
The government collects a lot of money and what it does with the
money is important. I want to make a point about the difference
between collecting money and spending it wisely.
I recently wrote a letter to the solicitor general about how the
government spends those revenues. I want to relate a bit of that
to the House. My concern was that the government has actually
been cutting back on the services of the RCMP in British Columbia
by way of budget cuts amounting to about $8.5 million. That does
not seem like a lot of money, I suppose, in that the government
takes in revenues of billions upon billions, $120 billion a year
approximately, but it is a lot of money in British Columbia and
it is a lot of money for the policing services.
Just recently members of the RCMP were advised that they had to
eliminate their overtime and their training. They had to ground
their airplanes. They had to stop running their boats. These
are pretty basic functions for the RCMP in British Columbia.
The result of all this is that criminals have a free-for-all in
some cases because the RCMP is not even available during the
evening, after hours, to look at situations involving
investigations of criminal activities in drugs. British Columbia
has a serious drug problem.
With that in mind I wrote to the solicitor general and said that
it was rather ironic that the government had to cut back $8.5
million in those operations but had a $3.5 billion surplus. Let
us put this $3.5 billion into perspective. That is a three and a
half thousand million dollar surplus, yet the RCMP has to cutback
on its operations.
I said we should look at it again to see if there is anything
the government is spending money on that is unnecessary and could
have possibly been applied to the RCMP to help it continue to be
efficient in its operations. It took me about 10 minutes.
I want to relate how some of our revenues are being applied. For
instance, we have a little bit of a debt of about $580 billion.
1535
Mr. Paul Forseth: A little bit.
Mr. Randy White: Yes, a little bit. That should be
challenged because it is a significant amount of money. Around
the world people would say Canada's debt ratio is the highest
next to Italy's.
What has the government done? While we wallow in debt the
federal government forgave some of the debt owed to it. For
instance, it forgave Colombia's debt of $2.8 million, El
Salvador's debt of $2.7 million and Honduras debt of $3.3
million. It is ironic that we are forgiving the debt of some of
these places. It also forgave Nicaragua's debt of $900,000,
Costa Rica's of $2.3 million and Egypt's of $9.6 million. That
is $21.5 million.
Yet the RCMP, which is fighting crime in British Columbia, has
to cut out overtime and ground its planes because it has an $8.5
million problem. I wonder what it is that makes those folks on
the other side think like that. There must be some other
perspective. That must be wrong.
The government has given out a bit of money this year. It gave
$120,000 to the Prisoners Support Action Network; $54,000 to the
United Steelworkers of America; $49,000 to the Prison Art
Foundation; $46,000 to the Canadian Atlantic Lobster Association;
and $51,000 to the BCTF, the British Columbia Teachers
Federation. This amounted to $320,000. Yet at the same time the
government cut back on RCMP overtime, ground its planes and
ditched its boats. In a province rife with drugs we do not even
have some drug investigations going on after hours. Must be
something wrong with that.
I looked a little further to see how the government spent a
little more money. It has given close to $1.3 million for the
development of a more diseased resistant banana in the Honduras.
Is it any wonder the average person including the police get
quite appalled with a government that says “You have $8.5
million problem so we are cutting back on all our services that
protect the people in British Columbia, but we are going to give
$1.3 million to find a better banana in the Honduras?” Is it
any wonder the average cop on the street sees the whole exercise
as darn futile?
Let me give members some other ideas. The police know this
because I have told them. I mailed a letter to them. Members
ought to see the responses. They are appalled that this kind of
money is being spent, this revenue taken in from the taxpayer is
being spent this way, and much less small amounts are being taken
from the RCMP to protect our citizens.
Did the government fund any conferences? It took about two
minutes to look it up. Sure, it did. It gave the International
Conference on Visual Poetry, $10,000; the annual meeting of the
Renaissance Society of America, $10,000; Ukraine and the New
World Order, $9,000; Canadian Association of Irish Studies,
$8,700; Canadian Society for the Study of Names, $3,900; and the
Society for Socialist Studies, $12,000.
When I showed this to the police they asked who were the rocket
science people across the way who thought this stuff up and cut
us back. Who are these people?
1540
There must be something else. Maybe I should look at
publications. I say to the RCMP that the government spent
$90,000 on the Canadian Business Economics publication, $37,000
on the Canadian Journal of Law and Society, $28,000 on the
Dalhousie Law Journal, $57,000 on the Osgoode Hall Law Journal
and $45,000 on the Professional Regulation of Accountants.
Let us put this in perspective. These amounts of money are
being spent but it is cutting back all overtime of the RCMP. It
is grounding the RCMP's planes, boats and all its training. The
RCMP cannot investigate drug investigations after hours. We have
a 9 to 5 police force in British Columbia. Is there no
perspective here?
I looked a little further. The Department of Agriculture
developed an information kit for the 300 MPs in the House. I do
not even know where it is, but it spent $200,000 developing it.
Yet the government has the unmitigated gall to cut back on the
services of the RCMP.
We must be getting close to the end. However the government
likes to poll and find out attitudes about matters, perhaps APEC
and the country's attitude toward pepper spraying students. The
government spent $622,000 for one company to poll. The Angus
Reid group received $688,000 and Ekos Research $1.3 million for a
total of $2.6 million, which is more than 25% of what it took
away from the RCMP which fights crime in British Columbia.
It gave $1.4 million to professional and technical support for
municipal authorities in Czechoslovakia. It gave $473,000 for a
grant to reintegrate Malayan soldiers back into their society for
a total of $14 million, which is more than the whole problem in
British Columbia. It gave a grant to provide Canadian built
locomotives to Senegal. It gave $2 million in a grant to promote
the use of electrical energy in Brazil and $450,000 in a grant to
establish the Lebanese parliamentary institute. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage gave $15 million for free flag handouts.
Let us put this into perspective. I come from a province which
depends on the services of the RCMP, not a 9 to 5 operation. When
the government cuts back on that money to spend on these
projects, there is something seriously wrong in the House of
Commons. There is something seriously wrong with the government
putting things into perspective.
How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker? I am splitting my time.
The Speaker: You are splitting your time. There are
eight and a half minutes left. Perhaps you would like to wrap up
and we could go to your colleague.
Mr. Randy White: I would like my colleague to
participate. I guess it is time. I wish it was election time
because I know the RCMP is damn sick of what is going on.
The Speaker: Maybe darn sick.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in speaking to Bill C-43 one of the things that I have a deep
concern about is the present power of Revenue Canada. I do not
see anything in the bill that would do anything to restrain the
power of Revenue Canada.
I would like to refer to tax cases where in my judgment Revenue
Canada has been excessive and has been punitive toward people in
my constituency. In January of this year I asked for a meeting
with the revenue minister.
It took until April 30 to arrange that meeting with him
unfortunately. What is even more unfortunate is that since April
30 I have not been directly contacted by the minister on this
issue.
1545
I find it very difficult as a member of parliament to truly
represent the people of Kootenay—Columbia. I should be able to
have access to the revenue minister, particularly on important
issues for my constituents. I have a meeting and he does not
respond to me.
What is this case? In my constituency there are many people who
have ranches, farms and rural property. On those ranches, farms
and rural properties there are trees which in many cases can be
selectively harvested. In 1993, 1994, 1995 and through to 1996
there was a demand for timber, softwood lumber. Manufacturers
have been looking for a source of timber. They have come to
these ranchers, farmers and rural property owners and have made
deals with them.
These people all independent of each other went to their
professional accountants, whether they be CAs, CGAs, CPAs or
whatever the professional designation. Their accountants either
checked directly with Revenue Canada or went on the standing
practice of Revenue Canada that these logs, because they do not
form part of the normal income of the ranches, farms or rural
property, would be treated as capital gains. After they had
received the revenue from the softwood lumber manufacturers,
these people went to their accountants, received professional
advice, and paid their taxes.
What appears to have happened is that the tax department in
Kelowna looked at these returns and said that there were enough
of these things happening, that this was something new and it was
going to reassess on the basis of those trees and the income from
those trees as being part of those people's ordinary income. It
is not part of their ordinary income. In fact, this is just
found income on the part of my constituents.
My point is that tax practices cannot be changed retroactively.
If Revenue Canada in 1996 when it woke up to the amount of money
that in its judgment was being left on the table, had sent a
bulletin to all of the accountants and affected people not only
in my constituency but indeed throughout the interior of the
province of British Columbia that this was going to be the
practice from now on on their future income, I could accept that
within reason.
The difficulty is that all of these people, and I have at least
a dozen cases in my office and more are coming in every day, at
least a dozen of my constituents in good faith went to a
professional accountant, received advice and paid their taxes.
When Revenue Canada realized that this was something new that was
happening within my constituency and within the interior of the
province of British Columbia, it decided retroactively that it
was going to go after these people.
What is involved here? In some instances my constituents are
retired people. This was a portion of money. To quantify this,
their income could have ranged anywhere from $10,000 to $400,000
from the sale of these logs from their property. In many cases
these are retired people who then took that income, paid their
taxes and then made other investment decisions. In fact, in the
case of a couple of my constituents, they actually gave their
money away to their families. In other words, the money is gone.
Now all of a sudden Revenue Canada, with a retroactive tax grab,
is coming around and saying “Oh well, now we will just bill you
another $8,000, $9,000, $50,000, $80,000 in taxes because we have
decided that we are going to change our way of assessing”.
The real injustice is that these people cannot even deduct their
farming expenses, if they have expenses, against this income,
because it is not a standard form of their income. Yet Revenue
Canada is calling it a form of their income.
1550
What has happened? One of my constituents took it to a tax
court for review and he won hands down. There was absolutely no
question about it. Revenue Canada has in turn taken it one
ratchet up with the tax money from our pockets and these people's
pockets. It is going after these people in tax court. In the
very vague possibility that this higher court rules in favour of
Revenue Canada, Revenue Canada will reap the benefit of all of
the interest or penalty accrued on the money it says these people
owe.
My specific concern is that I do not see anything in this
legislation that gives me any feeling of comfort that we are
going to end up with a fairer jurisdiction. I realize that to a
certain extent the United States IRS has been mythologized. The
problem is the agency has the probability of becoming a fierce
tiger, as fierce a tiger as the United States Internal Revenue
Service which is one of the most feared bureaucracies in the
country south of the 49th parallel.
This legislation is seriously flawed if it does not stop Revenue
Canada from retroactively grabbing money out of the hands of
people like my constituents, honest, law-abiding, taxpaying
Canadian citizens who pay what is rightfully and justly owed to
Revenue Canada. It is my responsibility to speak on behalf of my
constituents. I do so. The people in the constituency of
Kootenay—Columbia have to know that as their member of
parliament I am going to continue to push this issue as hard as I
possibly can.
I have one little story which has been bubbling along for a
short period of time, perhaps a year to 18 months. In that
period of time I or my office assistant have asked some of these
taxpayers if they would permit us to publicize this matter so
that we could expose what Revenue Canada and the revenue minister
are doing. They were scared. They were afraid that if they
permitted this matter to publicized, that if their names became
part of this whole process, Revenue Canada would come down on
them on other issues in future years. That is shameful.
We understand the necessity of collecting revenue. We
understand the necessity of collecting taxes. When the people of
Canada are scared of Revenue Canada and the potential for the
auditors to come down on them, I say shame on Revenue Canada,
shame on this minister, shame on this government for not doing
what is right. Give a proper balance to the rights of Canadian
taxpayers. Change this legislation so it does that and then
perhaps we can support the legislation.
The Speaker: Just as the hon. member was running out of
time, I knew he would come back to the bill and to the body of
it. I knew he was going to get there.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as I speak to this legislation, to my colleagues,
parliament and the people of Canada, I will briefly outline an
initiative I took awhile ago. As I describe it I will relate it
to the legislation.
A couple of years ago I asked an independent lawyer for an
analysis of the bills that were before the House of Commons. I
requested an examination of the bills before the House to
determine which pieces of legislation were taking power away from
the people of Canada through their elected representatives and
giving it to the bureaucracy.
What bills before parliament were enhancing or reducing
accountability to the people of Canada?
1555
Members may find this very, very interesting because it relates
directly to what we are doing in parliament this afternoon and
the member's speech which just took place.
I put the question forward because many people were coming to me
expressing concern that the government was out of control, that
it was growing bigger and bigger and becoming less accountable.
As was mentioned previously, Canadians are afraid of the tax
department. They are afraid of Revenue Canada. Why? Because
the bureaucracy wields great power and the ordinary citizen feels
quite helpless before it. It appears to extract the maximum
amount of money from them without informing them of their rights
or the minimum amount that would be payable. The Income Tax Act
is overly complex, as we know, and it is intimidating. The key
point is that Canadians would rather have a thief break into
their house than deal with the tax department. People have told
me that.
My point is that this bill will only make things worse. There
will be less accountability. I can only support this initiative
if there is a built-in structure. I would like to ask for the
member's comments with regard to the proposal I am putting
forward. There should be a built-in structure that protects
taxpayers and those importing goods into Canada or exporting
goods out of Canada.
We have to look at what happened with harmonization in eastern
Canada. Has it improved efficiency? Not that I am aware of. In
fact, I understand there are provinces that want to pull out of
it, like Nova Scotia.
We need an agency to protect taxpayers, one that will make sure
they are treated fairly and justly and not in an arbitrary
manner. We need an agency that will help resolve disputes or
problems with Revenue Canada. I think before we can support this
bill, we have to have that agency in place. I would like to know
if my colleague has any comments in that regard.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, yes I agree completely with
the comments of my colleague. As the House may know, the Reform
Party has the objective of protecting the rights of Canadians.
With that, we desire to put forward an office for taxpayer
protection.
Clearly, part of this legislation must be the protection of the
taxpayer. We cannot allow ourselves to slip into the Internal
Revenue Service model that there is in the United States.
This legislation is grossly inadequate in that respect.
Therefore there is no way we could possibly support it in its
present form.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
a quick question for the member for Kootenay—Columbia.
I was listening to his comments about cutting the timber on the
ranches and the very real fear among constituents straight across
this country from coast to coast to coast of capital gains. There
is a misunderstanding of the whole problem of dealing with
capital gains and income within a family for future generations.
The understanding is that all this capital gains has already been
taxed, that we have paid tax on everything we have acquired
throughout a life.
Very quickly, I think part of the problem especially in forestry
issues is that there is no way the Income Tax Act can accommodate
the growth of capital in forest land prior to the 40, 50 or 60
years it takes to produce that fibre. All of a sudden there is a
windfall profit and it cannot be claimed in the ensuing 10, 20 or
40-year period after it has been acquired.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is
current legislation that applies to official woodlot operations.
Those are commercial woodlot operations that will probably have
some kind of a sustainable cycle within the production of wood.
I think what the member is referring to and certainly what I am
referring to is where there is timber available and a
desirability on the part of the lumber producers to buy that
timber, how is taxing the revenue from that timber handled?
1600
The decision that was a standing decision by Revenue Canada was
that log would be valued on the basis of capital gain as opposed
to income because we could not write off expenses against that
log.
That was the way these people paid their taxes and I submit that
because there was so much revenue left on the table according to
Revenue Canada when it looked at all these returns, Revenue
Canada simply retroactively said it is not going to do it that
way, has gone back to them and is trying to extract money after
the fact by retroactively changing the law.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to my colleague and I realize that, when there is a
real problem, the government comes up with an agency or
committees. It always puts the problem off.
In my opinion, governing means having the courage to introduce
effective things and not to try to double or triple certain
organizations.
On the subject of the agency. I would ask my colleague how it
could do better and how it should be set up so that it will be
really effective, not for the government, but for our fellow
citizens.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I suggest within the
legislation as it is presently written there is the possibility
for improvements on what is presently going on with respect to
the fact that we have such a giant bureaucracy and it comes under
the public service rules and so on and so forth.
We see some light in this legislation. The legislation is not
all dark. But the difficulty is that if we are going to go ahead
and proceed to pass this legislation, as I am sure the government
will, we have not done away with the threat, and I use that word
advisedly, to ordinary citizens and ordinary law abiding
taxpayers who feel threatened by Revenue Canada. These citizens
are going to feel equally if not more threatened by this agency
because the government has not corrected the problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-43 at second reading. This
bill creates the Canada customs and revenue agency. What is
this bill all about?
The Minister of Revenue is proposing to change the existing
structure of the Department of Revenue and make Revenue Canada
an agency that is quasi independent of the government. It would
have the job of collecting taxes, and not only for the federal
government. The government is also proposing that this new
customs and revenue agency negotiate agreements to collect taxes
of all sorts, including sales and real estate taxes, with the
provinces and even the municipalities, which, it must be pointed
out, come under the provincial governments.
The government wants to create—Revenue Canada is already an
imposing structure—a bureaucratic monster whose tentacles will
extend as far as municipalities. It does not, first of all,
make any sense to create this sort of bureaucratic world. It is
worthy of the fertile imagination of senior Revenue Canada
officials, who want to keep, and not only keep, but increase
their power at the expense of a minister, who is malleable and
weak and who allows senior officials to do his job and make his
decisions for him.
The creation of this agency is also an act against the unions
and the workers of Revenue Canada. The transfer of Revenue
Canada's responsibilities to a quasi independent agency would
displace 40,000 workers, or some 20% of the public service. These
workers would no longer be protected by the Public Service
Employment Act. And so, within two years, these workers could be
the victims of the senior officials.
1605
These senior government officials have already been awarded wage
increases of 19% while public service employees had their
salaries frozen for several years. Wage cuts were even imposed
in some cases.
With this agency, 14,000 workers are excluded from the Public
Service Employment Act, while Revenue Canada tycoons—that is
the senior officials, as the minister has hardly any say left in
the matter—are given the power to treat these workers as they
see fit.
Do you have any idea of the huge amount of confidential
information that will be processed by this agency operating
almost at arm's length from the government if such a
bureaucratic monster is established to collect all the taxes it
wants from the provinces and municipalities? Knowing that the
confidentiality of information, an issue to which Canadians are
very sensitive, is jeopardized by the fact that various
databanks change hands to accommodate the changing needs of
companies, one can wonder what will become of data
confidentiality with an agency like this one, which will be less
accountable to Parliament and to the minister than Revenue
Canada currently is.
The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is a flagrant example of
senior officials' thirst for power.
As I recall, less than three years ago, the auditor general
revealed a scandal that we in the Bloc Quebecois had denounced
in the 1993 election campaign: the family trust scandal.
About three years ago, the auditor general indicated that, on
December 23, 1991, around midnight, without consulting their
ministers or even being accountable—no need to establish an
agency for that purpose—senior officials from Revenue Canada,
Finance Canada and Justice Canada decided to transfer $2 billion
in family trusts to the United States without collecting a penny
in tax.
If the senior bureaucrats at Revenue Canada, at the Department
of Finance and at the Department of Justice were able to do that
under the existing framework, you can imagine what would happen
with this Canada customs and revenue agency, with a
quasi-independent body that would not be accountable to
parliament. Members should ask how many such cases would go
unnoticed, without parliament being informed of these scandals
and of these decisions by senior bureaucrats, who would then
control the collection of taxes and all the data bases
containing confidential information on Quebeckers and Canadians.
It makes no sense at all to delegate so much power to
bureaucrats.
Where is the support for this agency? The government should
table, along with the bill, the agreements signed with provinces
and municipalities. No such agreements have yet been signed. The
government is creating a bureaucratic monster.
There are no agreements to implement, but hundreds of public
servants have already been assigned to work on the new agency
and design the new system that the Minister of Revenue wants to
impose on us.
This legislation has no support. Quebec and Ontario have opposed
the bill. Even the western provinces which, at first, seemed
lukewarm to the idea, are now opposed to the establishment of
the agency. Where is the support?
It is the same thing in the private sector. The Canadian
Federation of Independent Business opposed the creation of a
quasi-independent Canada customs and revenue agency.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that
40% of the businesses that participated in a study sponsored by
Revenue Canada and conducted by the Public Policy Forum see no
point in having this agency, while over two thirds of these
businesses feel that, with such an agency, the costs relating to
their dealings with the department would be higher than they are
under the existing structure, or similar. In other words, things
would not change, except perhaps for the worse. The bill also
provides for the establishment of a board of management.
1610
It would be in addition to the existing structure of Revenue
Canada. It would be transferred to the agency. An additional
level of administration is thus being created. It also gives
the Revenue Canada mandarins the freedom to pay themselves
salaries comparable to those in the private sector.
They are given this latitude by clause 30.(1), which reads as
follows:
(a) general administrative policy in the Agency;
(b) the organization of the Agency;
(c) Agency real property [—]
(d) personnel management, including the determination of the
terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the
Agency.
Without consulting the Minister of Revenue, they will be free to
determine the terms and conditions of employment of the 40,000
workers who will be exempted from the Public Service Employment
Act. They will also be able to pay themselves astronomical
salaries comparable to those in the private sector. What fun
they will have, our mandarins. They will increase their powers
for the personal satisfaction of having complete control.
Clause 30.(1) also leaves them free to give themselves salary
increases. This is ridiculous.
In addition, by creating a quasi-independent agency, the
government is increasing the chances of fraud and the risk that
confidential information will be sold.
There is a lucrative market for such information right now in
the private sector.
There are no benefits to creating such an agency. We do not
understand why the Minister of Revenue and the Liberal
government are so bent on going ahead with this plan.
In conclusion, we will continue to oppose the creation of this
agency, because it makes no sense. It offers nothing, but may
well carry a very high cost for taxpayers, especially when it
deprives them of their democratic right to have a minister
accountable to Parliament.
When there are problems, as there often are in our ridings—my
Bloc Quebecois colleagues have encountered them, as have I in my
own riding—problems having to do with the administration of
taxes, or incorrect rulings on the part of Revenue Canada, we
will no longer be able to question the minister.
He will reply that the agency is calling the shots, that it is
quasi-independent. He will no longer have any say, and democracy
will suffer.
Service to Quebeckers and Canadians will be weakened by a puppet
minister, one with no powers and no backbone, trying to stand up
to the Revenue Canada mandarins. They want the power, the money
and the power that that money brings.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am glad
to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, a bill which I
believe will have profound effects of my community of Dartmouth.
This bill will convert Revenue Canada, a government department
accountable to parliament through a minister, to a separate
agency with authority which for most other departments and
agencies is vested in Treasury Board and the Public Service
Commission.
This to me is another example of this government's determination
to privatize public services. We have seen the Department of
Transport privatize airport services, we have seen the
privatization of ports, of services in our military, of training,
of postal services. The government now wants to privatize the
collection of our taxes.
Generally speaking I reject the notion that the private sector
is somehow better than the public sector. There is no proof to
that contention and it just does not make much sense to me.
Recently I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of
the workers currently in Revenue Canada who represent the union
of taxation workers. They were in my office in Dartmouth last
week. They presented me with some material which was quite
disturbing and very educating on this issue. I am a firm
believer that many of my best ideas I hear from my constituents
and I would like to put some of this background material on the
record:
When the notion of the Canada customs and revenue agency was
first mentioned in the 1996 Speech from the Throne, it was
presented as a cost effective, more efficient vehicle for
improving service to the public. With the primary mandate to
assume tax administration and collection functions from
provincial and municipal governments, it was also touted as a
means of strengthening the Canadian federation and contributing
to national unity.
We submit that the events have overtaken the agency concept to
the point that it fails to meet its stated objectives. The
agency cannot now be justified on the basis of either
bureaucratic efficiency or cost effectiveness. Its original
business plan is in tatters. Its supporting arguments are
riddled with contradictions, misstatements of fact and flimsy
rationalization. The concept of the Canada customs and revenue
agency is bad policy and should be stopped before it starts.
1615
Their document continues to discuss how the original idea for
the agency was to implement the HST across Canada.
I know about the public attitude to the HST, which people in
Dartmouth still call the BST with a heavy emphasis on the BS. The
size of the 1998 Nova Scotia Liberal caucus shows strongly how
Nova Scotians feel about this tax.
However, the fact that there is no mood for expansion of this
tax in this country, nor is there a single agreement with any
other province for the implementation of this mother of all
taxation agencies, shows how far the government has misread the
country on the question surrounding Bill C-43.
Why is the government doing it? I think it just likes to
privatize. It thinks it pleases its business friends. However,
in this case even that call seems to be the wrong one.
Going back to the same document, I quote:
The business community was supposed to be the biggest beneficiary
of the new Agency. However, doubtless to the dismay of the
Agency's bureaucratic backers, the response has been ambivalent.
Small business organizations—such as the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business—are particularly leery of the massive,
centralized power the Agency would possess.
A full 40 per cent of business respondents to a Public Policy
Forum study, commissioned by Revenue Canada, saw no advantage to
the Agency. More than two-thirds thought it would either
increase or maintain their costs of dealing with the Department
as currently structured!
The administration of tax, an ancient right which has
historically led to events such as the Magna Carta and the
American revolution, will be hidden away in a separate agency
which a minister will be responsible for sort of. After all, he
does not run the agency and does not manage it on a day to day
basis, so his accountability will be indirect.
It is bad enough to have witnessed the solicitor general
recently covering for the Prime Minister about APEC, but if Bill
C-43 passes we will see the Minister of National Revenue covering
for an agency which is run by a board of directors that he does
not even select.
Parliamentary democracy is based on ministerial accountability
to parliament. However, with the Liberals' obsession to grab
more power another principle is expendable. If this bill is
passed it will be five years before this House will look at it
again. A lot can go wrong in five years.
The people of Nova Scotia rejected the government in a rather
absolute fashion in the last election and one of their main
concerns was the HST. The fact that the government would bring
in this bill, partly based on the theory that the HST will become
a reality in all provinces, suggests that this bill is fatally
flawed from its conception.
There are other very sneaky parts to this bill which must be
mentioned and must be put into context with other power-grabbing
Liberal policies.
This new agency will have the power—in fact one could see this
as a responsibility—to impose user fees on Canadians who use tax
services. They could start charging us a user fee to obey the
law and pay our taxes. This is a ridiculous notion. It is also
a mean notion.
This Liberal government did away with our universal safety net
when it abolished the Canada assistance act. As a result of this
action and the deliberate underfunding of health, post-secondary
education and social assistance transfers to the provincial
governments, means testing has become an increasing fact of life
for the increasing multitude of poor in our country. To be
eligible for many provincial programs, catastrophic prescription
drug programs, student bursaries and some welfare services, the
applicant must produce their tax records from the previous year.
It may come as a shock to the cabinet, which seems to see the
world through corporate eyes, but poor people do not have
accountants. One of the few things Canadians can still get from
their federal government without charge is their tax assessment
from the previous year. They just go into the office, show their
SIN card and great public service employees give them great
service. They then can go to their underfunded provincial
programs to receive basic services.
I believe that under the new agency proposed in Bill C-43 poor
Canadians will be asked to pay for their tax records, a charge
some will be unable to pay. This will place their access to
other programs at risk and make life even more difficult for them
and their families.
The reality of the Liberal government is that it believes
Canadians are best served by quiet cabinet orders, by a
contracted out public service with no regard to actual service to
the public.
That is what Bill C-43 is all about.
1620
The overall power grab is further seen by yanking the chain on
independent and well-loved agencies like the CBC and the NFB,
placing them under direct cabinet control as proposed in Bill
C-44.
I will candidly say that Bill C-43 is flawed, as the overall
thrust of this government is flawed. On behalf of the thousands
of citizens and their families in my riding who work for Revenue
Canada I will oppose this bill. I believe it is a wrong-headed
bill. I would like to see it defeated.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure today to speak in the House not necessarily about some
of the provisions that are in in Bill C-43, but rather the lack
of provisions.
Bill C-43 would establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
and would amend and repeal other acts as a consequence.
There is a myriad of things that could be done to improve the
taxation system in Canada. Every member has a list of grievances
from constituents as long as their arm. They stretch from some
of the more mundane things, such as HST taxation in Nova Scotia,
which is very important to those constituents, or the GST, all
the way over to tax free electronic transmissions which amount to
trillions of dollars per day throughout the world.
Perhaps this bill should not be thrown out entirely, but there
are huge pieces that should be rejected because of what it does
not do. I am not proposing that we throw the baby out with the
bathwater; I am proposing that we take a look at really doing
something with taxation in this country that would benefit
individuals, the men and the women who elect us to represent them
in this House of Parliament of Canada.
I would like to speak directly to one issue mentioned earlier by
the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia. That issue brought a
little relevance to this discussion. It is the issue of capital
gains.
I rose earlier in this House and reported to members that
capital gains is a very unfair tax because we are taxed on income
that we have worked all our lives for and we have already paid
tax on. I find capital gains to be despicable. That is the only
word I can use to fully explain it.
There is a lack of direction. We have put questions in the
House to the Minister of Finance on capital gains taxation on
private woodlots in Canada. Those questions were simply put
aside as if they were of no importance. They are of importance
to the more than 450,000 private woodlot owners in Canada.
Private woodlot taxation has never been looked at as any type of
issue in Canada. It has never been looked at in a realistic way
to, first, improve revenue on woodlots for the people who own
them and, second, to actually generate, in the long term, more
revenue by producing more jobs, thus producing more revenue for
the Government of Canada.
We have a real problem with capital gains taxation on private
woodlots which take 40, 50 or 60 years to grow. It is beyond the
realm of this government and many governments before it to
imagine the scope of it. Unfortunately, most politicians think
from election to election and do not look at the future. We try
to encompass that once in awhile. Sometimes we are partially
successful in doing it. But we do not do a good enough job at
it. Capital gains taxation on private woodlots is one way we
could come to grips with some of the issues.
If it takes 40, 50 or 60 years to grow a woodlot in this
country, in many instances there is no income derived from that
woodlot for 40 years.
1625
All of a sudden the woodlot owner finds himself or herself with
a windfall gain against which they do not have the opportunity to
claim any, or very little expense.
Unless they are a farmer they do not have the option of taking
the $500,000 capital gains exemption. They have the same capital
gains exemption of $100,000 that every ordinary citizen in Canada
has. It is inadequate. It does not cover the cost of fibre on
the woodlot today, which has increased dramatically.
A private woodlot of approximately 125 acres, or 50 hectares, 20
years ago might have generated $80,000 or $90,000 worth of
stumpage. Today that might generate $500,000 worth of stumpage.
There is no comparison. The government may as well wake up now
and find a way to accommodate that in our taxation laws.
There should be a method, there should be some utilization of
that income, where it can be put back into the ground, the
forest, the farm, the woodlot and the expenses that will be
incurred over a period of perhaps 20 years after harvest will be
incorporated into that tax gain over time.
That has not been approached. I have certainly discussed it
directly with the minister. There has been no attempt to
accommodate anything like that. The Canadian Private Woodlot
Owners Association and certainly the private woodlot owners
association in the Atlantic provinces have lobbied the minister
very diligently to do something positive about it.
We are facing all kinds of crises in our forests. We have WTO
obligations that we have to live up to. We have unfair trade
practices going on in the U.S. and discrimination against
softwood lumber products. We have ISO 14000 certification. We
have the stewardship of forests in Canada certification.
All of these things are being put on the shoulders of private
woodlot owners and forest companies in Canada and the government
is refusing to allow any kind of a tax break to deal with them.
It is refusing to back down on its capital gains for private
woodlot owners.
In order to certify a property and have sustainable forest
management, how can that be done as a woodlot owner in any
province of Canada? If the woodlot was inherited or purchased
30, 40 or 50 years ago and now has a harvest of timber that will
probably be valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, there
is no way to claim that. There is no incentive for the owner to
put anything back into the forest. That man or woman is facing a
discriminatory tax regime against progressive forest management.
It is like a cat or a dog chasing its tail. It goes around and
around and around. Somehow, some way, we have to get the message
through to the government that it needs to deal with the issues
of the day, the issues that are important to all Canadians, the
issues that create jobs in the country and not simply go off on
some tangent and revise the entire financial act or the entire
Revenue Canada act. There are other ways to do it.
I am not proposing for a moment that the system we have is the
best system we could have, but these changes do not incorporate
the very real changes that are needed in order to produce income,
especially for private woodlot families, farm families and
individual investors in this country, so that they could put
money back into their woodlots and have a sustainable forest to
meet the ISO 14000 guidelines, to meet the forest stewardship of
Canada guidelines and to continue to export lumber as we have
done for 500 years.
I wish for just a brief moment that the government would look at
some of the possibilities that are in front of it instead of
going off and trying to write the map from scratch. It is not
dealing with the issues.
1630
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is not the first agency the
federal government has set up to take over its responsibilities.
There have been a number of others, and we end up wondering why
exactly Ottawa created these agencies.
To get to the bottom of the matter, I would like to cite a
number of other recently created organizations Ottawa has
delegated its responsibilities to, and by trying to find out
what these creations have in common we may perhaps discover the
profound reasons for the government's creating them.
One of them is Aéroports de Montréal. ADM, we will recall,
decided to move international flights from Mirabel to Dorval,
thus shelving a public investment of $2 billion and throwing the
regional economy into chaos. The status of ADM is such that it
has never had to publicly justify its decision.
I asked the minister about this, and he said, in substance,
although not in these terms, naturally, “I wash my hands of the
matter”. This is the Pontius Pilate type response so perfectly
offered by the Prime Minister when he said “We can drop one of
the two airports, this is not going to cause me to lose any
sleep”. Obviously, had ADM not been created, the Minister of
Transport would not have been able to treat the matter so
offhandedly.
Nav Canada, another creation by Ottawa, is another private
organization, which manages aids to navigation.
Nav Canada does not have to justify its decisions either. If,
some day, Nav Canada decided to remove the control tower at an
airport, it would not have to justify its decision, even though
public interest would be involved.
Again, in that particular case, if the federal government had
retained its powers, it would not be so flippant in its answers
and it would have to justify its decision.
Another good example is the millennium scholarship fund. As we
all know, the federal government reduced its transfers to the
provinces, including those for education, and it used the money
saved to establish this millennium scholarship fund, obviously
for political visibility. Here again, the body that will manage
the $2 billion in public money will not have to justify any of
its decisions.
These three initiatives are similar in that the federal
government can act like Pontius Pilate, not provide any
explanations and avoid the obligations it had in the past.
The customs agency seems to be structured along the same lines.
It will not be accountable, even though we are told the minister
will remain in charge, or that he will at least have the right
to question its management.
The fact is that, by creating this agency, the federal
government is avoiding responsibilities that it would otherwise
have, as evidenced by clause 8 of the bill. Under this
provision, public servants will not be governed by framework
legislation such as the Public Service Employment Act. This
means that 40,000 public servants, or 20% of the federal public
service, will be at the mercy of the agency's board of
management. The directors of the agency will certainly earn more
than the department's senior bureaucrats currently do, but who
will pay for this?
It is the support staff, the record processing workers and
others, in fact the majority of employees. The government is
privatizing part of the public service.
1635
When the minister is asked about this, he will say “I wash my
hands of this. It's the agency, not me”. It is all very well
for the minister to say he will retain a degree of control over
the agency, but the same bill also states that the minister may
authorize the commissioner or any other person employed or
engaged by the agency to exercise or perform on the minister's
behalf any power, duty or function of the minister under any act
of parliament, with the exception of making regulations. In
other words, this is an agency within the hands of a
super-bureaucrat who is neither elected nor accountable.
We cannot really see what the public stands to gain from the
creation of this agency. We do, however, see what those in
power hope to gain from it.
Once again, an opportunity to wash their hands of something.
Once again, an opportunity to slough off any obligations for
transparency they would have otherwise.
Once again, as well, an opportunity to play their favourite game
of finding jobs for cronies, because clauses 15, 22 and 25
create a 15-member board of management. These, with the
exception of the chair, the commissioner, a deputy commissioner,
are appointed for three years from a list of recommendations.
The chair, commissioner and deputy commissioner are appointed by
the governor in council for a term of five years. Great jobs
for political staff.
There are no longer any limits to the Liberals' arrogance. They
are side-stepping obligations which any normal government assumes
and preserves, since they are almost royal in nature. This
federal government, however, is side-stepping them for the
reasons I have given.
To be objective, however, I must state that there is one
advantage to this bill. That advantage is that it will be even
more help than ever in convincing Quebeckers that the only
solution for getting out of such a rotten regime is sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-43, an act to
establish the Canada customs and revenue agency and to amend and
repeal other acts as a consequence.
Just to set the tone for my remarks, I want to read from a
letter which was sent to me by one of my constituents:
“Dear Mr. Earle:
I am a public servant with Revenue Canada. I am writing to you
to voice my concern with the proposed Canada customs revenue
agency. As an employee of Revenue Canada, I have a vested
interest in the department as it exists today and may be greatly
affected if the intended changes to the agency status are
implemented.
“If Bill C-43 is passed, I feel that the new agency will be
less efficient than the status quo. The agency would also
threaten the personal privacy of taxpayers. Finally, I feel that
the agency would not deliver promised cost savings and may even
lend to the imposition of user fees by both business and the
general public for the privilege of paying taxes.
“In closing I ask that you review in depth the proposal for the
Canada customs revenue agency. I do not feel the changes will be
in the best interests of myself, the provinces and the people”.
That is one letter of many that I received from people in my
constituency. All the letters I received had the same kinds of
concerns expressed. Some have gone even further to indicate:
“The fact that my position will be guaranteed for only two years
after the agency commences as well as a threat to my negotiated
benefits greatly disturbs me. I also find it difficult to trust
an employer who has allowed our collective agreement to expire
over a year ago”.
Although I have many points that I could speak on, I want to
speak briefly on a few that have been raised by people within my
constituency, concerns that have been expressed about this new
creation that will take place.
The first is that the agency will become a mega taxman, and the
term mega is being used a lot nowadays. We hear about it in
terms of the proposed bank mergers, megabanks, and for some
reason people, the government in particular, seem to feel bigger
is better. But I am reminded of an expression that my mother
taught me many years ago which was that good things come in small
packages.
We all must appreciate that small things are very important and
have their place. For example, a big vehicle can come to a stop
because of a very small micro computer chip or a very small part
in its engine. So bigger is not always better.
1640
There is concern that this new agency will become a very large
agency. We realize there are over 40,000 employees with Revenue
Canada and $2.2 billion in revenue will be transferred to this
agency. It proposes to administer everything from provincial
sales taxes to gasoline taxes to liquor taxes. The vision would
see a mega taxman who would offer even services to the
municipalities. Do we really want Ottawa involved in our property
taxes and things like that? Do we really want to put this much
power in the hands of a government agency?
A second concern that has been expressed is that the agency will
reduce accountability to the public and to parliament. This has
been expressed by my colleague who spoke earlier and by others.
We know that Revenue Canada as it presently exists is accountable
through a minister, but with the creation of a new kind of arm's
length agency there will be less and less accountability. As
envisaged, this agency's enabling legislation will permit a full
parliamentary review only five years after it has begun
operation. We know a lot can happen in five years. That has been
stated already. A lot can go wrong in that period of time. We do
need to be concerned about the accountability function that will
be sorely lacking if this new bill is passed.
Another important concern is the agency could jeopardize
personal privacy. The aspect of personal privacy was one of the
themes that rang throughout the many letters that came to my
office in the constituency. We know we live in an electronic
world today where there is more and more information about
ourselves and our families being quite often sold by various
companies, by private sector organizations all the way from
credit card companies to charities to consumer goods and
companies. We realize that our personal privacy is a very
important feature today. We can see what is happening when we
look at the APEC inquiry and the concern that is coming forth as
we see documents being tabled which show that there have been
security investigations and for whatever reason people's names
being placed on lists without their knowledge.
This is the kind of society we live in today. There is a great
concern about this new agency becoming a big brother where there
will be a great deal of financial and other information about
citizens available through this agency.
Even internal memos in Revenue Canada have acknowledged: “There
are privacy concerns among some stakeholders related to the
creation of a big brother. Everyone should share these
concerns”.
I will mention another concern that was raised which was spoken
of earlier. It is the effect of harmonization of the GST and the
provincial sales tax beyond the maritimes. This was something as
we know that started out with the government's intention of doing
this right across the country. Originally this idea was to make
sure that all provinces had a harmonized tax system but it only
went as far as the maritimes. People in the maritimes have
spoken loud and clear about how displeased they are with that
effort in their area.
Some people might say there is an advantage to a combined
administration. You will not have to deal with two taxes. You
will have to deal with only one. But we know that one tax
extends further and further into the lives of ordinary citizens
causing them to pay tax on things they normally would not have to
pay tax on and creating a great deal of hardship for lower and
middle income people.
This concept of the blended sales tax is something we should be
very careful of and the intent of this new agency will probably
carry it beyond what we see even today.
Rather than go on at some length about the many disadvantages of
this new agency that will be created, I conclude with a few
remarks in a letter from another constituent. These remarks hit
the nail on the head about the kinds of things we should be
concerned about with respect to this bill: “How will the agency
be accountable to us? By our MPs at present, when the
organization is no longer a government department? If the
government is looking for something to spend millions of dollars
on, here is an idea, our health care system”.
1645
That constituent makes a very real and important point that we
should get our priorities straight and in order. She says “As a
voter and taxpayer I am taking this moment to let you, my
representative in parliament, know that I want this tax monster
stopped and that we the taxpayers are tired of the government
wasting tax dollars on things that are redundant and not
necessary”.
I think that says it all. With those remarks I would say that
we are opposed to the bill. We trust the people of Canada will
express their concern and that members of the House will express
the same concern and not support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-43, to establish the
Canada customs and revenue agency.
The purpose of the agency is, first, to provide programs and
services in a more efficient and cost-effective manner, through
greater autonomy and flexibility; second, to improve services
and reduce the cost of administering revenues and enforcement by
working with the provinces to eliminate duplication and overlap;
third, to strengthen the effectiveness of the Canadian
federation and foster national unity by making the agency
responsible for providing federal, provincial and even municipal
services to Canadians.
The third objective mysteriously disappeared when the second
progress report was tabled. None of the provinces has agreed to
enter into an agreement. The provinces, with the exception of
Manitoba, remain unenthusiastic about the establishment of such
an agency.
In the face of this opposition, Revenue Canada's spokesperson,
Michel Cléroux, explained that the provinces had not said no.
That is not a very good explanation.
The agency will not produce the promised savings. Its promoters
recognized from the start that the greatest savings would come
from harmonizing taxation.
However, we all know that the extension of the harmonized or
blended sales tax flew like a lead balloon. In addition, the
proposed agency will not require the provinces to pay for tax
collection and treatment when the provincial program is fully
harmonized with a federal taxation program. This free service
does not represent a cost reduction but a cost increase for the
agency.
The agency's status will also enable its executives to pay
themselves salaries comparable to those of business leaders in
the private sector.
Regardless of the position one adopts on this matter, one must
recognize that it constitutes a new item of expenditure.
Coming at a time when the morale of public servants who are not
in executive positions is suffering seriously after a six-year
freeze, it must not be lost sight of that, since April 1, the
present government has awarded its executives raises of up to
19%.
The agency has already cost the taxpayer rather dearly.
Thousands of departmental employees have been involved in design
teams and other internal exercises aimed at turning the dream of
senior management into reality. A good part of the focus of
Revenue Canada has been turned away from more important and more
pressing matters.
I will give an example. You will recall a CBC program which
reported that, according to Department of National Revenue
documents, over 500 of the 1,500 auditor positions in the
Toronto region were vacant. This situation would mean a
shortfall for the federal treasury in this region of over $500
million in 1997.
We estimate the loss would be over $2 billion for all of Canada.
The agency would be a less effective solution than the status
quo. The myth surrounding the agency is that it could provide
tax services more cheaply and more effectively. However, the
structure proposed for the new agency adds another level of
bureaucracy in the form of an appointed board of management,
which would have nothing more than a supervisory role.
Nevertheless, time, money and staff must be provided for the
board and its staff.
At the same time, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency would
report to Treasury Board on administrative matters, such as its
activity and human resources plans.
1650
The agency would upset the balance between tax policy and tax
collection. There is, at the present time, a healthy balance
between the structure and tax policy, which should be left up to
the department and the Minister of Finance, and enforcement of
this policy, which is the responsibility of the Minister of
Revenue and his department, the Department of National Revenue.
The agency's status would upset this balance. The agency's
bureaucrats would inevitably launch into a turf war with their
Department of Finance counterparts. This would be a costly and
unproductive exercise that would serve the interests of no one
but the mandarins.
The agency would open the door to bureaucratic patronage and the
abuse of power.
In practice, the agency would have carte blanche with respect to
contracts, and with respect to the management of property,
materiel, information and technology. With limited outside
scrutiny, the risk of favouritism and abuse of power by
bureaucrats is very, very high.
The agency would pose a threat to taxpayers' privacy. If the
agency were actually to achieve its objectives, personal
information would be concentrated in a large organization not
directly overseen directly by Parliament.
Moreover, internal departmental documents indicate that the
creation of a “big brother” raises concerns among some of those
involved with privacy issues. We share those concerns.
What do the experts and the business sector have to say about
this agency? Nothing good.
In his report of December 1997, the Auditor General of Canada
voiced concerns about the accountability of the proposed agency
by asking: “What assurance will the people of Canada and
parliamentarians have that the public interest is protected?”
As well, a Public Policy Forum, or PPF, study commissioned by
Revenue Canada reported that Canadian business had serious
reservations about the creation of this agency. The PPF report
referred to the agency's objective of rationalizing and
simplifying tax collection.
However, 40% of the businesses the PPF surveyed saw no advantage
to a single national collection agency and 68% felt that such an
agency would add to their compliance costs, or have no effect
whatsoever.
As we have seen, then, the promise of a single tax collection
agency did nothing to bring about the harmonization of taxes in
all provinces. For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois and I
will be voting against the bill.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate this afternoon and to remind
viewers that we are dealing with Bill C-43, which is an attempt
by the government to repeal the Department of National Revenue
Act to convert Revenue Canada from a fully accountable government
department to an autonomous arm's length business oriented agency
with broad management authority over national revenue.
We in this caucus will oppose the bill on principle. We are
aware that some 40,000 employees in Revenue Canada now make up
about 20% of the federal public service. The move would involve
the transfer of more than $2 billion in annual parliamentary
estimates.
The government is glorifying the role of private sector
appointees and seems to think that the public sector can only run
on private sector principles. What is at stake here is a move
toward an independent agency without the support of major
provinces. Nor does it seem to have the support of the majority
of workers.
There are at least three provinces firmly opposed. Two other
provinces have not endorsed the concept. I think it is fair to
say that all provinces generally see the agency as an intrusion
into provincial jurisdiction. Not only the provinces and the
workers but Canadian businesses have major reservations about the
proposed agency.
The public policy forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada
found that among the businesses surveyed some 68% believed a
single tax collection agency would either increase their
compliance cost or have absolutely no impact whatsoever.
1655
The commissioner of customs and revenue instead of a deputy
minister would become the chief executive officer of the agency
responsible for its day to day operations. According to the
proposed bill, the governor in council would appoint the chair of
the board, the commissioner and the deputy commissioner for a
term of five years. The agency will still be subject to the
access to information and privacy acts.
The government is claiming that the agency will provide better,
more cost effective service to the public, to business, to the
provinces and territories by bringing about tax harmonization
with the provinces and therefore huge tax savings resulting from
the elimination of such things as duplication and overlaps in tax
administration among various levels of government.
A second point it advocates is that it promotes a stronger
partnership with the provinces and territories which, the
government believes, may then hire directly this new agency for
the delivery of programs according to service levels and
performance targets specified in the contract.
As an aside, I suggest that the government should consider how
the Atlantic provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and
Newfoundland have fared under the ill fated and loathed HST to
see whether they think it is something that should be transposed
on the rest of Canada.
Another point the government argues is that it creates a leaner
and more efficient delivery of tax services to be achieved
through the agency's enhanced operational flexibility and
autonomy inspired by the business culture.
The government believes the agency will combine the best of both
worlds. It will make the organization more accountable to its
clients and partners and set high private sector standards while
ensuring that the current powers of the Minister of National
Revenue and accountability to parliament will be protected.
We oppose the bill, as I indicated, on a number of different
grounds. First we oppose it for some philosophical reasons. I
have talked about the 40,000 employees, the $2 billion transfer
and annual parliamentary estimates that would be at stake. The
government glorifies the role of private sector appointees and
seems to think the public sector can only run on private sector
principles. The government would certainly take credit for
slashing expenditures by $2.2 billion.
It is frankly appalling that the control of tax collection,
which is a historical prerogative of the state, is about to be
abandoned, if the government has its way, almost by stealth to
the private sector.
There is a whole history of economists over the last 200 or 300
years who may have been absolutely firm in terms of free
enterprise and the like. They firmly believed, nevertheless,
that the collection and control of taxes was a prerogative solely
of the state, so important that it should remain completely in
the hands of the state.
We can think in our own time that even such advocates of free
enterprise and the market as the former prime minister of Great
Britain, Margaret Thatcher, and the recently deposed chancellor
of Germany, Helmut Kohl, never went so far in their drive to
privatize as to contract out, in effect, the collection of taxes.
Second, we oppose it for political reasons. We believe the
government in its move toward an independent agency is doing so
without the support of the provinces. The major stakeholders
simply are not buying. They have run this one up the flag pole
but few, if any, are saluting.
I have mentioned that the provinces are opposed, specifically
Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. B.C. and Saskatchewan
refuse to endorse the concept. Alberta supported the concept
probably for ideological reasons but pointed out that members
needed to be reminded that Alberta does not have a sales tax and
administers its own program. There is fading possibility that it
might sign over any day soon the administration of its provincial
income tax to this federal agency. I have also mentioned the
reservation of Canadian businesses and the study that public
policy forum conducted with those businesses.
We think for ethical reasons we should look at what happened in
the United States, specifically with the Internal Revenue
Service. In the evolvement and development of the IRS there are
dangers for us in an non-controlled agency.
1700
The IRS is a government department and not a fully independent
agency. It has extensive powers and operates under stringent
private sector performance standards similar to those that would
be entrusted to the agency by Bill C-43.
Historically the powers conferred to the IRS resulted from
pressures from the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Congress
for the creation of an independent agency to fight corruption and
organized crime back in the Al Capone days of the twenties and
thirties. These powers were then used to arrest some of the most
dangerous leaders at that time, including Mr. Capone.
On one hand the Liberal government affirms that the controls of
the agency will be the same as the controls over any other
government department. On the other hand, it would then turn
around and stress the need for independence. If the controls of
the agency will be the same as the controls over Revenue Canada
or any other government department why bother? Why transform a
government department into an agency which is not independent?
The agency will have more power because it will be more at arm's
length from parliament. Using corporate performance standards
will undoubtedly lead the agency to set up a system of tax
assessment quotas, performance and pay bonuses. These standards
have precisely led the aforementioned IRS to abuse its power over
taxpayers and at times use harsh and excessive collection
methods. The likely misuse of new powers and standards would
therefore turn the agency into a taxpayer predator.
According to the auditor general, the Liberal government lost a
potential $2.5 billion and $3 billion in revenues since 1995
simply because it refused to pay adequate salaries to attract
highly trained professionals required to perform complex audits.
These auditors are necessary to ensure compliance by foreign
multinational corporations operating in this country.
I think the problem the auditor general has been flagging is
that Revenue Canada acknowledges that it has been unable to hire
staff up to the limits authorized by parliament simply because
qualified auditors working in the private sector are not
interested in taking a 50% pay cut for Revenue Canada.
I think those are the types of things this government should
clean up and hire the number of auditors necessary to do the
proper job rather than contracting out this agency.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in this House today. Since this is my first speech here, I
would like to thank the residents of Sherbrooke for the
confidence they put in me on September 14, when they elected me
to represent their riding.
I wish to reiterate my firm resolve to represent all the
citizens of the riding of Sherbrooke in my daily work, whether
in Sherbrooke or in Ottawa.
I intend to work hard, along with my staff, to improve the
situation regarding employment, community life, the employment
insurance program, older workers and pay equity.
I read Bill C-43 carefully, and also the speech made by the
Minister of Revenue on October 1, 1998.
I was struck by this urgency to take action, so as to achieve
certain objectives, namely to ensure quality services at a lower
cost, fair administration, confidential service, modern and
effective management and, above all, parliamentary
accountability.
I was also struck by how easily the minister is prepared to
abdicate his political responsibility and let an independent
agency assume all the responsibilities that a government has.
I realize the minister must redefine methods and procedures in
order to achieve the objectives that I just mentioned.
1705
The minister reminds me of someone who is having mechanical
problems with his car and thinks that changing driver or doing
some bodywork on the car will make it run better. Well, it will
not. What the car needs is a good tune-up.
Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to expect the minister
to put his head under the hood, to replace defective parts and
to make the necessary adjustments so he can get back on the road
safely and reach the efficiency goals that the public expects in
terms of service delivery.
On September 29, the auditor general tabled his report.
As a member of the public accounts committee, I had the
opportunity to read Chapter 15, which deals with integrity at
Revenue Canada and where it is revealed that 285 incidents of
theft, fraud, abuse of power and conflict of interest were
reported over a period of 18 months. The auditor general said,
and I quote:
Bearing in mind that Revenue Canada has approximately 40,000
employees, 285 incidents in 18 months may not seem like a
particularly high number. At the same time, academic studies of
other segments of society strongly suggest that the number of
incidents of misconduct that are reported is much lower than the
number of incidents that actually occur. The nature of Revenue
Canada's operations makes it more vulnerable than many other
departments.
Because Revenue Canada is vulnerable, as proven by the incidents
that occurred in 1997, the department must remain vigilant. One
of the minister's five principles is that people want the
government to be accountable to them. In that regard, he said,
and I quote:
Questions are often asked in the House of the minister. The
power of the minister to inquire into these matters and respond
to the House will be maintained under the new agency.
Members will recall that, on September 30, I did ask a question
of the minister in this House. This was the question:
The auditor general reports that the government is already
having a hard time assuring security and integrity within the
department of revenue, with all the bribes, leaks, abuses of
power and everything else.
What should we think about a
government that is now contemplating giving tax collection over
to an independent agency, which would have even less
accountability than Revenue Canada?
Hon. members will remember the answer I was given; it was sheer
nonsense. The minister told me that if I really wanted to look
at problems in revenue, I should look at Revenue Quebec, where
the real problems were.
In order to hide from the public his inability to get his house
in order and hide the real reasons why he wanted to set up this
independent agency, he referred to the mote in his Quebec
neighbour's eye, but did not say a word about the beam in his
own.
The minister thinks that setting up an independent agency will
make it easier for him to reach the goals I have already
mentioned. I do not believe it, and several people agree with
me. But there is more.
For more than two years now, the minister has been working on
this agency. Instead, he should have worked on the restructuring
and the re-engineering of his own department. We would already
have better services, a fairer administration, modern and
efficient management practices, but mostly a structure more
accountable to parliament and taxpayers through a modern and
efficient department of revenue.
However, that has nothing to do with the real reasons why this
independent agency is being established. The real reason is
because the minister does not want to be held accountable.
It will act as a bulwark against having to account for tax
collection.
1710
Through its centralizing vision, the government wants to stretch
its influence and control to provincial, municipal and local
governments. It wants to have 15 extra positions to which
friends and defeated candidates can be appointed. It also wants
to exclude more than 20% of its officials from the application
of the Public Service Employment Act.
In this whole enactment, there is one important objective I
support, and that is to avoid duplication, and I agree with the
need to improve and simplify the administration of tax
legislation.
Quebec collects all provincial income and sales taxes. It would
be no problem to consolidate all provincial and federal tax
collection activities in Quebec. In fact, Quebec is prepared to
do it.
To conclude, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the establishment
of the Canada customs and revenue agency and urges the members
of this House to support the motion moved on October 1 and
seconded by me.
Another perhaps less obvious reason to oppose the establishment
of the agency is what I consider to be some kind of plan B. It
is well known that the government is trying to stretch its
tentacles to the municipal and local level. Luckily for
municipalities, they fall under provincial jurisdiction, and I
do not think the federal government will be able to get them to
do business with the agency, even with the lure of substantial
savings.
There would be a problem. The same way that a private business
partitions services within its operations and contracts out,
there are cities in Quebec considering partitioning, and a tax
relationship could be established between municipalities and the
federal government through the agency. I view this whole tax
agency business as part of a plan B.
The Bloc Quebecois and I are against the agency.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-43, introduced by the
Minister of Revenue, which aims at nothing less than the
creation of a coast to coast Canada customs and revenue agency.
Although the Bloc Quebecois recognizes the need to improve the
administration of tax laws and to simplify their application, we
find fault with four points of the government's vision in trying
to have this legislation passed.
First, we find fault with the bill's centralizing vision in
creating this agency. We also criticize the delegation of the
minister's responsibilities, which are his under the terms of
Revenue Canada measures. We must also criticize his weakness
with respect to senior Revenue Canada officials and the anti
union attitude taken in creating this agency.
First off, we should explain to our viewers what the Canada
customs and revenue agency constitutes.
On June 4, 1998, a week before the long summer recess, the
Minister of Revenue tabled Bill C-43 in this House. It concerned
the establishment of a Canada customs and revenue agency. When
we look more closely at it, we see the bill was mentioned in the
February 1996 speech from the throne, when the Liberal
government announced its intention to set up a national revenue
recovery agency.
In reality, this monster will be nothing less than the
transformation of the present Department of Revenue into an
agency independent of the government, which will have a mandate
to negotiate an arrangement with the provinces and the
municipalities so interested for the collection of taxes in
Canada. According to the minister, the creation of this agency
will change absolutely nothing, but we are not so sure about that.
1715
According to the minister, departmental responsibility and
parliamentary control will be maintained in their entirety and
the Minister of Revenue will remain entirely responsible for
administering legislation relating to taxes, customs tariffs and
trade exchanges. He also says that the Public Service Staff
Relations Act, the Access to Information Act and so on and so
forth, will still continue to apply.
What the minister says is that nothing will be any different
after this agency is created. The Auditor General of Canada
will continue to examine the agency's operations and report on
them to parliament.
We say that this is wrong, It is a sneaky manoeuvre, and nothing
could be further from reality than the minister's predictions
that this nothing will change.
We have to be realistic. If the minister were being truthful,
one would have to wonder why he was putting so much effort into
converting an entire department which employs one-fifth of the
employees in the public service into an agency. Why, when it
comes down to it, expend so much effort if nothing is changed?
Why not leave things as they are?
The answer is clear, and comes right from the mouth of the
President of Treasury Board: “Creation of the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency is an essential component of the government's
commitment to modernize the federal public service”.
Now we can see, the cat is out of the bag. While claiming its
purpose is to modernize the public service, the government's
real intent is to privatize it.
The Liberal government is claiming to promote a modern public
service, but it is in fact trying to have public servants
excluded from the scope of framework laws such as the Public
Service Employment Act. Such is the minister's objective, such
is the goal being pursued in creating this agency.
The Canada customs and revenue agency will hire 40,000 public
servants. This means that 20% of the federal public service will
then be at the mercy of the agency's board of management. The
agency's directors will certainly earn more than the
department's senior officials currently do, but it will be at
the expense of support staff, file processing clerks, and in
fact most of the employees, because they will not be protected.
The concerns that we just raised are based on a number of
reasons.
Let me point out some of the numerous inconsistencies found in
Bill C-43.
The agency is under the authority of the Minister of Revenue.
However, under clause 8, the minister may authorize the
commissioner or any other person employed or engaged by the
agency to exercise of perform on the minister's behalf any
power, duty or function of the minister under any act of
parliament.
In short, this means that the agency will be in the hands of a
super-bureaucrat who will be neither elected nor accountable to
parliament.
I want to make a comparison with the millennium scholarship
foundation. As members know, Bell Canada's chief executive
officer, Mr. Monty, was appointed as head the foundation. He
will manage a budget of $2.5 billion, to be distributed to
students in the form of scholarships and loans, and he will not
be accountable to the House as to how the money will be managed.
The government is trying to pull the same stunt again by
creating this agency.
The agency has authority with respect to general administrative
policy, organization, real property and determination of the
terms and conditions of employment. It is clear where the
problem arises and this is where money will be saved; on the
backs of front line workers in order to pay the higher ups.
The agency must develop a program governing staffing, including
the appointment of, and recourse for, employees, but no
collective agreement may deal with matters governed by the
staffing program.
This is the fate the federal government has in mind for one
fifth of its current employees. Obviously the agency is nothing
more than an attempt to crush unions.
1720
I am having trouble making myself heard and I hope that those
listening at home can hear me.
While it is true that the bill promises a certain flexibility in
subsequent clauses, once the harm is done and duly done, the
government will wash its hands of the whole affair. Who will be
responsible?
We are looking at a government that refuses to assume its
responsibilities. We are also looking at a minister whose
complacency is equalled only by his government's lack of
responsibility. We are looking at a government that is striking
an unprecedented blow to unions.
We are dealing with a government driven and blinded by a
centralizing vision which has not been seen since the worst
years of the intellectual mentor of the current prime minister,
namely Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
For all the reasons I mentioned, the Bloc Quebecois will not
support Bill C-43. We have no amendment to suggest. Rather we
demand that the bill be withdrawn or that every clause be struck
out. Quebec has always opposed the federal government's desire
to centralize all activities linked to tax collection within one
Canadian agency.
We have our own revenue ministry which collects all provincial
taxes in the province, on top of looking after the federal GST
since 1992.
Therefore we suggest that all activities related to tax
collection in Quebec, either federal or provincial, be
transferred to the Quebec Ministry of Revenue.
I remember our first electoral campaign. We were fighting
against overlap, duplication and federal centralization and we
won.
We say no to this bill.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, we must excuse the members who may
have been a little bit too loud during the good speech made by
my colleague from Quebec. Maybe it was because they found that
speech most inspiring. We know how it is to work in this House.
Sometimes members do get carried away.
I would like to add my voice to that of my colleague from Quebec
who concluded her speech by reminding everyone that, since it
came to this House, the Bloc Quebecois has worked to help Canada
move forward. It has worked to send the message that duplication
must be avoided.
My colleague from Quebec mentioned that we worked hard in the
area of manpower training.
We were the first provincial government—I say we because I come
from Quebec and I have a lot of sympathy and affection for the
Quebec government, the Parti Quebecois government. It was a
sovereignist government in Quebec that succeeded in concluding a
historic agreement with the federal government to harmonize the
collection of the GST, the infamous tax that forced the former
deputy prime minister to seek re-election.
I say all that because the new Liberal leader in Quebec, Mr.
Jean Charest, is claiming that Quebec would be better protected
and would be able to reach all kinds of agreements if he were at
the helm. There are still three areas where it is the Bloc
Quebecois in Ottawa that helped things move forward, which
allowed for a certain degree of harmonization.
Let us come back to the bill before us, Bill C-43, which creates
a super agency that will allow Revenue Canada and customs
services, whose staff represents about 20% of the entire
Canadian public service, not to be governed by the rules of the
public service.
1725
When I reread the bill, when I try to understand what it is all
about, I see that this is one of its only functions, one of the
only things that this agency will achieve, besides being able to
create cozy, well paid jobs, to which the minister will be able
to appoint friends of the government, of the members opposite.
It is interesting that each time the government tries to hide or
to avoid answering questions from the public, it creates a
commission, a super agency. This happens frequently right now.
When it does not want to answer questions from people who want
to express themselves publicly—which is the right to free
speech—I am talking about the infamous “peppergate”, what
happens?
It refers the issue to a commission. Yes, we are told the
commission has been in existence for a long time, at least 10
years. However, it forgets to give some tools to people who must
use this commission to get information. It forgets to give them
some tools, for example, lawyers who also are well paid to
defend them.
I say well paid. I will not argue about the definition of well
paid or about who should be and who should not. I am in favour
of people being paid for the fair value of their work. The
government should at least give these students the means to
defend themselves against the big machine.
A small group of students were sprayed with pepper, while the
minister is trying to estaablish—
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I hesitate to interrupt my colleague, but I would ask we keep to
the business of Bill C-43. I am wondering about the relevance of
his remarks. I expected he would ultimately bring his speech
around to the subject of Bill C-43. But, it is a question of
relevance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The government whip is
right. Perhaps the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok could address
the bill currently before the House.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Speaker, excuse my outburst, but when one
is trying to get the government's attention, one has to spice it
up a little.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: With salt and pepper, like your hair.
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Quite right, but I notice that the hairline
of the gentleman who made the remark starts a little further
back than mine.
I was trying to draw a comparison between Peppergate and the
creation of a super agency; in the opinion of the Bloc
Quebecois, the agency will break the direct link between what
the public is entitled to know and Parliament's oversight of
government. This link will be broken.
How will the public be able to control this new super agency?
I want to get the attention of the public and of the government
so that a second monster is not created and we are not
pepper-sprayed again.
If the agency's purpose is truly to generate savings, to avoid
duplication, there is no need to create a monster agency with 15
mega-commissioners at the helm. It is a simple matter of getting
10 premiers around a table and making a proposal. Quebec will
be able to administer its share of federal taxes within its
jurisdiction.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-283, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (audit),
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to rise in the House on my
private member's Bill C-283, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board Act. It would allow the auditor general to audit the books
of the Canadian Wheat Board.
We will have a new board of directors of the Canadian Wheat
Board. It would be a tremendous asset if these directors had
some guidelines to follow to know that the CEO of the board was
performing his job properly or whether amendments could be made.
To have an independent audit of a board that is a monopoly is a
tremendous asset. Up to now private auditors have done the
audit. They probably have done a good job, but no one really
knows because there has not been an independent look at the books
to see whether they are in order.
Over the past couple of months the auditor general has come out
vividly in favour of having some auditing done. He agrees that
it is time because the government guarantees that he should have
a look at the board's books to see whether there are good
internal operations of the board.
Deloitte & Touche did an independent assessment of the board in
1992. That internal audit was never released to the public or to
farmers. We do not have an idea of how critical the report was.
The facts released after the audit were critical of how the board
operated. They did not criticize the way the board marketed
grain, but they criticized its business plan, how it operated and
other mechanics of the board.
I became interested in how the Canadian Wheat Board operates
when farmers came to me with concerns in 1994, shortly after I
was elected. In 1992 Saskatchewan farmers suffered from the
effects of a huge frost. In 1993 Manitoba farmers suffered from
the fusarium outbreak because of excess moisture in wheat.
Because the board in 1993-94 put out a notice that it would not
be purchasing any of the fusarium wheat that had more than 5%
fusarium it was unmarketable. Some farmers burnt their crops
because there was no market for them.
The majority of farmers felt that if they harvested their crop
they could somehow clean it up and use it as feed or in some
other way. Some farmers were using it as fuel in their furnaces.
Then some innovative farmers found a market in the United States
for it. They had found a way of cleaning up that grain and were
quite willing to accept it.
Some farmers along the border started exporting this grain and
found out they needed an export licence. They went through legal
procedures to get export licences for grain that was not
marketable, which was not a big concern to farmers. They thought
they should have had the right to sell the grain at the price
they could get and keep the money in their own pockets.
The board created a buy-back program so the farmers had to pay
the board first. They had to sell the grain to the board, buy it
back at a higher price, and then market it themselves. Farmers
were not even opposed to that idea because they had a pooling
system.
If everybody was treated equally the moneys they were charged
would go into the pooling system and they would then share in
those funds.
1735
Lo and behold, about six months after the crop year ended and
the pooling price had been paid out, some of the farmers started
getting bills for storage of grain that had sat in their bins
until they exported it to the U.S. This grain had never entered
an elevator. Because they had signed a contract to export it and
the U.S. elevators were full, it could not be delivered at the
time and they were charged storage for having the grain in their
bins.
When they came to me with these documents I discovered they had
been charged storage, freight, elevation and cleaning to Thunder
Bay, and the wheat had been in their bins all the time. I then
started to investigate further and found out when they bought the
gain back the grain companies or the wheat board charged the
farmers as much as $1 a bushel more than they sold it to the
grain companies that exported the grain. They were getting
hammered double and that is where the M-Jay Farms class action
suit started.
The board had no way out. It could not defend itself. Its only
defence was to say that it had no mandate to sell their grain for
the best price possible. The only mandate the board had was to
sell the grain in an orderly fashion.
We have sold grain in an orderly fashion for 45 years. In
western Canada today we see that the orderly fashion is fast
disappearing because farmers cannot survive any longer. This is
why I have been pushing for the last three or four years to get
an accountable board that will work for the farmers, not for the
corporation itself.
To show why it is so important, Mr. Beswick, one of the chief
commissioners of the board, resigned in 1994-95 over the issue of
feed barley being sold below cost price or below what the price
should be. He came out in public and said “We have cost farmers
this last year probably $180 million by underselling that feed
grain”.
In western Canada $180 million is a lot of bucks to farmers. Not
only is it a lot of bucks to western Canadian farmers, but they
are lost tax dollars to the government or to the taxpayer.
Whatever the loss is in terms of the taxes farmers would have
paid on the grain, it has to be picked up by the ordinary
taxpayer and somebody loses. It is important that we have a
wheat board which extracts the maximum amount of grain, not just
for the benefit of farmers but for the economy and taxpayers.
I will give just a few examples because I want to share as much
time as I can with my colleagues on this issue. In March 1993-94
when the first farmers started shipping some of their 1992 crop
year grain which had been impacted by frost in some areas, U.S.
No. 1 wheat sold for $3.99 a bushel. The Canadian export price
for No. 1 feed wheat was $109 a tonne. During the summer the
prices of wheat in the United States increased by $1 a bushel. By
September the wheat was worth $4.93 cash at Minneapolis.
The wheat board raised the export price of No. 1 feed wheat to
$116, a difference of $9 or 25 cents a bushel when the wheat was
worth at least $1 U.S. more in the United States. That meant
farmers were losing at least $1 a bushel because of the failure
of the wheat board to raise the export price.
1740
That was not the end of the story. By December the price of
wheat increased another $1 a bushel and we had American milling
wheat selling in Minneapolis for $5.73. Does anyone know what
the Canadian Wheat Board did? It lowered the export price for
No. 1 wheat to $104 a tonne from $116 a tonne. Did that make any
sense? We knew that because of the fusarium our feed wheat that
year had protein of 14.5% to 15%, some of the highest protein
wheat that we had ever grown, and the Americans cleaned it up and
used it for milling wheat. The loss to our farmers was huge.
From the research I have done, on the 2.2 million tonnes that
went into the U.S. as feed wheat, not durum or milling wheat,
farmers lost at least $150 million. The spread between feed
wheat in 1992-93 was $60 a tonne. The spread between feed wheat
and milling wheat in the U.S. in 1993 was $130 a tonne. That is
about a $4 a bushel spread. It did not make any sense. The
wheat board refused to look into the issue when farmers phoned
them and told them what the wheat was worth.
This is why it is important for the Canadian government to
insist that the auditor general takes over the books, not just
audit them to see if the prices are right but to see whether the
board is running efficiently and for the benefit of the country
and not just for the benefit of the board itself.
Another thing I would like to raise may be just as important as
what I was saying on feed wheat. In 1995-96 when American grain
prices were the highest in history wheat sold for $7.25 American
a bushel. Corn sold for $5.25 to $5.50 a bushel. Our wheat
board refused to sell grain into that market. Instead of selling
the 1.5 million tonnes allowed by the Americans into their
market, it only sold 750,000 tonnes. It cut the sales by half.
The board would not allow farmers to export their own grain
because it set the buy-back price at $9 and something a bushel
just to eliminate the competition. I call that robbery. It was
devastating to our farmers in western Canada.
Not only that, the following winter was one of the toughest in
western Canada. There were transportation problems. An extra
million tonnes of grain was carried over. It was more than in
previous years. We refused to sell because of the board policy.
It does not make sense. Now when we see we are to get an elected
board of directors maybe we will have some changes. That is why
it is so important for the auditor general to have control of the
books.
We had 11 elected advisory board members for the last 10 to 12
years who were supposed to guide the board along. These advisory
board members had the right to look into every portion of the
audit and into every detail. They never once told farmers what
was happening to their grain.
Six months before the commissioner of the board, Bill Smith,
accidentally passed away he told a group of farmers “If I could
walk out of this place today and tell you what is happening to
your wheat or your grain it would be astounding, but I have two
more years to serve before my term has ended and I can retire. I
have to follow secrecy. I cannot divulge what is happening in
the board”.
1745
When we talked of human rights issues today, when we look at the
APEC issue, people do not have the right to protest with signs.
People do not have the right in western Canada to sell their
grain for the best price.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on
private member's Bill C-283, a bill that would require the
accounts and records of the Canadian Wheat Board to be audited
annually by the Auditor General of Canada.
As the hon. member is no doubt aware, Bill C-4, an act to amend
the Canadian Wheat Board, received royal assent in June of this
year. One of the amendments to that legislation, passed by the
other place, relates to the financial accountability of the
Canadian Wheat Board to the farmers it serves. That amendment,
endorsed by the government, the BQ and the Progressive
Conservatives in a vote of 197 to 60, allows for the Auditor
General of Canada to conduct a one time audit of the accounts and
financial transactions of the Canadian Wheat Board and report the
findings to the producer controlled board of directors and the
minister responsible.
A major thrust of Bill C-4 is to give farmers control of their
marketing agency by establishing a 15 member board of directors
with 10 of those positions, a full two-thirds majority, to be
filled by producer elected directors. The board of directors
will be in charge of overseeing Canadian Wheat Board operations.
These directors will have access to all information and facts and
figures regarding Canadian Wheat Board operations, including
selling prices for grain. In other words, Bill C-4 has put
producers in the driver's seat.
The legislation the member for Portage—Lisgar is proposing
would take the keys away from farmers and give control back to
the government. The government believes that with the full
knowledge of the inner workings of the Canadian Wheat Board the
directors are in the best position to assess what information
should be made public and what, for commercial reasons, should
remain confidential. They will be in the best position to assess
Canadian Wheat Board operations. The recent changes to the
Canadian Wheat Board Act will give the producer controlled board
of directors the power to make changes to these operations.
The government recognizes that producers are entitled to know
how their marketing agency is working for them. The Canadian
Wheat Board works for them, not the other way around. Therefore
how it conducts its business is their business.
Hon. members must bear in mind, however, that the Canadian Wheat
Board is a major competitor in international grain trade. With
$6 billion a year in sales, it is Canada's fifth largest
exporter. It markets wheat and barley on behalf of western
Canadian grain producers to more than 70 countries around the
world. In other words, the Canadian Wheat Board is a big player
in international markets. Grain trading on this scale is a highly
competitive business where information is king and
confidentiality is paramount to ensure the highest possible
returns to farmers.
Who is selling to whom and for how much is highly guarded
commercial intelligence that in the hands of its competitors
could jeopardize the wheat board's ability to extract premiums
from the marketplace. That in turn would affect the bottom lines
of more than 110,000 prairie grain farmers.
Obviously then a balance is needed between transparency and
accountability to producers and ensuring that Canadian Wheat
Board operations and records are not subject to significantly
greater levels of public access and scrutiny than the private
sector grain companies it competes against.
1750
That is very important and it is important to understand that.
With that in mind and to enhance the transparency and
accountability of the wheat board the government supported the
amendment to the legislation to allow a one time audit of the
accounts and financial transactions of the Canadian Wheat Board
by the auditor general.
Therefore, and this is important to understand, the general
intent of this private member's bill is already incorporated in
the new law.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I did in
previous discussions on Bill C-4, I have to admit from the outset
that, as a Quebecker, it is hard for me to feel deeply concerned
about Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act
(audit), because those affected are mainly the grain producers
in western Canada. I will be brief, and all the more so because
the remarks of my Reform colleague have set the tone of the
debate on his bill.
As my party's critic for agriculture, my concern should be to
examine whether most farmers or the agricultural industry as a
whole can benefit from the bill before the House.
In my humble opinion, the amendments in this bill deserve a good
discussion.
The proposed amendment to subsection 8.1 (1) on auditing reads
as follows:
8.1 (1) The accounts and records of the Board shall be audited
annually by the Auditor General of Canada and a report of the
audit shall be made to the Board and the Minister.
This clause modifies an amendment, made by the Senate and passed
by the House last June, which is included in Bill C-4. This bill,
which has been enacted, provides that “Within two years after
the day this section comes into force, the Auditor General of
Canada may commence an audit of the accounts and financial
transactions of the Corporation for such fiscal years as the
Auditor General considers appropriate and a report of the audit
shall be made to the Corporation and the Minister.”
There is no need to amend this clause, since such an audit is
already being carried out, and the best time to undertake an
audit should be left to the discretion of the auditor general.
Also, the accounts are audited every year by a well-known
independent accounting firm.
Subsection (2) reads as follows:
(2) The Minister shall cause the report made under
subsection (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament on
any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting
after the report is received by the Minister.
This is a common procedure for when such a report is made to the
Minister.
The other amendments put forward by the hon. member are
well-intentioned.
Some people might find it normal for a board financed by farmers
and whose initial price and line of credit are guaranteed by the
government, to report to the minister responsible.
This ensures transparency. It would look bad if the Liberals in
this House were to disagree with that. The proposed amendment
would replace paragraph 9(1)(c) and allow the minister to follow
up each month on the board's:
—purchases and sales of all grain during the month and the
quantities of grain then held by it, the contracts to take
delivery of grain to which it is then a party, all securities
then held by it and the financial result of the Board's
operations.
However, these good intentions pose a great risk to the Canadian
Wheat Board.
To provide this information in a written report would be to tell
competitors all there is to know about the board, including its
sales engineering and contracts.
In today's competitive world, this might condemn to a slow death
an institution that should be considered as a business or
company that ought to be profitable for its investors, that is
the producers and the government, basically everyone in the
country. It is likely to take the wind out of its sails during
future negotiations. We must bear in mind that the grain market
is not an easy market and it is an extremely competitive one.
As for the proposed amendment to paragraph 9(1)(e), it would
allow the minister to get an annual report on the Canadian Wheat
Board's activities.
1755
My previous comment still holds. There is risk of disclosing the
methods used for the purchase, movement and marketing of grain.
In addition, when it was introduced in November 1997, the
auditor general review clause had not yet been added to Bill
C-4. The legislation now in force contains this safeguard.
In closing, the Bloc Quebecois agrees, but only in principle,
with this bill, as it forces the Canadian Wheat Board to be
transparent in reporting its activities to the minister
responsible. However, inherent to these amendments are risks
that must not be overlooked.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased to speak to Bill C-283, an act to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act. I listened with interest to the member for
Portage—Lisgar as he spoke on the differentiation in prices
between American and Canadian grains over the last number of
years.
I do not challenge the numbers at all but I wonder if another
interpretation can be made rather than one that condemns the
Canadian Wheat Board for the apparently lower prices. I wonder
if it is not higher subsidies in the United States. Higher
subsidies, whether in the U.S. or anywhere else, tend to depress
the international market. I say with some regret and a lot of
concern that we are seeing more of it in this country. We are
seeing more disparity with the Americans having recently passed a
huge farm aid package. Yet we seem to be saying that we have NISA
and crop insurance and that we are well served. Everybody who
lives in western Canada these days knows that is just not
correct.
In Bill C-283 the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar is asking that
the accounts and records of the Canadian Wheat Board be audited
each year by the Auditor General of Canada. He is further
requesting that the auditor general make this audit available to
the wheat board minister and that the minister table the report
in the House of Commons within 15 sitting days of receiving it.
These are the main provisions in Bill C-283 although the hon.
member makes several other requests as well.
I will not be supporting this bill. I will outline some of the
reasons why. I believe the hon. member's requests in Bill C-283
have largely been overtaken by events over the past year. It
seems that what he is requesting is already in the process of
occurring under the terms of Bill C-4. This bill was first
introduced in November 1997, almost a year ago, when the debate
on Bill C-4 was perhaps at its highest flashpoint in and around
this Chamber. That legislation was subsequently passed last June
which means, as has been pointed out, that there will be
significant changes in the way the wheat board will operate in
the future.
Bill C-4 as amended and proclaimed allows the auditor general to
scrutinize the books of the CWB. The wheat board legislation
received intense scrutiny. It was referred to the agriculture
committee in the first week of the 36th parliament. It was
debated fully in this House and the Senate agriculture committee
held public hearings across western Canada last spring. Following
those public hearings the Senate agriculture committee
recommended that the board's books be opened to the auditor
general on request. The wheat board minister accepted this
recommendation word for word and it has become section 8.1 of the
amended bill.
The Senate committee's report took note of the fact that the
wheat board would be holding elections for a board of directors.
Those elections are occurring through a mail preferential ballot
as we speak and will be finishing next month. It is worth noting
what the committee actually said about its recommendations
regarding the auditor general's reviewing the books of the
Canadian Wheat Board. I quote briefly from that report of last
May:
1800
“All directors of the proposed board would have access to all
Canadian Wheat Board facts and figures, including the fully
audited financial statements. The minister has suggested that,
with this full knowledge of the CWB and its competition, the
directors would be in the best position to assess which
information should be made public and which should remain
confidential for commercial reasons”.
As has been pointed out by the member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia, international grain trade is a very
competitive business. The wheat board is a $6 billion a year
operation with customers around the globe. Not surprisingly, the
board's clients are sensitive about the release of information
that might apply to them.
I believe fully that the board has to strike a balance between
openness and confidentiality in the commercial information that
it releases and I believe that, by and large, it has been
successful in striking that balance.
In any event, my first point is that much of what the member is
requesting will become reality when the new board of directors is
in place in 1999.
I am sure the amended Bill C-4 which contains the
recommendations referred to regarding the auditor general will
not be enough to appease the hon. member or his party. We know
that the Reform Party and the National Citizens' Coalition have
been unremittingly hostile to the existence of the Canadian Wheat
Board. Their allegation, which is repeated regularly and
constantly, is that the board is a dark, dank and secretive
organization.
We talked a lot about that in committee. We spoke about it
during the debate on Bill C-4. I think it is important that we
separate the wheat from the chaff on this issue. I believe that
the board is, by and large, a remarkably transparent organization
compared with its competitors in the international grain trade.
As has been acknowledged even by the member for Portage—Lisgar,
the board's books have been audited for years by the well known
Canadian firm of Deloitte & Touche. The most salient points of
the audit are included in the wheat board's annual report which
is public information and available to anyone who wants to read
it.
In addition, there is a synopsis for those who prefer to read
the short version as opposed to the full report. As well, the
board regularly holds public meetings throughout the countryside
to discuss its operations with Canadian grain farmers. This kind
of openness and information sharing is hardly the trademark of a
secretive, dark organization.
I would suggest that the Canadian Wheat Board probably provides
at least as much, and likely more, information as other Canadian
grain companies involved in the grain trade, including the United
Grain Growers and the various prairie pools.
The wheat board's international competitors, companies like
Cargill, which are privately held, do not provide nearly as much
information as the wheat board.
Let us lay to rest, once and for all, this mantra because there
is no foundation to say that the Canadian Wheat Board is not an
open organization.
In conclusion, for the reasons outlined, I will be voting
against Bill C-283.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party
and our wheat board critic, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris,
in support of private member's Bill C-283.
I must begin by saying that the bill put forward by the member
for Portage—Lisgar addresses some of the most paramount concerns
farmers have with the Canadian Wheat Board, which are
transparency and accountability. As in any crown corporation or
mixed corporation Canadians expect no less.
The Canadian Wheat Board was incorporated by the Canadian Wheat
Board Act in 1935 to market interprovincially and to export
Canadian wheat and barley for producers.
The wheat board is a monopoly system. If a producer wants to
sell wheat or barley outside the CWB he must apply for an export
permit. This means he sells his product back to the CWB, obtains
the permit, buys the wheat back from the CWB and then sells it on
the open export market.
He has to go through the wheat board. He cannot market his
wheat without going through the wheat board, a wheat board that
generates sales of wheat and barley in excess of approximately $6
billion annually.
The point I am getting at is that farmers do not have a choice
but to market through the wheat board and there is a lot of money
at stake for the producers. Therefore, why should the Canadian
Wheat Board not be accountable and transparent to those very
producers?
1805
There have been a lot of changes to the Canadian Wheat Board
over the years. It was originally intended by the Right Hon. R.
B. Bennett's Progressive Conservative government that the
Canadian Wheat Board be a voluntary institution with a mandate to
operate in the best interests of producers.
It is unfortunate that the wheat board no longer operates in the
way it was originally intended. It eventually became a monopoly
and a means of controlling wheat prices for the federal
government during World War II.
Its main aim was to limit grain price increases so as to
safeguard the government's wage and price controls and control
the cost of mutual aid to the allies during the war.
In 1967 the Liberal government of the day made the Canadian
Wheat Board's monopoly permanent, a truly sad day for the
majority of farmers who today want a voluntary wheat board.
Furthermore, when Bill C-4 was passed last June further changes
were made.
For the first time in history 10 out of the 15 board of
directors were going to be elected by producers. The elections
are being held this fall. Hopefully the newly elected board of
directors will have some say in the future of the Canadian Wheat
Board and will be able to make the necessary changes to ensure
that the board truly evolves in the 21st century.
That being said, somewhere along the way the farmers started to
mistrust the agency that was supposed to represent their best
interests. They started to question its monopoly and their
returns compared to a fair market value, and rightly so. They
saw farmers south of the border getting more per bushel of wheat
than they were receiving for the same grade through the wheat
board. In some cases the farmers' suspicions were not unfounded.
That being said, most farmers in western Canada do not want to
eliminate the wheat board, they just want the wheat board to be
more accountable.
It is no different than the constituents that each individual
member of parliament in this House represents. Canadians expect
accountability. The last time I checked they expected a lot of
accountability and I would suggest that members on the other side
of the House take a long hard look at accountability.
I can tell members on the other side of the House who want to
enter this debate that accountability will stick to them like
scum on a pond and it will not be easy to get off. Canadians
expect accountability.
I firmly believe that the bill before us today will only add to
the accountability through the transparency of an annual audit by
the auditor general.
I must also say that this is an issue that is not new to farmers
in western Canada or to this House. During the debates and the
committee hearings on the bill previously known as Bill C-4,
which eventually passed last June, members of this House
questioned the government as to why it was not willing to put
forward legislation that would make the Canadian Wheat Board more
open and more transparent. In fact, my colleague, the member for
Brandon—Souris, put forward similar amendments at the committee
level during the study of Bill C-4 that would have given the
auditor general the power to audit the Canadian Wheat Board.
Unfortunately the Liberal majority of the committee did not
recognize these concerns and the amendments were subsequently
voted down.
However, the member for Brandon—Souris did not stop there. He
pushed for more amendments with his Senate colleagues and
eventually the Senate put forward several reasonable amendments,
one of which allowed the auditor general to audit the Canadian
Wheat Board's books within the first two years after the bill
takes effect.
The audit is provided to the board of directors and to the
minister. This amendment, along with other Senate amendments,
including the elimination of the contentious inclusion clause,
were eventually passed when the bill received royal assent June
11, 1998.
This adds further transparency to the Canadian Wheat Board, but
there is still an opportunity for more transparency, and I
believe we have that opportunity with Bill C-283.
Members on the government side will argue that due to
international market sensitivities the government should not
reveal the wheat board's secrets. My gracious. That is quite a
statement.
The government will also say that there is an annual audit.
When the Canadian Wheat Board releases its annual audit, if
members opposite actually look at the annual report, they will
realize that it has as much depth as the government's vision of
Canada.
1810
The government will also say that the professional accounting
team of Deloitte & Touche currently audits the wheat board. Yet
when my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, requested
a 1992 managerial audit by the same company he was told it could
not be released. He was told it was confidential. That answer is
just not good enough for Canadians. They want transparency in
their publicly funded institutions and they expect no less.
That being said, the U.S. government formally requested an audit
of the wheat board over six months ago. In fact, the Toronto
Star reported on January 14, 1998 the federal agriculture
minister warning “The U.S. government is poised to demand an
audit of the Canadian Wheat Board because American grain growers
fear they are victims of unfair trade practices”.
If other foreign governments can request audits of the wheat
board it would only make sense that the people of Canada, the
farmers whom the wheat board is supposed to represent, are
afforded the same rights. The unfortunate thing is that common
sense does not always prevail in the benches opposite.
It was probably put best in a January 1998 Globe and Mail
article that said “Farmers have no way of knowing whether the
wheat board is doing its job, because it operates in secret. And
they have no other recourse, such as a mediator or an ombudsman,
against apparently incompetent, abusive and fraudulent actions”.
Once again it would only stand to reason that the Canadian Wheat
Board be accountable to the farmers it is supposed to represent.
It would only stand to reason that an annual audit be allowed to
ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board is indeed accountable and
transparent to the farmers it is supposed to represent.
The Progressive Conservative Party will support this bill and
looks forward to reviewing it when it is sent to the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As hon. members
know, the last five minutes of the debate goes back to the mover
of the bill. But we have three members in the House who have
advised the Chair that they would like to speak. That would give
each member about four minutes.
Is there a consensus to divide the remaining time between the
three members: the member for Selkirk—Interlake, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
and the member for Yorkton—Melville?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I support the member for Portage—Lisgar in putting
forward Bill C-283.
I would like to clarify the position of the Reform Party and
myself with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. We support the
Canadian Wheat Board in its operation as a voluntary marketing
agency. That should clarify NDP and Liberal statements which say
that we are dead against it.
The member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia said that the
Canadian Wheat Board is a competitor on the world stage. This
competitor has to have the trust of the producers who supply it
with product. That is where the current Canadian Wheat Board,
with its single desk selling, falls down: basic trust.
The position of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is in essence
the position of the current government due to the fact that it
appoints so many people to the Canadian Wheat Board, is that it
needs to keep prices, contracts and other assorted information
secret. That may very well be true. Certainly Cargill, ADM,
Sask Pool and the other big grain companies would also want to
keep some of the information secret. The wheat board says that
if it did not keep it secret it would not be able to extract
premiums from the marketplace.
This is where the distrust comes in. How does the farmer know
that in fact the premium is being extracted? This is where the
socialist-type politicians represented by the NDP and the
Liberals differ from myself and the Reform Party. We say that if
the farmer wants to determine where the best price is, he goes to
Cargill, he goes to the Canadian Wheat Board, he goes to UGG, he
goes to Sask Pool and AgriCorp and they start giving him prices.
“I will give you $4 for your wheat. I will give you $4.50. I
will give you $4.75” and so on.
1815
The farmer is no dummy. He is going to take the highest price.
He does not need to know that the premium was extracted in Korea
for instance. The point we have to make here is the information
this bill would bring out would be a first step in attempting to
get information so that farmers would trust the Canadian Wheat
Board.
In the little time I have remaining I would like to comment on
the Canadian Wheat Board elections that are coming up in a very
short time. In the latest information we see that 33 of the 65
candidates are running on a voluntary wheat board platform. We
will see that the vote will also reflect in an unofficial way a
referendum on the support for a voluntary marketing board for
Canadian wheat and barley. At the present time a price of 86
cents a bushel is being received in the west. That is clearly not
good enough. Farmers need a choice.
With that I await the day when we have a voluntary wheat board
and farmers can market their grain where they want.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take great
pleasure in speaking to the bill proposed by the member for
Portage—Lisgar.
The member went to great length in his remarks about cash prices
in the United States, price spreads and so on. However he failed
to mention the times over the whole year that the Canadian Wheat
Board returns to producers, to farmers, more dollars in their
pockets than the American system returns to the pockets of its
farmers. That is a fact. It has been shown over the history of
the Canadian Wheat Board. All studies have shown that.
The 1995-96 annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board states “A
performance evaluation conducted during the 1995-96 crop year
showed Canada ranks highly with its customers in such areas as
quality of product, customer service, technical support and
dependability of supply”. The most important point is that
another study conducted by three economists showed that the
Canadian wheat board single desk system generates an additional
$265 million per year in wheat revenue for farmers. That is what
the Canadian Wheat Board does. It enhances Canada's
competitiveness. The study also showed that the Canadian Wheat
Board provides a low cost marketing service to farmers. That is
performance.
Anyone who watches the market knows that at any given time we
can pick a higher price here and a lower price there, but when we
really do a study we find the facts are there. The Canadian
Wheat Board with its single desk selling system returns more
money to primary producers than what that dog eat dog system in
the United States does for its primary producers. One of the
reasons the United States Congress is having to pump subsidies
into the farm community in the United States is that the
Americans do not have a Canadian Wheat Board which can maximize
returns to producers in the marketplace.
I do not want to be misinterpreted. Given the world situation
and the way the United States and Europe are undermining prices
in the world, our producers are finding it very tough. Thank
goodness they have the Canadian Wheat Board to maximize the
returns that are in fact in that marketplace.
I know the intent of the member for Portage—Lisgar is to try to
assist producers. In the very short time I have left I will deal
with the bill.
When we were in hearings in western Canada the producers
indicated that they wanted the wheat board to have accountability
and transparency.
And of course we on the government side listened. We did provide
that accountability within the board's structure.
1820
When they are elected, the board of directors will have access
to all Canadian Wheat Board operating data, including the prices
at which grain was sold, the price premiums realized and the
operating costs. They will be in a position to review the wheat
board's operations. They will have the power to make changes
that are in the best interests of farmers. In other words, the
directors will be able to ensure that farmers are getting fair
value for their money from that system.
This government made those changes and we stand by them. The
board is there for farmers and we want to see it remain a single
desk selling agency. We do not need this bill.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot believe what we have just heard from the
Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
He lives in Prince Edward Island. He knows that the Canadian
Wheat Board applies only to the provinces of Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba and does not allow the people in those
provinces to market their grain freely. He knows that he does
not have to comply with the wheat board yet he sits there
defending it.
He probably does not even know what the initial price of wheat
is right now that the wheat board is handing out. That is why we
have a farm income crisis on the prairies. It is about time this
government started to listen because it is a very serious
problem. It is because grain prices are so low and farmers do
not have the choice.
As I sit here and listen to the debate in the House in Private
Members' Business, one thing occurs to me. Probably what is
being debated after hours in the House of Commons is more
important to the people of Canada than the bills that are being
introduced by this government all day long. Private Members'
Business probably addresses some of the key concerns that
Canadians have. This is one of those concerns. There are major
concerns out there with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Why do we need to have more transparency? A free, open and
democratic society needs to have transparency in its
institutions, especially if an institution is a monopoly. If we
have a government granted monopoly and we expect people to comply
with it willingly, that monopoly, that organization, the Canadian
Wheat Board, needs to have the confidence of the people who must
comply with the monopoly powers of that agency. That is why this
whole discussion is so important.
There are many reports that the Canadian Wheat Board is dumping
grain on the international market into the U.S., that it is
selling grain below its competitors on the Minneapolis Stock
Exchange. We have no way of knowing if those reports are true.
That is why we need someone who can go into the books and report
to the farmers who must comply with that agency as to whether or
not that accusation is true.
Whether we like the agency or not, we still need to have that
transparency. Without that, it is going to have serious
problems.
I took the amendments to Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board Act
brought forth by this government to the farmers in my riding. I
took a survey and used several different instruments to find out
what farmers thought. One of the things I found was that over
80% of the farmers in my riding, and this is probably
representative of farmers in the three prairie provinces,
supported the idea that is being proposed here, that the auditor
general be allowed to look at the books. Yet that government over
there is defending this abhorrent situation.
It is time the people of Canada came to the rescue of farmers
and helped them out in this situation. If over 80% of farmers
want transparency and they want the auditor general to look at
the books and report as to whether they are doing a good job, it
is time we listened because they are forced by this government to
comply.
1825
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always a pleasure entering a debate on the
Canadian Wheat Board.
I suggest the auditor general should not audit books just of
government agencies but also the common sense of the Liberal
government. The auditor general would have a very small job. It
would not take him very long.
When I hear members on the government side saying look at what
the wheat board is doing, let the members opposite tell me why
every farmer is growing more canola than the previous year. The
farmer is growing more lentils, more navy beans and more hemp.
The Liberal government supported the growing of hemp. If the
wheat board is doing such a good job with their grains why do we
need all these other crops? Why can these crops work on an open
market?
We sold our canola at an average of 30 bushels an acre for an
average of better than $8 a bushel. My neighbour is selling
barley for 11 cents. Good lord, how is my neighbour supposed to
grow the bloody stuff? He cannot even drive it to the fields to
sow it for that price. This is the job the wheat board is doing
for us?
A commodity broker phoned me about two weeks ago and asked why
he cannot buy durum from Canada. He said he bid $20 a tonne over
asking price at Thunder Bay for a unit train of durum and he
cannot buy it, but on the world market they are selling the same
bloody durum for $20 under the asking price. He says every
trader on the floor knows this.
Why are the Americans upset over the Canadian Wheat Board
dumping grain? Why is this government putting at risk $1.73
billion worth of livestock going into the U.S. because it will
not have a transparent wheat board? This government will not
allow people to look at what it is dumping into the U.S.
We are setting the stage for a depression in western Canada if
we do not get transparency. The American farmer is quite willing
to compete with the Canadian farmer but he is not willing to do
it at the risk of having Canadian products dumped into their
market at half price. The Americans cannot subsidize their
farmers enough. The Europeans cannot subsidize their farmers
enough to keep up that kind of marketing system.
We need co-operation between Americans and Canadians to fight
the Europeans who are our enemy but common sense on that side of
the House tells us no, let us play politics with this issue. Let
us do exactly what we have been doing for the last 45 years. Do
the politicking on the backs of Canadian farmers. Let them
suffer. The farmers cannot put food on their own tables and this
government does not have enough common sense to have the books
audited by the auditor general, the most accountable, the most
respected person in this government.
If that is anything less than a little common sense what do we
expect of our government? What will we expect of it next?
Protest signs coming down and pepper spray. What are we going to
do to the farmers so they keep selling grain through the wheat
board, water cannons, pepper spray or what?
At this rate farmers cannot afford to grow this grain anymore.
When we get 11 cents for barley, $2 for number one high protein
milling wheat it does not work to pay for a $250,000 combine. It
does not pay to pay our property taxes on the land. We cannot do
it.
If this government does not smarten up and get realistic and put
some the money into wheat board grains we are not going to have
farmers left. All we are going to have is some hobby farmers who
are working for the government or some other agency to put enough
money up so they can afford to truck their grain to the field,
sow it and then truck it off and give it to the wheat board.
We cannot afford to live without a profit. The only profit in
the Canadian farm scene today is special crops and this
government knows it. This government has been supporting the
industry of special crops or it would not have put the motion on
the floor to grow hemp.
These people have been smoking something and I do not know what
it is. We cannot get it through their thick heads that
competition sets the price in the world today, competition drives
the markets, competition will be there and it will make farmers
profitable.
1830
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)