EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 143
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 27, 1998
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Notice of motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1005
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-449. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1010
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1015
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1030
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1035
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1040
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1045
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1050
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1055
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1110
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1115
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1205
(Division 246)
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43—Time allocation motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1250
(Division 247)
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
1255
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1300
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
1315
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1330
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1355
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IODE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1400
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1405
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL POST
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GREEK COMMUNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL POST
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1410
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ERMINIE JOY COHEN
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WYE PLANTATION ACCORD
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GASOLINE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHRISTMAS TREE INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1415
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1445
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCRAPIE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1450
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HELICOPTER PURCHASE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1455
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK SERVICE CHARGES
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1500
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1505
1510
1515
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1540
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1555
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1710
1715
1745
(Division 248)
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
(Division 249)
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
1750
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-54. Second reading
|
(Division 250)
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-55. Second reading
|
(Division 251)
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-41. Second reading
|
1755
(Division 252)
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALLOTED DAY—Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1805
(Division 253)
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1815
(Division 254)
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MERIT PRINCIPLE
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Ianno |
1840
1845
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1850
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1855
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1900
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1905
1910
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1915
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1920
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 143
![](/web/20061116190506im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, October 27, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table two notices of ways of
means motions. The first amends the Excise Tax Act in respect of
split runs. The second amends the Budget Implementation Act of
1997 and 1998. I am also tabling explanatory notes for each. I
ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of
each motion.
* * *
1005
INCOME TAX
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with your
permission while I am on my feet I would also like to table,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), copies of legislative proposals
and explanatory notes relating to income tax.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 40th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
of some standing committees of the House.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 40th report later this day.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-449, an act to amend the Employment Insurance
Act (parental benefits).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the 1996 national longitudinal survey on
children and youth found that 25% of Canadian children entered
adult life with significant emotional, behavioural, academic or
social problems.
Therefore investing in early childhood development is an
imperative, not an option. This bill responds in part to this
need by providing more flexibility, options and choices to
parents, by amending the Employment Insurance Act to provide one
full year of maternity or parental leave benefits under that act.
I am pleased to introduce this bill and I look forward to
earning the support of my colleagues in the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 40th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
1010
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.Speaker,
I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans presented on Monday, March 23, be concurred in.
I must admit I have been waiting an entire
year and a half in this House in order to debate the east coast
report and to move concurrence on what I consider to be an
outstanding and fabulous report.
The first thing that has to be remembered is that this report
does not come from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans. We tabled it in the House but the report is actually a
reflection of all the witnesses and all the people by the
thousands who came to all the meetings in November 1997 in
Newfoundland, Quebec, the New Brunswick region, Nova Scotia and
P.E.I. This is an outstanding report that five political parties
in this House can agree to.
Prior to the election and the campaign in June 1997 the
reporters, the pundits and even ourselves were calling it
possibly a pizza parliament. If a pizza parliament can put
together what I consider an excellent report, then so be it.
What was the government's response in September 1998 to this
east coast report? Absolutely scandalous. The government
completely whitewashed the report and ignored the recommendations
of nine of its own members. Absolutely scandalous.
I will go on to specific details within the report. When the
east coast report came through, committee members got together
and said they cannot be in Ottawa making recommendations or
conclusions on what to do with the thousands of lives of the
people on the east coast. They decided to go to these communities
and talk to the people and write down what they were told, put it
in a report and table it. For the first time in a long time the
standing committee actually agreed unanimously to put this report
together.
This report is a triumph of east coast fishermen, plant workers
and their families over the adversities and policies of the
current DFO and the past DFO.
We have had 16 ministers in the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans in the last 11 years. Everybody knows they use this
department as a revolving door to move forward on to other
grounds.
An hon. member: A spawning ground.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: It is a spawning ground for future
references or future movements by ministers. That is one of the
key problems.
Another problem with DFO is it is very stagnant. It has well
over 800 people at 200 Kent Street and not one of them is
catching any fish or setting any fish in the Hull River or the
Rideau Canal.
One of the serious recommendations we made in this report is
that DFO seriously downsize and move to the coastlines to where
the resource is so it can have a better handle on what goes on on
all three coasts of Canada and our inland waters.
The east coast report seriously condemns the government and the
bureaucracy within DFO. It is one of the changes that has to
happen.
Nobody on the east coast except for those who are involved in
the ITQ and the big corporates which were funded by this and
previous governments agree with the government. Ninety-five per
cent of all people in the fishing industry on the east coast
vehemently disagree with the current policies and practices of
DFO.
Why are they continuously ignored? They are continuously
ignored because they do not have a voice in Ottawa. They did not
have a voice until this report came out. What is the
government's response? A complete whitewash of this report.
It is absolutely scandalous that parties as diverse as the
Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservatives,
the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party can agree to this
report only to have it turned around and voted against by their
own members because of the pressure tactics of the Prime Minister
and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
It is an absolute whitewash. It is an absolute scandal that we
can spend all this money touring those provinces on the east
coast only to have the report completely ignored by the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans and by the bureaucrats in Ottawa.
As we know, this government has spent over $4 billion since 1988
readjusting the people on the east coast out of the fishery.
1015
Has there been any great improvement over the years? Absolutely
not. The lives of thousands and thousands of people have been
totally disrupted.
What is the attitude of the centrally based Canadian government?
Move. Just get up and move.
One of the reasons I decided to run as a member of parliament
followed what the Prime Minister of the day said in a late
November or early December town hall meeting on the CBC. A woman
very passionately and eloquently told him that she had her
education, that she was trying to look after her children and
that she was finding it difficult to get a job. She asked the
Prime Minister what he and his government could do to help her.
The Prime Minister's answer at that time was “In life some
people are lucky, some are not. You may have to move.”
It is quite obvious that that attitude permeates the entire
Liberal government. All that is heard by the people who have
worked for centuries in the resource is “you have to move”.
That is an attitude that is absolutely despised on the east coast
of Canada and in northern Quebec.
This report exemplifies the courage, the stamina and the wisdom
of people on the east coast. The fact of the matter is that
these people know the resource better than any of us. They have
worked it for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Speaking of the tragedies of the policies of DFO, at the
beginning of this year the town of Canso, Nova Scotia, which is a
wonderful small coastal community, after over 400 years of
self-sufficiency, will have to claim civic bankruptcy. It is the
first time it has ever had to do that.
All of the young people are leaving and all of the businesses
are slowly shutting down for one specific reason: the town had
no access to fish. What they did get was minuscule.
The Friday before last I took a tour of Canso and the town of
Mulgrave, Nova Scotia. Mulgrave has the only shrimp peeling and
processing plant in all of Nova Scotia. Earlier this year the
government of the day, in its wisdom, gave 28,000 additional
metric tonnes to Newfoundland and Labrador. Not one tiny little
shrimp went to the town of Mulgrave. These people begged, they
pleaded, they argued, they did every single thing that could be
done to convince DFO that all they wanted to have was 2,000
metric tonnes of that 28,000 metric tonne allocation. They got
nothing.
Even the provincial Liberals with their current minister of
fisheries, Mr. Colwell, and Mr. MacLellan, the premier of Nova
Scotia, did absolutely nothing to help these people. That means
that the premier of Nova Scotia has absolutely no clout with his
current friends in the Liberal government.
The result of this will be that at the end of this year the town
of Mulgrave will lose its shrimp peeling plant. It will move to
Newfoundland where it can have access to the shrimp.
The owner of ACS Trading is a business person. He loves the
town of Mulgrave. He pays very good wages to the people when
they can get work, but the fact is that they have no access to
the shrimp.
As a business person he will have to move his plant to
Newfoundland where they have excess access to shrimp. Parts of
Newfoundland are asking for Nova Scotian boats to go up there and
help them catch all the quota they have. It is like a Klondike
with the shrimp up there. Mulgrave got absolutely nothing.
The same applies to the town of Canso with respect to turbot.
When I visited Canso there were 11 boats in the harbour, all of
them from P.E.I. Every one of those boats had lobster licences,
they had crab licences and as a bonus to them all they had tuna
licences.
In this report we talk about adjacency. Adjacency means that
those people who live closest to the resource should have first
access to the resource, working in conjunction with the other
provinces in the area. The problem is that Canso only has two
tuna licences, while P.E.I. has hundreds.
1020
These boats were catching tuna within a rock's throw of the dock
in Canso. The people in Canso watched all their tuna being
caught by other provinces. The people of Canso have no access to
it, except for two little licences. It is absolutely incredible
that this government can pit one province against another. The
result is that these people have to go on EI.
Now, with the changes to EI, they cannot even do that. They go
right to social assistance. These people have all the pride, all
the love and all the hard-working skills to maintain themselves
in a productive society. What is this government's response? It
turns around and hits them and hits them and hits them with bad
regulations that will do absolutely nothing for their future and
their families.
What is the ultimate answer from this government? Move. In a
town where their great, great grandfathers and grandmothers are
buried, where all their ancestors lived, where they grew up,
where they love to live, the response from this government is to
move.
Move to where? Toronto? Next fall 2,000 people at the Boeing
plant, the McDonell Douglas plant, are going to lose their jobs.
How are these people who fished all their lives going to compete
for jobs with highly skilled people from the Boeing plant? What
is going to happen then? It is absolutely criminal.
I wish for once that members of the centrally based Canadian
government would get out of their chairs, out of their offices
and en masse go to the town of Canso to have a look at what is
going on.
There have been 50 different requests in a year and a half from
the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, from myself and
from our party for the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
to go to Canso to speak to these people. What is his answer?
No.
These people even came up to Ottawa to speak to him. What was
his answer? “I can't speak to these people”. He is the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. His job is to speak to people
from the fisheries and oceans world and he refuses to meet with
them. But he has absolutely no problem meeting with his friends,
Mr. Bob Wright of the Oak Bay Marine Group, on the west coast. He
receives one phone call and he is there. Thousands of people on
the east coast of Canada deserve and need this man's attention
and his department's attention to the failures of the practices
and policies of DFO, and the answer is no because it does not fit
into the general plan.
In conclusion what I am going to be saying is exactly what has
happened to these people and why it is happening. The fact is,
this government, in its slippery backhanded way, has privatized
the fishery. Through the ITQ system the five big corporations on
the east coast control over 70% of the fishery resources on the
east coast. Right now they have 50% and through individual
transfer quotas they have an additional 23%.
There was a gentleman from the great town of Sambro, near
Halifax. He was 48 years old and had a grade five education. I
watched him baiting his lines and putting them into a bait box.
He looked at me with all the experience of the world, with a
really weathered face and said “You can have it this way in the
fishing industry. You can have one man make $210,000 a year, or
you can have seven of them make $30,000 a year. Make your
choice”.
My choice was very simple. People who can earn $30,000 a year
are extremely proud people. They are proud of who they are. The
recent Swissair disaster in Nova Scotia proved exactly how proud
these people are. That fisherman was one of those people who
late at night risked his life to see if there was any possible
way to recover bodies or survivors from that ill-fated flight.
That is the type of people these fishers, plant workers and
families are. This government wants to shut down their
communities.
At least Joey Smallwood when he was premier of Newfoundland
asked them to leave. This government does not have the courtesy
to meet with these people. These people, to put it in ocean
terms, are the salt of the earth. It is an absolute disgrace.
Every single Liberal member should be absolutely ashamed that
these people can be treated that way.
1025
I ask the Liberals to go to the east coast to meet with these
people. I ask them to read the east coast report and ignore what
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his useless bureaucrats
have done. I ask them to read it for themselves. If they do not
believe us, they should go there themselves, have a look and talk
to these people. Then they will understand once and for all that
these people want to work. They do not want the damn TAGS
program. They do not want the useless EI programs. They do not
want social welfare. They just want to work. These people have
been working the resource for hundreds of years. All they want
to do is work.
I am giving this government one more chance to vote for
concurrence in the east coast report. There were nine Liberal
members who voted for concurrence in the report at committee.
They agreed to it. It is a unanimous report. When we have the
vote today we are going to see those people sit like little sheep
and vote against it because they have been whipped into cowardice
and do not have the balls to stand by what they read.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Perhaps the hon.
member for Sackville—Eastern Shore will retract the statement
and then proceed. He has three minutes and 56 seconds.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the
Chair and this House, I retract that last statement.
They do not have the courage to stand by what they wrote in the
report. Their own minister will not even go down to meet with
these people. The fact is that my beautiful province of Nova
Scotia, the other three provinces of Atlantic Canada and Quebec
have been devastated by the policies of this government.
Another thing this government has done with its so-called TAGS
adjustment program is to off-load the responsibility for the care
of these people onto the backs of the provinces.
On September 1 over 9,000 people in Atlantic Canada had to apply
for social assistance. Before that they were either on the TAGS
adjustment program or they were working, gainfully employed, but
because of these policies they were destroyed by this government.
These people are now the responsibility of the provinces. What
will the provinces do? They will download that responsibility to
the municipalities. The municipalities will not be able to bear
the burden. We have the result of the town of Canso. The people
throw up their hands and say “We cannot handle it any more. We
have to claim civic bankruptcy in the new year”. That is an
absolute disgrace.
In 1995 we were in Catalina, Newfoundland, and there were 320
kids in the school. We were there in 1997 and it was down to
125. The town of La Scie, Newfoundland, does not have a
volunteer fire department any more because all the guys left.
There is no work for them any more.
I do not know how these Liberal people can sleep at night.
Obviously they live in Ontario and Quebec. They do not live in
the areas that I represent. Even the Liberal member for Labrador
had tears in his eyes when we were talking to people in his area.
These people are devastated and all he wants to do is help them.
I give him, the member for Malpeque, the member for Miramichi
and all of the other members who are from that region the
opportunity to stand up once and for all for their people in
Atlantic Canada and vote for concurrence in the east coast
report.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too have travelled with the hon. member who just spoke
and I have three questions I would like to ask him as he has
again moved for concurrence in the report that was unanimous in
having members rise in this House to stand up for their
constituents.
As the member knows, the former chairman of the fisheries
committee was removed by the Government of Canada. He has stated
that publicly on the record. He stated that before the media,
along with other members of the committee. I would like his
comments on that. Does he believe that the chairman was removed
from the committee for speaking the truth and that other members
of the committee were dealt with by the government in the same
way and forced to vote against their report?
I would also ask the member if one of the major components of
the report is that not only the minister but the current
structure of DFO in every community is not working.
1030
I ask the hon. member for his comments on whether he believes
the current structure of DFO can work or his comments on what he
feels needs to be done.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reform Party
member from Vancouver Island for his question. He was with us on
that tour. We also had the opportunity to tour his province to
discuss the concerns of the west coast.
Although I did not mention it in my speech, when I came to House
of Commons I honestly believed that a committee could be
independent of government. I believed that a committee could
listen to witnesses, write down their concerns in booklet form,
in a pamphlet or in a report and present it to the House of
Commons so that all Canadians could see it.
What was the response? It was typical. The government removed
one of its most outspoken backbenchers, the member for
Gander—Grand Falls. He had fought for over 24 years for the
rights of fisher people in his riding. The response of the
government was that he had to go. The DFO could not handle the
truth so the chairman of the committee was silenced.
That chairman was able to bring five political parties together.
We left our politics at the door and dealt with the problems on
the east coast. I congratulate the member for being able to do
that and I scorn the government for removing him from the
committee.
Regarding the structure at DFO it absolutely has to change. It
has to get out of Ottawa and to where the resource is. It has to
start working with the people who work the resource. We should
do that right away.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened attentively to my colleague. My question is based on
what he was saying about the shrimp fishery.
Essentially we are dealing with Liberal provincial
administrations in the four Atlantic provinces. All this shrimp
is being transferred to P.E.I. or to Labrador and Newfoundland
for processing. What does the government have against the
premier of Nova Scotia?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, to clarify the shrimp
issue, it was not transferred anywhere. It was just given to
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The ironic thing is that every time I rise to ask a question of
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans he is not here. He happens
to be the premier of Newfoundland at the same time so I have to
ask the stand-in for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
There is no question that the Premier of Newfoundland has an
awful lot of clout and an incestuous relationship with the people
in DFO. Because of that the rest of the provinces and Quebec are
falling behind. Our provincial premiers in the three provinces
of Atlantic Canada and in Quebec have been unable to crack the
dent within DFO and get it to listen.
If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does not want to meet
with fisher people and their families, why would he want to meet
with provincial premiers from those provinces?
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I would
like to get some clarification from the NDP member who just
spoke. I also want to congratulate him for caring about the
groundfish fishery.
Did I hear that the government set up a committee with a
majority of members from the Liberal Party of Canada and some
opposition members? The committee drafted the report after
hearing a number of witnesses from all over Canada, people who
were experiencing problems relating to the fisheries, people who
had been invited or who had asked to be invited by the committee
to make representations.
You will agree that the government spent a lot of money on that
committee, which was nothing but window dressing.
The whole thing was just for show. The government said “We are
listening to you, we are taking note of your claims and we will
ask the minister, following your testimonies, to amend various
clauses of the bill”.
1035
The report was unanimously approved and signed by all committee
members. If I heard right, when the time comes to vote in this
House, some members will go so far as to renege on their
commitment and deny their involvement as well as the seriousness
of the report, supposedly because the government does not
recognize the time that members from the NDP, the Reform Party,
the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party have
put into the report. We worked with diligence to produce that
document.
We members of this House have better things to do than just go
through the motions when we sit on a parliamentary commission or
committee.
I am asking the government and the members who sat on that
committee to show some respect. When the House votes on the
report, I hope that government members will rise and support it.
I would appreciate it if the NDP member could tell the House, or
explain more clearly, what happened to make these members vote
against a report that they endorsed.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I give praise to the nine
Liberals who were on the previous committee. They worked very
hard. I give the former chairperson top credit for the work he
did. The other eight Liberal members were extremely helpful. I
will not deny that for a second, but at the same time so were the
members from the Reform Party, the members from the Bloc, the
members from the Progressive Conservative Party and ourselves.
We actually got together and put our policies and politics aside
to work on the problems of the east coast fishery. It was a lot
of fun to be part of that historical moment. The co-operation
and communication among all of us were fantastic.
In answer to the member's question, the government voted against
concurrence in the west coast report which was moved by the
member for Vancouver Island North. Those Liberals voted against
it. Some of them were not even here to vote against it although
they were in Ottawa. If government members hold true to form I
expect them to vote against it again.
That is why we are giving them the opportunity to stand in the
House and prove one more time that the committee is not a waste
of money, that when we meet these people in their communities,
something the minister cannot or will not do, we actually listen.
We offer them hope and encouragement to go on with their lives.
The Liberals have one more opportunity and I encourage every one
of them to vote for concurrence in the east coast report.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this motion by
the NDP member because there is indeed a fundamental problem in
Canada, whether in western, eastern or northern Canada, when it
comes to fisheries management.
Years ago, from 1922 to 1984 approximately, we benefited from
devolution in the field of fisheries, and this was particularly
true in Quebec. Then it stopped, and fisheries have done very
poorly ever since. I would go so far as to say that the reason
the fish are gone is because there is no more devolution. The
fact of the matter is that the whole fisheries area has been
terribly mismanaged.
All sorts of problems are being experienced. Two reports have
been tabled in Parliament, but the federal government is still
turning a deaf ear.
In fact, the last report saw the chair of the committee resign
and be replaced. Today, a new one is depicting a situation
urgently requiring that the government act on this report. We
are facing a crisis both on the west and the east coast. It is
important that action be taken very soon, in the next few weeks
or months.
1040
We should support this report and make sure that the government
acts on it. Perhaps it has finally become clear that, with
respect to fisheries as well as many other areas, the
jurisdiction granted to the federal government under the
constitutional document of 1867 should have been granted to a
more local authority instead, an authority that could properly
manage fisheries within that region.
The situation of fisheries in western Canada, in the Pacific
region, is not necessarily the same as in the Atlantic region,
and the economic impact may not be the same either. We know how
important salmon is to western Canada. Solutions must be found
that are tailored to the situation over there.
Viewed as a percentage of Quebec's overall economy, the fishery
is not a key component. But, for the regions affected, the
Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands, the entire North Shore, the Gulf of
St. Lawrence, the repercussions are serious.
There should be different solutions to this sort of problem in
each of Canada's regions. For many years now, a blanket
approach has been taken. Solutions have been imposed by the
federal government, backed by technical and staff expertise that
may be useful, but that does not include on-site visits to ensure
that the decisions taken are advancing the industry.
The government has been forced to learn a great deal from the
many errors made.
Because there are no more fish in the oceans, the emphasis is on
developing aquaculture. This is a promising and important
sector, but it should not be developed purely for lack of
anything better.
Turn-of-the-century pictures depicted Europeans, Quebeckers and
Canadians fishing off Canada's shores. There were fish in
abundance for people from throughout the world. Today, we are
faced with critical situations that have nothing to do with
natural cataclysms and everything to do with bad management.
I think the federal government has to approach this problem from
a very different angle. It has already received some very
important messages from Canadian parliamentarians. It is high
time it listened. It has to be able to tell the inhabitants of
these regions that they have a future, that there will be better
management in the future.
This would also give local authorities improved control.
When the future of one's community is at stake, one takes a very
different approach than if one were doing a report on the
fishery for another part of Canada. When one lives in Ottawa
and does a study on the fishery in western Canada or in the
maritimes, the implications are not the same as if one lived in
the communities affected.
I therefore hope the federal government will listen and that
this House will take action on the member's motion.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's statement and
he is absolutely correct. However I have a question for him.
After $4 billion being spent on readjusting the industry,
thousands of people and hundreds of communities are in turmoil.
The resource itself is in serious depletion and in serious
trouble. We have not even had an inquiry on this subject yet.
Would he not agree with what I have been calling for since I got
here, some form of a judicial inquiry into the practices and
policies of DFO? Would he not agree that an inquiry or a total
review of the current DFO would be necessary?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, the present situation is rather
desperate.
A few years ago, the Atlantic groundfish strategy was put into
place. Judging by its words, the federal government's intent
was to face the problem head on, and to try to find a solution.
In practice, however, nothing has been done, and the program has
served instead merely as a support program.
1045
Of course, people needed to survive, and they needed a minimum
income to do so, but the fundamental objective of the program,
which was to ensure diversity in regional economies, was not
realized.
Today the hon. member is saying “Ought we not to have a
committee, an in-depth study, a commission of inquiry?” Something
to put the fisheries back on track. We have to find the right
solution, and we must not have commissions lasting two, three,
four, five or ten years, because the situation is urgent.
All manner of solutions have already been proposed by the people
living on the coast, and proposals have been made in reports by
various parliaments. Let us find a solution. It could be
called a task force or go by some other name, but the important
thing is that control over the decisions on this matter be given
to elected representatives.
I think we have had proof already. The government authorities
have abandoned their responsibilities in this area, in many cases
turning them over to people who did not necessarily share the
same concerns for developing the regions in question. The
message I pick up from the hon. member is that yes, action is
urgently needed, and that solutions require us to have a clear
picture of the situation, but the action must be immediate.
Action must be taken to allow these regional economies to get
back on their feet promptly and not to have to continue to live
with today's reality of a subsistence program for a number of
years more, while the objective of economic diversification
remains unmet. Nowadays, we no longer even dare refer to that
objective.
The communities are up against a brick wall, with no future in
sight. If this were not the case, it would be worthwhile for
the House to follow up on the hon. member's motion.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the hon. Bloc Quebecois member and also my colleague from
Sackville—Eastern Shore for their comments about how important
this east coast fishery report is for the Atlantic region. It is
of significance to my community of Halifax West where there are
many fishing communities. The importance of the recommendations
in that report cannot be underscored enough in terms of how it
will assist the people in those communities.
As a member I find it very disturbing that people can deal with
a report or an issue, come to a conclusion and then not have the
strength and the courage of their convictions to vote in favour
of what they decided was in the best interest of all. Before I
entered politics I said that I would not allow politics to change
me. It saddens me as I sit in the House and watch time and time
again the faces of people on the government side as they vote on
issues in a manner other than which they believe. It is very
discouraging. I have talked to many people individually. We saw
it happen with the APEC situation. People have told me they
believe in the human rights issues involved but when it came to
the vote we saw a different thing.
This report provides another opportunity for those people who
are seriously concerned about the well-being of the fishers on
the east coast. It provides an opportunity for them to stand up
and be counted and to do what is right in the eyes of all.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, the member's remarks made me think
about the fact that the Bloc Quebecois critic on fisheries, the
member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, is
responsible for a committee covering between 70% and 80% of
Quebec's fisheries. The part not covered is the north shore.
This member has expertise in the area and has spent a lot of
time in the past year working on a report. He left it up to the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to produce a report
on the situation in the Atlantic region. This report was
unanimous on the whole situation. The committee did a thorough
investigation.
The member was involved in consultations throughout the area and
today he can say that the report on western Canada is valid as
well.
1050
This Parliament should pay tribute to the members who took part
in this task, especially those with expertise in the area, who
claim to speak for the fisheries sector. Their arguments should
be heard and the report read so there will be a follow-up to
provide a way out of the trap people are in today. This trap
has created a total catastrophe in the fishing industry.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the member if he sees this as an overall pattern in the
direction that the government goes. The government denies or
mismanages resources and forces people off the land and away from
their resources, whether from the land or water. Then the
government makes it doubly difficult because the former support
of unemployment insurance is no longer there to carry people
through a hard time.
I do not know if anyone in the House realizes this, but the
fishery in the Yukon was severely affected this year. Very few
salmon came up the river. The people who depend on it to catch
three to fifteen fish a day to make it through the winter are no
longer going to be able to do that. People do not think of the
Yukon River flowing up into Dawson but it is dependent on the
oceans and how we manage our oceans and the fisheries.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, the situation today in the fishing
sector is the result of a fundamental choice made by “Canada's
economic thinkers”, a few years ago. Whether it be information
on employment insurance reform or the government's budget
choices, there is an underlying force encouraging people to move
where there are jobs.
The decision was made in Canada to no longer guarantee the
future of communities. Instead, the people in the communities
would decide to go wherever the market required, regardless of
their skills, expertise or the fact that they had raised
families in a given community. This basic choice underlies a
number of government policies. Today, several thousand people
are living with the very negative effects of this choice.
The member gave the agricultural sector as an example, but the
same situation exists in the fishing industry. I think it is in
this industry that we see more of the effect of this basic
choice, where a few years ago they were saying “the future is
the law of the market, there is no need to guarantee the future
of small communities. We just have to move the people”.
The first experiments in this regard were carried out in the
Gaspé peninsula. You will remember that some 20, nearly 30,
years ago, the people who lived in the area were moved so
Forillon Park, a federal conservation park, could be
established. The people living there were moved out and into
low cost housing outside the park. At the same time, people
from outside were hired to work in the park.
This is the sort of experience that resulted from a principle I
consider unacceptable, one that should be changed. We in Canada
must debate the matter of priorities to make sure that people
can live in their community—rural or urban—and that we never
again go through experiences like those of today in the fishing
industry.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I too would like to comment on this issue. I thank the member
for moving concurrence. He is really asking for the government
members who participated in the writing of this report to stand
up for their constituents and to vote for the report. This
matter goes a lot deeper than that.
In effect what we are talking about is that the committee
performed a consultation process as committees do. It spent a lot
of taxpayers' money, and rightly so, going around listening to
Canadians, coming back and writing a report with recommendations.
The problem that has arisen out of all this is that we have ended
up with a report that is deeply critical of the government, its
policies and its department. The government had a very, very
significant problem with this.
1055
The government had to make extremely radical changes. The
government had to remove the chairman of the committee. The
government had to make changes on the committee because it did
not like what was reported.
The government has made the committee ineffective. It has
completely stripped the committee. This was the government's
solution. It saw no other way around this. The government could
not stop the committee from writing this report.
In fact a majority of the members of the committee who signed
off on this report were Liberal members, members from the
government. They had an opportunity in committee to vote against
this report. Not only did they vote in favour of it, in many
cases it was those members who wrote the recommendations.
The issue goes even further than that. This demonstrates how
ineffective this House is. It is not just the committee. The
government silenced the opposition members. We need to change
how this whole system operates.
We spoke earlier of the systemic problems within DFO. Every
member on the committee talked about that. They recognize what
needs to be changed. They recognize that we have to move control
from Ottawa out to the regions. That was talked about over and
over and over again, that it did not work in a country such as
ours with people in Ottawa making decisions on how to manage this
fishery. Again the record speaks for itself.
It goes on to this House. It makes this House ineffective. The
Senate is ineffective. This is recognized by all Canadians. We
hear over and over again that there needs to be change.
It is the same thing in this House. The Government of Canada, a
very few people on the other side have control. The majority of
the people on that side of the House have to sit back and do as
they are told. They have to take their marching orders. We have
a handful of people running this country at a great expense to
the taxpayers. It is appalling.
This is just one small example of what goes on in this House.
The east coast report is written. The committee, 16 members of
parliament, travelled through some 15 communities, five provinces
in Atlantic Canada, wrote a very comprehensive report and made
numerous recommendations to the government. What was the
minister's response? The minister scoffed at it. He looked at
this report and tossed it in the trash. The minister was not
going to listen to this.
The minister's problem was that nine of his government's own
members, his own parliamentary secretary, the junior Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, signed off on the report. The government
said “We have to make some changes. We have lost control of
this committee. First of all we had better fire the chairman.
The chairman would appear to be part of the problem”. The
chairman has had a lot of experience, 24 years in this House. The
government removed the chairman and started to make changes.
We have not had an adequate response from the government on this
report. There are a lot of good recommendations. Again I
emphasize that this is an example of how we have to reform this
federation. It clearly is not working. We have to look at that.
Canadians are demanding that change, and it goes from the
committees to this House.
One of my most positive experiences in my first year as a member
of parliament was the fisheries committee. I said that over and
over when I travelled through British Columbia and in my riding.
One of the more positive experiences was working on a committee
with 16 MPs from five political parties. We left the political
biases outside the door, focused on solutions, on what was best
for Canada and how we could best put forward some alternative
solutions.
Imagine trying to get 16 members of parliament from one party to
agree, never mind from five. We had the NDP, the Bloc, the
Reform, the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals. Sixteen
members of parliament agreed on some possible solutions which
could improve the situation in Atlantic Canada and which could
improve the disparity that is out there.
1100
What did the minister do? He tossed it in the trash. He did
not want to look at it; it might have made some sense. Actually
it might give the committee some credit. It was not his ideas so
there was no way he could listen to it. He threw it away.
I want to go back to how ineffective the government is. It sees
an opportunity to do something positive, but it has that tight
group that surrounds the Prime Minister. He is the one who has
control. He is the one who fired the chairman of the fisheries
committee. That was stated by the member in the media.
I have no doubt the Prime Minister is the one who is saying that
we have to rein in this committee. People across the country are
listening to the committee. The media is listening to it. The
media is reporting it. I think we wrote three reports last year
and are about to complete two more from one year's business. It
made numerous recommendations, but the government absolutely
refused to pay attention.
We need change. Canadians want change. I had people call me
last week about this committee of which I am still a member. My
first thought was that if the government's response after
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers'
money—and this is what it cost for us to travel here and there
and do this work—is to literally toss it in the trash can, why
would it spend that kind of money?
I recognize the government is in power and is the ultimate
decision maker. However it tossed aside a report with which the
majority of committee members agreed. Nine of the government's
own backbenchers including the junior minister of fisheries and
oceans signed off on this report. They participated in its
writing. They participated in going through the report line by
line, word for word, and when it came to the House it was tossed
in the trash can because the guy at the top of the triangle said
“Sorry, boys, we cannot do that”. This is inexcusable.
It is a clear demonstration of how this federation has to be
reformed. From the committees to the House of Commons to the
Senate the system is not working. This is only one example, a
minuscule part of the Government of Canada.
I look at the amount of money that has been spent and I have to
honestly say to all taxpayers that they are not getting the bang
for their buck. They are not getting the value for the dollars
spent.
I do not expect the Government of Canada to adopt every
principle or to adopt everything we say, but it should have
listened to us. Its own members wrote this report and walked
into the House, but the guy at the top of the pyramid said no.
They all followed behind like a bunch of sheep. Why did they go
to the committee in the first place? Why were they even there?
What the government is doing is inexcusable. It has been the
most frustrating part of my experience in Ottawa, after spending
a year in a good working relationship with members from all
parties, for it to come to the House and be tossed aside and
ignored.
The problem lies at the top of this pyramid with the minister
and the senior cabinet ministers. The Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans had absolutely no interest in following any of the
recommendations.
I conclude by saying that this leads to a much bigger issue.
The issue is that we have to reform this federation. We have to
reform how the government works. We have to be accountable to
the people to ensure that they are getting the best value for
their dollars. There has to be change. This is a clear example
of that.
1105
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been
listening to this debate for some time. Earlier this morning I
listened to the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. I hoped
that by the time we reached the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands
a little common sense would creep into what members opposite are
saying.
What we have seen here is rants from the opposition without any
substance. There was indeed a good consultation process. The
committee came up with some good recommendations. If the members
opposite would just read the response of the minister, they would
see that the committee report had done some substantial gain in
terms of moving DFO a little further down the path to better
represent fishermen.
We have listened in terms of the consultation process. The
member said in his speech that he did not expect to get
everything the committee recommended. Nor did we. We heard from
fishermen in earnest and we made very tough recommendations.
The problem with members opposite is that when the facts on
foreign fishing are outlined to them, they do not agree with them
even though they are the facts and are articulated in terms of
observer reports by DFO, by NAFO and by others. They throw those
arguments out. They do not want to hear the facts. They want to
believe what they believe and not listen to the facts. That is
what we are getting from members opposite.
He talked about the people who signed the report. Let me quote
a dissenting report in the east coast fishery report signed by
the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands who recommended that any
program beyond May 1999 would be premature at this time. The
member likes to stand in the House and leave the impression that
he wants to help those fishermen out when he recommended against
a program, likely on the orders of his leader, to help them out.
In the recommendations TAGS was extended and fishermen are
benefiting from that.
There is a renewal strategy in place. Members opposite should
recognize that rather than this rant without substance. We did
strengthen management of a renewal strategy program. We put $1.9
million into recruitment and training programs for fisheries
officers. We are training fisheries officers now so that there
will be better enforcement, so that we protect against illegal
activities in the fisheries program, and so that we move ahead
and have a fisheries for the future. There is substantial
change.
Will the member opposite not agree there has to be change in the
fisheries and that hard decisions have to be made? The minister
was recently given a conservation award in New York.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: He gave $6 million to the people who
gave him the award.
Mr. Wayne Easter: The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore
is saying that is not correct. It is correct. It was for
conserving the fishery.
Would he not agree that the minister is changing the fishery but
conserving it so that there will be a fishery of the future? He
has a vision on where to go.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, the junior minister of
fisheries and oceans said they went through a consultative
process and made great recommendations of which he was a part. If
he is so proud of that report and I am wrong in what I am saying
in the House, why will he not stand to vote for it in the House?
Why will he not stand up for the people of Prince Edward Island,
the people of Atlantic Canada, and vote for them in the House
today?
He will not because he has been ordered not to do so.
1110
He said that I had written a minority report. Yes, I did, on
one recommendation, recommendation 10F on the TAGS program after
the government spent $2 billion to pay fishermen to sit at home
and wait for the fish to come back. I said that was not working
and that we should invest some money in the fishery. I have no
problem spending money to invest in the fishery to ensure that it
comes back. Not everybody agreed with it, but I felt strongly
enough that I had to put it on the record with one
recommendation, that we would not spend $2 billion of taxpayers'
money to pay fishermen to sit at home and wait for the fish to
come back.
Let us fix the problem. For five years the government's
solution was that the fish were gone. It threw in a couple of
billion dollars and hoped the problem would fix itself. The
Liberals do not realize that they are the problem. Their own
department is the problem. Their minister is the problem. They
made no substantive changes to the fishery. The same people who
destroyed the Atlantic fishery over the last 20 years are the
people who are in charge today. They are the people who are in
the process of destroying the west coast fishery.
If the member is so proud of this report, he should stand today
to vote for concurrence in the report. He should stand up for
the people of Prince Edward Island and all other Atlantic
Canadians and show them that you are sincere in your comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I remind hon.
members to address challenges to each other through the Chair.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the junior minister of fisheries and oceans was quoted
as saying we now have much better observer reports from the
foreigners. Has the junior minister ever seen a foreign observer
report? I would put it that he never has. How do we know they
are worth anything?
He also said that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans received
a conservation award from the Atlantic Salmon Federation. The
fact is that the department which he runs gave the federation $6
million, and a few months later the minister got an award from
the same people he gave the money to. He literally bought that
award. It has nothing to do with conservation.
The government is concerned about recommendation No. 9 on
foreign observer reports. Have we ever seen a foreign observer
report? We have not. Has the government ever seen a foreign
observer report?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from
Nova Scotia for reminding me to talk about the observer reports
to which the junior minister of fisheries and oceans has
referred. He said saying that we had all these wonderful
observer reports with which to write this report.
The fact is that we were denied access to them. We put a motion
to the committee asking for observer reports. We made numerous
requests through the chair who was fired for demanding the
observer reports. The government offered the reports to us in
camera. It said it would give the reports to us in secret but we
could not let the Canadian people see them because there was a
lot of stuff it did not want Canadians to see.
We were not given the observer reports. The Government of
Canada kept them secret. Why? It was because they are
ineffective. We later learned that the observers on foreign
vessels were coming from the nations where the vessels came from.
They report when they get back to the port of their flag country.
They are meaningless and the government would not release those
reports.
The ones we obtained where we actually had some input contained
numerous violations by foreign states in Canadian waters of which
the Government of Canada was aware. What did we learn? We
learned there was no way the government would prosecute them or
pursue them.
We never saw the observer reports to which the junior minister
of fisheries and oceans refers. That is all on the record.
Mr. Wayne Easter: You were offered them and you refused
them.
Mr. Gary Lunn: We were offered them in a secret meeting.
The member is yelling at me from the other side of the House,
saying that we were offered the reports. Yes, we were, in
camera, which means in secret. We were not supposed to let
anybody else know what was in them because the government was
embarrassed and did not want them in the public domain. That is
appalling.
1115
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to say I was stunned to hear the member for
Sackville—Eastern Shore bring this issue up again today.
First, the House just dealt with it last week and voted on it
last week.
Second, the NDP had a full opposition day last week. If this is
such an important issue to the member for Sackville—Eastern
Shore and to his colleagues in the New Democratic Party, they
would have made this the subject of a full day of debate in the
House of Commons.
We are known as Canadians for being somewhat self-effacing, but
I am not sure why the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has to
be so self-effacing as to suggest that this country should not be
proud that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was awarded the
conservation award of the Atlantic Salmon Federation and has to
somehow suggest that the minister did not deserve that award.
As Canadians of course we do not think any of us deserve any
recognition. Personally I and my colleagues are proud of the
minister for having won that recognition.
Members may interpret this somewhat as picking on the member for
Sackville—Eastern Shore today. But I was astonished as well to
hear this member suggest that the only people in the House with
courage and daring are those who happen to have certain male
appendages. I do not, but I consider myself pretty daring and
pretty gutsy.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
have the greatest respect for the member, but the fact is I did
withdraw that statement.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I recognize
completely that the member withdrew his statement.
Given the circumstances, I move:
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Actually the Liberals are quite incorrect. This is an important
issue and we do have members here who are concerned about the
east coast fishery. I would like to ask—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is really a
question of debate. We have a motion on the floor so we have to
deal with that before we deal with any subsequent questions.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon.
government deputy whip stood when you resumed debate, gave a
wonderful speech and talked about the member from Nova Scotia. I
believe we should get 10 minutes of questions and comments
following that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1205
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 140
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 110
|
PAIRED
Members
Canuel
| Finestone
| Fournier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Lefebvre
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
BILL C-43—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): moved:
That in relation to Bill C-43, an Act to establish the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other Acts as
a consequence, not more than one further sitting day shall be
allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the
said bill and,fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time
provided for government business on the day allotted to the
consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any
proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required
for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question
necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under
consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without
further debate or amendment.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1250
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 137
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harris
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 111
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Canuel
| Finestone
| Fournier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Lefebvre
|
Manley
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| St - Hilaire
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
1255
[Translation]
SECOND READING
The House resumed from October 21 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. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order,
even though I do not really believe it is a point of order. I
was just preparing to take part in the debate, but if my
colleague from the Liberal Party is before me, however, I will
defer to him. You are the boss, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I could
have missed this but I thought we passed the motion and we were
now going to the introduction of petitions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The superseding
motion was to proceed to Government Orders. We will not be doing
petitions until tomorrow.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You
might find unanimous consent to revert to the presenting of
petitions in order that I may table one petition.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-43.
As with any new government undertaking, the cost aspect must
always be considered. In the case of the proposed Canada
customs and revenue agency, start up costs are minimal. Only
the direct costs associated with the board of management and its
secretariat will be new. In both cases, they will be minimal.
Other costs will arise in the normal course of events for the
management of human resources and other administrative skills,
in order to maximize the new agency's operating flexibility.
All these costs will be offset over time by the savings
resulting from streamlined and more efficient internal
procedure.
The agency will benefit from the greatly reduced time and energy
spent on complex and unwieldy administrative procedures. For
instance, under the present system, it can take up to one year
to hire the large number of auditors required every year.
1300
The reduction in hiring time and the elimination of numerous
vacant positions will substantially lower staffing costs, as
well as considerably improve service and the integrity of the
overall tax system.
[English]
Besides these operating savings from productivity improvements,
there are other potential savings from the new agency. The
Public Policy Forum, an independent organization with extensive
experience in public sector management, undertook a study to
examine the cost of compliance with and administration of
Canada's tax systems and the savings from a single
administration.
The study concluded that there could be significant savings to
Canadian businesses, particularly small businesses, from a single
revenue administration. Savings were expected from such
activities as single registration for taxpayers, common
federal-provincial databases, the combination of certain forms,
greater consistency in tax rulings and greater simplification of
procedures.
It was estimated that the level of compliance savings to
business each year would be between $116 million and $193 million
dollars at a minimum. The study also examined the administrative
costs to governments of tax collection and potential savings. It
found that there was a high potential for savings in the areas of
personal income tax, corporate income tax and payroll tax because
of the similarities at the federal and provincial levels as well
as in a common collection system.
Medium levels of savings were expected in the areas of audit and
enforcement, client service possibly through a single point of
contact, excise taxes and the assessment of returns. Other
potential savings were seen to be possible through general
reductions in administrative and technical support, such as a
reduced requirement for management.
In total it was estimated that administrative costs to
governments could be reduced by between $37 million and $62
million annually at a minimum. The critical point is that
potential savings to individual Canadians, businesses and
governments far outweigh the start up and new operating costs of
the proposed agency.
Having 11 directors on the board of management nominated from
the private sector by the provinces and territories will ensure
that the agency continues to operate in a cost effective and
responsive manner as would the other accountability mechanisms
built into the legislation before this House.
When we have Canadian businesses focusing on marketing,
developing products and developing business rather than filling
in forms and dealing with administrative matters not only once
but twice, then we have efficiencies in the economy. We have
businesses out there doing what we want them to do, creating jobs
for Canadians.
The Canada customs and revenue agency represents a very
significant opportunity for the generation of benefits to the
provinces and territories and to Canadian businesses and warrants
speedy passage before this House.
I urge all members of this House to support this bill when it
comes to a vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as members
will recall, on June 4, 1998, one week before the summer recess,
the Minister of Revenue tabled Bill C-43 to establish the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency.
This bill stems from the Speech from the Throne delivered in
February 1996, when the government announced its intention to
set up a national revenue recovery agency. Initially, this
agency will essentially be the existing Department of Revenue
turned into an agency operating almost at arm's length from the
government, whose mandate will be to negotiate with the
interested provinces and municipalities an arrangement for the
collection of all taxes in Canada.
Do the members of this House realize that the bill before us
basically provides for two things?
First, concentrating under one single organization the
collection of all federal, provincial or municipal taxes. While
there is no mention of it in here, it is very clear that school
taxes, gasoline taxes and liquor taxes may also be administered
by this agency.
1305
So, the first point to consider is the centralization of all tax
collection operations in the hands of a single organization. The
second different but equally important point we must bear in
mind is the creation of an agency.
This means that the Minister of Revenue, who has been
responsible so far for what was going on in his department, will
now devolve to a quasi-independent agency the responsibility to
collect all taxes.
In this House, when we question a minister about the actions of
a government agency, the minister will often hide behind the
fact that the agency is independent, competent, self-regulated,
and thus enjoys his or her full confidence. In the end, we do
not get an answer.
The fact is that this House, which is made up of democratically
and individually elected members, can no longer get a minister
to account for an agency from which he is removing himself. This
is precisely the situation that is proposed in the bill, with
the creation of an agency.
It is one thing to centralize the collection of taxes in the
hands of a single organization, so as to avoid duplication and
reduce costs.
Incidentally, Quebec's Department of Revenue—Quebec being the
only Canadian province to have its own revenue department—is
already collecting the GST for the federal government. This, of
course, reduces costs, since the GST is collected at the same
time as the Quebec sales tax.
However, while we may achieve economies of scale by
concentrating tax collection in the hands of a single
organization, to give that responsibility to an agency is a very
different matter and one that should be considered much more
carefully.
With an agency, the minister is not involved in the ongoing
operations of the organization. Take, for example, the CRTC and
various other federal agencies.
Whenever something happens with these organizations, the
minister tells the House “This agency, this entity, can
self-regulate. It has investigative tools. In short, it will
ensure transparency”. But that transparency is never there.
I will mention two cases where there were problems. One is the
Somalia inquiry. A commission was set up and was going to take
care of everything. Yet, as we know, in the end the
commissioners themselves said they had not been able to find the
whole truth, as we wanted them to do.
Then there was the tainted blood issue and the Krever
commission. I clearly remember asking a question in this House
to the then Minister of Health, who replied gently and kindly
“The issue is in the hands of the commission. The commission
will get to the bottom of this”.
As we now know, the commission was never able to get to the
bottom of the issue.
Here, the government wants to create an agency that will once
again operate at arm's length from the minister, with the result
that, when asked about it, the minister will simply say “The
agency is looking after all this”. In my opinion, we must oppose
the establishment of such an agency.
Let us now go back to the issue of concentrating the collection
of all our taxes in the hands of a single organization.
1310
It is true that, on the face of it, this should result in
savings. If this is the case, why not give the Quebec Minister
of Revenue the responsibility for collecting all taxes in
Quebec? The Quebec Minister of Revenue would then, as he already
does with the GST, give the money to the federal revenue
minister. Already, this would result in significant savings.
Where I start not being able to follow is when a body is created
which would collect taxes not only at the federal level, not
only at the level of Quebec or the provinces, but also at the
municipal level, even the school board level, taxes on alcohol,
on cigarettes, on gasoline. In short, it would be a monster
with tentacles reaching everywhere, up to and including the
taxpayer's pockets, and worse still, able to keep track of what
taxpayers are doing.
Here we no longer have just a body for collecting taxes, but one
that also collects information, a lot of information, collective
and individual, from sea to sea.
There is a danger here. I appeal to this House to consider the
fact that, even if it were economically advantageous to give one
single body the right to collect everything considered taxes,
both direct and indirect, and any other kind as well, would it
be socially acceptable to allow a single body like this one to
have all this information concentrated in one place?
I say no. When one body has powers this wide, economic
considerations can no longer apply. The consideration that must
take precedence is respect of the individual, and of privacy.
Second, the very fact that the minister hands over to an agency
powers that are allocated to him by the law is, to my mind, an
unacceptable contradiction. An agency cannot be allowed into
the pockets of taxpayers to collect taxes which have been
determined by this House.
This is the minister's responsibility, and one he cannot easily
slough off.
In the minute remaining to me, I would like to point out that
20% of federal public servants work for Revenue Canada at the
present time. It is my impression that the secret intention, the
hidden agenda behind all this is to put 20% of federal employees
into an agency where they will no longer be covered by the
Public Service Employment Act. This is totally unacceptable.
If that is the hidden desire of the government, it is totally
evil.
I understand that my time is up, and I thank you for your
attention. I hope the House will dump this bill.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For the ease of
figuring out who is next, we will go now to the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, then to the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle, then the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert
and then the member for Durham.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a member for
the Reform Party on your list. It may be that we will take our
turn as the time comes around, so we may stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will take that
under advisement.
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one issue that arose repeatedly in
consultations with the provinces and territories, the clients and
the public was accountability.
Essentially there is a desire that the proposed new agency be
accountable both to what it does and how it operates. Bill C-43
establishes a number of accountability mechanisms that will
ensure that the agency despite its new structure and potential
increase in services on behalf of the provinces and territories
will remain accountable to parliament and its clients and to the
public for its action.
1315
Full ministerial accountability for the program, legislation and
overall control of the agency by the government will be
maintained.
The Minister of National Revenue will remain responsible for the
administration and enforcement of the program and legislation
such as the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Customs Act.
The minister will be able to direct officials to exercise
authority under the legislation.
The minister is currently named in 1,470 various pieces of
program legislation as the person with the authority to exercise
specific actions such as assessing tax returns. The minister
will continue to be the person named to exercise those
authorities. This means that the minister will retain personal
accountability for the way the programs are run. This direct
accountability ensures that the minister has the authority to
inquire into any matters of program administration. This is
important because the minister can ensure that the clients of the
agency have been treated fairly and equitably.
The minister will continue to respond to questions in the House
and from the public on program and policy matters. The minister
will continue to be able to respond to members of parliament when
their constituents seek their help in dealing with tax or customs
matters.
The minister will retain the primary role in establishing the
strategic direction of the agency. The minister will approve
major corporate documents, recommend approval of the agency's
business plan to Treasury Board and table an annual report to
parliament on the operation of the agency.
While the minister is accountable for how the programs are
carried out, the agency has a considerable amount of autonomy in
the matter of internal management.
The agency will be directed by a board of management which will
be accountable to parliament through the minister for management
policies of the agency, such as human resource activities in
staffing and compensation; mandates for negotiating with its
bargaining agents and collective bargaining agreements; service
and performance standards; and the appropriate allocation of
internal resources.
Some people have expressed concern that the board of management,
consisting of private sector individuals, might ignore the public
interest and act in a way that is motivated only by revenue
generation.
There are sufficient checks and balances in this bill to ensure
that the agency will remain within the overall government policy
framework. These checks and balances include Treasury Board's
mandate to approve the corporate business plan and the need for
the agency to report annually to parliament. Ultimately, if
problems do arise, the minister will have the authority to give
direction to the agency on matters within the board's
jurisdiction if they affect public policy or materially affect
public finances. It is doubted that this direction authority
will ever have to be used, but it is there as an insurance
policy.
The commissioner, who is a full member of the board of
management, would act as a full time chief executive officer of
the agency and be responsible for the day to day operations of
the organization. The commissioner will be accountable to the
minister for the administration and enforcement of the program
legislation.
With regard to accountability for the administration of
provincial programs, the commissioner will offer to meet with
provincial and territorial finance ministers and to report on
such matters as service and revenue levels and to receive
feedback from them.
As indicated, the agency's corporate business plan will require
Treasury Board approval and its appropriations will be made
through the regular government estimate procedures.
In addition, certain human resources aspects will form part of
the corporate business plan. The public service commission will
have authority to review and report on certain aspects of the
agency's staffing program.
The Minister of Finance will continue to be responsible for the
development of tax and trade policy and legislation. The
Minister of National Revenue, through the agency, will be
responsible for implementation. The important and necessary
relationship now in place between the Departments of Finance and
National Revenue will continue between the Department of Finance
and the agency.
The Auditor General of Canada will be the auditor for the agency
and will play the same role as with Revenue Canada.
1320
Bill C-43 also provides a full scale review of the legislation
by a committee of this House five years after coming into force.
This does not exist, of course, to prevent parliament from
exercising its normal authority over the agency in the interim.
Parliament will have all of the normal opportunities to ensure
that the agency is being properly managed, such as review of its
corporate business plan, its annual reports and its annual
appropriations. It can require a further in-depth review at any
time.
In summary, ministerial accountability, overall control by
government and parliamentary oversight will be maintained for the
new agency.
Those being served by the agency, especially the provinces and
the territories, will have new means at their disposal to ensure
that the agency is accountable to them for its performance.
Accountability for fairness is the cornerstone of our
government's legislation, policies, regulations and processes.
Fairness is an essential foundation to the entire revenue
administration. It is a system based on voluntary compliance and
if the clients do not believe they are being treated fairly, one
cannot expect them to comply voluntarily.
The issue of fairness is a priority for Revenue Canada and it
will remain a priority for the Canada customs and revenue agency.
Revenue Canada's record on fairness is excellent. The fact that
95% of filers comply voluntarily is a testament to that record.
That compliance rate can be even higher.
However, one can only maintain this level of compliance if
taxpayers believe that the tax system is fair to them, fair to
their neighbours and fair to everyone.
One also knows that complacency is no way to deal with fairness.
Canada's business, economic and social environment is
dramatically changing and that is one of the reasons that the
agency is being created: to respond to those changes and to
provide better service to clients.
Last spring an initiative was launched to look closely at
fairness: what measures were in place; how well the department
was doing at providing fairness; what improvements could be made
to provide a greater level of fairness to the department's
clients.
This has been a broad and comprehensive consultation effort. It
has looked to the department's many independent advisory
committees, to stakeholder groups, to the general public and to
our own managers and front-line staff for their ideas and advice.
In addition, an assessment was performed of the best practices
of other customs and revenue administrations around the world.
To ensure that this has been an open, credible and transparent
exercise, the Confederation Board of Canada was retained to help
design the consultation, gather and analyse the feedback and
produce a report.
Fair treatment means being open, clear, courteous, responsive,
timely and accessible.
For Revenue Canada, applying legislation fairly means applying
it impartially, justly and consistently.
The commitments that Revenue Canada makes to fairness will be
commitments for the Canada customs and revenue agency. The
agency is all about providing better, more effective and more
efficient service to Canadians.
Fairness is part and parcel of service and an efficient
organization that is not fair to its clients is not an effective
one.
As the Canada customs and revenue agency is created, there have
been suggestions that an ombudsman forum be created to ensure
that the rights of taxpayers are protected.
It would be premature to consider the establishment of an
ombudsman or any such office until this process of public
consultation is complete. In fact, early feedback from the
fairness initiative is reinforcing the longstanding practice of
building commitment to fairness throughout the organization as
opposed to isolating it in a separate office.
1325
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would be curious if the last member could
extemporaneously tell us what he said. That would be very
useful.
Today the Bloc moved an amendment to delay for six months the
creation of this great big new taxation agency which was created
by the Liberal government. I have three or four concerns about
it which is why I support the amendment before the House today.
The Liberal government is setting up a taxation agency to
collect GST, income taxes and corporate taxes. The provinces can
buy in. They can collect the provincial sales tax, the liquor
tax, eventually municipal taxes and so on. It is a radical
departure from the existing practice of the Department of
National Revenue collecting taxes in this country.
I have three or four concerns about that. My first concern is
that this is supposed to be a federal-provincial agency. A good
friend of mine, a minister from Edmonton, is in the House today.
He is concerned about federal-provincial relations. I wonder if
he could tell the House today which provinces have bought into
the idea of a new taxation agency. My impression is that the
answer would be none. Not a single province has bought into this
agency—
An hon. member: Nova Scotia.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: If Nova Scotia has bought into it I
would like to see a letter tabled in the House which says that
Nova Scotia will take part in this agency. When the minister was
defending the agency on October 1 not one province had bought
into the idea to be part of this agency to collect taxes.
We are heading into a Quebec election—
An hon. member: So what?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: —and we are hearing a lot about
federal-provincial co-operation.
A Liberal across the way says “So what?” It is no wonder the
Prime Minister is stumbling around making all kinds of mistakes.
He is aiding Mr. Bouchard with some of his comments.
I believe very strongly in co-operative federalism, the kind of
co-operative federalism that was preached in this House by people
like Robert Stanfield, Lester Pearson and Tommy Douglas many
years ago. That is what I believe in, but this government is
bringing in an agency without the support of any of the
provinces.
An hon. member: Medicare.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I am glad that medicare was referred
to. It was started by a CCF government in Saskatchewan in 1961.
It was a popular idea that spread across this country. It came
into being federally after the royal commission headed by Mr.
Chief Justice Hall. There was a national consensus that we
should have a national medical care program. Medicare was
supported by an overwhelming majority of Canadian people and an
overwhelming majority of the provinces before it actually was
passed by the House of Commons.
This case is the opposite of the medicare example. No province
has bought into the idea of a tax collection agency like the new
agency the government wants to set up.
Another point is the idea of the quasi-privatization of the
largest part of the federal government in this country. Forty
thousand people work for Revenue Canada and the Liberal
government wants to take this department out of the public
service. Some 20% of the workforce of the Government of Canada
will be, in effect, privatized.
There is no need to talk about the new right in this country.
The alternative is right there. The united right in this country
is the Liberal Party.
1330
It is the Liberal Party that has downsized government to a
smaller scale than we have seen since the late 1940s after the
second world war. That is the legacy of the Liberal government.
There is the privatization of CNR and what the Liberals have done
to the employment insurance fund. We can go on and on and on in
terms of downsizing government in this country. That is what the
Liberal government across the way has done.
An hon. member: Tell us what the NDP has done in
Saskatchewan, Ontario and B.C.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am
allowed to answer questions but I was asked what the NDP
government has done in Saskatchewan.
I have here in my pocket the results of a byelection in
Saskatchewan last night. It shows that the NDP government is in
touch with the people of Saskatchewan. A Liberal MLA named Bucky
Belanger resigned from the Liberal Party about two months ago.
Mr. Belanger resigned his seat from the Saskatchewan legislature
and sought the NDP nomination. A byelection was held last night.
The result of the byelection was that Bucky Belanger got 2,145
votes; the Liberal Party received 95 votes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This might be an
appropriate time to interject and inform the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle and the House that the Table does its work. On
October 1, 1998 the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle actually
did speak on the amendment. I am afraid we have to retract
everything the member already said. I am sorry but the member's
time for debate at this time is over.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Hallowe'en is being celebrated on the weekend, and the
government will again try to scare people with its Bill C-43. No
doubt Quebeckers will be shaking at the prospect of the
Department of National Revenue transforming itself into a semi
autonomous government agency.
Why will they be shaking? The President of the Treasury Board
gave us part of the answer in the House. “No one likes paying
taxes”, he said. Obviously, no one likes paying taxes when they
get nothing for their money. Obviously no one likes paying
taxes when we are deprived of the health care services our taxes
are supposed to pay for.
Obviously no one wants to pay taxes, when assistance to fishers,
farmers and the unemployed is being cut.
This is why people are afraid. They know that the government
does not provide the services they are entitled to through their
taxes. They are afraid because the money they are paying in
taxes will now be collected by another monster, the Canada
customs and revenue agency.
The Bloc Quebecois totally disagrees with the bill. One of the
most important prerogatives of modern government is the power to
tax. Thanks to this power, Canada collects money from taxpayers
that they worked hard to earn. It is unthinkable that this
power will be put in the hands of a semi autonomous agency that
is not under the direct control of the government.
The minister has said there will be less overlap between the
federal and provincial governments with the bill.
That is not reassuring; it causes concern. The fact there is no
more encroachment is because the government will not be
collecting income tax anymore, the agency will.
On the other hand, it is common knowledge that we are in favour
of an end to overlap. The Bloc has long wanted an end to such
overlap between the federal and the provincial governments. The
solution is simple: combine all tax collection activities within
Revenue Quebec.
Bill C-43 means savings, we are told.
We have our doubts. The government is going to create a
quasi-autonomous agency that will be entrusted with billions of
dollars, and the agency's managers will not be subject to any
pay controls. In today's economy, with the directors of banks
and financial concerns often voting themselves outlandish
salaries, we wonder about the size of the salary bill taxpayers
will have to foot for the agency's managers.
The very status of the agency will allow senior managers to pay
themselves salaries comparable to those of CEOs in the private
sector. Will the agency's commissioner, who will have hundreds
of thousands of people reporting to him and a budget in the
billions, demand a salary on a par with that of the chairman of
the Royal Bank?
Will the agency's commissioner have millions of dollars in
annual income? These are some of the questions we have.
1335
Will these managers be more motivated as employees of the new
agency than they are right now? We read in Le Devoir this
morning that Pierre Sigouin, assistant director of the Customs
and Excise information division, claims to have lost all
motivation over the last four years.
Mr. Sigouin took paid sick leave to co-ordinate the election
campaign of Pierre Bourque, the mayor of Montreal, who is
running for re-election. Apparently, it is unmotivating to work
for this government. Is this the reason the government has
decided to create independent agencies such as the Canada
customs and revenue agency?
It is obvious what the government is up to. It will at last be
able to shift the blame for tax collection problems. Those who
had too much tax deducted will be told it is not the
department's problem and referred to the agency.
It is all very fine and well for the minister to say he will
retain some control over the agency. The bill contains
provisions that make the agency relatively autonomous.
It will therefore be possible for the minister to authorize the
commissioner or any person employed or engaged by the agency to
exercise or perform on his behalf any of his powers, duties or
functions under any act of parliament, with the exception of
making regulations.
The Canada customs and revenue agency will be run by a
super-bureaucrat who will not be accountable to parliament. While
accountability is essential to our democracy, this principle is
increasingly left out of the current political scene by this
government.
The bill will make it impossible to criticize the administration
of an organization performing a function that the very existence
of the state depends on. This is especially worrisome since it
follows a trend of political patronage.
Under clauses 15, 22 and 25 of the bill, there will be a board
of directors of 12 members appointed for three years on the
recommendation of the provinces, but holding office only on a
part time basis. Three other directors, that is the chair of the
board, the commissioner and the deputy commissioner, will be
appointed by the governor in council for a term of five years.
Once again, we will be witness to the political appointments
made by a government that sacrifices competence to give jobs to
political friends.
It is to be feared that the decisions made by politically
appointed senior officials with a free hand for action would be
prejudicial to taxpayers.
Members will recall that less than three years ago, the auditor
general revealed a scandal that we in the Bloc Quebecois had
condemned in the 1993 election campaign: the family trust
scandal.
The auditor general had revealed that, at around midnight on
December 23, 1991, some senior officials of Revenue Canada,
Finance and Justice decided, without even asking their
ministers, to transfer two family trusts worth $2 billion to the
United States without collecting a single cent in Canadian tax.
If the mandarins of Revenue, Finance and Justice could do so
under the present circumstances, imagine what things will be
like when there is this customs and revenue agency they are
trying to set up, which will be quasi-independent and not
answerable to Parliament.
How many similar cases will be swept under the rug, without
Parliament even knowing about them, cases of scandalous
decisions by senior mandarins who will now be in control of tax
collection as well as of all the confidential data banks on
Quebeckers and Canadians? It makes no sense whatsoever to
delegate so much to a new class of super-bureaucrats.
It goes without saying too that creation of this agency will
considerably weaken the Department of Revenue. Once the agency
is created, the Minister will have an overall business plan
submitted to him, one to which he will have made little, if any,
contribution.
He will be confronted more or less with a fait accompli. They
will be dictating to the minister what he has to do.
1340
The bill will set up an agency that will be virtually
independent of the government and will centralize the power to
collect taxes. The government is on the wrong track here. The
provinces are calling for more control over the administrative
powers that affect them, and the government is pulling the rug
out from under them and rejecting their demands.
This bill augurs nothing good for the taxpayers of Quebec and of
Canada, and the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against this
Halloween horror of a bill.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to enter this debate on Bill C-43, the Canada
customs and revenue agency. This is all about getting government
right. We cannot continue to live with significant
inefficiencies within our administrative structure. This is a
continuation of our government's desire to reinvent government
and get government onto a course of efficiencies.
When I talk about efficiencies, members will be interested to
know that in the last budgetary estimates Revenue Canada's
administration cost to run the department was $2.2 billion. It
collected a sum total of about $153 billion. That means a ratio
of 1.43%, that is to say, it costs us about 1.5% for every $1
that is being collected by Revenue Canada which is good in
itself.
Some people note that Revenue Canada is probably one of the most
efficient arms of government today. In my earlier life I was
involved with Revenue Canada on a more direct basis in
representing my clients. Generally speaking the people at
Revenue Canada carry out their jobs in a professional and
diligent way with fairness and equity. Some people watching today
might think that Revenue Canada is just a little bit too
efficient in how much taxes it collects. However, the reality is
that it undertakes its functions quite effectively.
In Canada today we have developed a multiplicity of taxes and
tax regimes. It is small business week. Maybe we should be
paying attention to some of the concerns of small and medium size
businesses in this country. One of them is the pure complexity
of complying with our taxation system.
Both the federal and provincial governments collect excise
taxes, transportation taxes, tourist taxes and corporate taxes.
Both the federal and provincial governments have their own little
tax regimes collecting corporate taxes from small and medium size
incorporated businesses. We also collect the employment insurance
and the Canada pension plan. At the same time, the provinces are
also involved in making separate collections for workers
compensation.
The most insidious is the incidence of duplicity of sales taxes,
the GST and provincial sales taxes. This duplication is very
expensive for our citizens and small businesses. The problem with
the provincial sales tax is that it also cascades into the actual
exports in the selling prices of commodities. As Canada is an
exporting country it causes great inefficiencies as well. It
makes us less competitive as a nation.
It is for some of these reasons that the government has put
forward the concept of this agency. We talk a lot in this House
about the underground economy. Generally speaking we assume that
people are simply cheating, but the reality is that a good number
of people find it very difficult to comply with the level of
complexity of the forms and requirements for different types of
taxes.
Quite frankly, people cannot afford the compliance. I can
remember a small business operator saying that he needed to spend
one day a week just to comply with the taxation system. It is
very important that we develop an agency that will be efficient
and smoothly run to try to reduce this complexity and make the
whole concept of tax collection more efficient.
I have been surprised to find out that Revenue Canada for
instance does not do e-commerce. We can pay our bills over the
Internet, to Bell Canada and even to our local municipal tax
authorities, but we cannot do it with Revenue Canada. I suggest
that one of the reasons is it needs a certain inertia. It needs
to spend more time developing electronic commerce to make this a
more efficient agency. This is done for corporate structures but
not on an individual basis. We have to catch up with the times.
When I hear the Bloc, the NDP and others saying leave it the way
it is, these people are just standing in the path of progress.
1345
I would like to get back to an issue which is dear to my heart,
the harmonization of sales taxes. We have tried politically to
deal with this issue in the maritime provinces and some of those
provinces have signed on to harmonized sales tax.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was actually challenging us as
to what province would ever sign on to this. I am surprised by
that comment. The reality is we are leaders, that we are leading
in this area of efficiency. We should be complimenting the
government on its leadership role rather than saying if nobody
else is ponying up to the cause, it must be a bad thing.
In spite of what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, I can
remember when medicare was first brought on and I think only one
or two provinces initially signed on to that agenda. Of course
all the provinces today are part of the medicare system. So it is
not a reason to stand in the way of an agency that will be
competitive within our economy.
The lack of harmonization of the sales taxes is probably one of
the single largest inefficiencies in tax collection. Canada has
to be the only country in the western world that actually has one
federal sales tax and nine provincial sales taxes. It does not
take much thought process to realize how inefficient that really
is.
If the agency were in place pure rationality between provinces
and the federal government would try to find some way to solve
that problem. We as politicians quite frankly have not been able
to do that. I think that is possibly a failure of this place
compared to what an agency could possibly do. That does not mean
those decisions are outside the political agenda. They are not.
In answer to a question the other day the minister of revenue
suggested Nova Scotia had already signed on to a service
contract. Three ministers along with our minister had signed on.
So we can see how this is starting to evolve. Once this agency
is in place we are going to find many more ways to make the whole
concept of tax collection more efficient and more relevant to the
21st century.
Ontario, for instance, my province, insists on collecting its
own provincial sales tax regardless of the fact that the
provincial sales tax becomes a cost of production to our
manufacturers. In my area General Motors has to actually pay
provincial sales tax on input components. When it buys stationery
or other things for its operation, it pays provincial sales tax.
Eighty per cent of its production goes across the border into the
United States. It goes across the border embedded with
provincial sales tax as opposed to the GST, which has a
methodology of removing that tax when it finally goes outside of
our borders.
As a consequence Ontario's provincial sales tax is a very
inefficient, outmoded tax that is not serving the people of
Ontario well, because 40% of our exports are coming from the
province of Ontario.
We have to find better ways of doing business and I believe this
is part of that solution, to create this agency which will be
more efficient, will allow a broader base concentration of
critical mass, will allow for possibly more spending in the area
of technological efficiency and will allow people to interface
with the government more efficiently and more effectively.
In the act there are provisions where the provinces will be able
to be consulted in the area of appointing directorships and so
forth.
1350
We can certainly see the window of opportunity to make a more
efficient agency, allowing the provincial and federal authorities
to work together to make this an efficient tax regime, an
efficient, modern tax collection system.
I am supportive of this legislation and I hope the rest of the
House will support it as well.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
address Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada customs and
revenue agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a
consequence.
A brand new revenue agency, that is what Canadians have been
clamouring for. I dare say it was one of the most mentioned
issues for all candidates as we went door to door during last
year's federal election campaign.
The minister probably still recalls that many people told him
what they want is tax reform but not lower taxes, not a simpler
system. No, what they want is a new agency, one with wider
powers, a new agency with less accountability to parliament, a
new agency that runs outside the government with access to their
most personal information.
I think the minister is confused. This is the Hallowe'en season
and while he is very effectively scaring the Canadian public with
this bill the time for pranks is still April 1. All levity
aside, I do not want to ensure that the Liberal Party is fully
aware of the fact that this bill in no way addresses tax reform.
In the interest of accuracy I am sure it would not want to see
some overzealous campaigner insert Bill C-43 in the 2001 red book
as an example of the Liberal's commitment to reform.
This whole bill is predicated on the level of trust between the
provinces and the Liberal government, a level of trust that
simply does not exist.
Just to be certain I will spell out why this situation exists.
It concerns unilateral cuts to transfer payments, outrageous
levels of unemployment insurance, overtaxation and ridiculous
postering statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Health against the most respected premiers in Canada, including
the premier of my province, Mike Harris. These are just some of
the reasons why there is no level of trust at the first ministers
level.
My hon. colleague from Kings—Hants has outlined the many
shortcomings of this bill. However, we do not have to have a
Ph.D. in economics to understand why this national agency is
destined to fail.
The government offloads responsibility to the provinces by
making draconian cuts to health care, for instance $7 billion in
the last term. The minister has said there is only one taxpayer.
The provinces and municipalities have been faced with an ever
increasing tax burden as a result of the government's failure to
lead and to take responsibility for national matters, including
such issues as health care funding.
The minister speaks of the provinces having greater
opportunities to effect control and have control over the levers
of this important agency than they now have with Revenue Canada.
I suggest the provinces' lack of approval and their concern with
this new agency is an indication that they do not believe in
this. The provinces will not have greater powers and authority
with this new agency.
I ask the Liberal government to take a short walk back to a time
when it still pretended that keeping red book commitments was
important. After the Prime Minister's ridiculous claim during the
1993 election that he would get rid of the GST, there was an
attempt to create a renamed and more pervasive tax known as the
BST, the blended sales tax. This little attempt at massaging the
red book promises was only adopted in three provinces, Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland and New Brunswick.
Coincidentally there are only three provinces in Canada with
Liberal governments. I am sure many will be shocked to learn
that these governments exist in the same three provinces, proving
that the tentacles of this government run very long and that the
tendency of elected Liberals to imitate the nodding heads
drinking birds is not limited to our federal parliament.
Unless Prime Minister Bo Peep intends to elect a few more
Liberal sheep in provincial legislatures across the land, he may
as well stick a fork in Bill C-43. As I do not see anybody
rising on a point of order to withdraw this bill, allow me to
provide the minister with a course of action that would give him
a fighting chance at actually implementing this new agency with a
certain degree of success.
1355
The first course of action would be put an end to the war
against the public service in this country. We are all friends
in the House and I understand that the public service was
probably a bit too trusting when it took the Liberal Party at its
word on pay equity. However, this government made a commitment
and those people are filled with righteous anger. Therefore I
suggest the minister rethink the likelihood that these public
servants are going to be very interested in assisting in the
privatization of their jobs.
Why should they be helpful? Bill C-43 is going to result in new
people being paid higher salaries to do the exact same jobs which
are being done now. Of course Canadians will be thrilled to
learn that along with this new agency comes a whole new level of
bureaucracy.
We see current employees who will lose existing rights,
including job security and the right to bargain on staffing
matters. Keep in mind that there will only be a two year job
guarantee and we are effectively dealing with about 25% of the
public service. We have to take a look at whether this agency
would not be more flexible than Revenue Canada but less flexible
in working with other government departments, including the
finance department, and the provinces.
At various times of the year Revenue Canada has between 40,000
and 46,000 employees. Revenue Canada has many responsibilities,
primarily the collecting of federal taxes and various fees,
harmonized sales taxes in three provinces, personal income taxes
on behalf of nine provinces and corporate taxes on behalf of
seven provinces. The new agency is to assume all these
responsibilities. The new agency is supposed to be as efficient
as the department was without any increased cost to the taxpayer.
I suggest that unless the provinces buy in and support this
direction and this new agency, any claims by the government that
this agency will lead to greater efficiencies and save the
taxpayer money are suspicious at best. The only efficiencies
that can be achieved will be those realized through a slower
transfer rate of funds to provinces. As a former town councillor
I can assure this House that in turn the municipalities will see
foot dragging when it comes to receiving funds.
In essence this government is trying to implement a law that
will cause greater discourse between voters and all levels of
government. The government is saying we could save between $97
million and $162 million per year if all the provinces
participated. That is a very big if. At this juncture currently
the provinces have not demonstrated a significance interest in
having Ottawa collect and have more authority in effect over
taxes beyond what Revenue Canada does currently.
The Speaker: You still have three minutes
in your excellent discourse. I know you will want to seek the
floor right after question period. As it is almost 2 p.m., I
thought we would proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for months now this Liberal government and the agriculture
minister in particular have been ignoring the farm income crisis
on the prairies.
The average drop in farm income over each of the last two years
was 50% and programs such as crop insurance and NISA will not
provide sufficient help. In fact, NISA will not even cover the
cost of fertilizer and fuel next spring for many farmers who are
struggling to avoid bankruptcy.
If the Liberals had listened to Reform in 1993 the government
could have been investing in a farm safety net to protect farmers
who are getting hammered by European Union subsidies and unfair
trade practices by the U.S. So far there has been no response
from the agriculture minister to Reform's proposals.
Farmers across the west are demanding action but sadly they
realize it will not be coming any time soon from this do nothing
Liberal government.
* * *
IODE
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in honour of Women's History Month I would like to pay
tribute to the IODE, a group of women who work tirelessly to help
those in need, promote education and honour our veterans.
The IODE has been a part of my community since 1909. Every year
on Remembrance Day the five chapters of the IODE in
Guelph—Wellington hold a service at the Cross of Sacrifice they
built in 1926, two years before Guelph erected its official
cenotaph.
As we remember the fallen, I am always struck by the dedication
of these women.
No matter what, despite age and inclement weather, they attend
because they love Canada and they want to remember.
1400
I thank the women of the IODE for their patriotism and their
charity. They are the people who have made Canada the best
country in the world.
* * *
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
year more than 18,000 Canadian women will be diagnosed with
breast cancer. This terrible disease also afflicts Canadian men.
Over 5,000 Canadians will die from it this year alone.
That is why I was pleased to take part in Peterborough's first
Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation-CIBC Run for the Cure. This
event, organized by CIBC employees and their families but
involving many others, is designed to raise money for and
awareness of breast cancer research.
I am delighted that all across Canada Runs for the Cure are
helping build support for those affected by this disease. I am
particularly pleased that these events are focusing attention on
effective means of prevention and the need for a cure.
I thank all CIBC employees who helped to organize the event in
Peterborough and everyone who took part. I hope this is the
first of many such runs in our community.
* * *
BREAST CANCER
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I stand before you today to say that as a woman I am at risk
because of an unknown and to date an unstoppable killer. I am
referring to the killer known as breast cancer.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women in
Canada. It is estimated that by the end of this year 5,300 women
will die from this disease and 90,300 new cases will arise. These
figures are frightening and they hit close to home.
This past summer I was reawakened to this terrifying disease
when I witnessed my own cousin become one of those estimated
fatalities of breast cancer. Through research we know that the
risk of breast cancer is slightly higher with a family history of
cancer incidence and with increasing age, but while research has
been ongoing over the past two decades the mortality rates for
breast cancer have not changed.
The renewed commitment to breast cancer initiatives by the
federal government was announced in June. The first five year
contribution amounting to $45 million will go toward reducing
both the incidence of breast cancer in Canada and the mortality
rate and to improve the quality of life of those directly and
indirectly affected by this disease.
As the minister stated, the government's renewed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a growing farm income crisis in the country.
The minister must be aware the farmers have to make decisions now
that affect the future of Canadian agriculture for next season.
They need real action from the government to deal with the whole
spectrum of difficulties facing their operations.
We need to keep more money in the hands of producers, not burden
them with rising fees, taxes and charges that follow mandatory
government programs. We have to make adjustments for
international trade distortions and make it clear to our trading
partners that we will not tolerate massive subsidies which
provide short term illusions of relief. We have to address the
shortcomings in the net income stabilization program.
We are asking the government to move now to help Canadian
agriculture and its supporting services brace themselves for the
rough road ahead.
* * *
CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian National Institute for the Blind was recently judged
by a court of its peers when it was recognized as the role model
organization of the year by a renowned panel from the
International Blindness Community and was awarded the prestigious
SAP Stevie Wonder Vision Award in that category.
The Stevie Wonder Vision Award includes a $235,000 prize and was
created to raise awareness and spur the development and
distribution of technology solutions to enable blind and visually
impaired persons to actively participate in the business
community.
This award is further evidence of the dedication with which the
CNIB provides rehabilitation services for blind, visually
impaired and deaf-blind Canadians across the country, including
at the CNIB Halton-Peel district office in Mississauga.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all members to join me in extending
heartfelt congratulations and best wishes to the Canadian
National Institute for the Blind.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House of Commons to speak about
a town hall meeting I held this past Sunday afternoon in my
riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
Given the overwhelming attention that the opposition parties
have been paying to the issue of employment insurance surplus and
the abuse which has been heaped on the government over the past
few weeks concerning this surplus, I chose this issue as the
theme for discussion with my constituents, along with that of the
heralded supreme court judgment on the unilateral declaration of
independence.
1405
My town hall meeting was well attended. I was pleasantly
surprised that the entire discussion centred on the employment
insurance surplus. My learned colleagues on the other side of
the House should listen up. Lo and behold, my constituents want
the government to invest any employment insurance surplus in
health, in paying down our national debt and in lowering taxes.
I can safely state that my riding supports this—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mercier.
* * *
[Translation]
SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Small Business
Week is a time to pay tribute to the hard work and courage of
the men and women who start up and run small businesses, and of
their employees.
It is because of their efforts that jobs in the small business
sector represent 60% of the total number of jobs. In Quebec,
there are over 2.5 million jobs in a quarter of a million small
businesses, and this does not include self-employed workers.
But
we must do more than just pay tribute to small business owners.
We must wish them the strength to make it through another year.
The number of businesses declaring bankruptcy is still far too
high. We must call on government to provide greater assistance,
not just increased funding, but also help with management and
innovation, so that small businesses can expand, for their own
good and for the good of Quebec and of Canada.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL POST
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, today Canadian's woke up to the culmination of a
vision of a truly national newspaper reflecting the scope and
diversity of this far-flung nation.
Today the National Post volume 1, No. 1, arrived and a
vigorous and dynamic new voice now offers Canadians an
alternative. The National Post has entered the marketplace
in uncertain times, but if resourcefulness and commitment mean
anything then the National Post is destined to succeed.
The Southam group should be proud of its premier publication and
proprietor Conrad Black congratulated for courage and insight in
bringing his dream forward and for assembling such a
comprehensive team to produce this newspaper.
The National Post promises more comprehensive analysis and
insight into the daily parliamentary process. This is
commendable. Canadians want to know more about the sophisticated
approach and its visionary ideas.
On behalf of the Reform Party I extend my best wishes for
success to Mr. Black, the Southam group, editors, reporters,
columnists and all its employees on this momentous occasion. Let
competition flourish.
* * *
[Translation]
GREEK COMMUNITY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Sunday
I attended two very important events in Montreal's Greek
community.
The first commemorated October 28, 1940, known as OXI day, when
the Greek government of the time stood up to the forces trying
to divide and conquer Europe, and the second marked the
liberation of Thessalonica on October 26, 1912.
The Prime Minister sent the Greek community a message, which I
will read: “Canadians of Greek origin have every reason to be
proud of their important contributions, past and present, to
Canada's growth and prosperity”.
[English]
I am very proud that Canada has maintained the continuing
tradition of recognizing contributions of Canadians of other
origins.
Part of Canada's uniqueness besides its diversity is its
tradition of democratic principles and rights, the same rights
which were hard fought by the resistance forces in Greece in
1940. Tomorrow I join half a million Greeks across Canada in
celebrating our continued fight to protect both our democratic—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dartmouth.
* * *
NATIONAL POST
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
morning Canadians awoke to a new national newspaper, the
National Post. My party and I believe that our democracy
can only survive with strong, diverse and independent voices
commenting on the news of the day, but we will not get them from
the National Post.
Diverse opinions in papers require journalists who are allowed
to express a wide variety of reasoned arguments. Conrad Black
said this morning on TV that he wanted diverse opinions. At the
same time he is suing the communications workers union and two of
its organizers for questioning the editorial integrity of the
Calgary Herald during a recent organizing drive.
What Mr. Black is really saying to Canadians is that many
opinions are good as long as he agrees with them. Mr. Black's
behaviour showed why it is important for the government to bring
forward measures now to promote real diversity in the Canadian
media, not stand by while the views of Conrad Black gain any more
weight.
* * *
1410
ERMINIE JOY COHEN
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to a great Canadian from my riding who was
recently honoured by the Jewish National Fund.
Senator Erminie Joy Cohen represents the beautiful city of Saint
John in the upper house of Canada's parliament. She is truly an
excellent example of the work that our Progressive Conservative
senators do both in their communities and on the national level.
In recognition of her contributions to Canada in the areas of
equality, family violence, poverty, human rights, health and
Canadian unity, the Jewish National Fund bestowed a tremendous
award upon her this past Sunday night.
In honour of Senator Cohen, 28,000 trees will be planted in the
Negev Desert in Israel as part of the Jubilee Forest Project. In
tribute to Senator Cohen and her home province, the forest will
be called the New Brunswick Forest.
I would like to join the Jewish National Fund, the people of
Saint John and all Canadians in congratulating Senator Erminie
Cohen for her outstanding contributions to her faith—
The Speaker: The hon. member for London West.
* * *
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October
is Women's History Month in Canada.
In 1970 the historic Royal Commission on the Status of Women
presented its report to parliament, which included 167
recommendations on how to foster equality between men and women.
At the time only one woman sat in the House of Commons. Today I
am proud to be part of a House with 62 women members or 21%, the
largest number of women MPs in our history.
Despite the gains that women have made in Canada, world wide
over the last 23 years there has only been a 2% increase in
female representation in respective houses of parliament.
If we are to strive to attain an equitable future, it is my
position and the position of my colleagues in the House that we
work together, men and women, in partnership to get better
activities and representation for the benefit of all our
citizens.
* * *
[Translation]
WYE PLANTATION ACCORD
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois would like to congratulate the State of Israel
and the Palestinian Authority on reaching the Wye Plantation
accord.
This accord, fostered by American mediation, sets the stage for
true reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples
and for a long lasting peace in the Middle East.
The efforts of Yasser Arafat and Benjamin Netanyahu to reach an
agreement are being repaid by public opinion, which today,
clearly expresses its approval of the results at this new stage
of the peace process.
They are the precursors of the new successes that cannot fail
but crown the even more difficult negotiations facing the two
nations.
The Bloc Quebecois looks forward to the emergence of a
Palestinian state on May 4, 1999, but wants Israel to live in
security too. The people of Quebec wish the representatives of
the Palestinian and Israeli people success as they enter into
the home stretch toward peace.
* * *
[English]
GASOLINE
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we can
fool some of the people some of the time but things are so bad in
the Liberal caucus that the backbenchers cannot be fooled any
longer.
Scrambling to save face at next week's conference on climate
change, the environment minister announced last minute plans to
reduce sulphur levels in gasoline by 90%. She claims consumers
will pay a mere one cent per litre for this clean air plan. The
Liberal chair of the gas pricing committee, however, pegs the
increase at a whopping 15 cents per litre. That is not even
close.
The sulphur tax is a carbon tax by any other name. When the
Prime Minister assured Canadians last year that there would be no
carbon tax, his backbenchers believed him. Canadians wanted to
believe him. They have all been deceived again. Taxpayers will
pay dearly for the Liberal's desperate attempt to meet its Kyoto
commitment.
The government prefers to keep up international appearances
rather than its promises to the people of Canada. Canadians are
not fooled—
The Speaker: The hon. member for South Shore.
* * *
CHRISTMAS TREE INDUSTRY
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to the use of real Christmas trees and foliage in
the Parliament Buildings during the holiday season.
Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak to you at
length on this subject and it is your prerogative to decide on
the matter.
The Christmas tree industry is worth more than $100 million to
Canada and every acre of Christmas trees provides oxygen for
approximately 15 people. This industry helps support 3,000 farm
families in Nova Scotia alone and is environmentally friendly and
sustainable.
1415
It is an embarrassment to see the greenery that decorates these
halls during Christmas. It is inexcusable that this travesty
continues. Real trees and foliage can and should grace these
halls. If we want Canadians to embrace sustainable and
environmentally friendly products, surely as the Speaker and
representative of parliament, you could—
The Speaker: I will keep that in mind.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last night the Prime Minister lumbered through a half
hour speech without starting a new national crisis. No reference
to baseball bats or the constitution; it was good. There was no
mention either of the Prime Minister's plan to take money from
the employment insurance fund to spend on pet Liberal projects.
Does this mean that the government has seen the light and has
cancelled its plans to raid the employment insurance fund?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a debate going on at this time.
The Minister of Finance made a statement on that not long ago to
the House of Commons and to the nation in consultations with
Canadians about what should be part of the next budget. The
Minister of Human Resources Development has replied to all the
questions that have been asked by the opposition on the subject
of EI. When the budget comes down we will know.
We are in a good position because of the administration and we
have managed to deal with a very difficult problem. For the
first time in generations we are dealing with a surplus.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last night the Prime Minister talked about weathering
the coming economic storm, but that would be easier for most
Canadians if payroll taxes were lower. Right now the average
worker pays $350 a year too much for employment insurance and the
average small business pays $500 more per employee, per year than
it should.
With the economy slowing down, why does the Prime Minister think
that workers and small businesses can do without this money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform the member that when we started
on January 1, 1994 the premiums were supposed to be $3.30. We
have reduced them to $2.70 in the last four budgets. We have
been reducing them. If the Leader of the Opposition were to look
objectively at the situation of payroll taxes, Canada probably
has the lowest level of payroll taxes of any of the G-7
countries.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, to weather the coming economic storm that the Prime
Minister himself is predicting, workers need an employment
insurance fund they can count on and they need more dollars in
their own pockets today. Both of those objectives are damaged by
a government raid on the employment insurance fund.
My question again is why does the Prime Minister not call off
the heist and cancel the government's plans to raid the
employment insurance fund?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said yesterday, there are some major problems on
the international scene, particularly in Asia. As I said,
because of the discipline of the Canadian people and the
management of this government, we are in a position today to be
able to decide what to do with a surplus. Of course we want to
make sure that these moneys are used to create jobs in Canada and
give the type of economic and social progress that is needed in
Canada at this time.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister has absolutely no excuse for skimming money
from workers' insurance plans that belong to them. Thanks to the
finance minister's tax increases over the past five years this
government is collecting billions of dollars more than it needs
to pay the bills.
Why is the Prime Minister overtaxing workers $350 each on their
insurance premiums?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me read from the 1995 Reform Party taxpayers budget:
The Reform Party recommends the establishment of a permanent
reserve fund for UI. Funds from this reserve would be applied
against the deficit. That is the Reform Party's policy.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is 1998. We were going to borrow that money, not confiscate
it.
1420
In three weeks the finance minister is planning to meet with the
employment insurance commission. I think we already know what he
is planning to tell it, and that is not to cut EI taxes. He will
tell the commission that he plans to change the law so that he
can help himself to billions of dollars of workers' insurance
premiums. He only has until mid November. He and the Prime
Minister have talked about having a debate on this. Where is the
debate, in this House or just in his head?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us understand that in 1995 the Reform Party was not
recommending that any of the EI surplus be applied to reductions.
Reformers were saying that all of the EI surplus must go against
the deficit. We did not follow their advice. We reduced
premiums in 1995. We reduced them in 1996. We reduced them in
1997. That is what we have done.
* * *
[Translation]
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to question the Prime Minister today.
We are looking forward to having him clarify statements he made
in a long interview published last weekend in La Presse.
Since he claims that, through his efforts, all of Quebec's
traditional demands have been met, can the Prime Minister tell
us why none of the political parties or leaders in Quebec has
signed the 1982 Constitution, his life's achievement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have said and I repeat that we have made strides in Canada these
past few years, in spite of the Bloc Quebecois and the PQ.
When a resolution recognizing the distinctiveness of the
language, culture and civil law in Quebec was brought before
this House, the Bloc Quebecois voted against it. When
legislation was passed in this House to give a veto—one of
Quebec's traditional demands—to the regions, including Quebec,
the Bloc Quebecois voted against it.
As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs pointed out
yesterday, the list of improvements we have initiated is quite
impressive and there is more to come—
The Speaker: The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
still, this does not explain why Robert Bourassa, Daniel
Johnson, Jean Charest and Claude Ryan all refused to sign the
1982 Constitution. But I think that is something the Prime
Minister does not understand.
In the same interview, the Prime Minister indicated he preferred
the small-steps strategy of dealing with issues on a case-by-case
basis, to avoid creating false hopes, as he put it. Could the
Prime Minister tell us what he means by “false hopes”?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when discussions were held in Charlottetown, everyone bet on a
miracle solution that only led to disaster. We, however, have
been dealing with one issue at a time.
For 30 years, Quebec struggled with its school board problem. We
introduced a constitutional amendment, the first one in years,
to help the Quebec government remedy this problem.
For 30 years, a solution was sought to the manpower training
problem in Quebec. What happened? After years of discussions,
this government stepped in and solved the problem, as we have
solved others, one by one and efficiently.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last year, the
Prime Minister said he was waiting for a federalist government
in Quebec to proceed with constitutional changes.
However, he just said the opposite and last weekend he shut the
door by stating “The Constitution is not a general store”.
1425
Are we to understand from those comments that the Prime Minister
is resigned to not having a federalist government in Quebec or
that, even with a federalist government, he feels he can never
go further than he already has?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while all the provinces and the federal government have decided
it was important to recognize Quebec's distinct character in the
Calgary declaration, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to any
change.
This is why I say that when we have in Quebec a federalist
government that believes in Canada, and not a separatist
government, we will be able to move the agenda forward as we
have in the past five years, in spite of the opposition of the
BQ and the PQ.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the Prime
Minister tell us if, when he said he did not want to create
false hopes at the constitutional level, he was sending a very
clear message to Quebec federalists to not say too much on this
issue during the election campaign, because as far as he is
concerned the door is shut?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
said and I repeat that we have made considerable progress in
spite of the systematic opposition from the BQ and the PQ.
When a federalist party with people who believe in Canada is in
office, the other provinces and the Canadian government will be
more than willing to bring about changes that are absolutely
impossible to make with people whose only goal is to destroy
Canada.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
week the health minister insisted that health protection
scientists appeared before the Senate agriculture committee with
his full co-operation and encouragement. The facts are otherwise.
The minister's office worked overtime to try to prevent the
scientists from testifying. An internal document shows that the
minister's office tried to engineer the assistant deputy minister
appearing instead of the scientists.
Why try to silence the scientists? How does blocking the truth
protect the public health?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I hope the hon. member's devotion to the truth will extend to her
description of the history of these events.
What happened last week was that scientists from my department
appeared before the Senate committee at my urging. I encouraged
them to attend and to testify before the parliamentary committee.
The document she refers to which was disclosed yesterday from a
bureaucrat does not represent the policy of the department. The
policy of the department is set by the minister and the minister
asked those scientists to appear. They did and they testified in
full and answered all the questions.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, here we
have a minister who knows so little about what is going on in his
department and who is so scared to have the truth come out that
he now has to distance himself from the spin control documents
coming out from his own officials.
The fact is once the minister could not block the scientists, he
tried to send the scientists to the committee chaperoned by their
own boss, like parolees on a day pass.
My question is very simple. Why did the minister tell the House
one thing when the documents tell a totally different story?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talks about spinning. It sounds to me that the only
spin doctor that has been advising the NDP is Dr. Kevorkian.
Let us bear in mind what the issue is here. The issue here is
whether those scientists appeared before a committee to testify.
They did. They answered all the questions fully and I urged them
to do so.
Bear in mind also that what we are talking about here is rBST.
That substance has not been approved and will not be approved by
Health Canada until we are satisfied that it is safe.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we still
do not know what caused the crash of a search and rescue
helicopter that killed six members of the Canadian armed forces
on October 2. However, we have been informed that the Labrador
helicopters will be returning to active duty.
Still not knowing the cause of the crash, why is the minister
willing to put more lives at risk?
1430
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to put any lives at
risk. Search and rescue is about saving lives and we do not put
up aircraft unless it is safe to use, safe for crews and safe for
the people who will be recipients of this service.
The chief of the air staff has examined this situation very
carefully. He is a professional man, a very caring man. He
knows the circumstances under which this decision had to be made.
He believes, after consultation with crews, that this is the
right decision to make and we will fly these aircraft only after
further inspection and when they are fully safe to fly.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
October 5 the minister said that he did not know how long the
investigation into the crash would take but “as soon as we get
the results, the better”.
We do not have the results, nor do the families of the victims.
It has been reported that crews not comfortable flying the aging
Labradors will not have to. Why are the crews being given this
option?
If the minister believes the Labradors are safe and if none of
them want to fly the Labradors, what alternatives does the
minister have for meeting Canada's continuing search and rescue
needs?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the cause is not known but
there is no evidence also to support any systemic failure. So it
has been decided by the chief of the air staff, and I fully
support his position, that these helicopters can go back in the
air.
The majority of the search and rescue crews want to get back in
the air, want to get back to providing this service for
Canadians. Some of them were part of the squadron where the six
deaths occurred. They will be given a little more opportunity to
make their decisions before going back into the air and I think
that is a good way to move it.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government repeatedly argues that employment insurance money does
not really belong to workers but the very fact that the
government pays interest on the billions of dollars it borrowed
from the EI fund is an admission that the government does not
even believe its own story. Otherwise, why would it be paying
interest?
If, as it has claimed, the fund belongs to the government to
spend however it wants, then why in the world is it paying $711
million in interest charges this year on the money it borrowed
from the fund? Why is it paying interest?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is the government's position that contributions to
the government, whether they come from EI contributions from
employers or employees or whether they are taxpayer dollars, they
come from the taxpayers of this country and they must be
administered with great prudence. That is what we are in the
process of doing.
We do not regard taxpayer dollars as simply found money. That
may well be the difference. That is why we provide good
administration.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): So in other
words, Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is saying the government
is paying interest to itself. That is what he seems to be
saying.
If you take money that does not belong to you, you go to jail.
You do not pass go, you do not collect $350 per worker. Why
doesn't the finance minister just give back that $350 per worker
and quit this Liberal larceny?
The Speaker: I prefer that words like larceny not be used
in question period.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at a time when the climate outside our borders was
benign, when Japan was not in a depression, when Russia's
government was operating, the Reform Party recommended that the
government use the EI fund to reduce the deficit.
Now outside our borders the situation is certainly stormy and
the government must protect itself and the Canadian people. By
what twisted logic does the Reform Party decide all of a sudden
that we should abandon that cushion? The issue is what torturous
minds develop economic policy for the Reform Party.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
ELECTION IN QUEBEC
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federalist camp is in disarray, and some people have even asked
the Prime Minister to shut up for the duration of the election
campaign in Quebec.
Does the Prime Minister intend to follow the advice of his
Quebec federalist allies, who are asking him to shut up for 36
days and to wait until after the election campaign to say what
he thinks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this has to be the first time the opposition asks the Prime
Minister not to answer its questions. I sit in the House of
Commons. It is my duty to do so and I answer all questions.
I would like to say that the PQ and the BQ do not want to talk
about their mismanagement of Quebec. They are trying to pick a
fight with the federal government, instead of talking about the
mess they created in Quebec, particularly in the health sector.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister should give a call to his friend Jean Charest, who said
that it is not Bouchard or Rochon, but the Liberal government of
Jean Chrétien that should be blamed.
The Speaker: I remind my colleagues that they must not use
names.
The hon. member for Témiscamingue.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, if Jean Charest's friends are
asking the Prime Minister to shut up during the election
campaign, is it not proof that what Jean Charest is promising is
precisely what the Prime Minister calls unachievable hopes?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me say whom the member should ask to shut up. He
should ask the only person who said something despicable last
weekend to shut up, namely the person who did not hesitate to
compare the Quebec Liberal Party leader to a dictator in exile.
That was despicable.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
two families in Prudhomme, Saskatchewan. In one of them, Preston
Tkatch is the sole breadwinner but his monthly take home pay
after taxes is only $220 more than the welfare cheque a family of
the same size receives. It is this government's tax policies
which are pushing more and more Canadians into poverty.
Why does this finance minister allow a situation to exist in
which there is more incentive for people to go on welfare than to
work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suggest the hon. member might want to look at the new
child tax benefit which is directed at exactly that.
In the last budget the government put in an additional $750
million to bring it to over $1.7 billion, precisely to deal with
that kind of situation.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is about giving working Canadians a break so they can keep
themselves out of poverty.
Mr. Tkatch also pays about $700 a month in taxes, EI and CPP. It
is close to the point where he might just as well sign over his
paycheque to the government and live off the deductions.
Will the finance minister explain to Mr. Tkatch and others like
him why they should not just quit their jobs and go on welfare?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last budget the government provided $7 billion
worth of tax relief to Canadians who are in exactly that
situation.
At the same time 400,000 Canadians have been taken off the tax
rolls. That is precisely what this government has done to help
the gentleman in question.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
THE CONSTITUTION
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
In the interview he gave La Presse, the Prime Minister said he
had asked his ministers for a list of Quebec's traditional
demands in February 1996.
Since this is a cabinet document, is the Prime Minister prepared
to table it in the House, so that we may verify whether or not
his cabinet is up on Quebec's traditional demands?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would suggest the member read the February 1996
throne speech.
But, since we are on the topic of traditional demands, and since
the Bloc Quebecois is so quick to think them up, I have a few
traditional demands to suggest to Quebec: an end to the constant
threat of referendums; an end to the separatist freeze; an end
to referendums; an end to trickery and other flip-flops; an end
to going around in circles.
Our objectives are the same as those of the leader of the Quebec
Liberal Party: a better economic union, a better social union,
a stronger Quebec within a united Canada.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
reducing Quebec's traditional demands, basic issues defended by
all Quebec premiers for more than 40 years, to nothing more than
a shopping list, is the Prime Minister not proving that he has
understood nothing about Quebec, and that he would do a better
job as the manager of a general store than as the Prime
Minister?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the limitation on the federal government's spending
authority, taken even further than in any—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Scorn is the weapon of the weak, Mr.
Speaker.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: But, seriously, there have been many
changes—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers will not be very
edified to see how low the Bloc Quebecois is willing to stoop in
order to drag Quebec's election campaign into the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: But, as my counterpart in Quebec even
admitted, there have been in recent years important changes
designed to improve service to the public.
I was going to mention, if I can make myself heard—which is by no
means certain—the limitation on the federal government's spending
authority, taken even further than during the Meech Lake Accord,
which had the support of Lucien Bouchard at the time; the
passage of the regional veto legislation; the distinct society
resolution; the fewer conditions attached to the principal
federal transfer payment to the provinces, the Canada social
transfer; the clarification of roles in various areas, such as
mining, forestry, recreation, tourism, social housing—
The Speaker: The member for Dauphin—Swan River has the floor.
* * *
[English]
THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister just cannot stand dissent. Just ask the
former chair of the committee on fisheries or the former chief
actuary of the CPP fund or students at APEC or Terry Milewski.
This House should know that the Prime Minister has introduced a
bill that will allow him to fire—I say again fire—the president
and every director of the CBC—
1445
The Speaker: Colleagues, we are taking up a lot of time
with my standing and sitting. I would prefer that we listen to
the questions and, of course, listen to the answers.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker,
members of the House should know that the Prime Minister has
introduced a bill that will allow him to fire—and I say again
fire—the president and every director of the CBC without
cause.
Who is in line to be the next CBC president? Peter Donolo?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the law of the CBC is quite clear and I quoted article 46(5)
yesterday, which says that the society has, in the implementation
of its mission and the exercise of its powers, freedom of
expression and total independence in terms of journalism,
creation and programming.
That is the position of the government.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
could we imagine the APEC coverage if the Prime Minister's office
was running the CBC? Jean Carle would be the news director and
if Jason Moscovitz said anything controversial they would
immediately cut to a commercial. Peter Mansbridge's newscast
would be a lot shorter because Ivan Whitehall would read it first
and cross out anything embarrassing.
Why is the Prime Minister trying to control the CBC? Whatever
happened to freedom of the press?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to get some advice from the Reform
Party on the CBC because in its last policy paper the Reform
Party had a plan for the CBC. It was to abolish it.
* * *
[Translation]
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
interview he gave to La Presse, the Prime Minister explained
that his one-step-at-a-time strategy was the right one, because it
avoided stirring up what he called regional squabbling and
jealousies.
How can the Prime Minister get worked up today about regional
jealousies when the demands of Quebec are involved, when that
was precisely the strategy he used, and made the most of, when
it came time to causing the failure of the Meech Lake Accord?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is hardly appropriate for the Bloc Quebecois to talk
about jealousy. That party is here in the House only to defend
the interests of a single province, with no solidarity
whatsoever with the others and, by so doing, it unfortunately
sometimes encourages the same attitude in other parties.
What both Quebeckers and all Canadians need is for there to be
an opposition some day—for the Liberals are governing very
well—that will be able to reconcile regional interests among
themselves, as we within this government, and this party, manage
to do.
* * *
SCRAPIE
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec sheep
farmers are experiencing an untenable situation at the present
time, because of scrapie.
Can the Minister of Agriculture explain to us what the
Government of Canada is doing, and will do, to help this
important industry in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am continuing to work with the sheep
industry and the unfortunate situation that some of them are in.
I was pleased to announce this morning that we have increased
the maximum cap for animals having to be destroyed because of
this disease from $300 to $600 per animal.
This is in addition to the nearly $2 million which will be paid
to producers affected by this disease in Quebec in the last year
or so. In addition, we are putting close to $400,000 in place
for research, to assist in the funding of an animal
identification program in Canada and to implement a flock
certification program. As well, the Farm Credit Corporation has
put in place a 24 month deferred loan program to assist these
producers.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
allege three things.
Number one, that the Prime Minister or his office was involved
in using the RCMP to suppress Canadians' freedom of speech at
APEC.
Number two, I allege that the Prime Minister or his office is
involved in the continuing work against the commission.
1450
Number three, I allege that the CBC legislation pending is
because the Prime Minister did not like the CBC coverage of the
APEC affair.
Will he give us an independent inquiry to show my allegations to
be untrue?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1988 parliament decided how to deal with citizens'
complaints against the RCMP. It created the Public Complaints
Commission. It has operated effectively for 10 years. That is
the way parliament decided to deal with such situations and that
is what is happening now.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
once again the solicitor general does not know what he is talking
about.
This commission was derailed in the spring. This commission was
derailed in September. This commission is currently derailed
because of allegations against the chair. The only thing that
has not happened to this commission is a decent burial.
Will the solicitor general give Canadians what they want and
what they must have, the truth about APEC and the Prime
Minister's involvement in stopping Canadians' freedom of
expression?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Public Complaints Commission will get to the truth
exactly the way parliament intended it be done.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
The solicitor general's unilateral $8.5 million cut in funding
for the RCMP in British Columbia and the Yukon means less money
to fight organized crime, less money to fight drug trafficking
and less money to fight white collar crime. It hits small
detachments especially hard.
Will the minister now listen to the people of British Columbia
and the Yukon? Will he restore to the RCMP the funds that were
cut, give them back the ability to fight crime in our communities
and stop turning them into bean counters?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the amount of money made available to fight organized
crime in the last budget was a $7 million or $8 million increase
over the year before.
The reality is that the way the money is spent by the RCMP is an
operational question left to management of the RCMP, a very
respected police force in Canada.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, now that they have frozen RCMP cadet training, the
Liberals want to impose alternate service delivery on the RCMP
support staff at the Regina training academy.
ASD is another step down for our public service, where they are
fired and then offered their job back at half pay. Under ASD
government employees are always sitting ducks and all services
are defunct.
Why is it always Saskatchewan that is devastated? Will the
government back away from another silly decision or will this be
another solicitor general debacle for the RCMP?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said before, the RCMP is experiencing financial
restraint like everybody else. In this case it has temporarily
stopped training at the depot in Regina. This has happened many
times before. It is not unusual. It is simply a function of the
way that the RCMP chooses to manage the situation.
* * *
[Translation]
HELICOPTER PURCHASE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1993,
the Prime Minister took a calculated risk in canceling the
helicopter contract. In 1996, he took another calculated risk in
selling seven Chinook helicopters for $16 million.
Will the Prime Minister stop placing human lives in danger and,
to this end, retire the fleet of Labradors and replace them with
other helicopters?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not put lives in danger.
The previous Conservative government was willing to waste an
awful lot of taxpayers' money to buy a very inappropriate
helicopter. This government did the right thing. It cancelled
that contract. It is in the process of tendering for another
helicopter that better meets our search and rescue needs, at a
fraction of the price.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
guess for this government money is more important than lives.
The government continues to risk lives. In 1996 it sold
perfectly good helicopters that could have been used for search
and rescue. We cannot get them back.
Today the chief of air staff said “Nothing says we have not
missed an undetected flaw in the remaining aircraft”. He also
confirmed today that there are offers on the table from Boeing
and from the United States to loan Canada helicopters.
Will the Prime Minister stop the madness and get some help?
1455
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have the crews and the equipment we
need to do the search and rescue job. We not only have Labrador
helicopters, we have Griffons, Sea Kings and fixed-wing aircraft
like the Hercules and the Buffalo. We have expert crews that are
anxious to get back into a full search and rescue operation.
They will do that and they will do it with safe equipment.
If we need other machinery, we have it there as a back-up to
call on when necessary. But we have the tools to do the job.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Lim
Guan Eng is a Malaysian opposition MP who is spending 18 months
in jail for criticizing a friend of the Malaysian Prime Minister.
He lost his seat and he even lost the right to practise his
profession as a private citizen. What has Canada done to protest
this action, to support Lim Guan Eng, to support freedom of
speech and to support the rule of law in Malaysia?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has already met with Mr. Lim
Guan Eng's family. I thank her and the member for Mount Royal
for raising awareness on this issue.
I can report to her and to the House that the high commission in
Malaysia has already made a direct representation to the ministry
of foreign affairs in Malaysia. When I visit Malaysia next month
I hope to be able to seek the opportunity to raise the matter
directly with the minister of foreign affairs.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister tries to distance himself from the BST internal memo,
yet this internal memo states very plainly that there are three
to four meetings per week and that the individual from the
minister's office who attends is John Dossetor.
I want to know directly from the minister, if he is being so
open on this file, why does he hide the fact that his office is
directly involved in risk management? Why would it need risk
management on a policy like this?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will tell the member what we did. When the Senate committee on
agriculture wanted scientists from Health Canada to testify and
when the scientists said they were reluctant to go, I ensured
that they were told the minister's office wanted them to attend,
that it was their duty to attend, and that they should be there
to answer questions. They did exactly that.
What did they say? They made it clear that Health Canada has
not approved BST. There have been suggestions that we have been
pressured to approve this drug. It has been under consideration
by Health Canada for nine years. If that is what pressure is, it
is not working very well.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
interview he requested from La Presse last weekend, the Prime
Minister regretted not having $20 billion for social programs.
But on September 13, speaking before the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce, he boasted that his government had just paid down $20
billion on the debt over 15 months.
Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of himself for laughing at
people by claiming not to have any money for social programs
when all of the $20 billion surplus accumulated in the past 15
months went to paying down the debt without a penny going to
health?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
look at the last budget reveals that the government doubled
funding for medical research and development, financed the
medical transition fund and spent, over five years, in excess of
$7 billion on transfer payments to the provinces, most of which
were for health.
* * *
[English]
BANK SERVICE CHARGES
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. A
study was released yesterday by the consumer group Option
Consommateurs. It indicated that Canadians are being gouged by
outrageous bank service charges. Even the MacKay task force
recommends fair, reasonable and non-abusive transaction
practices.
In light of that, is the minister now ready to take action to
protect Canadians against unfair and abusive bank service
charges?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
compliment Option Consommateurs for the good work it has done on
behalf of low income Canadians with respect to banking services.
The member is quite right. We have two major concerns in this
area. One is access for the 650,000 Canadians who do not have
bank accounts and who cannot get out of poverty unless they have
access to basic bank accounts. The other concern is the service
fees that would be charged for a basic bank account. These
matters have been looked at by the MacKay task force and the
House of Commons is looking at them. They are very serious
concerns for us. I thank the member for the question.
* * *
1500
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Nova Scotia started charging a fee to drive on the Trans-Canada
Highway and the federal government did nothing. Now New
Brunswick is planning to charge a fee to drive on the
Trans-Canada Highway, creating a huge trade barrier and
projecting a profit of $321 billion. First Nova Scotia and then
New Brunswick. The next logical thought is that it will start in
Quebec as well.
Will the minister use his constitutional authority to intervene
on this huge interprovincial trade barrier and stop the madness
of interprovincial trade barriers by the provinces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has used its constitutional authority
on putting forward an agreement on internal trade. None of what
has occurred on the east coast contravenes the transportation
provisions of that agreement.
If one of those provinces feels aggrieved, it has the right to
resort to conciliation and then a panel to resolve it. We prefer
to use the agreement we have put together to resolve these issues
in an amicable way.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency, the Right Honourable
Cavaye Yeguie Djibril, President of the National Assembly of
Cameroon, and a delegation of members.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House resumed 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.
The Speaker: The member for Markham had the floor and I
said before question period that he would be able to resume. He
has three minutes left if he wishes to use them in debate.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, currently the
provinces have not demonstrated a significant interest in having
Ottawa collect or have more authority over taxes beyond what
Revenue Canada does currently.
1505
Ontario is looking to attain greater authority over its tax
levers. It cannot simply be said to the provinces that someone
will have more authority over their spending without providing
them with more direct authority over tax policies.
Some of the provinces feel this agency may ultimately lead to
less. If the provinces are not interested, obviously the agency
will not save money or lead to greater efficiencies.
While we are on the subject of privatization, I draw to the
minister's attention Bill C-54 which essentially deals with
electronic privacy. This bill was tabled by the Minister of
Industry for a very important reason. Canadians by and large do
not have a sufficient degree of trust in the level of privacy
accorded by the Internet. Without privacy legislation which
Canadians are willing to buy into, electronic commerce would be a
whole bunch of wishful thinking.
The same thing applies here. The combination of privatization,
taxation and privacy is a very interesting dynamic, one which
leads to great anxiety for Canadians. The question that needs to
be answered is if most Canadians are unwilling to give personal
information over the Internet, why should we suppose that they
are prepared to have a large, faceless private agency with access
to their most sensitive, personal information? Quite frankly
Canadians are not interested in such a situation occurring. We
can offload a lot of things but we cannot really offload
leadership. That is what the government has tried to do.
Other than the issue of privacy Canadians also have
traditionally expressed their frustration with the complexity of
our income tax regime. There quite simply can be no
justification for the fact that Canadians need to hire
accountants to fill out their personal income tax forms. The
notion that somehow a privacy agency will succeed in simplifying
this process in a way that our present system cannot is
completely without merit.
If we create incentives with all our public agencies or
departments that recognize and award excellence as opposed to
encouraging mediocrity we introduce market incentives without the
existing agencies. We can achieve economies without necessarily
creating new agencies.
In conclusion, the bill will not lead us toward a simpler tax
system. It will not help us develop a fairer tax system. It will
not achieve the goals of a flatter tax system. It is bureaucracy
for the sake of bureaucracy, and that is the kind of legislation
whose day has passed us by.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to rise on this bill to create the Canada
customs and revenue agency.
We have here yet another example of the style of management the
Liberals adopted in 1993 after their return to power following
the nine year reign of the Progressive Conservative Party under
Brian Mulroney, Companion of the Order of Canada.
I will use this speech on the bill to illustrate how federal
public servants, in the matter before us, may be vulnerable in
the face of the policies developed by a government, namely those
of privatizing and almost entirely eliminating the public
service.
I would also like to make the following analogy, for our
viewers, with the threat posed by the election in Quebec of a
Liberal government under Jean Charest. We all know that the
Quebec Liberal Party clearly indicated its intention, if the
Liberals were to form the government in Quebec, to privatize on
a large scale.
At the moment, what we fear federally could well happen
provincially, if we were unfortunate enough to have Jean
Charest's Quebec Liberals win the upcoming elections in Quebec.
On Thursday, June 4, 1998, one week before the long summer
break, the Minister of Revenue tabled Bill C-43 to establish the
Canada customs and revenue agency.
It dates from the February 1996 throne speech, as the government
announced its intention to set up a national revenue collection
body.
This agency will, from the outset, be the transformation of the
current Department of Revenue into a semi autonomous government
agency.
1510
It will have a mandate to negotiate with interested provinces
and municipalities to collect all taxes in Canada. Ministerial
accountability and parliamentary control would remain intact.
The Minister of Revenue says he will remain fully responsible
for administering the laws on taxes, customs duties and trade.
If that is the case, we might well ask why they are going to
such lengths to transform a full department with one-fifth of all
public service employees into an agency. What is the point of
this agency? With the minister saying that few things will
change, why set up such an agency, as I said a moment ago?
The answer is to be found in the remarks by the President of the
Treasury Board, the member for Hull—Aylmer. I suspect there are
a number of employees of Revenue Canada among his constituents
who are watching us on television. I would hope that, in the
next election, these people who live in the riding of the
President of the Treasury Board will remember that this
government and this minister have no interest in them as public
servants. They are being left to the mercy of privatization and
to be part of a semi-autonomous agency.
The minister is boasting here in this House almost of having the
vote of the federal public servants. I hope that, for once,
they will really make it clear to the member for Hull—Aylmer, the
President of the Treasury Board, what they think of this agency.
The answer lies in the comments of the President of the Treasury
Board, who says that the creation of the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency is an essential part of the government's
commitment to modernize the federal public service. In the
government's opinion, therefore, modernizing the federal public
service is sort of like privatizing it; it means removing public
servants from the effect of umbrella legislation such as the
Public Service Employment Act.
This agency will employ about 40,000 public servants, some 20%
of the entire public service, who will now be at the mercy of
its board of management.
In a ten-minute speech, it is difficult to cover all the bases.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate my
colleagues on this side of the House, who worked very hard
studying this bill, including the hon. member for
Terrebonne—Blainville.
I would like to list the main reasons for rejecting this agency.
First, we will have a mega tax collection agency that will
enable the federal government to extend its influence to our
communities. Moreover, with this agency, accountability to the
public and to Parliament will be weakened. We also feel that the
agency could be prejudicial to the privacy of Quebeckers and
Canadians. This agency is a classic example of the building of
an empire by Ottawa's senior bureaucrats locked up in their
ivory tower.
The Bloc Quebecois thinks the primary reason for creating this
agency is to conclude new tax agreements with the provinces,
something which, incidentally, has not materialized. We also
think that small and large businesses are not impressed with the
new agency.
I see that the hon. member for Mercier, who is our industry
critic and who pays very close attention to the concerns of
small businesses, agrees with what I just said.
As we know, the business community was supposed to be the first
to benefit from the agency. However, reaction to the new agency
was mixed, to say the least. Organizations representing small
businesses, including the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business, were particularly suspicious of the enormous powers
that would be concentrated in the hands of the agency.
A full 40% of the businesses that participated in a Public
Policy Forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada see no point
in having this agency. We are not talking about 2% or 3%, but
about 40%.
Forty percent of the businesses polled feel that the agency
would increase or maintain the costs of their relationship with
the department.
1515
That is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are of the opinion that
this agency will bring about new hidden taxes. Its supposed
purpose is savings, but we believe it will bring new costs.
In fact, the agency is already wasting money even if it does not
yet exist. We know that, even before gaining parliamentary
approval, it is already costing the taxpayers money. Hundreds
of departmental employees have already been relieved of their
usual duties and assigned to design teams or other exercises
serving the ambitions of senior bureaucrats.
Any public servant listening to us knows what we mean by senior
bureaucrats in the federal public service. We do not need to
spell it out. They know, for they live with it every day.
This costly diversion has also prevented the department from
concentrating on its usual tasks.
One final point we would draw to the attention of this House is
that this agency will be more bureaucratic than Revenue Canada.
I had the opportunity to meet in my riding an employee of
Revenue Canada working in the Quebec City region, who made me
very aware of the nasty effects and aspects of this agency. To
protect him under the provisions of the Public Service
Employment Act, I will not name him, but he and his colleagues
know who they are.
The employees of Revenue Canada are concerned and anxious. They
tell us that the declared intention is to create a headless
bureaucratic monster that can go where it will and do what it
wants. I am not sure this agency will look after the public
interest.
In conclusion, Quebec does not support the desire of the federal
government to centralize all activities related to the
collection of federal revenues in a countrywide agency. We in
Quebec already have our own department of revenue—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt you, but I thought you were
concluding. In any case, your time is up. Perhaps you could
come back for the next round.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate this very
important issue. I do so on behalf of the residents of
Waterloo—Wellington.
I want to begin by pointing out an important element of the
proposal for the Canada customs and revenue agency and that is
that it is a framework for the participation of the provinces and
the territories. By setting the right conditions for greater
co-ordination of federal and provincial tax administration, the
agency can and will serve both the national as well as the
provincial interests.
The success of the Canada customs and revenue agency does not
require the participation of every province and territory. In
fact participation in the agency is fully voluntary. The agency
is intended to provide a framework and a platform to work for the
benefit of all the provinces, not to take over any provincial
powers. The creation of a new agency will reduce overlap and
duplication between federal and provincial revenue
administration.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is only one taxpayer. Why not
then a single administration to collect taxes? This approach will
allow governments to reduce their administrative costs and at the
same time provide savings in compliance costs to taxpayers. Only
where provinces and territories agree that a sound business case
can be made for a specific service to be supplied by the agencies
will these arrangements in fact be made.
The province of Quebec has been consulted along with all other
provinces since the beginning of this process. Quebec has told us
that although it does not want the new agency to administer any
of its programs, it is willing to stay informed about its
progress.
1520
The agency legislation in fact simply represents a framework for
closer collaboration. There is no obligation on the part of
Quebec or any other province to have the agency administer more
programs on its behalf if it is a matter completely for each to
decide on its own.
Even if Quebec chooses not to participate, Canadian businesses
will still benefit by saving between $116 million and $193
million annually in compliance costs. In addition, governments
would save between $37 million and $62 million in administrative
costs. Any new programs that the agency will administer will be
based on a business case analysis. This will apply to Quebec as
it will to all other provinces.
At the present time Revenue Canada collects personal income
taxes for nine provinces and corporate income taxes for seven.
Revenue Canada administers provincial social benefit programs for
British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, the
Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia. Revenue Canada also
collects provincial sales tax, and alcohol and tobacco taxes at
the border for a number of provinces. It also administers the
national child benefit. There is ample precedent for this
co-ordination and consolidation of services.
The proposed agency by its very structure should expand even
further the level of co-operation and at the same time increase
the provincial voice in tax administration.
Provinces and territories will be able to supply lists of
nominees from the private sector for 11 of the 15 directors on
the board of management which will direct the business planning
of the agency. These directors will not, I repeat not, be on the
board to represent the specific interests of their province, but
rather to bring a provincial and regional sensitivity to the
management of the board and the agency.
The powers of the agency will be broad enough to allow it to
enter into service agreements with individual provinces, for
example for the collection of a non-harmonized provincial tax.
Until now Revenue Canada could only administer provincial taxes
if they were harmonized with federal taxes, limiting the number
of programs that could be administered by Revenue Canada. Under
Bill C-43 the agency will be empowered to administer
non-harmonized taxes such as the provincial sales tax which is
not harmonized. There are still economies of scale under a
single administration even if a tax is not harmonized.
The agency will enter into an agreement with a province to
administer a tax, but all of these agreements will have to follow
guidelines which will be established by federal and provincial
finance ministers. These guidelines will ensure that any taxes
collected by the agency on behalf of the provinces and the
territories will first of all, be legally valid; second, not
jeopardize the system of self-assessment; third, not involve
double taxation; fourth, ensure fairness; and finally, be
undertaken under mutually acceptable contractual arrangements.
The last criterion demonstrates an important aspect of these
agreements. They are service contracts with the agency providing
a service to a province or territory according to specific terms
and conditions of a contract between the two parties. This means
that the province or territory will retain full authority over
the tax and will be accountable to the taxpayers for it.
The agency will have to strengthen its accountability to the
provinces for the administration of programs on their behalf so
that they in turn can be accountable to their own taxpayers. Once
a year the commissioner of the agency will have to report to
provincial and territorial ministers on the programs and services
managed on their behalf and offer to meet with them also on an
annual basis to obtain their feedback on the agency's performance
on their programs and their services. This strengthening of the
accountability and performance bonds between the agency and the
provinces and the territories will ensure that programs and
services remain innovative, responsive to clients and cost
effective.
I also want to point out that a study of the Public Policy Forum
estimates that Revenue Canada could administer current provincial
taxes for about $97 million to $162 million less than is
currently spent, an overall reduction of 6% of the current costs
if all provinces participate. The agency is currently
undertaking joint studies with some provinces to examine specific
possibilities.
1525
Savings to individuals, businesses and governments increase as
more provinces and territories participate. So it is in the best
interests of all Canadians to have as much provincial and
territorial participation as possible.
Bill C-43 will make the Canada customs and revenue agency a
reality. The agency will be structured and positioned to earn
the support of the provinces and the territories.
I want to point out that all provinces and territories as well
as the federal government have worked hard to put their financial
houses in order. The Canada customs and revenue agency is an
opportunity to reduce costly overlap and duplication between the
orders of government even further. That is important to note and
certainly something all Canadians want.
I urge this House to pass Bill C-43 as quickly as possible so
that Canadians in all provinces can realize the tangible benefits
of better and more cost effective tax, customs and trade
administration services in Canada. I believe that is what
Canadians want and I sincerely believe that is what Canadians
deserve.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I regret very much that I have the opportunity to debate
Bill C-43 this afternoon because I do not think this bill is
necessary at all. This is a good example of unnecessary meddling.
It is ideological child's play, or incompetent bungling, or a
hidden agenda. I am not sure what to call it when it comes to
this government and Bill C-43.
I certainly have never had constituents, other than people who
felt they had been done some particular injustice, cry for the
quasi privatization of Revenue Canada. I do not think the
government is responding to any real need, except perhaps a need
to cook the books with respect to how many employees there are in
the federal public service.
Revenue Canada's 40,000 employees make up about 20% of the
federal public service. This particular bill would also involve
the transfer of more than $2 billion in annual parliamentary
estimates.
It seems to me that what the government is up to here is it is
creating the impression that it is somehow downsizing the public
service. Then two or three years from now, whenever this becomes
a reality, the government can say that it eliminated 20,000
employees from the public service payroll and that it should be
lauded or should get some right wing award or medal for how many
public servants it eliminated. It seems to me that is part of
what is going on and I want to say how strongly I object to it.
I happen to have the taxation data centre for western Canada in
my riding. Many hundreds of Canadians work there, many full time
as well as part time early in the spring when people's tax
returns are due.
I was recently there to participate with many of the workers,
hundreds of them again, when they were demonstrating in favour of
pay equity, when they were showing their anger at this government
for not respecting the judgment of the tribunal. This government
is now adding insult to injury. Not only is it saying to these
people that it will not respect the tribunal's judgment on pay
equity, but it is also going to change the nature of the
government department they work for in such a way as to make them
much more vulnerable than they are now.
I would say with confidence that I speak on behalf of hundreds
of my constituents and those who live in surrounding
constituencies who work at the taxation data centre when I
register my opposition to Bill C-43 and the intention of the
government to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency.
1530
I said earlier that I thought this was completely unnecessary.
One of the arguments for that is that there is certainly not the
kind of support we would want from the provinces if we were going
to create such an agency.
The government is moving toward this independent agency without
the support of four major provinces and, as I have already said,
it does not have the support of the majority of its workers. The
major stakeholders are not buying it. Certainly the citizens of
this country have not indicated any great desire for this to
happen.
Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island are firmly opposed.
B.C. and Saskatchewan have not endorsed the concept. All
provinces generally see the agency as an intrusion into
provincial jurisdiction.
Canadian businesses have major reservations about the proposed
agency. There is certainly a concern that a lot of people have,
whether they be in business or ordinary citizens or whomever,
that we might see down the line this new Canada customs and
revenue agency becoming out of control, becoming something like
the IRS in the United States which has a history of working
according to quotas, of intimidating and harassing taxpayers in
order to get a certain return on its investment one might say.
We do not want to have this kind of system in our country.
There has been no demonstrable need or desire for changing
Revenue Canada in this drastic way. The jobs of tens of
thousands of civil servants are being put in jeopardy here. It
seems this is one more instance of an ideological fetish or
fixation on the part of this government for forms of
privatization and quasi-privatization that it would do well to
give up on.
We have seen the downside of privatization in a number of other
instances. We saw it just last week when CN was laying off 3,000
people simply to please its shareholders, not because there was
any particular need to lay off these people, not because there
was not work for them to do.
An hon. member: Lay off Tellier.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: There is an idea. However, when Paul
Tellier leaves the CNR with all his stock options and everything
else he takes with him, chances are the next CEO of CN
headquartered in Montreal will be American. Mark my words. It
will be an American imported from some American railway and we
will have the absolutely shameful spectacle of Canadian National,
headquartered in Montreal, being operated and directed by an
American. This is not many years away. All this is because of
this Liberal government which did and is doing things that not
even those who we knew to be ideological, those who we knew to be
right wing, the Conservatives, did in this respect.
This is the betrayal that we have seen since 1993. At least
many of things the Conservatives did they said they were going to
do. They were at least up front about their philosophy and about
where they stood with regard to crown corporations and the role
of government. They were not deceitful like the Liberal Party
was in its campaign of 1993 in particular. By 1997 people had
reason to at least know where it was at but for a variety of
reasons it is still the government.
However, the Liberals have not learned a lesson and we see here
before us Bill C-43 where they are proceeding with another form
of privatization. I just wanted to register my strong objection
and the objection of my party, which was registered before by the
hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and many other members, to
this particular measure and our contention that it will prove to
be a mistake and one that many Canadians, particularly those who
now work for Revenue Canada, will pay dearly for.
1535
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we
have heard a lot of fearmongering on the other side with regard
to the establishment of this agency. I would like to point out
the many reasons for moving to a departmental agency status, none
more important than the demands of clients for better,
streamlined and more responsive tax, customs and trade
administration services, and more of them.
In the time of economic expansion the demand for tax, customs
and trade services also increases. A million new jobs in Canada
since 1993 means many more tax filers both individual and
corporate. Resources at Revenue Canada have remained relatively
stable during the period of economic expansion and steep
increases in business volumes.
Much of the new demand has been accompanied by internal
operating efficiencies. There is little room left for more
efficiency gains at Revenue Canada under the present structure.
Hence the need for a new framework.
The agency model proposed, Canada customs and revenue agency, is
unique. It combines the strengths of both public and private
sectors while remaining fully accountable to parliament and to
the Canadian public.
In developing the Canada customs and revenue agency, the
department has been sensitive to the concern of the concentration
of too much power in one place. Tax, customs and trade
administration affect the lives and livelihoods of Canadians.
They want to be sure they are dealt with fairly and that their
rights are protected. The intention is not to create a new
agency with unlimited power and unlimited scope.
In the design of the new agency, the essential checks and
balances that govern the activities and ensure the accountability
of Revenue Canada have been maintained. For example, the
enforcement powers of the new agency will be the same as those
currently provided to Revenue Canada through legislation like the
Income Tax Act or the Customs Act. If there is a problem or a
complaint the minister will still be fully accountable to
parliament and to the public for the administration and
enforcement of specific legislation. The minister will also have
the authority, as in the case now, to answer questions in the
House and ensure the agency is acting properly in its dealings
with the Canadian public.
The confidentiality of a taxpayer's personal information will be
protected under the agency as it is currently with Revenue
Canada. The authorities governing confidentiality are clearly
set out in legislation. They will not be changed by this bill.
Bill C-43 will permit the agency to offer new and better
services to the provinces and territories. For example, at the
present time Revenue Canada can only collect provincial taxes
that are harmonized with federal taxes. The new agency will be
able to collect non-harmonized taxes, expanding the potential for
single window tax collection with considerable savings for
businesses and individual Canadians.
Greater co-ordination between the federal and provincial and
territorial governments will simplify tax administration for
Canadians and reduce costs and overlap and duplication between
governments. This is what Canadians expect and this is what we
are going to deliver.
A major change that will allow the new agency to adopt a more
client oriented approach would be increased operational
flexibility in the management of internal resources. The new
legislation will allow the proposed agency to tailor its human
resources and administrative functions to meet the needs of its
clients as well as those of its employees. All this means better
service to provinces and territories, to businesses and to
individual Canadians.
1540
Doing something better is not an expansion of power but an
extension of service; service to Canadians, service to businesses
and service to the provinces and territories.
Better service means savings in time and money, savings in
compliance costs for businesses, savings in administration costs
for governments.
The intention of Bill C-43 is not to create an agency with
extraordinary powers but rather to establish a framework with all
the checks and balances for a superior agency.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bill C-43 is
a bureaucratic aberration, a serious blow against democracy,
protection of personal information, respect for jurisdictions
and service to the people, nothing less.
One of our colleagues opposite just offered an explanation as to
why the Minister of Revenue is acting this way. He said that
there is little room left for more efficiency gains at Revenue
Canada under the present structure, so the minister is creating
a so-called outside agency to achieve more efficiency gains.
To this end, 20% of the public service will be transferred to
this agency and will no longer by subject to the Public Service
Employment Act.
I would like to emphasize a number of elements of particular
concern to me. What sparked off anger, or at least serious
concern, in me was rereading the remarks contained in the
February 1996 throne speech, where the government announced its
intention to set up a national revenue recovery agency.
My colleague opposite spoke of modernization requiring that the
agency have a new attitude toward its clients. He suggested that
the public should be reassured about that. The problem in this
bill, as it often is with bills brought in by this government,
is that they are trying to create an illusion the way magicians
do.
When we take a closer look at the bill, we see that the opposite
is true.
Who are the agency's clients? Looking through the bill, we see
that they are governments, municipalities and organizations that
sign agreements with the agency. The public is not a client.
It is the target of recovery measures. And just what does
recovery mean? It means something along the lines of “You have
committed fraud. You have not paid what you owe.” This is not
at all the relationship we were led to believe was the goal.
In many of Canada's provinces, the public pays voluntarily at a
given time, because our system is different from many others.
People pay their taxes voluntarily, because they know the law.
It is not a question of recovering income of which the
government would have been deprived.
This is rather serious. It is more than a change in culture.
It is a change in government ethics, with productivity being
given as the excuse, as I have already said. But what will this
bill produce? My colleague opposite said that it combines the
best of the private and public sectors. I do not bet, but I am
prepared to debate this statement a few years from now with any
comers. What it does is combine the worst of the private and
public sectors. The worst of the private sector will be
bureaucracy instead of efficiency.
In administration we learn that bureaucracy has nothing to do
with being in the private or the public sector. It has to do
with the size of an enterprise.
GM, a private corporation, has become a bureaucracy, with
significant problems as a result.
1545
What we know about this body is that it will have a tendency to
become a bureaucratic organization. Moreover, in the public
sector, what would the guarantees of quality and reliability
have been? The people can have confidence because, for one
thing, some of the MPs here will be able to defend them and to
debate issues with the responsible minister.
It is said that the minister will continue to be responsible for
this super-agency, but let us look at the powers he is able to
confer on others. He can delegate them to a commissioner or any
other employee.
Instead of generating confidence, the opposite will be true.
Much can be said about this.
The fact that public servants are unionized is of concern to
some, but it actually does allow them to act ethically in their
duties as they must, particularly in collecting taxes.
From now on, they will be in a completely submissive position.
They will, of course, try to get another union, but that will
not be easy. They will no longer be covered by the Public
Service Employment Act; they will be in a totally different
position.
There are some really juicy parts to this bill. Care has been
taken to state, under human resources, that one of the functions
of the agency will be to provide for the awards that may be made
to persons employed by the agency for outstanding performance of
their duties, for other meritorious achievement in relation to
those duties and for inventions or practical suggestions for
improvements.
Where recovery of revenues is concerned, which means tax
collection, let us say that any member of the public would find
this a matter of concern.
The government is not reaffirming the trust between taxpayers
and this organization, which is a crown agency. Rather, it is
trying to convert it into a bureaucratic agency—there is no
other word to describe it—that will escape the necessary
monitoring of the House and its parliamentarians.
I absolutely must discuss the issue of privacy. We are currently
reviewing Bill C-54 on electronic commerce and the protection of
personal information. In today's world, it is quite easy to
match data and to obtain information on people from all sorts of
sources, and to use this information in a way that might not be
in compliance with the law, particularly if what we had in mind
was to add things, to sign contracts with businesses and
organizations, for instance.
This enormous agency that some dream about would be a perfect
place to match data.
We know how concerned the privacy commissioner was because the
Department of Human Resources Development was matching data
that, in his opinion, were supposed to be personal information.
The right to privacy is a fundamental human right. We must not
forget that. We are not living in Orwell's world, in 1984,
although we may sometimes think that even that world would be
better than the one we are living in.
Public trust is the foundation of an effective tax collection
process. But for that trust to exist, there must be
accountability. How can we expect to convince the public that
ministerial accountability would be exercised, given that this
revenue collection agency will be evaluated based on its
profitability?
1550
On what grounds will the agency be judged cost-effective? How
will the public's rights—this has to be addressed—be defended?
How will these two issues be reconciled? Tragic situations can
sometimes arrive; right now, recourse is available—through one's
member of parliament—but this will no longer be the case.
The public must be warned that it is losing an important
democratic right. It is allowing the creation of an
organization where personal information may not be safe. When
the workers are public servants with job security and a union,
they are accountable to us. This, however, will no longer be the
case.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, we are debating Bill C-43, an act to establish a Canada
customs and revenue agency. There is no question that we in the
Reform Party believe in streamlining government and making sure
there are efficiencies in any way we can save taxpayers' money.
We have an obligation to do that for all people across Canada.
However there are problems with the legislation we are debating.
There needs to be time for it to go through a process where it
can be amended and debated so that it runs its course to ensure
that taxpayers are getting the best possible result and the most
efficient piece of legislation that will work in their interest.
Once again the Liberal government has brought in closure on
debate against the will of all opposition parties. They all
voted against closure. I will read some quotes. This is what
one government members said in this regard: “It displays the
utter disdain with which this government treats the Canadian
people”. This is with respect to closure, shutting down debate,
and was said by Lloyd Axworthy on April 1, 1993.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must warn the hon.
member again that we do not refer to members by their names in
the House.
Mr. Gary Lunn: This is what the government House leader
stated with respect to closure:
This was on November 16, 1992 in the House.
The member for Kingston and the Islands, the Deputy Speaker,
stated “What we have here is an absolute scandal in terms of the
government's unwillingness to listen to the representatives of
the people in this House. Never before have we had a government
so reluctant to engage in public discussion on the bills brought
before this House”. That was a government member.
Since the government has come into power we have had 40 time
allocation motions and 3 closure motions. This is a disgrace.
We are all elected to the House. All 301 including the Speaker
represent Canadians from coast to coast. We all have a right to
have our voices heard in the House.
1555
Once again we see the government shutting down the process the
minute those members get a bit squeamish or uncomfortable about
anything, whether firing the minister of fisheries, trying to
close the lid on government documents, not releasing them to
committees, or bringing forward closure. It goes on and on and
on.
That is the point I wanted to make with respect to closure and I
want to leave some time for other members. We have very limited
time in this debate. It is an absolute disgrace that the tactic
the government uses is to shut down the debate every opportunity
it can, the minute those members are a bit uncomfortable. I
think they should be ashamed of themselves.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the revenue agency act is another word for privatization
affecting 40,000 employees at a time when the morale is low
already for a large number of employees being affected by the pay
equity issue. The Liberal government is refusing to bring
justice to the men and women within the Public Service Alliance,
but it made a promise in 1993 that it would honour the tribunal
decision.
This bill is long awaited enabling legislation required to
convert Revenue Canada from a government department into an arm's
length special operating agency. 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. However,
events have overtaken the agency to the point that it fails to
meet all its stated objectives. It cannot now be justified on a
basis of either bureaucratic efficiency or cost effectiveness.
Its supporting arguments are riddled with contradictions,
misstatements of fact and flimsy rationalization. The concept of
the Canada customs and revenue agency is bad public policy and
should be stopped before it starts. The agency will be a
mega-person, extending Ottawa's reach down into our community and
our life.
It proposes to administer everything from provincial sales taxes
to gasoline taxes and liquor taxes. Its vision would see a
mega-taxperson that would offer services to municipalities. Do we
really want Ottawa involved in our property taxes? Do we really
want to put this much power into one government agency? Of course
not. However left unchecked this may very well happen.
The agency will reduce accountability to the public and to
parliament. Revenue Canada, as presently structured, is fully
accountable to parliament and the taxpaying public through the
Minister of National Revenue. The department's policies,
programs and activities are open to daily scrutiny during the
House of Commons question period.
On the other hand, the Canada customs and revenue agency poses a
challenge to parliamentarians as guardians of the public trust
and interest. Although its promoters repeatedly stress that the
new agency would be fully accountable to our elected
representatives, this is misleading at best and deceitful at
worst.
To gauge the commitment of the agency's promoters to
parliamentary oversight, one need look no further than the senior
bureaucrats April 1997 progress report. This document brazenly
suggested exempting the agency's operations from fundamental
principle of ministerial accountability to the House of Commons.
The elitist and anti-democratic proposal was withdrawn in the
face of furious opposition.
The agency will face less scrutiny from parliament than is now
the case. The auditor general has expressed his concerns over
protection of the public interest.
An agency will likely be less concerned than a fully accountable
government department in responding to questions or concerns
raised by individual MPs on behalf of the public.
1600
As an arm's length separate employer the agency would find it
easier to stonewall parliament while at the same time providing a
pretext for the minister of the day to shift the focus of
accountability to the top agency bureaucrat, the commissioner.
The agency's enabling legislation would permit a full
parliamentary review only five years after it has begun
operation. A lot can go very wrong over such a broad expanse of
time.
The agency could jeopardize the public's personal privacy. We
live in an electronic world where more and more information about
us and our families is readily bought and sold by private sector
organizations, from credit card companies to charities to
consumer goods companies.
Should the agency meet its stated objectives, an incredible
amount of personal and financial information would be
concentrated in one institution.
The agency will renew Ottawa's effort to harmonize the GST and
provincial sales taxes beyond the maritimes. Originally the CCRA
was conceived as a bureaucratic blunt instrument to help
government keep its 1993 election promise to abolish the GST.
The agency was supposed to enable Ottawa to harmonize the
unpopular GST with provincial sales taxes across the country. I
think it is important that we talk about the harmonization of the
GST and the PST. We ended up with a terrible sales tax in New
Brunswick with the HST. We now have a 15% tax on electricity, a
15% tax on heating oil and a 15% tax on children's clothing. It
was an increase of 8%. That is what we got with harmonization.
[Translation]
It is important to point that out. It came with the
harmonization of the taxes. In New Brunswick we pay huge taxes
on children's clothing, on diapers, on electricity and on
heating oil. The people being hit with increased taxes are the
same ones being hit with toll highways at home. They have lost
all sorts of income, for having lost their jobs, among other
reasons.
There are also cuts in the employment centres, jobs that have
been lost, employment insurance cheques that have vanished or
been halved.
Our taxes are now even higher, because the Liberal government
refused to keep its promise to eliminate the GST.
[English]
The agency has also failed to impress small and big business.
The business community, both small and large, was supposed to be
the biggest beneficiary of the new agency. 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% 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.
Actually, the agency will likely have to turn to user fees in
order to deliver on its promise of cost savings. As planned, the
agency would deliver the bulk of its costs by harmonizing the GST
and the PST and by taking over provincial and municipal tax
administration. But neither seems to be in the cards. So what
is likely to happen?
One scenario would see an over-ambitious agency move to trim
costs by reducing staff and services to the public. I think
we have to look at that.
[Translation]
We know that, with an agency, the service will not improve.
That has been proven in many areas. It is also a reason for
cutting more jobs. The government finds reasons for cutting,
and it is always the low person on the totem pole whose job is
lost.
[English]
A more probable direction would see the imposition of user fees.
User fees are something we see more and more of everywhere.
Again, the one at the bottom with the lowest income has to pay
all the user fees, be they to Revenue Canada, National Parks,
trying to get a driver's licence or a medicare card. There are
more and more fees and more and more people who cannot afford
them.
1605
As proposed, the agency would be empowered to set user fees for
services that provide a specific benefit to service recipients.
This immense loophole could see both individuals and small
businesses paying additional fees for the privilege of paying
their taxes.
No less a person than the auditor general has expressed his
concern over the proposed agency's accountability. Denis
Desautels asked in his December 1997 report to parliament: “How
will Canadians and parliamentarians have assurances that the
public interest is protected?” He was not able to get an answer
to that question.
I want to conclude by saying that I think going to an agency is
terrible for Revenue Canada. Perhaps for Parks Canada it would
be all right. It is a way for government to cut and to bring
down salaries. It is another word for privatization.
[Translation]
We must be concerned about these issues. We must understand the
government has a hidden agenda. This has to stop.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
with Bill C-43, the Minister of National Revenue is proposing
today the establishment of a new Canada customs and revenue
agency. The federal government seems to be abdicating its
primary responsibilities.
At this rate, why not privatize the Canadian Armed Forces and
establish a government agency responsible for looking after the
well being of Canadians? Why not privatize the RCMP while we are
at it? Is there no end to this government's absurdity and
irresponsibility?
As an educator, I can give you an example: the Post Office
Department. Control over this organization was transferred away
from the government when Canada Post was established. Naturally,
this agency is accountable to the minister responsible for
Canada Post. This minister is also the minister responsible for
Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Canada Post rents a number of buildings from Public Works and
Government Services Canada.
In my riding, the tenant is not too happy. Dozens of residents
of Disraeli have paid special attention to the grounds in front
of the existing post office on St-Joseph Street, in Disraeli.
This post office has been for sale for many years. There is a
“For Sale” sign on the decrepit building and the cedar hedge is
all dry.
As a member of parliament, I took upon myself to write the Hon.
André Ouellet, the former minister who resigned to make room for
the new Minister of Human Resources Development. As a reward, he
was offered the title of chairman of Canada Post Corporation,
which comes with an annual salary of $154,000 and a bottomless
expense account.
I sent a letter to André Ouellet to draw his attention to the
fact that the exterior of the Canada Post building, a building
rented by Canada Post Corporation but owned by Public Works and
Government Services Canada, was in a sorry state.
My letter to the Minister responsible for Public Works and
Government Services Canada was mailed in August, and the reply
arrived two days ago. It read in part “In response to your
letter of August 18, 1998, addressed to Mr. André Ouellet,
chairman of the Canada Post Corporation, regarding the
appearance of the Disraeli post office, which is owned by Public
Works and Government Services Canada”.
1610
The letter goes on to say “First of all, the fact that it has
been planned for some years now to vacate this building has had
an impact on the approval of renovation projects. In 1995,
certain repairs were recommended in an expert evaluation, but
since the building had been declared surplus, only priority
projects were undertaken, among them the installation of an
automatic door opener to bring the building in line with
accessibility standards”.
A short paragraph follows that will definitely be of interest to
the people of Disraeli. “Moreover, I will take advantage of
this opportunity to inform you that this building is about to be
sold. A purchase commitment was accepted on September 30,
contingent on financing”.
The danger that lurks behind the creation of an agency like the
one here, which would collect taxes, including the federal GST
and the provincial sales tax, is that everything will be allowed
to deteriorate. The building I have referred to here is located
in a town of 3,000, but serves most of the surrounding rural
municipalities as well, and it has been totally neglected. It is
an embarrassment to Canada Post.
Canada Post says “But, you know, this building is not our
property.
It belongs to Public Works Canada”. Public Works Canada says “It
is pointless to repair the building, we want to sell it”. You
can see what happens under a government led by the Prime
Minister and member for Saint-Maurice, who gets bad, very bad
advice.
In this regard, I want to quote a statement made not too long
ago by the President of the Treasury Board, who said “Creation
of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is an essential
component of the government's commitment to modernize the
federal public service”. The minister did say “to modernize the
federal public service”. He should come to Disraeli. The member
of parliament had to ask that a totally dried out hedge be
removed to get things moving. Everything is neglected.
After the building in Disraeli is sold, what will Canada Post
do?
It will sign a long term lease, probably for a period of 10
years, with an option to renew at conditions that are usually
very reassuring to the new buyer.
As with the statements made by the Prime Minister to La Presse a
few days ago, one can see that they are totally out of touch
with rural areas and people who want a certain quality of life.
The Prime Minister should get out of his bubble and meet
ordinary people. If he does not want to come to Frontenac—and I
can certainly understand why—he should at least go to his own
riding of Saint-Maurice. His constituents only see him once every
four years—when he is seeking re-election—along with about 100
people working for him.
There is another point I want to make. At first, the agency will
be created by converting the existing revenue department into a
semi-independent government agency.
That agency will have the mandate of negotiating, with the
provinces and municipalities that are interested, the collection
of all taxes in Canada.
Let me give you another example, that of the RCMP and the QPP in
Quebec, or the OPP in Ontario. As members know, the RCMP, which
provides police services in the other eight provinces and in the
territories—and even in certain large cities—only charges
those provinces and cities 77% of its actual costs. This means
that Quebec and Ontario indirectly pay 23% of the RCMP services
in New Brunswick, British Columbia, Alberta and the territories.
1615
That could happen. The provinces and municipalities not using
this new tax, revenue or customs collection agency—if Quebec or
Ontario fail to join—will pay indirectly for the other provinces
using its services. An injustice will occur, just as is the
case with the RCMP.
On the other hand, they say it will be the same thing and that
they will comply with the Access to Information Act, the Privacy
Act and the Official Languages Act. The Department of National
Revenue is not even able to comply with the Official Languages
Act now.
I have had dozens of complaints in my riding from passengers and
truckers going through Lacolle, who claim that the officers they
see are unilingual English.
In closing, I promise one thing, and I have a pretty reliable
memory. The member for Verdun—Saint-Henri will run into me when
he speaks. He is one of the most vulgar and rude members of the
Liberal Party.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as
follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment
Insurance.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity to
talk about the new tax agency and compare it to what exists now.
As a member of parliament, as do all members of this House, I
meet with people on a daily basis who are having difficulties
with Revenue Canada. These difficulties generally result from
the adversarial approach that Revenue Canada uses.
I have seen individuals who have been in heart-wrenching
situations where Revenue Canada has seemed to compound the hurt
these people are facing.
I can give one example of a young mother who had a premature
baby which weighed under two pounds and was put in a special
hospital unit in the city of Vancouver. This child survived
because of the hospital and the mother bonding with the child,
giving it the incentive to be a real little fighter.
The mother at the end of the year tried to claim the expenses of
travelling from South Surrey to Vancouver on a regular basis to
make sure this child was bonding with her and to be supportive of
the health care the child was getting. The mother was told it
would not be covered because she should have gone to the hospital
closest to her.
The hospital closest to the mother happens to be a palliative
care hospital, a hospital which specializes in the treatment of
the elderly, not newborns who are facing serious health problems.
The hospital that specialized in this type of care just happened
to be in Vancouver.
Revenue Canada, in dealing with this situation, said it was
unfortunate but the hospital just happened to be a little bit too
close. The hospital should have been another 10 kilometres away
and then the mother would have qualified.
Tell that to a mother who is trying to make ends meet and who
has extra costs because of the health needs of her child. Because
the hospital happened to be 10 kilometres too close she did not
qualify.
My concern is that there does not seem to be any kind of
flexibility or compassion in the existing system. The existing
system is managed by a minister of the crown, responsible to this
House of Commons and accountable to the people of Canada.
1620
I can give many other examples of people who have lost their
homes and whose families have broken up because of the attitude
within the existing Revenue Canada of “You owe us money and
under all circumstances you will pay that money”. When people
find themselves in distress and unable to pay, whether it is GST
or income tax, or when they have a problem and are appealing a
decision, a year or two years later when the appeal process is
underway they find that what they owe has tripled or quadrupled
because Revenue Canada is charging interest on the amount that is
under dispute.
I cannot tell the House how many families I have had in my
office who are just beside themselves because they are unable to
pay the government. The government is unwilling to be flexible.
My concern is that if we have this independent agency, which is
really only accountable to the minister, what is the attitude
going to be? Is it going to be like the IRS? It wanted to
charge a young lad who happened to catch the baseball which Mark
McGwire hit when he was building up his home run record. This
young lad gave the baseball back to Mark McGwire, but the IRS
actually talked about taxing him on the amount that baseball
would have sold for on the open market. That is the kind of
irresponsible decision making that agencies make that are far
removed from accountability.
My concern is that we are talking about setting up an agency
that is only accountable to the minister. I am afraid it will be
a little bit more hard-nosed than the existing system.
Let us say that this agency is a good thing. There are people
at the provincial level, for example the minister of finance for
Alberta, who feel that a proposal to handle federal-provincial
tax collection would be a great thing and that it should go to
any province that wants it, potentially gutting a key federal
power. Provinces that ought to collect all taxes on their
territory would remit the federal portion back to Ottawa, which
is a reversal of the existing system.
People would say this is a provincial minister who is out to
lunch. But he is not the only one. I will quote from a document
from a provincial MLA who was asked to do a study for the
provincial government of British Columbia. In his report he says
“The division of taxing powers between the federal and
provincial governments is an important part of what defines
Canada as a federated state”.
He goes on to say “It is time that our Confederation was
renewed with a transfer of taxing authority from Ottawa to the
provinces so that the provinces have the resources to adequately
fund the programs that they are legally bound to deliver”.
There are people across this country and provincial governments
who believe that maybe we should be looking at a taxing
authority. Where they differ from the federal government is that
they feel it is time for these taxing powers to go back to the
provinces so that the provinces can use the money to deliver the
services, as they are the government closest to the people. Then
they will release the funds that are necessary to the federal
government so the federal government can do that which is its to
do.
This is a debate that has occurred over a number of years. There
are two sides to the debate. We have the Liberal government that
feels it wants to get federal control of this agency and that the
provinces will go along with it, not acknowledging that there are
provinces and people in the provinces who feel it is the
provincial government that should be taking this initiative, not
the federal government.
It is very important that if the government is serious about
this manoeuvre of having an arm's length agency to collect taxes
in the country that it take hold of the accountability factor a
lot more than other ministers of the crown have done.
1625
I do not know how many times immigration ministers have stood in
this House to tell us that the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee
Board, is an arm's length board which they cannot control and
have no say in. The solicitor general has said that the Public
Complaints Commission is at arm's length from the government and
he has no say in it. At some point there has to be
accountability. Somebody has to take responsibility for the
decisions that are being made. If the minister of revenue is
intent on establishing this agency, then he will have to accept
responsibility for the decisions this agency makes on behalf of
Canadians. Because it is an arm's length agency does not remove
the fact that the buck has to stop somewhere, and it stops with
the minister who is responsible.
Another concern of the opposition is that if this agency goes
ahead there has to be some protection for the Canadian taxpayer.
Canadian taxpayers who feel they are being taxed unjustly must be
able to go to someone for help and assistance. We would like to
see an office for taxpayer protection established before this
agency comes into effect.
The taxpayer protection office would report to parliament each
year, issue taxpayer protection orders, act as an advocate of
last resort for taxpayers, assist taxpayers in resolving
disputes, identify areas where taxpayers have been consistently
having problems with the agency, propose changes to
administrative practices where these problems arise, and identify
potential changes to legislation in order to minimize problems
encountered by taxpayers.
If the protection is there for the Canadian taxpayer, if there
is a government commitment not to throw the taxpayer out to the
wolves, we might be more willing to support this legislation.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, employees, their unions and managers all agree that the
current human resources framework of Revenue Canada is not
suitable to meet their needs and those of the department and the
clients. Employees want profound change in the human resources
management system, yet they want principles such as fairness and
equity protected.
Managers faced with the prospect of ever increasing workloads
want the flexibility of a human resources system that recognizes
the nature of the work that must be done and that permits
innovative ways to provide tax, customs and trade administration
services.
To its credit, the Public Service of Canada has taken several
initiatives to reform itself and to provide better services to
Canadians, but none of the alternative service delivery models
developed to date can meet the unique requirements of Revenue
Canada, its clients and its employees.
The departmental agency status, as set out in Bill C-43, will
permit a human resources framework that can be customized
precisely for Revenue Canada's employees and clients.
Since the announcement in the Speech from the Throne of February
1996 to create a tax, customs and trade administration agency,
the department has been meeting regularly with its employees to
develop a human resources vision for the future.
Six working groups were established during 1997 to look at the
key aspects of human resources management. Approximately 7,000
Revenue Canada employees, including managers and union members,
were contacted directly for their suggestions, ideas and
consideration.
1630
The most important findings were the need for human resources
management based on values and principles rather than complex
rules and processes, the importance of simplicity and flexibility
in all aspects of human resources management, and the requirement
to value employees.
Concurrent with these consultations, the legislative framework
was developed for the new agency taking into account what the
working groups said. As it presently stands, the Treasury Board
of Canada and the Public Service Commission have different
responsibilities for various human resources matters in Revenue
Canada.
Bill C-43 will establish an agency that would be a separate
employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act with the
authority to bargain directly with its union. The agency would
have the authority for personnel management matters such as
classification, training and development, terms and conditions of
employment, and travel allowances, currently the responsibility
of the Treasury Board under the Financial Administration Act.
The agency would no longer be subject to the Public Service
Employment Act. Therefore staffing and related matters would be
subject to policies approved by its own board of management. This
is an important change since for example recruitment that can now
take anywhere from three to six months under the government's one
system fits all approach could be reduced to less than four weeks
in most cases.
The agency would develop its own staffing program in accordance
with certain stated principles. The Public Service Commission
would report to the agency on whether its staffing program was
consistent with these principles which would be set out in the
summary of the corporate business plan.
For any new human resources initiative, principles such as
fairness and equity would always be safeguarded. For example,
any new classification system would be designed to ensure gender
neutrality, and all human resources policies would promote and
reflect Canada's diversity.
At the present time the exact details of the human resources
framework for the agency have not been worked out. A document of
intent signed with the unions in December 1997 established how
management and the unions would work together with employees to
establish these details. Five design teams made up of managers
and employees and with some union participants have already
submitted reports on staffing, classification, recourse, training
and development, and employment equity.
There are many possibilities created for employees because of
the flexibility afforded by departmental agency status. For
example, the reduction of the number of occupational groups and
levels, a possibility under the new departmental agency status,
would make it easier for employees to move between jobs, thus
enhancing career mobility while addressing the business needs for
the agency.
Agency control over the staffing process would mean that
vacancies could be filled quicker and employees would not have to
wait as long for promotions and transfers. One suggested
improvement in working conditions would be more extensive use of
flexible hours or work at home arrangements.
Of prime concern to most employees is what happens during the
transition to new departmental agency status. Employees would
remain public servants during and after the transition.
Agency employees would still have access to jobs in federal
government departments.
The agency would provide similar access to its jobs for persons
in government departments. The Public Service Commission would
have the opportunity to ensure that employees being hired by the
agency met the requirements of the Public Service Employment Act.
1635
Collective agreements in force at the time of the start up of
the agency would be carried over until they are renegotiated.
Existing unions would continue to represent employees for a
period of 120 days after which time a new certification process
would occur under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Employees would maintain their existing pay and benefit
entitlements, including pension rights and leave credits. They
would be given offers of their same positions with the same
duties and have 60 days to accept or refuse those offers. An
employee who refuses the offer would be given the benefits of the
government's existing workforce adjustment policy for alternative
service delivery situations.
Indeterminate employees would be given a two year employment
guarantee beginning from their date of transfer to the agency.
Term employees would continue under the same terms and conditions
as before.
A union-management design team is presently developing
recommendations for an employment adjustment policy designed
specifically for the agency. I am very confident that the agency
will be able to design a policy that will give its employees the
protection they require.
What would life be like for employees in the new agency?
Based on the expected expansion in programs and services on
behalf of the provinces and territories, many new types of
opportunities would be created. New types of programs and
services would require new working relationships and new ways of
performing work, including the expanded use of technology.
Continuing efforts to respond to client needs and demands would
spawn a whole new work philosophy based on continuous learning
and development. In fact, employees themselves are so convinced
of this need that they suggest having a performance management
system that links performance criteria to career development.
They also proposed that managers under the agency be rated on
their ability to support learning in the workplace.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on
Bill C-43.
I must say that a lot of us who are able to speak on the bill
today feel very privileged. Many others will not be able to speak
because of the heavy-handed measure by this government of
bringing in closure. Why is it that every time a major public
policy issue is before the House, this government rushes to bring
in the hammer, to bring in the hook, to bring in the heavy-handed
measure of closure?
My time in this chamber has been relatively brief. I have been
a member for one and a half years, since the 1997 election. It
seems to me that the dominant method by which this government
chooses to operate is the undemocratic approach of bringing in
closure whenever the debate gets difficult. Whenever there is a
need for us to discuss in serious terms, to share ideas, this
government cuts off debate and denies us that opportunity.
One of the first pieces of legislation we had to deal with was
Bill C-2, the changes to the Canada pension plan, a bill of
serious importance for Canadians. It was a matter that should
have been debated at length in the House but it was cut short by
the heavy-handed measure of closure.
1640
It is with gratitude that I just made it under the wire. The
clock will strike in another hour and this debate will end. There
will be no more opportunity for debate in principle on this very
important piece of legislation. I want to echo the sentiments of
many in this chamber today and express dismay at this
heavy-handed approach by the Liberal Government of Canada.
I want to be very clear, as many of my colleagues have been,
about our opposition to Bill C-43. Our opposition is to a piece
of legislation that enables this government to convert Revenue
Canada from a government department into an arm's length, special
operating agency. In essence, as so many have said in this House,
it is the privatization of a large component and a major function
of government. This proposed agency is probably the largest
privatization project of this government to date.
Like many in this chamber, I have searched in vain for
substantive reasons for the bill before us today. We have heard
time and time again from Liberals in this chamber today and
previously that this bill is another important initiative on the
part of the Liberal government to move in the direction of
efficiency and cost effectiveness.
I researched and read as much as I could on this whole issue and
I found very little support for those arguments of efficiency and
cost effectiveness. In fact most of the information suggests the
opposite, that this attempt to remove the operation of taxation
and tax collection from government to an operating agency one
step removed from government is in fact a more cumbersome, time
consuming and costly process than what is presently in place.
We have heard from professionals in the field, from provincial
governments, from academics, from chartered accountants, from
businesses and from trade unionists very actively involved in
this issue. These individuals and organizations have said almost
with one voice that there appears to be no valid business case
for an independent agency. Many have even gone a step further
and said that the proposed Canadian customs and revenue agency is
an idea in search of a rationale and one has not been found.
If it is not based on sound public policy, if it is not based on
the goal we all share of making something better, of making
changes to improve the situation, then what are the motives of
this government? The answer can only be found in this
government's never ending pursuit of privatization, of downsizing
the public sector, of diminishing the role of government in areas
historically and traditionally fundamental to the very notion of
what government is all about and what government should be there
for.
My goodness, it seems to me that in the area of tax collection
we are talking about something that has been seen as the
prerogative of the state, as an important role of government
historically and traditionally in this country and around the
world. Yet here we have a proposal, an idea looking for a
rationale, that abandons this important public sector role and
responsibility. By stealth this government abandons this role
and responsibility to the private sector.
I say that the answer must be found in this ideological pursuit
of privatization, offloading, deregulation, cutbacks and
outsourcing. One only has to look at what has happened under
this government over the last number of years to put it all
together and come to that conclusion.
1645
One only has to look at what this government has done every step
of the way to dismantle social programs, to privatize important
public services and to cut back on every area possible in order
to ensure that the actors in the marketplace are able to operate
on an unfettered basis.
It is not a stretch to suggest that the government is very much
interested in this philosophy that the least government is the
best government instead of looking at what makes the most sense
for government to be involved in, when is it important to have
strong regulatory approach to a policy area, when is it important
to value the work of our public employees, and when is it
important to ensure that we maintain within the public domain
certain functions in order to ensure that all people in this
country are served to the best of our ability.
Many in Canada have commented on the government's agenda. I
quote from a paragraph written by Daniel Drache and Meric
Gertler:
No area of government policy has been spared. Across a broad
front that includes not only trade but regional development, tax
and fiscal polices, old age pensions, family allowance, labour
market policy, social income programs, and collective bargaining,
the government moved persistently and systematically to reshape
the institutional and legislative character of Canada. Its
strategy is to water down Canadian redistributional programs so
as to make them equivalent to the (American) lowest common
denominator, and to cut the direct and indirect labour costs to
business.
Is that not what we are dealing with? Is that not what is
really behind it all? Is that not why so many Canadians are
concerned?
I may not be able to convince the government to change that mad
pursuit of privatization and deregulation but I hope that it
would at least listen to the words of the employees who are
impacted by this decision and recognize the kind of hurt and
worry it is extending to 40,000 employees in this area, in
particular to the large number of citizens in Winnipeg who are
affected directly by this decision and whose voice ought to be
taken into consideration by this government.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, first of all,
allow me to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for
Frontenac—Mégantic, on what I would call an excellent speech.
When I see government members, from their seats, lapse into
vulgarity as they did during my colleague's speech, I think that
he is on the right track. He is an opposition member, he says
the right things. We are here to express our views and that of
our constituents. I wanted to congratulate him on the excellent
speech he made earlier, in spite of what the member for
Verdun—Saint-Henri said.
My reasons for taking issue with this bill are many.
I counted six, but I am sure I could find many more. In my ten
minutes, I would have approximately one minute and a half to
cover each of the six. I think I will address them globally, to
say that this bill represents some kind of loss of control by
the Canadian government and indeed Parliament.
Since this government took office, we have witnessed a major
increase in the number of agencies and commissions created. As a
result, when we want to question the minister responsible, in
our capacity as MPs, we are told “Look, it is at arm's length
from the government, it is a private corporation now”.
Nav Canada is a good example. In my riding, we have a control
tower at the Saint-Jean airport. I cannot even question the
minister on the future of this tower. His answer would be “As
the member for Saint-Jean, you know full well that Nav Canada is
in charge now”.
ADM is in charge of airports. The Canadian Wheat Board looks
after wheat. Any time we question ministers, they run and hide
behind the screen of agencies, commissions and the transfer of
their current responsibilities to semi-private organizations.
1650
Where do the interests of private enterprises lie? Often with
their pockets and their shareholders. Very rarely are their
interests common ones. Very rarely are they the interests of
voters and of the public in general. Their goal is to make sure
that shareholders and directors earn as much money as possible.
I support capitalism. There is nothing wrong with the
government making money, but it has responsibilities. What I
cannot stand is watching this government continually handing
over its responsibilities to private enterprise or to agencies.
That is my first reason for opposing the bill.
As for anti-union measures, rarely has a government pushed so
hard—probably because it was being pushed by the Reform Party, a
party of the far right—for anti-union legislation, return to work
legislation, legislation suspending the right to strike, and I
could go on. I have spent 20 years of my life defending
workers, and I find it outrageous that the first thing this
government wants to do is to get rid of its public service.
What is more, it is very close to doing so because, in my
riding, at least 30% go 40% of those who used to work for
federal institutions located in the riding of Saint-Jean no
longer do so. It is the same throughout Canada.
With an anti-union provision, the government is getting rid of
employees and paving the way for poorer working conditions and
lower salaries. What will become of government employees?
They are being told “Leave, but it is not certain the agency
will rehire you. Are you a Liberal? This will help when we
decide whether we can rehire you”.
We also know the patronage havens of the Liberal Party. How much
will the commissioner of the customs and revenue agency earn?
Earlier, I heard the member for Verdun—Saint-Henri hurl insults at
my colleague. He is probably interested in getting the job of
commissioner of the agency after his political career. Quite a
few are appointed by the governor in council, actually by
cabinet.
We also know that the salaries paid to these people are much
higher than that of a member of parliament. In their career
plan, many members of the Liberal Party sincerely hope that,
after their stint in the House of Commons, cabinet will say
something like “The member for Verdun—Saint-Henri was a good
member.
He used to lash out at opposition members because they were
telling the truth. Therefore, we will appoint him commissioner
and we will make sure that his salary reflects the fact that he
is a friend of the party”. The agency will be a patronage haven
and this is another reason why I oppose the bill.
It is also a problem for Quebec. I represent a Quebec riding.
The government introduced this bill, even though no province has
said “we would agree to let the federal government's agency take
over collecting our revenues”. No province has said that, and
this is particularly true in the case of Quebec, because we have
always been proud of the fact that we kept our revenues in the
province.
We even have agreements under which we collect the GST. In this
regard, Quebec has always followed the same logic, namely that
if it is going to control its fiscal policies, it must not let
the federal government decide what to do and then say “I am the
one collecting the money now.
If you don't like it, re-establish Revenue Quebec”. That would
not be an easy task, because everything will have been handed
over to Big Brother in Ottawa. This is not in keeping with
Quebec's history or culture.
Quebec agrees on the harmonization of tax legislation, but it
must be the sole collector. That is what Quebec wants. Quebec
is never going to say “Take our money, collect Quebeckers' taxes
via the federal agency”. I say to the House, no one in Quebec
would agree with that.
Now, to look at small and medium size businesses. Of those
surveyed, 40% see no advantage to this agency, and 68% feel that
it is going to cost more. Some might react by thinking “This is
just a jurisdictional problem with Quebec, the other provinces
and the federal government”. But that is not what the problem
is. It goes further than that.
Even the private sector does not agree with the government's way
of doing things.
1655
Another very significant aspect is the problem of privacy. When
one looks at the bills introduced by the government, there is a
strong tendency to give more and more control to super-agencies,
which are going to control a lot of information that concerns
pretty well everyone. This is what I would call the “Big
Brother syndrome”. The federal revenue agency will come along
and say “Well now, Mr. Bachand, you took out a loan a few years
back”. This is monumental interference in the privacy of all
Canadian taxpayers.
Imagine if this agency controlled all of Canada. They would
call upon the services of the Department of Justice and the RCMP
to do a kind of giant information collection, and we would end
up with unacceptable interference in our private lives.
“Big Brother is watching you”. With the federal government's
ultra-centralist tendencies, it is not surprising when bills like
this one crop up.
It runs counter to public opinion. The public is tired of being
watched all the time. People are tired of having to deal with
super-agencies, where there is nothing but a huge muddle and a
total lack of sensitivity toward those who have to deal with
government.
The agency will serve as a sort of cover. People with tax
problems will have to take them to this huge agency whose
employees will be working for low salaries and to low standards.
Job performance will deteriorate. Employees will adopt
inflexible policies and the poor taxpayer will once again be
victimized by the system.
This agency will be a patronage haven, like all the agencies
created by the federal Liberal government in the last few years.
There are members in the House who look forward to a long
career as public servants, people who will earn high salaries
and wield considerable power.
Imagine the power of the commissioner of the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency.
He will decide that he is entitled to as big a salary as the
director general or the president of the Royal Bank, because the
agency's budget will be much larger, and the value of its shares
much higher as well. It will be a patronage haven and the
delight of our Liberal friends, but it is not in the interests
of voters and taxpayers.
I therefore agree with my colleague that the bill should be
withdrawn. If it is not, I will vote against it, as I imagine
all Bloc Quebecois members will do.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, one of the things that makes me nervous about speaking
in support of this bill is that I understand many members of the
Reform Party are going to support it. Whenever I see that happen
I have to take a second look. I have done that.
In spite of the fact that it appears some members opposite,
perhaps Conservatives and Reformers, see the logic in this bill,
I would like to correct the record. Very seldom have I heard so
much misrepresentation by so few to so many on the facts
surrounding this bill.
The first issue I would like to address is the point made by one
of the speakers for the NDP on the issue of closure. The member
argues that the big bad government is bringing down the hammer.
The fact is, as members know, this is a vote on second reading.
An hon. member: Shame on the Liberals.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The member says shame on the Liberals.
I say shame on the NDP for distorting the facts around this bill
and for trying to perpetuate a number of myths that are simply
not based on fact, many of which I will point out hopefully with
some clarity.
As to the issue of closure, we have had 12 hours of debate in
this place. Members opposite know full well that if they want to
put amendments to a piece of legislation, the place to do that is
in committee. One would almost think that members opposite,
whether Bloc members who have their own agenda or NDP members who
would like to see changes to this bill, would prefer that this
bill be taken out of this place and put into the hands of a
committee so that they could then put forward their amendments.
They just might be surprised.
Perhaps some of those amendments, if they make sense and if they
are researched properly, which I do not have that much confidence
in, might survive at the committee process.
1700
One fundamental point is that the bill does something that I
talked about in my former days in the province of Ontario, that
is sets up one tax collector. Canadian people do not understand
why we have so much bureaucracy to collect taxes.
The bill has received tremendous support from across the
country. Members, particularly in the NDP but also in the Bloc,
are stating, as the previous speaker said just moments ago, that
provinces across Canada in addition to Quebec are not supporting
the bill. That is simply not true. It is very unfortunate that
a member can stand in this place and say something as false as
that kind of statement.
Let me give an example. I will admit that the province of
Quebec does not want the agency to administer its revenue
programs. That is not a surprise. The Bloc Quebecois members
are in the wrong house, I would respectfully suggest. They are
provincial politicians. They openly admit they are not
interested in a federation that works from sea to sea to sea.
It should come as no surprise that they would oppose any kind of
agency that would streamline, reduce costs, reduce overhead and
make the federation of Canada work better. That is not in their
interest. They want to destroy our federation. We understand
where they are coming from.
The reality is that the minister of revenue in Quebec has a
strong working relationship with Revenue Canada. It has admitted
that it collects the GST. That shows we are working together.
That is clearly a federal task. People from the revenue ministry
of the province of Quebec have already indicated, to correct the
statements made, that they may participate on the board of
management by submitting a list of nominees to help establish the
process and make it work. Why do Bloc members not admit that?
Why do they continue to falsify the record by saying that their
province is totally opposed?
Revenue Canada has not received a single, unequivocal no from
any other province. I want to share some quotes. Revenue Canada
just concluded a service contract with the province of Nova
Scotia. Let us go across this great land and take a look at what
the provinces are saying. Mr. Don Downe, minister of finance for
Nova Scotia, said:
This contract builds on the current strong, co-operative
relationship between Nova Scotia and Revenue Canada and provides
the means for our relationship to evolve under the new agency.
That sure does not sound like no to me. That sounds like
federal-provincial co-operation. I will continue. Mr. Keith
Colwell, Nova Scotia minister of business and consumer services
said:
And I know the NDP does not understand:
That is a responsible statement by a provincial minister taking
a look at some rejigging of the system and how the federation
works.
Several members opposite have said that my province, the
province of Ontario, opposes this agency. Let me give them a
quote from my sometimes good friend Ernie Eves, the Ontario
minister of finance who said:
I think that an agency like the CCRA could be a way to achieve
Ontario's objectives of a simple, flexible, certain and
transparent income tax system.
We all know that Ernie and Mike and the boys in Ontario are more
in line philosophically with the Reform Party. Their common
sense revolution clearly outlined principles and documentation
that were extreme to the right and we have seen the impact in
Ontario.
However, here is the treasurer, Mike Harris' number one golfing
buddy and number one hit man, saying that it could be a flexible,
certain and transparent income tax system.
Ernie went on to say:
The CCRA could also provide a platform for a more flexible
partnership between Ontario and the federal government.
1705
I did not say it. It was Ernie Eves and I agree with him. I
have another quote as recently as September 22 from my pal Ernie:
The CCRA could benefit Ontario taxpayers if it is able to
administer Ontario taxes (both non-harmonized and harmonized)
more cheaply and efficiently than the Ontario government.
He does not have his head stuck in the sand. He realizes that
there is only one taxpayer and that a change like this could
benefit that taxpayer. That is what he said, that taxpayers
could benefit if the CCRA were able to improve services available
to them. He has left the door wide open to negotiate with the
federal government. He is being responsible in this instance. It
is not often that I would say that about the provincial Tories,
but in this instance they realize the benefits.
Let us go to New Brunswick. Those folk over there have been
saying that every province in the country is against it. So far
I have not found one on my journey across Canada. I know members
opposite hate this because they do not like to hear the truth put
on the record, the facts in terms of what provincial ministers
are actually saying. NDP members would rather fabricate the
information. They would rather take their interpretation of the
bill, cry foul, say that it is awful and that the sky is falling.
It is just not true. This is common sense, although I hesitate
to use that word, being from Ontario.
The hon. Edmond Blanchard, minister of finance for New
Brunswick, said:
Does that sound like a maybe? Does that sound like he has some
doubts? It is pretty clear.
Here is one the NDP should make a phone call on right now to try
to find out how this could have possibly happened. The minister
of finance for the province of Saskatchewan, the seat of
socialism, the home of Tommy Douglas, the founding province of
the CCF and the NDP. It cannot get any better than this. I quote
the minister of finance, Eric Cline, who said:
As I have indicated previously, we are generally supportive of
the proposed agency since it provides an opportunity to create a
more effective and efficient organization for all taxpayers.
NDP members should talk to their own people and find out that
all provinces support this federal initiative.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to make a short speech on Bill C-43. I know it will be
short because we will probably run out of time.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Ken Epp: Someone is happy anyway. I will address a
couple of points. According to the government, the Canada
customs and review agency is being established to increase
efficiency in the collection of taxes.
I am not sure I have ever heard that from any of my
constituents. No one has ever written, faxed or phoned me to say
“I want a better tax system. I want the government to be more
efficient in relieving me of my money”. I have not had a single
person tell me that would be his or her highest priority.
However, I have had people tell me of some other priorities
related to efficiency. Because of lack of time I will not be
able to talk about all of them. One priority that comes
immediately to mind is the income tax system. It is complicated
and long. Most Canadians have to hire someone in order to file
their taxes. It is too complicated even for a person with a
grade 12 education. That is not acceptable.
Surely we can come up with a system of tax collection that is
straightforward and not convoluted but one which people can
understand and participate in.
1710
We then have that much hated GST, the GST that the government
was to eliminate if it were elected. Members may recall—and I
certainly do, having run in the 1993 election—that the cry on
the hustings was “Elect the Liberals, get rid of these scoundrel
Tories and we will eliminate the GST. It will be gone, poof”.
What has happened in most provinces is that it is now harmonized
in the interest of a more efficient system, so we are told, but
the fact of the matter is that many people in eastern Canada in
the so-called harmonized provinces are distressed because their
total tax bill has gone up, up, up.
I think not only of the fact that we still have the GST, but if
we want to make the tax system more efficient one of the places
to look at is the GST. I have other words that are sometimes
used for it. GST can be an acronym for more than just the goods
and services tax.
I have talked to people who think that it is absolutely insane
for money to be going in circles, in a vortex, sucking us all
down. The government collects the money and then instead of
spending it on operating the government and government programs,
it creates a huge bureaucracy with an army of people whose job it
is to send the money back that has been collected.
I am absolutely amazed that the Government of Canada, with all
its experts, cannot come up with a tax that is a little better
and a little more fair than simply saying it will collect money
from us and then send it back. Thousands and thousands of
individuals and businesses get back all the GST they pay. There
are some individuals who get a refund of GST which exceeds the
GST they pay. It has become a way of giving money to people who
do not have a great deal of income.
I am not opposed to helping people who are poor, but it is
ludicrous to force them to file an income tax return, which they
have to hire someone to do, in order to get money from the
government to which they should be entitled in any case.
I have spoken to a number of small business people. Most of
them nowadays have access to computers and other things that help
them become more efficient in doing their arithmetic for tax and
bookkeeping purposes. I have also talked to a farmer not too
long ago who said that during the summer he was so busy farming
that he just did not have time to put together his books and file
his GST rebate every three months.
He goes to town to buy a part that costs $10 plus the GST of 70
cents. He takes this piece of paper which is worth 70 cents and
puts it into a box because he does not have time to do it until
the whole summer operation is over and harvest is done.
He then gets out the box and starts adding up all the little GST
payments to apply for his credit. He says he cannot afford not
to do it because if he does not apply for his GST rebate he will
end up giving the government $5,000 to $6,000 to which it is not
entitled and which he really needs.
He said that his time spent in doing that book work is worth
about $2 an hour and he would rather be spending his time
becoming more efficient in his farming operation. He would
rather use that time to do things that helped him to produce a
better crop and maybe spend time with his family.
It is absolutely crazy to say that the only way we can improve
efficiency is to come up with a customs and revenue agency. I do
not know whether the government is sucking or blowing. It
certainly does not know whether it is coming or going. It is
privatizing parts of the military and the airports and now it
wants to privatize the tax collection agency.
In my riding a private agency has been preparing coin blanks
successfully and without ever missing a contract for 30 years.
The government is saying it is needed there and is building this
new coin plating plant in Winnipeg under government auspices. On
the one hand it is privatizing and on the other hand it is
putting private business out of business and taking it over as a
government agency. We do not know whether the government is
coming or going. I am distressed that this type of thing is the
best it can come up with to try to make our tax system more
efficient and more equitable.
1715
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the second reading of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1745
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 122
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
PAIRED
Members
Boudria
| Canuel
| Finestone
| Fournier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Lefebvre
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken in
reverse.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I
missed the earlier vote, but I would like to be counted with the
government on this vote.
The Speaker: Noted and so ordered.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 144
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 122
|
PAIRED
Members
Boudria
| Canuel
| Finestone
| Fournier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Lefebvre
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
1750
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
ACT
The House resumed from October 22 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-54, an act to support and promote electronic commerce
by protecting personal information that is collected, used or
disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of
electronic means to communicate or record information or
transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the
Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, October
22, 1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at
second reading stage of Bill C-54.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois support this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes to
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote no
on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Brien
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Mercier
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Riis
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
– 54
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 212
|
PAIRED
Members
Boudria
| Canuel
| Finestone
| Fournier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Lefebvre
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
* * *
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services
supplied by foreign periodical publishers, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is on
the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-55.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: It will be noted, of course, that this
question is on the amendment. The hon. opposition whip.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion. It is a good one.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no
to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote no
on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lunn
| Manning
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 50
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 216
|
PAIRED
Members
Boudria
| Canuel
| Finestone
| Fournier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Lefebvre
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT ACT
The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint
Act and the Currency Act, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
The Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is on
the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-41.
1755
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote yea on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present
tonight vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote nay on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 180
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lill
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 86
|
PAIRED
Members
Boudria
| Canuel
| Finestone
| Fournier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Lefebvre
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTED DAY—EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
The House resumed, from October 26, consideration of the motion;
and of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to the order made on Thursday, March 12,
1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the motion and the amendment relating to
the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment.
1805
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cardin
| Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McDonough
| Mercier
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wayne – 72
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 195
|
PAIRED
Members
Boudria
| Canuel
| Finestone
| Fournier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Lefebvre
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment negatived. The next
question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the main
motion.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
An hon. member: No.
1815
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cardin
| Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McDonough
| Mercier
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wayne – 72
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 193
|
PAIRED
Members
Boudria
| Canuel
| Finestone
| Fournier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Lefebvre
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Ménard
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion negatived.
I want to congratulate one of our members,
Michelle Dockrill, who not only had a baby but brought her son
Kenzie to the House so we could meet him.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
MERIT PRINCIPLE
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support
the right of all job applicants to be evaluated solely on the
basis of merit.
He said: Madam Speaker, the motion before us today calls on the
government to support the right of all job applicants to be
evaluated solely on the basis of merit.
1820
The subject matter of Motion No. 7 was debated in the House on
May 2, 1996. It was not selected as a votable item at that time
and it is unfortunate that Liberals on the committee decided not
to give members an opportunity to vote for fairness in this
parliament either.
This motion goes right to the heart of equality. It asks that
all job applicants be evaluated solely on the basis of merit,
which means how well they can do the job, how qualified they are
to do the job.
I hearken back to a headline from a recent news release from the
office of the Minister of Labour which stated the minister
supports equal opportunity at employment equity council meeting.
Great, I thought. This minister sees the need to treat people
equally. According to the news release the main goal of this
council is to work with all levels of government in removing
barriers to employment of members of visible minorities.
I believe that is a goal to which we can all subscribe. Members
of the Reform Party want to ensure that visible minorities have
an equal opportunity to compete for jobs. What we object to are
the quotas and segregation of visible minorities. Canadians who
wish to pursue a particular career path should not be face
barriers of discrimination and those with the ability and
discipline deserve the rewards of their hard work.
If the Minister of Labour is truly concerned about equality he
will introduce legislation in this House to repeal the 1996
Employment Equity Act. While the legislation does not specify
quotas it establishes a mechanism whereby the inspectors,
auditors and those administering the law can force companies to
comply with numerical goals that are nothing more than quotas in
disguise.
We know all too well that this government is always looking for
ways to intrude into the activities of the provinces and the
private sector. The Employment Equity Act enables the government
to cast its net even farther, not only in those industries are
under federal jurisdiction but in private, public and crown
corporations. They are forced to comply but now the quota law
extends to provincially regulated private sector businesses with
more than 100 employees who undertake contract work for the
Government of Canada valued at $200,000 or more.
To qualify for federal government contracts employers must sign
a commitment to undertake the following four measures. First,
they must conduct a workplace survey to determine its composition
by race, sex and disability for each type of work in the
organization. Second, they must also compare the results of the
workplace survey with national and local averages based on the
most recent census data. Third, if there is a significant
discrepancy between the workplace representation and national or
local averages in any of the 12 designated categories, they must
determine why this discrepancy exists and develop measures to
correct them. Fourth, they must establish goals and timetables
for increasing the representation of the designated categories in
the workplace.
This is just the sort of thing that business and industry do not
need. They simply do not need more red tape, more government
intervention and more expense added to the product they
ultimately deliver in the workplace.
Starting last November auditors representing the Canadian Human
Rights Commission began conducting proactive audits to determine
compliance in those areas.
When we examine the complex set of goals demanded by the
government we can see how easily the cost of compliance can
escalate. Under the guise of fairness and equality this
government increased its bureaucracy and added to the regulatory
burden of the private sector.
1825
How can we expect these companies to compete in today's fierce
global marketplace when they are mired in red tape and paperwork?
If businesses are forced to comply with this sort of thing it
naturally adds to the cost of their product which consumers will
pay for in higher product prices, whether it is the Government of
Canada or whomever.
At a human resources development committee meeting last year the
member for Mississauga East said that the additional costs to
individual employers in her riding for outside consultants and
accountants amounted to approximately $1,000 per employee.
Instead of hiring workers to increase productivity, these
companies are forced to hire consultants and accountants to fill
out their government forms. This demonstrates how misguided
enforced equity really is.
For some reason the government subscribes to the misguided
theory that it can solve the problem by regulating. As a result,
it ends up with a lot of regulations and no solutions. The
firearms registry is a prime example of that. Instead of dealing
with the misuse and criminal use of firearms by dealing with
criminals, it set up an expensive registry to tax law abiding gun
owners. Instead of helping visible minorities compete in the job
market it has imposed a set of complex staffing rules and quotas
on employers.
The reality is that equity programs do not remove sexual, racial
or other biases from the workplace. They institutionalize it.
Employers should be free to hire the best person for the job
regardless of their race, sex or disability. Employees want to
compete fairly and be recognized for their expertise.
Hiring quotas place unnecessary obstacles in the career path of
Canadian workers. They tie employer's hands and are another
contributing factor in the migration of skilled workers to the
United States.
Much has been said and written about the brain drain that we are
suffering at the moment. At a time when the flow of skilled
workers to the United States is a national concern, the
government should remove the equity quota of all employers to
hire and promote the best qualified people for the job.
The role of government is not to set the terms and conditions
under which private companies hire employees. A diverse
workforce is a plus for any business. The market will dictate
the diversity of the staff. Employers will do it on their own
because they cannot afford to ignore valuable resources. The
last thing they need is hassle and government red tape.
The Ontario policy director of the Canadian Federation of
Business said it is better not to have a regulatory scheme
because these things tend to discourage job creation. It is
exactly the opposite of what the government has intended it to
do.
If the government is really serious about helping visible
minorities it should work with employers to create an environment
that encourages diversity and raises awareness about the special
needs of the disabled and minorities.
Canada has skilled and competent workers. Let us remove the
shackles of excessive government regulation and give them an
opportunity to compete on a level playing field. I think it is
time that common sense prevailed in this area.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I read the
motion by the member for Wetaskiwin, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
support the right of all job applicants to be evaluated solely
on the basis of merit.
That is asking a lot from a government that, as late as
yesterday—as I am the public works critic on contracts awarded
or the section of the department that oversees a lot of big
companies—sent my office a list of recent appointments.
1830
For instance, Vivian G. Albot of Winnipeg, Manitoba, was
appointed to the position of office manager for the board of
directors of Canada Post. Ms. Albot was a contributor to the
Liberal Party of Canada's campaign fund, I even have the amount
here.
I have other examples, including the appointment of Gérald
Préfontaine of Ottawa, Ontario, as a member of the board of
Canada Post. Janis Cochrane was appointed a director of the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
What these people have in common is the fact that they
contributed to a political party, specifically, the one handing
out the jobs.
Another example is Cecil Mervin Ozirny of Melville,
Saskatchewan, who contributed to the Liberals' election fund and
who was given a position with the National Energy Board.
Is the prime requisite for such appointments the fact of having
contributed something to the Liberal Party election fund or do
these people really have skills not easily found or at least the
same level as those of individuals who might apply or contribute
to the management of the organizations I have just named?
Allow me to express my doubts, because I have a newspaper
article here.
I remember the 1993 election campaign that brought the Liberals
and the current Prime Minister to power, on October 25, 1993, to
be precise.
This election also produced the official opposition of which I
was a member, with its then leader, Lucien Bouchard, who has
since moved on to another stage. He has proved to the Prime
Minister that he is a good manager and that he can practice in
Quebec what he was preaching here, as he has brilliantly
demonstrated. What he used to preach here, he put in practice
in Quebec.
In their red book, the Liberals vilified the former Prime
Minister of Canada, Mr. Mulroney, who, just before he left and
handed power over to the newly elected leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party, appointed 500 people to positions all over
Canada. For instance, he appointed the manager of Montreal's
Ritz-Carlton Hotel to the Senate, along with his wife's
hairdresser, and he was roundly criticized by the Liberals.
In the red book, the Liberals were very critical of this kind of
appointment.
But who was recently appointed to the Canada Post Corporation?
Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, who used to sit in this place, who
unfortunately—for her, of course—was defeated in the Edmunston
region in New Brunswick. There have been others. There was
Ross Fitzpatrick, a gentleman who had the bright idea of helping
the Prime Minister to a capital gain of $45,000 by giving him
shares in his company, which the Prime Minister sold at a profit
of $45,000. He was another Liberal appointment.
Just to name a few members I have known in the House, André
Ouellet was appointed to the Canada Post Corporation, David
Berger was made Canada's ambassador to Israel, Ron Irwin was
appointed to an important post, Canada's ambassador to Ireland,
I believe.
1835
They are thanking the friends of the Liberal Party. When the
current Prime Minister returned to political life, he needed a
safe riding. He had to win a seat somewhere to be able to sit in
this House as the Leader of the Opposition.
A member by the name of Robichaud, a nice fellow from
Beauséjour, in the maritimes, was kind enough to give up his
seat so that the Prime Minister could get elected in a safe
riding. It worked. Mr. Robichaud had to wait a few months for a
national general election to be called and for Mr. Chrétien to
win back his traditional riding, Shawinigan, and give him back
his seat as the member for Beauséjour, which had become vacant.
Mr. Robichaud was elected in Beauséjour. He sat with us here
during the 35th Parliament.
Then came a young Liberal star and the Liberals said “The son of
the governor general, now that is somebody”. They told him he
would run in Beauséjour and asked Mr. Robichaud to step aside
and let Mr. LeBlanc, the governor general's son, run for the
Liberal Party in Beauséjour.
Unfortunately, it does not always work and, this time, it did
not, but Mr. Robichaud was not blamed for the Liberal loss in
Beauséjour. Mr. Robichaud, for whom a seat had been set aside in
the Senate, soon replaced a good friend of the party who had
been appointed to the Senate barely 14 months short of the
compulsory retirement age in the Senate. He was obviously
appointed to keep the seat warm until Mr. Robichaud was ready to
make the move.
Sad to say, the good turns Mr. Robichaud did the Prime Minister
were not done out of generosity.
He did them because he knew that the payoff would be
substantial.
It is no big deal if, in order to get some job, one must be a
member of the Liberal Party and give $200, $250, $300 or $400.
Many people in my riding would be quite willing to pay $400 to
get a job in the Senate or with the Canada Post Corporation, or
to sit on the board of directors of the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation.
I can think, among others, of my friend Michel St-Laurent, a
carpenter who does all sorts of jobs for me and someone whom I
really admire. I am convinced that he too would give $200, $300,
$400 or $500 for such an appointment, but he never had that
chance. He was never informed of any vacancies. They do not want
him because he is not a Liberal, and being a Liberal is the
first condition, the prerequisite for such an appointment.
When the Reform Party member, for whom I have a lot of respect,
tables his bill on what he calls quotas, but what I would rather
call employment allocation equity, we should also discuss the
type of jobs given to friends of the party, who get huge
salaries or fees—whatever you want to call it—and who often do
no work at all, killing time at taxpayers' expense while, in
some cases, pocketing millions of dollars.
Consider the case of the friend of the government who was
appointed ambassador to the OECD. This gentleman is paid
$255,000 per year and he is barely 52 or 53 years old. If he
retires at age 75, he will have had an annual salary of $255,000
for 23 years. This amounts to quite a bit of money. It pays to
be a Liberal.
[English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome the chance to
add my voice to this discussion and to demonstrate to the House
that the motion is unnecessary and unwarranted. After having
heard the comments across the aisle I can see why this issue is
as I stated.
Canada's employment equity legislation supports hiring based on
merit. Employment equity aims to reinforce the merit principle
by ensuring that members of groups that were underrepresented in
the past and continue to be underrepresented now have an
opportunity to compete on a level playing field.
Its objectives are to open up the workplace and to ensure that
employment policies and practices are free of any subtle biases.
1840
However a myth has been created that employment equity
contradicts the merit principle. Yet one only has to read
sections 6 and 33(1) of the Employment Equity Act to see that
this is not the case. These sections make it very clear that no
employer can be required under any circumstance to hire or
promote unqualified individuals.
Let me remind my hon. colleagues exactly what the Employment
Equity Act actually does. The act requires the implementation of
employment equity in the public service as well as in the wider
public sector and federally regulated private sector. The act
seeks to remove barriers that restrict the employment of
qualified individuals in four employment equity designated
groups: women, aboriginal people, members of visible minorities
and persons with disabilities. Hon. members cannot deny that a
fair and barrier free workplace means a better working
environment for all employees.
The act gives substance to the guarantees of equality under
section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. It calls for broadening
the recruitment pool so deserving Canadians from all groups
receive due consideration for employment. Utilizing the full
potential of our diverse workforce is essential to Canada's
future success and prosperity.
In the case of the public service these sections also make it
clear that there is no conflict with the Public Service
Employment Act which governs selection according to merit. The
law also clearly stipulates that employment equity will not cause
undue hardship for an employer. It does not force firms to hire
and promote unqualified people or to create new positions in the
workforce to satisfy some arbitrary numerical goals.
I assure the member for Wetaskiwin that the government is fully
committed to merit. We vigorously support and promote excellence
in the workplace. We are also committed to improving conditions
for members of the four designated groups who have faced
disadvantage in the labour market. This is not a myth.
There is ample evidence to indicate that certain groups have
been and continue to be disadvantaged in employment for reasons
that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job. They
have faced unfair barriers to employment because of personal
characteristics totally unrelated to merit. One of the core
values of Canadian society is a profound belief in the equality
of our citizens.
Canadians are proud of Canada's linguistic and multicultural
diversity. We actively promote tolerance and acceptance of
differences. We have a global reputation as a caring and
equitable society. The spirit of employment equity further
enriches that reputation. A number of countries are using our
Employment Equity Act as a template for their legislation. They
include Australia, Holland and most recently South Africa.
Striving for fairness and equality for all citizens not only
enriches our national character but generates significant
economic advantages. A highly qualified, highly motivated
workforce that reflects the richness of our diversity is
essential if Canada is to remain competitive in the expanding
global marketplace.
Employers and labour organizations recognize the benefits of
employment equity. This was evident in their support of a more
comprehensive Employment Equity Act when it was considered in
1995. They recognize that as unfair barriers to employment are
eliminated the pool of qualified applicants is expanded.
This leads to the full utilization of the skills, talents and
abilities of all Canadians.
1845
Clearly we already support hiring and promotion based on merit
which is why I am convinced that we need not entertain this
motion any longer. Instead, I encourage the member for
Wetaskiwin to support the millions of Canadians who benefit from
employment equity. By doing so, we can all contribute to a
better future and a better Canada for all of us.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, the member
for Wetaskiwin moved that in the opinion of this House the
government should support the rights of all job applicants to be
evaluated solely on the basis of merit.
If we lived in a perfect world, there would most likely be
unanimous support for the motion but unfortunately we do not. If
all persons regardless of their sex, ethnic origins or
disabilities were treated equally, there would not be a need for
employment equity programs. But unfortunately we do not live in
a perfect world.
The realities faced by women, visible minorities, natives and
the disabled are not the same as those faced by able-bodied white
males. I speak from firsthand experience as I have a daughter who
was born with cerebral palsy. I know firsthand the reactions
some people have toward those of us in society who might not be
or seem not to be as able-bodied as others. The discrimination
these people face is real. It still occurs today. It is not a
thing of the past.
Look at the current response of the Liberal government with
regard to the issue of pay equity for women in the federal civil
service. Even though the human rights commission has ordered the
Liberal government to pay the salaries it owes to these women,
the government has refused to do so.
When people say that employment equity is to solve problems of
the past, they are wrong. Discrimination is still very much a
reality in the workplace and in the hiring process.
The Reform Party says that employment equity is itself a form of
discrimination, that it prevents able-bodied white males from
getting jobs, that there are barriers. When the Reform Party
says this, it is turning the issue of employment equity on its
head. Employment equity does not prevent white males from getting
jobs. What it does is it creates a level playing field so that
everyone who applies for a job is considered equally and on the
basis of merit.
The Employment Equity Act instituted by the Conservative
government in 1986 is designed to ensure that women, natives, the
handicapped and members of visible minorities are evaluated on
the basis of merit when they apply for a job in federally
regulated institutions or in crown corporations. In other words,
the act is designed to eliminate the discriminatory barriers to
employment that these four groups face. It ensures that
employers focus on an objective assessment of the applicant's
knowledge, skills, experience and personality.
The Conservative Party fails to see how such an act can be
discriminatory. In fact this act represents an important step
toward making merit in the true sense of the word the basic tool
in evaluating job applications.
The Reform Party says to let the competitive forces of the
workplace take over and discrimination will be eliminated. It
should be pointed out that for hundreds of years market forces
did regulate the hiring process and it is because of the
inappropriate way in which the market regulated itself that the
Employment Equity Act became a necessity.
We should not and cannot return to the ways of the past, at
least not until discrimination itself is a thing of the past.
That is why the Progressive Conservative Party cannot support
this motion.
1850
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to say off the top that I am at
a loss to understand why we are even having this debate.
This government fully agrees with the member for Wetaskiwin that
Canadians should be hired on the basis of merit. It is precisely
because we believe profoundly that all qualified individuals
should be given an equal chance to gain employment that we
supported amendments to the Employment Equity Act in 1995,
amendments I might add that enjoy widespread public support.
Employment equity simply means that everyone is treated fairly,
not preferentially. It means that all qualified job candidates
regardless of gender, race or physical and intellectual capacity
will be given equal consideration for recruitment and will be
retained and promoted on the basis of merit. Employment equity
ensures that all individuals are given a fair chance to prove
their merit and are not penalized because of their physical
appearance or gender.
As we all know, women, aboriginal people, members of visible
minorities and persons with disabilities do not always receive a
fair shake when applying for a job. Excluding qualified people
from employment opportunities results in enormous economic waste
and social disintegration. Employment equity is about human
decency, fairness and equality, the cornerstones of a true
democracy. Equality regardless of race, gender, disability,
creed, marital status or family conditions is a right which is
guaranteed by the constitution of this great county.
The economic arguments for employment equity are equally
compelling. The many private sector employers who appeared as
witnesses before the parliamentary committee that reviewed Bill
C-64 said repeatedly that promoting employment equity gives them
a competitive advantage. These employers said that effective
employment equity policies and programs help them attract and
retain employees from all backgrounds. This in turn facilitates
their entry into more diverse domestic and international markets.
Far from being a burden to business, employment equity enlarges
the pool of qualified workers from which businesses can draw
while increasing their access to new markets.
Improving the lives and opportunities of Canadians also enhances
this country's economic performance. Employment equity removes
barriers to full participation in Canadian society, barriers that
have been insurmountable for far too long.
Let me remind the member for Wetaskiwin that the act clearly
stipulates that no employer can be required under any
circumstances to hire or promote unqualified individuals, nor are
employers required to create new positions in order to satisfy
some arbitrary equity targets. What the act does do is it
vigorously supports and promotes excellence in the workplace by
ensuring that all Canadians have an equal opportunity to make a
contribution to our economy and society.
This progressive approach helps Canada keep pace with changing
times, changing demographics and a changing economy. It enables
us to ensure both the spirit and practice of legal and social
equality. Other countries have recognized the benefits of
employment equity and have used our act as a model. We should be
proud of our leadership in this area.
This motion would have us turn back the clock, no doubt about
it. The motion would have us return to a time when there was
little guarantee of respect for diversity in the workforce. If
adopted, there is a very real danger this motion could result in
an increase of the very inequities and unfairness which the
Employment Equity Act seeks to eliminate. It would create an
unacceptable working standard for millions of Canadians. It
would condone racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination
which we know already exist in the workplace.
1855
This is clearly unacceptable to Canadians, particularly to the
millions of Canadian women, persons with disabilities, members of
visible minorities and aboriginal peoples who make up more than
half of this country's population.
Employment equity is necessary to make equality of opportunity a
reality, not just an ideal, for all Canadians. The member for
Wetaskiwin I hope would agree that equality of opportunity is a
basic human right, yet we are still a long way from achieving
that goal.
For all these reasons, Canada cannot afford the attitude
embodied in this motion. It must not stand in the way of
progress.
I remind the House that we as representatives of the people of
Canada have both a legal and a moral obligation to uphold the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the cornerstone of the
constitution of this country. To deny the need for employment
equity seriously compromises our ability to carry out this duty.
I must therefore urge the member for Wetaskiwin to withdraw his
motion. I encourage him instead to support the values of
fairness and equality embodied in employment equity.
The strengthened Employment Equity Act has now been in effect
for almost two years. We are once again among those nations that
lead the world in moving toward an egalitarian society not only
on paper but in practice.
I ask all members of this House to join together with us as we
continue to pursue and achieve major milestones in the pursuit of
fairness and equality for all.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, first may I take a few moments to thank my hon.
colleagues and the Speaker for allowing me the wonderful
opportunity to bring the latest addition to my family into the
House this evening.
It is with some disappointment I rise to debate this motion
today. It is clear from the mover's comments that he intends his
motion to be an attack on employment equity. Unfortunately, the
wording of his motion seems designed to obscure this fact.
If his intent is to oppose employment equity, it is a shame he
did not have the courage of his convictions and spell that out in
his motion. Instead he has given us a platitude which is open to
a host of interpretations.
No one can disagree with the motherhood statement in his motion.
Of course hiring should be based on merit. Where we start to
disagree is in how we ensure people are hired based on their
merit.
Employment equity was introduced because it was clear many
people were not having a chance to be assessed on the basis of
merit. The degree to which women, aboriginal persons, persons
with disabilities, and members of visible minority groups are
under-represented in many areas of the workforce makes it obvious
that the problem is more than just a lack of qualified
candidates. What makes this even clearer is that in sectors where
the groups designated under employment equity are well
represented, they were often concentrated in lower paid
occupations.
The employment equity legislation focuses on removing barriers
that may prevent people from the designated groups from finding
employment.
While there are targets, these are to be met by ensuring the
hiring procedures and workplaces are free of discrimination. The
legislation does not set out hiring quotas. There is also nothing
in the legislation requiring employers to hire unqualified
candidates. In fact, the reverse is true.
Section 6 of the legislation states specifically that private
sector employers are not required to hire or promote unqualified
persons. It also states that in the public sector there is no
requirement to hire or promote persons without basing the hiring
or promotion on selection according to merit in cases where the
Public Service Employment Act requires that hiring or promotion
be based on selection according to merit.
According to my hon. colleague, we can rely on the marketplace
to solve the problem of the under-representation of women, members
of visible minority groups, persons with disabilities and
aboriginal Canadians. Unfortunately this has not proven to be
the case.
The member is right when he says that there are many economic
advantages to employers in having a workforce which reflects the
community as a whole.
What he ignores are the barriers that exist for people from
under-represented groups when looking for work. It is these
barriers employment equity seeks to eliminate.
1900
The barriers members of designated groups face range from racist
or sexist behaviour in the workplace to hiring practices which
exclude many people from even having a chance to be considered
for jobs. Eliminating these barriers is crucial to ensuring we
have hiring based on merit.
It should also not be forgotten that we all benefit from some of
the changes required by employment equity. One of the complaints
I hear from people in my riding who are looking for work is that
they have difficulty even hearing about vacant jobs.
For many young white males, the group the mover claims to be
worried about, this is a particularly serious problem. Finding
out about a large number of jobs depends on networking. In other
words, who you know.
Young people just starting out are ready to work. They have the
ability to work. However, they are not getting that opportunity
for some of the same reasons members of groups designated under
employment equity legislation are being excluded. Even getting
information about job openings can require an extensive network
of contacts, something most people who are just starting out do
not have.
Even more disturbing is any attempt to link the high level of
unemployment among young males to employment equity. Across
Canada 1.4 million people are unemployed. We have this level of
unemployment because the federal government has chosen to deal
with the deficit by cutting and slashing instead of trying to get
people back to work.
If we are genuinely concerned about the plight of unemployed
young people we should be supporting measures such as
reinvestment in health care, a cut in the GST or work experience
programs which will put young people back to work.
In closing, I would like to touch on an aspect of the employment
equity debate which the government would rather we forget. A key
part of employment equity is the assumption that there should be
equal pay for work of equal value: pay equity. During the 1993
election campaign members of the Liberal Party agreed with it.
They promised public employees they would receive a fair
settlement. Five years later public employees are still waiting.
First the federal government forced employees to go through the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to get justice. When the
employees were successful at the tribunal the federal government
appealed the decision. There is an old saying “justice delayed
is justice denied”. The way the Liberal government has broken
its word on pay equity has left many questioning its commitment
to promoting fairness in the workplace.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
today I rise to voice my support for my colleague's motion which
states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support
the right of all job applicants to be evaluated solely on the
basis of merit.
However, although I firmly believe in the substance of Motion
M-7, I want to make it very clear that this in no way means I am
not aware that prejudice and discrimination exists in Canadian
society.
Merit and ability should be the only things that matter in the
workplace. However, there are times when one is not evaluated
solely on the basis of these attributes. Women, ethnic
minorities, aboriginal people and the disabled are examples of
groups that continue to face hurdles which are put in place by
ignorance and lack of understanding.
When one is faced with discrimination, one must have access to
the processes which allow for redress. These processes are the
human rights commission and the courts of law. We must ensure
that people have easy and affordable access to the instruments
that can correct injustices like discrimination.
However, having said this we must also recognize that Canada is
renowned throughout the world for its tolerance and compassion.
We should recognize that although we are not yet a society
completely free of prejudice, we have made tremendous strides
over the last 40 years.
I came to Canada because I wished to be judged as an individual,
not as a mere representative of some ethnic group. Twenty years
later I have the honour to sit in the House of Commons, having
been elected by men and women of all races, religions and creeds.
This is the type of country we live in, a land which offers
opportunity and promise to all those who show determination and
hard work. Every member of this House will know that and agree
that every individual should be equal before and under the law.
Every individual has the right to equal protection and equal
benefit of the law without discrimination based on such
attributes as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,
sex, age or mental or physical disability.
1905
If this last statement sounds familiar to some it is because I
was loosely quoting from the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
We should all be given the same opportunity to succeed. The
role of the government is to ensure that no one is barred from
employment for factors which have nothing to do with their
ability. The role of the government is not to set numerical
goals commonly referred to as quotas.
Allow me to comment briefly on some of my past experiences.
Regardless of where I have lived, I have spent my entire life as
a visible minority, first in Tanzania and then in Canada. I have
faced discrimination in both of these countries on numerous
occasions. In Tanzania I was denied employment on numerous
occasions because of the colour of my skin. I could have given
up. I could have thrown in the towel. Rather than doing that I
chose to fight these injustices and I am proud to say that on
numerous occasions I overcame these arbitrary barriers.
I had similar experiences during the 1970s when I came to
Canada. On several occasions I was denied employment in this
country because of my race. This was happening at a time when I
faced the added difficulty of raising a young family.
Nevertheless, I persevered and fought on and today I find myself
in Canada's House of Commons, having been elected, as I said, by
men and women of all backgrounds.
Let me point out that discrimination is also not always based on
colour or race. I have faced discrimination within my own
community, within other cultural communities and within the
business sector.
With all of this experience one would think that I would be a
very strong supporter of affirmative action programs. But I am
not. Why? Because of the very fact that I hate discrimination.
I hate it whenever anyone's dignity is robbed. Everyone should
have equal rights.
I would therefore ask this question: Is affirmative action not
reverse discrimination? I would venture to say yes. Somebody
will lose based on factors which have nothing to do with their
merit or ability.
My experiences have also taught me that affirmative action
programs do little to address the systematic discrimination which
exists within our society. As well, affirmative action programs
do not take into account that people may gravitate toward certain
professions. So it is quite possible that there could be a
higher proportion of individuals from a particular group in a
certain profession.
Is this necessarily a bad thing? I would venture to say no
because this is their choice. If the required target is
unattainable due to lack of interest on the part of the targeted
group, then what? Would we force it? Would this not create an
artificial correction with disastrous consequences? Affirmative
action programs fail to take these factors into consideration.
If the quota systems are not the answer, then how do we address
the issue of discrimination in society? In my view, we address
it through education coupled with common sense legislation that
ensures that Canadians are treated fairly and equitably.
Through education, companies and employers must be made aware of
the consequences of discrimination in the workplace. It should
be done through education, not affirmative action. Education
must sensitize employers to the various groups that could be
subject to discrimination.
As previously mentioned, applicants should also have the right
and access to a system that will resolve their grievances. This
should be the solution, not affirmative action programs.
I would hate to be the successful candidate for a job simply
because of my colour, gender or physical disability. On the
other hand, I would be proud to be selected based on my abilities
and qualifications.
This is a simple statement. However, it carries with it a
strong principle, a principle which I believe should be the
foundation of our society and, henceforth, I give my wholehearted
support to this motion.
1910
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
thank my colleagues for their participation in this debate. It
is funny how sometimes we get support from quarters that we least
expect.
Maybe I am reading a little more into it than the member from
the Bloc actually stated, but he did talk about how he was not in
favour of patronage appointments or anything that was attached to
political favours making sure that a person got the job. As a
matter of fact he even had some examples that he cited for
Hansard.
I would have to assume from that—and I hope I am making the
right assumption—that he would not think an appointment to the
Senate based on patronage is the right way to go. As a matter of
fact he said that, so I would have to assume he would be in
favour of senatorial elections.
That reminds me that just a few weeks ago I was speaking in a
constituency and made a similar statement. One of the questions
in the question period afterwards was “The latest senator is a
very qualified person so if you were to select a senator he is
probably an excellent applicant”. I agree with that assessment.
However it is not the person's qualifications that are in doubt
in that case. It is how he got there. He got there because he
was part of the old boys club who just happened to have
qualifications.
I suggested that because he had such good qualifications he
should have thrown his hat into the senatorial election race that
was taking place at the time in Alberta anyway and he might have
got himself elected as a senator and made history.
One of my colleagues across the way in the government was saying
that the imposition of quotas was in no way any sort of a burden
on the employer and that it did not impose any undue hardships.
Perhaps he should have a chat with his colleague in the Liberal
Party from Mississauga East who obviously does not agree with
that assessment. She said in one of the HRD committee meetings
that in her estimation it cost at least $1,000 per employee to
qualify and to comply with all employment equity conditions.
Lest people who have spoken to this are misunderstanding what we
are trying to get across today, a person should be selected, as
my colleague from Calgary East has said, on the basis of how well
trained he or she is to do the job. If the person is of visible
minority, a woman, an aboriginal or disabled, it should have
nothing whatsoever to do with it. The sole basis should be if
the person has the qualifications to do a good job for their
employer so that their employer can produce and compete in the
global environment. It should have nothing whatsoever to do with
imposed quotas by the Government of Canada.
It is unfortunate that this was not selected as a votable item.
I would be most interested to see how members of the government
would have voted on it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There being no
further members rising for debate and the motion not being
designated as a votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1915
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I believe it
was last June that I rose in the House and asked the Minister of
Human Resources Development to visit the Acadian peninsula to
see the problems there.
I am pleased to rise tonight and again ask the minister to visit
the Acadian peninsula. Last night I was at a meeting in the
Restigouche region, and people wanted the Minister of Human
Resources Development to visit, because they are suffering as a
result of the changes to employment insurance. All the cuts are
making things miserable in the region.
I have even had calls from people in the Gaspé, who want to meet
and discuss the problem that arises wherever there are people
who fish, who work in the forest or who work in construction.
You know, tonight, we voted on the business of small weeks.
Some members still do not understand the problem that can create
in the regions. I was disappointed to see the Liberals voting
against.
I was also disappointed to see the Reformers voting against it,
because they are always on their feet in the House asking
questions about employment insurance. Every day they get up and
say that the government is taking money from workers and must
return it to them. When the Reformers get the opportunity to
vote for something good, they turn around and vote against it.
I am disappointed.
I was also disappointed to see how Liberal members voted. The
government opposite, which set up the pilot project in April of
last year, knows full well that people with small weeks cannot
get equitable EI benefits that will put bread on the table for
their children.
This is why we are inviting the minister to come and visit us.
What is he afraid of? Is he afraid the same thing will happen
in Thetford Mines, Newfoundland or Vancouver? Is he afraid of
that?
I can organize meetings with people, and he would not have to be
nervous about coming. He ought to come and find out right away
for himself what is going on. I believe it is important.
Last week, 40 women employed by fishers lost their employment
insurance. All of these work for small family businesses and
all lost their employment insurance. They are concerned. They
have to get through the winter. This is not the first time I
have risen in this House to invite the Minister of Human
Resources Development to come down to my riding.
The Minister of Human Resources Development claims that the
solution is to create employment. Let him come down to visit
us, sit around a table with us, and we will try to find some
solutions. Until then, people must not be punished. They must
not have what they are entitled to taken away from them. These
are workers who have contributed to the employment insurance
fund.
It is theirs. There is $20 billion in the employment insurance
fund. How can the Minister explain that there are people
suffering today, that there are people drawing $36 a week in EI
benefits because of the changes to the system?
Yesterday, that is what the people of Restigouche were asking
me. They said “We want the Minister of Human Resources
Development to come down here so we can talk to him and show him
how the system is making people suffer”.
It is not unusual for a minister to travel around the country in
order to fulfil his responsibilities and to talk with people.
Once again I am asking the minister—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the hon.
member, for his time is up.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
minister has been travelling across Canada and has been listening
to all Canadians regarding their views on employment insurance.
The old employment insurance system was 25 years old and needed
updating. We had to find a balance between giving workers the
temporary support they need between jobs and giving the people
the tools they need to get back to work.
So far we think the new program is having some success.
1920
Over 31,000 jobs have been created in areas of high unemployment
because of the new transitional jobs fund program. In New
Brunswick this initiative has helped to create over 2,300 jobs.
Through the labour market development agreement we are
transferring $228 million over three years to New Brunswick to
deliver active employment measures tailored to the needs of the
people in that province.
In addition, under the new EI system seasonal workers who work
long hours in the high season get credit for all time on the job.
The hour system is enabling many seasonal workers, up to 45,000,
to qualify for benefits for the first time. It also helps
seasonal workers to qualify for more weeks of benefits.
Take the tourism worker in Gaspé who works for 15 weeks and puts
in 45 hours each week. Under the old system he or she qualified
for 29 weeks of benefits. Under the new EI that worker could
collect the equivalent of 31 weeks of benefits.
Because EI represents such a fundamental reform of the system we
are monitoring its performance constantly. This monitoring
demonstrates the government's accountability for its decisions to
Canadians.
Is the hon. member advocating a return to the old system of
dependency on passive income support? Surely not.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.20 p.m.)