36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 231
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 26, 1999
1400
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPLEX REGIONAL PAIN SYNDROME
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHINATRUST
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE BILL STEWART
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMUNITY ACCESS CENTRES
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1405
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEACE IN YUGOSLAVIA
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD POPULATION DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1410
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUNTINGTON DISEASE
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1420
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1430
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1435
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRASER RIVER PORT AUTHORITY
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREST PRODUCTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1440
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-55
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1445
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1450
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-77
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIME MINISTER
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Raymond Chan |
1455
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARTS AND CULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARIJUANA
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1500
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-55
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1505
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice and Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-513. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1510
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Protection of Animals
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Euthanasia
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pesticides
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Professional Sports
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Housing in Nunavik
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1515
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health Care
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Animal Abuse
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Freshwater Exports
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Sector Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Impoverished Nations
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1520
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1525
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-67. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1530
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1545
1550
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1630
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1645
1650
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1705
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1710
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1715
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1720
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1725
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on the motion deferred
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPETITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-235. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dan McTeague |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 1 to 3
|
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1810
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Forces
|
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1835
![V](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 231
![](/web/20061116190159im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 26, 1999
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Saint
John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
COMPLEX REGIONAL PAIN SYNDROME
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Network is
holding its annual seminar at the University of Victoria from
July 29 to July 31.
RSD or complex regional pain syndrome is a puzzling disorder.
According to the McGill pain index, back pain is rated 16,
terminal cancer at 26, and RSD at 42.
It can occur after an injury, even a minor one. The injury
appears to be healing but the pain intensifies. The sympathetic
nervous system becomes overactive, causing continuous and
spreading pain that can be unrelenting. Some commit suicide.
However, detected in the first several months the syndrome often
yields to treatment.
The network chooses to designate July as Complex Regional Pain
Syndrome Awareness Month.
* * *
CHINATRUST
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to announce that Chinatrust Commercial Bank has
opened its first Canadian branch in Vancouver.
Chinatrust is one of Taiwan's biggest financial institutions
with assets of over $26 billion. We can see from Chinatrust that
foreign banks can play an important role in creating jobs and
strengthening the Canadian economy.
I would like to wish Chinatrust luck in its Canadian venture.
* * *
THE LATE BILL STEWART
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with profound regret that I rise to
acknowledge the sudden passing of a city councillor who served
two British Columbia communities.
Bill Stewart served the city of Port Coquitlam as an alderman
from 1983 to 1994. Having moved to the East Kootenays to pursue
a new career opportunity, he was elected in 1996 to serve in the
city of Kimberley as a city councillor.
Bill Stewart died suddenly in hospital on Sunday, May 16. He is
survived by his wife, Alma, a son and a daughter. Bill Stewart
served the public well. He will be missed.
* * *
COMMUNITY ACCESS CENTRES
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to recognize the community access centre in
my home of Barkers Point, New Brunswick.
It has been named New Brunswick's community access centre for
1999. It is located in what I have often referred to as the best
elementary school in the world, a school that has served my
family and friends for generations, a school that has had a
recent addition of a gymnasium in the name of my father and where
my sister teaches kindergarten. I can say that it has made a big
difference in our community.
This centre opened in 1997 at the Barkers Point Elementary
School and assists local people who wish to access the Internet
and take computer courses.
For his contribution, I would like to single out site manager
Jim Wilson for his tremendous efforts. As well it should be
noted that Jeff Gagnon, a grade 12 student who works at the
centre part time, has designed a system that will forward
information directly to Industry Canada.
To Jim, Jeff, teachers and students I say congratulations in
1999.
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of attending the first ever
Canada-U.S. businesswomen's trade summit in Toronto.
Co-chaired by the Minister for International Trade, U.S.
Secretary of Commerce William Daley, and the administrator of
U.S. Small Business Administration, Aida Alvarez, this summit
allowed Canadian and American businesswomen to develop
cross-border business.
Approximately 250 women whose businesses had been identified as
export ready from the United States and Canada attended the
summit. The summit witnessed the signing of many partnership and
business agreements. It also gave participants a forum to share
ideas, resources and best practices. In addition, the summit
provided an opportunity to discuss international trade issues and
public policies of relevance to women entrepreneurs.
I commend the organizing team, spearheaded by Astrid Pregel of
the Canadian Embassy in Washington, for its vision in conceiving
the summit and I thank our partners, the corporate sponsors, for
making this vision a reality.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since
the meetings of the Liberal western rescue team are closed to the
public and by invitation only, we had to send in spies to hear
what was said.
1405
Here are the top 10 phrases overheard at their meetings last
week.
No. 10: “Yes, the member from Coquitlam is a yes-man”.
No. 9: “Yes, we are all yes-men”.
No. 8: “Sure you can come to the meeting. We will just need
your Liberal membership number, proof of candidacy and a small
donation”.
No. 7: “We have done plenty for the west. Remember the
national energy program”.
No. 6: “When I heard we were coming out west I thought we were
going to Winnipeg”.
No. 5: “Table for four, please”.
No. 4: “We are looking to acquire some land in the Nanoose Bay
area”.
No. 3: “The next time the Prime Minister tells me how to vote
I will be sure to pass along your concerns”.
No. 2: “Wow, the railroad does go all the way to B.C. When
did that happen?”
No. 1: “Man, we don't have a chance”.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a report of a study undertaken by the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities found that Canada's poorest citizens have
been hardest hit by the continuing drop in family incomes.
The poorest 10% of residents in 16 Canadian cities saw their
total income drop by 18.8% from 1992 to 1996. During the same
period the top 10% of Canadian earners saw their total incomes
rise by 6.8%. The old notion that if the affluent are doing well
then everybody else will be doing well is clearly not happening
in Canadian cities.
We do not have to concern ourselves with the families that pay
the highest taxes. We do have to be concerned about the quality
of life of Canadians who pay half or more of their incomes for
housing as their numbers are increasing.
Affordable housing and adequacy of income are basic
determinants—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
* * *
[Translation]
PEACE IN YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
extremely proud to draw attention to a project with great
promise, which was thought up and carried out by the young
people of my riding.
In these times of great upheaval in Yugoslavia, the students of
the Jeunes du Monde school in Terrebonne have decided to work
toward peace.
They made up a white flag symbolizing a call for peace in the
Yugoslav conflict, addressed to both President Milosevic and to
NATO. This flag, signed by all the students and all the staff of the
school, constitutes a repudiation of violence.
This symbolic flag will be sent to NATO in the next few days on
behalf of young people who wish to propose alternatives to the
use of violence in conflict resolution.
I salute the efforts of these representatives of our youth who
want to introduce a new era of peace and brotherly love.
* * *
WORLD POPULATION DAY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, July 11 has
been designated by the United Nations as World Population Day.
The objective of this day is to raise awareness of population
and development issues such as international migration, whether
voluntary or involuntary.
In recent years there has been a marked increase in the number
of people crossing international borders. Some of them are in
search of better lives from economic and social points of
view, while others are fleeing internal or external conflicts or
major natural disasters.
I invite my colleagues to support the action plan of the
International Conference on Population and Development, which
calls upon all of the developed countries to assist the
developing countries in implementing economic development
strategies that include programs relating to health, education
and good governance.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when people visit Canada we expect them to follow our
laws. If they do not they are punished according to the Criminal
Code of Canada. The same goes for Canadians visiting or living
in foreign countries. Citizenship does not count when they have
committed crimes and the law of the land prevails.
In the case of Stanley Faulder, he knew the penalty for murder
in the state of Texas was death. We was tried, convicted and
sentenced. Unfortunately we no longer execute cold blooded
killers in Canada, but in Texas it is the law and it must be
respected.
Access to information documents reveal that the Department of
Foreign Affairs has wasted roughly 50,000 taxpayer dollars trying
to save the life of this murderer. This does not include money
spent by the justice department or the recent MP clemency tour.
I do not believe our justice system is such a shining example
that we should be telling the Americans what is wrong with
theirs. The fact is a 75 year old Texas woman was killed by a
Canadian, and in Texas the penalty is death. End of story.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 14, the
Prime Minister of Canada announced that Quebec City had been
selected to hold the next Summit of the Americas in 2001.
This summit will bring together the elected heads of democratic
governments in North America, Central America, South America and
the Caribbean.
The magnificent location of Quebec City will provide an
excellent overview of Canada's heritage, diversity and dynamism
for our neighbours and the world as a whole.
The Summit of the Americas, it must be recalled, will mark the
end of a number of years' work by Canada within the hemisphere.
We therefore wish Quebec City good luck in organizing this
summit. We are quite sure that this event, so important for our
fine country of Canada, will be a great success.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's environment commissioner tabled his third report in a
row which slams the Liberal government's environment record.
The entire Liberal government and its cabinet share this
disgrace: the finance minister for a program review that
cancelled environment as a priority, the industry minister for
putting business interests ahead of ecosystem protection, and the
health minister for refusing to identify toxic chemicals which
poison Canada's children.
The commissioner states that “we are paying the price in terms
of our health and our legacy for future generations”.
What does all this talk and no action mean for Canadians?
Dangerous chemicals are found in the food we eat, the water we
drink, the air we breathe, and children are left in toxic sites.
The Standing Committee on the Environment shared the
commissioner's concern and told the government to enforce the
laws which protect Canada and its environment and not buckle to
industry demands.
The Prime Minister and the Liberal cabinet are the prime
suspects for destroying our environment and harming our health.
* * *
[Translation]
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, May is
multiple sclerosis awareness month.
While treatment continues to improve and new medication helps to
change the course of the disease and reduce symptoms, we still
cannot, even today, either cure or prevent multiple sclerosis.
This illness affects 50,000 people in Canada, particularly
women, and arrives unannounced causing distress to all those in
its path. Neither the most solid family life nor the best
orchestrated career plans escape its shadow.
In support of the work of the many researchers, our financial
contributions are important, but they can never replace our
physical support and our affection, which make the suffering of
MS victims and their families a little easier to bear.
To all MS sufferers, I would say there is hope, hope that pushes
us on in the fight to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to put the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on
notice, informing him of a devastating natural disaster which
continues to affect the residents of southwestern Manitoba.
Farmers are especially hit hard by the flooding. Two million
acres of land is in jeopardy and the area is only one rain away
from total disaster.
June 15 is the crop insurance deadline. If crops are not seeded
by then my riding could suffer a potential loss of $400 million.
This could be devastating to an industry in my riding that is
still suffering from the impact of a farm income crisis and the
problems with the federal government's AIDA program.
As I have mentioned before in the House, as in last year's ice
storm in Ontario and Quebec I urge the government to apply the
same consistency in the level of compensation to those affected
by yet another natural disaster in my riding.
The livelihood of farmers and other businesses in the area is at
stake. It is time for the federal government to start developing
a long term disaster assistance program. If the Prime Minister's
western Liberal task force wants to listen to western Canadians,
now is the time to listen.
* * *
HUNTINGTON DISEASE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to inform the House that May has been proclaimed
Huntington Disease Awareness Month by the Huntington Society of
Canada.
Huntington disease is a fatal hereditary brain disorder which
slowly destroys both the mind and body. Symptoms include
involuntary jerking, slurred speech, and mental and emotional
difficulties which relentlessly become worse over the lengthy
course of the disease. There is no cure or effective treatment.
One in every thousand Canadians is affected by Huntington
disease: he or she has it, is at risk of developing it, or is
caring for someone who has it.
The mandate of the Huntington Society of Canada is to improve
the quality of life for these people through service and
education programs.
Please join me in wishing the Huntington Society of Canada a
very successful Huntington Disease Awareness Month.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
only the Liberals can call stiffing the taxpayers a win-win. The
Minister of Canadian Heritage has failed again and Canadians are
stuck with the bill once again. This is going to mean millions
of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.
Just like Bubbles Galore, this is going to cost taxpayers
dollars galore. Just how many dollars would that be?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her resounding
support for Canadian culture.
One of the things that Canadians have told us very firmly is
that culture is more than commodities, culture is more than pork
bellies and culture deserves the support of the government.
I am very proud that as a result of the Bill C-55 package the
Prime Minister and the Government of Canada have committed to
ongoing support for the Canadian magazine industry.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately, a lot of the minister's colleagues are not
terribly impressed by what is going on.
This is a victory for the government, sort of like the GST was a
victory: both proud heritage moments. The minister lost and
Canadians lost, and we all know it. Taxpayers now get to buy
magazines whether they like them or not.
Why it is that Canadians always get left holding the bag for
this minister's cultural crusades?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member is going to have to get
her story straight. On the one hand she is claiming that
Canadians lost and on the other hand she is claiming that it is
the fault of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The fact is that Canada won today. The trade minister, the
culture minister, the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada
won. Why? Because for the first time in history the Americans
have recognized that we have the right in trade to protect our
culture.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
bet those Americans are just trembling in their boots today. Oh
yes, they must be.
Taxpayers would rather have their own money in their own pockets
instead of having the heritage minister confiscate millions of
dollars for 19th century protectionist policies. Taxpayers today
are beginning to feel a little bit like a dog trapped in a car on
a hot summer's day.
Why will the heritage minister not just let Canadian advertisers
choose the magazines they want to support?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, better a dog than a pig.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a real class act over there. The government constantly says
that it cannot afford tax relief, but it always has millions of
dollars to bail out the heritage minister. Now it is millions on
a useless protectionist policy to avoid the trade war caused by
her incompetence.
On behalf of taxpayers who are footing the bill for this
face-saving disaster, how much is all of this going to cost?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleading with the Reform Party to start
reviewing some of its policies because I believe that one of the
reasons it is at 6% and falling is because it spends more time
defending the Americans than it does defending Canada.
1420
One of the reasons the government has come out fighting for Bill
C-55, the first law that will protect Canadian magazines in this
country, is precisely because the Prime Minister, the cabinet and
the government understand that Canadian culture is worth fighting
for.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians will protect Canadian culture. They do not need this
incompetent minister to do it, frankly. First it was the GST,
then MMT and now the magazine spending spree. How many strikes
does it take before this minister is out of there?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that members of the Reform Party
have spent the vast part of their political careers covering their
butts. This is the same party that on the issue of magazines is
prepared to throw to the wolves literally thousands of Canadian
jobs and is prepared to tell readers of Chatelaine, readers
of Maclean's—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at
today's press conference the Minister of Canadian Heritage
expressed her delight at the outcome of the U.S. magazine
negotiations.
The agreement provides compensation for Canadian publishers.
Can the minister tell the House how much this agreement will
cost?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has asked me to work closely, and I
have already started this morning, with all Canadian publishers
in order to determine, first, what is the best arrangement and,
second, how we can ensure Canadian content in Canadian
magazines. That is what we are working on now.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that
is all very fine and well, but perhaps all this should have been
worked out beforehand.
Before such a sweeping and important agreement is signed, I
think it only right that the cost be known, and that the
Minister of Finance, who is responsible for budgets, perhaps be
consulted.
Can the minister tell us today what this undertaking is expected
to cost? I think this would show some accountability.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we found ourselves in a situation where there was no
legislation at all. The World Trade Organization already
decided two years ago that there would be no legislation.
We now have legislation protecting 82% of the Canadian market
and I think that represents a good balance between a potential
trade war that will harm the lumber, steel and plastics sectors
and the assurance of Canadian content in culture.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we do not
disagree with the explanations provided by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
What we want to know is whether the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, or the government, signed an agreement without having
any idea of the costs involved.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we signed an agreement which, for the first time,
protects our culture in an international trade agreement. That
in itself is a step forward.
Also, instead of getting the whole pie, as they had been trying
to do for two years, the Americans will get 18% of the market.
We figured this was the price to pay to avoid a trade war—as we
have had—and we all agree that this is a gain for us, for
Canada, primarily as regards the Canadian content of magazines.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let me now
turn to the Minister of Finance.
A government cannot make a commitment of this magnitude without
having at least some idea of the costs involved for taxpayers.
I am asking the Minister of Finance what provisions he included
in his budget to cover the costs of the program that is supposed
to be implemented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. She does
not know how much it will cost, but the Minister of Finance must
have an idea of these costs, so I put the question to him.
1425
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, I can tell the member that these costs are within our budget.
That being said, I want to congratulate the Minister of Canadian
Heritage and the Minister for International Trade, who both did
a tremendous job. The Minister of Canadian Heritage was
successful in protecting Canadian culture.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The Minister of Canadian
Heritage told Canadians that Bill C-55 was necessary to protect
Canadian culture and that it was WTO proof. Perhaps it is WTO
proof, but the real threat to Canadian culture comes not from
without, it comes from within, from a government prepared to sell
out Canadian magazines.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his cave-in on Bill
C-55 has left the heritage minister with no credibility
whatsoever on Canadian cultural matters?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is because of the hard work and determination of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage that for the first time the
Americans have recognized that we have the right to protect
Canadian culture.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with
this government Canadian culture is nothing more than a few flags
or subsidies.
Let us revisit for a moment the heritage minister's words on
Bill C-55: “We intend to win this fight because it is an
important fight for Canada. This is not just about magazines, it
is about a country's capacity to protect and promote their own
culture. We must not back down to threats by the Americans”.
Why did the government back down?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a better deal than we ever expected to have. The
minister did a great job. She came to the House, she showed her
determination and everybody in Canada was asking us for a fair
deal. This is a very good deal and I am very proud of it.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Canadian Heritage said “If we back down on the magazine
issue, tomorrow it will be softwood lumber, the day after it will
be steel. We must not back down to threats by the Americans”.
The minister has backed down. She has failed. She has lost the
respect of the Canadian people and the very industry she was
supposed to protect.
Can the minister explain why she agreed to sell out Canadian
culture so easily?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we did not back down. We have an agreement. From
the beginning of the process we have always said that if we can
reach an agreement with the Americans, if they put something on
the table that is reasonable, if they recognize the right of
Canada to protect its culture, an agreement is far preferable to
either the WTO or a trade war.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Canadian Heritage has failed. She has failed to convince her
cabinet colleagues, she has failed to support the Canadian
magazine industry and she has failed to support Canadian culture
against the U.S.
In light of these failures, is the Prime Minister prepared to
demand her resignation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week it was open season for the Americans on
Canadian magazines. There was not a single law in place to
protect Canada. This week we have managed to secure 82% of the
magazine market for Canada. I say that is a win for Canadian
magazines. It is a win for the government. Above all, it is a
win for my daughter who will have a chance to read her stories in
her country for the next century.
* * *
1430
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, prior to
1986 the finance minister was a director of a crown corporation
that made money by selling tainted blood, blood which then
infected thousands of Canadians.
As finance minister of the government 12 years later, was this
minister at the table when the decision was made to deny those
same victims compensation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is factually incorrect. I was a
director of the Canada Development Corporation. Connaught
Laboratories was a subsidiary of a subsidiary of the Canada
Development Corporation. Each of the companies had their own
independent boards of directors.
As I have already stated, I have no recollection of any
discussions at the CDC board level on this matter. As a matter
of fact this has been discussed by my office with a number of
other directors and they have no recollection of the matter being
discussed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
question remains: Was he at the table when the decision was made
to deny compensation to the pre-1986 victims of tainted blood?
That is the first question.
The second question is this. I think Canadians want to get to
the bottom of this as does the Prime Minister and the minister
himself. Would the Prime Minister ask the ethics counsellor,
Howard Wilson, to investigate this matter and report back to
parliament, not to the Prime Minister, and clear the air on this
once and for all?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these are the same people who were supposed to introduce
new politics a few years ago, who are now at the level of throwing
dirt, which is the only thing they can do.
The Minister of Finance has said that he does not recall
anything. He has explained the file. These people do not seem
to have anything substantial to do but to try to tarnish the
reputation of a great public servant.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister
of Finance has explained, he was a member of the board of the
Canada Development Corporation in the early 1980s. This
corporation owned Connaught, which was heavily implicated in the
tainted blood scandal.
When the minister was involved in the cabinet's decision not to
recognize any responsibility to victims prior to 1986, was he
aware that he was putting himself in a delicate position?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how
was I supposed to give notification of an event of which I had
no recollection?
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when it comes
to maritime shipping, we are told that the Minister of Finance
withdrew from discussions in order to not be in a conflict of
interest.
In the matter of the tainted blood, why did the minister not
withdraw from cabinet discussions? Is the code of ethics
different when tainted blood is concerned rather than shipping?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to respond.
The Minister of Finance has clearly told this House—and there is
a code of honour that applies here—that he does not recall ever
having discussed this with anyone whatsoever under any
circumstances whatsoever.
It was therefore impossible for him to notify us of something of
which he had no knowledge. This is so clear to me that I wonder
why the opposition is wasting its time.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, NATO is planning on beefing its force in the former
Yugoslavia to 50,000 troops. The defence minister is continually
sending mixed messages as to whether or not we are going to
participate in that troop involvement prior to a peace agreement.
My question is very simple. Is Canada going to send troops into
this force in advance of a peace agreement, yes or no?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear on many
occasions that there are no plans by Canada or any other country
to send in ground troops prior to a peace agreement being
reached. That has clearly been the plan of NATO and that is the
plan that we continue to operate under.
Meanwhile, we are sending over 800 troops to pre-position them
in Macedonia to be ready when they are able to go into Kosovo as
part of a peacekeeping mission.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we know that the government does not have a plan. It is
continually following on the tails of the Americans.
There have been serious accusations on the part of the auditor
general and the department of defence saying that the equipment
our soldiers have to engage in this is less than adequate. How
can the minister tell the House that he is confident in the
capabilities of our soldiers and their equipment when they do not
have the equipment to do the job?
1435
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what an insult to the fine dedicated men
and women of the Canadian forces.
When I was over in Brussels I met with General Short who is the
head of the NATO air campaign. He called our people first
teamers. Do members know why are they first teamers? It is
because they do an excellent job, are well trained and have
excellent equipment. They are amongst his first teams.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
delayed revealing his groundfish plan, thereby creating
the problems experienced in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
This year, we are approaching June, and the department has yet
to reveal its fishing plan.
Did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not learn his lesson
last year? And if he did, why is he not acting and making public
his fishing plan for the season, which is to start shortly?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the details will be provided to the hon. member and
to all other members and fishers by the end of the month.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister says “by the end of the month”, but it
would appear that the groundfish have arrived ahead of the
minister.
I would, nevertheless, like to add that this same minister, who
has just said that his fishing plan will, all being well, be
tabled by the end of the month, is currently buying back
groundfish licences.
On what basis is he buying them back, since at the moment,
nobody yet knows what approach he will take in fishing this
year? Does he know where he is headed in the licence buyback and
does he know where he is headed with fishing in the future?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the fishing licence buyback program was established
following a number of years of consultations with fishers and
members of the Bloc, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party
and other parties.
This policy is well known, but if the member is not familiar
with it, I can provide him with the details.
* * *
[English]
FRASER RIVER PORT AUTHORITY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1996 and 1997 the Fraser River Harbour Commission, a
now defunct federal agency stuffed to the gills with Liberal
hacks, donated $4,820 to the Liberal Party of Canada.
We do not yet know what the harbour commission donated in 1998
but we understand that its successor, the new Fraser River Port
Authority, purchased a table at the Minister of Finance's
Vancouver fundraiser.
Does the Minister of Transport believe that it is proper for
public entities to financially support the Liberal Party of
Canada with public money?
The Speaker: The question is out of order. If the hon.
minister wants to answer he may.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
report he tabled yesterday, the environment commissioner showed
very clearly that, to all intents and purposes, control of toxic
substances, including pesticides, was non existent.
The situation has considerable import for public health, and
more particularly, the health of children, who are most at risk.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How long do we have to
wait before he reacts and proposes powerful means of eliminating
toxic substances?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has demonstrated that it
is very concerned about the management of toxic substances in our
environment.
In the last two budgets we committed over $82 million to the
research and management of toxic substances. Bill C-32, the
renewed Canadian Environmental Protection Act, will go further in
protecting our environment. We will be able to analyze 23,000
substances currently in use in the country and use prevention
planning to eliminate them. We will use virtual elimination to
get rid of the most toxic substances.
* * *
FOREST PRODUCTS
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources.
There is a worldwide campaign of misinformation directed at the
purchasing of Canadian lumber products, especially those from
British Columbia.
What is the government doing to counteract this unwarranted
attack on the Canadian forestry industry that has the potential
of putting tens of thousands of forestry workers' jobs at risk?
1440
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best forestry
practices in all the world. We owe apologies to no one.
Where we can do better we will. We are employing resources and
measures to make sure that we do so. We will always defend
partial or inadequate information about Canadian forestry
practices and we will do so very aggressively.
Last week I headed a Canadian delegation that went before the
Council of Europe to make sure that European parliamentarians
understood that Canadian forestry practices are among the best if
not the best in the entire world.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
thanks for that infomercial.
A convicted heroin dealer, sentenced to eight years in prison,
was granted a refugee hearing by the Supreme Court of Canada. The
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could have declared this
convicted heroin dealer a danger to the public. She did not. Now
he may well be granted refugee status.
Does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration believe that a
convicted heroin dealer is a good candidate for refugee status in
Canada?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this country we follow
the rule of law. We also respect our international obligations
according to the Geneva convention. This is exactly what we are
doing in this case.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I guess the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is
saying that it is okay for a convicted heroin dealer to be
granted refugee status here when she could have taken action.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has recently announced that he
was going to be cracking down on drug trafficking. He has
described illicit drugs like heroin as the quintessential human
security challenge. However, his cabinet colleague, the Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration, does not feel it is necessary to
step in when a convicted heroin dealer may be about to receive
refugee status.
Which minister is speaking for the government: the so-called
hard on drugs minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the
soft on thugs minister, the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that in our
situation we have all the tools necessary not to admit people who
are convicted of criminality in this country. We have all these
tools. More than that, when we passed legislation in the House
to help us to achieve this goal the Reform Party voted against
it. Now it is asking us to act. It is clear that we will act.
* * *
BILL C-55
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Margaret
Atwood once said, in the wake of the signing of the free trade
agreement, that it is fitting that Canada has as a national
symbol the humble beaver, the animal which when cornered bites
off its own testicles and hands them to his adversaries.
I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage is this not exactly what
her government has done today with Bill C-55?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I trust that question was not directed to the hard
on crime minister.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Dartmouth.
1445
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you for that
answer. Mr. Speaker, I have one more question and it deserves a
more serious response.
Is there anyone on the government side of the House, the
ministers of culture, trade, environment, anyone, who is willing
to stand up and just say no to the Americans?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on a serious note, I respect the fact the member has
posed a very serious question.
With this bill for the first time in the history of this country
we are going to have certainty for the long term for the Canadian
magazine industry. For the first time the Americans have agreed
in an international agreement to respect Canadian content. That
was an unprecedented pill for the Americans to swallow. The fact
that we have this agreement is a win for Canadian culture into
the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Where in this agreement are the cultural protection and
exemption she has mentioned so often? With the agreement
announced this morning, the spirit and the letter of Bill C-55
have died.
Will the minister promise to recall Bill C-55 from the Senate and
introduce a completely new bill in the House?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can understand that the Progressive Conservative
members are a bit embarrassed.
When we introduced Bill C-55 in the House, approximately half of
them voted against it. Now they are here to support it.
I hope that, when amendments are introduced in the Senate on
Monday, they will have the courage to admit that we are now
protecting 82% of the Canadian advertising market for Canadian
magazines. And I hope that those who voted against Bill
C-55 at the outset will support this policy, which guarantees
Canadian content in Canada in the future.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, if
that is what we have to show for cultural protection and
exemption on the eve of WTO negotiations, it is very dangerous.
The minister has used parliament and the other place to
negotiate with the Americans.
Will she at least have the decency to recall Bill C-55 so that
we can have a full debate in this place? Otherwise, she should
kiss her cabinet colleagues goodbye.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, although I do not agree with the Reform Party's
anticultural policy, I see that they are all of one mind.
The Progressive Conservative members were half for and half
against Bill C-55.
On Monday in the Senate, amendments will be introduced that
will preserve Canadian content, provide financial assistance to the
Canadian magazine industry and, for the first time in the
history of the United States, recognize that cultural protection
is a vested right of Canadians.
This is a step forward for Canada and I hope that the member
will be in the House next week—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, recently in the House we have had a couple of great
progress reports on aboriginal self-government negotiations in
western Canada. There are quite a few aboriginal communities and
nations in the province of Quebec. I would like the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development to tell us what if any
negotiations are going on for aboriginal self-government in my
province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to be in
Quebec City a week ago to sign a framework agreement among the
Micmac of Gespeg, the province of Quebec and the Government of
Canada.
[English]
This shows clearly that we can work together to improve the
self-reliance of first nations in Quebec and in Canada.
I would like to recognize the hard work and the vision of the
Micmac of Gespeg and to say that, as is consistent with Gathering
Strength, the Government of Canada will continue to work with
them toward an agreement in principle on self-government and then
a final agreement.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Revenue Canada has moved processing of income tax
returns from Ottawa to Shawinigan. On several occasions members
of the official opposition asked the Minister of National Revenue
how many jobs were moved to Shawinigan.
Twice the minister told us that only one job was transferred. We
know that this year 723,000 returns were moved from Ottawa to
Shawinigan. Is that not a lot of returns for only one person?
1450
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that members of the
Reform Party bring this issue up. Why are they not saying that
processing all the applications at the immigration office in
Vegreville is wrong? Why do they not say it is wrong where we
process applications in the rest of the country? Why is it only
in Shawinigan?
Obviously they are not interested in efficiency. They are not
interested in making sure that we operate in the best possible
way to provide the best service to Canadians. We will continue
to do so to make sure that we provide service to Canadians across
the country, everywhere from coast to coast.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-77
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, whether it is with regard to regional transit by bus or
urban transit, Bill C-77 creates major problems in Quebec.
I realize that the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for
the greater Toronto area, made promises to his Ontario
counterpart.
However, considering the serious impact of Bill C-77 in Quebec,
does the minister not realize that the only option is to delete
from his bill the whole part that has to do with the
deregulation of bus transportation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, amendments to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act are being
considered. This bill is the result of five years of
consultations with the provinces. The hon. member may have
amendments to propose, which is why legislation is debated here
in the House of Commons.
I believe there is strong support for the proposed measures
across the country, including in the province of Quebec.
* * *
FISHERIES
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this year the early spring resulted in a disastrous herring
fishery in southeastern New Brunswick. Hundreds of fishers and
plant workers are affected. These are the same people who find
themselves without income year after year because of the
employment insurance cuts.
It is one thing for a herring not to follow the calendar, but it
is quite another thing for a minister not to realize that a
season can start earlier than usual.
Can the minister explain to us why he did not listen to the
fishers, and will he in future allow his department to have a
flexible date to allow for an early opening of the spring herring
fishery?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the herring fishery area in question,
it is rare to have substantial landings before May 1. The
fishery did open in late April.
The fishery certainly appears to be down. There are fluctuations
in fisheries which occur for natural reasons. We will be
following this closely as we go along. We obviously are
concerned about it, as is the hon. member. I think she should
recognize that at the present time we have to wait until we get
more results from the fishery before we can conclude what
measures might be taken in whatever area.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the wagons are
circling among eager Liberal backbenchers to protect the Prime
Minister. Debbie Weinstein has spoken freely to the media about
the Prime Minister's blind trust, yet the Liberals have done
everything to keep her from answering questions from
parliamentarians.
Will the Prime Minister tell us why his trustee is allowed to
speak to the media but not to elected parliamentarians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has acted perfectly properly in these
matters. The hon. member is trying to bring to the floor of the
House during question period something that happened during a
hearing of a parliamentary committee. I think that is quite
contrary to our rules and practices.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific.
I understand that he was recently in Pakistan where he met with
his counterpart. Was the secretary of state able to raise the
issue of the arrest of the leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim
community in Pakistan?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about religious
persecution in Pakistan. On my recent trip to south Asia, in
Islamabad particularly, I raised the concern with the minister of
state for foreign affairs as well as with the minister of
justice, law and human rights, Mr. Anwar.
We expressed our serious concern and asked them to look into the
matter.
* * *
1455
ARTS AND CULTURE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the heritage minister.
There has been a lot of talk recently about the National Film
Board being censored by a person who is the subject of one of the
board's films, something about a custodian. I want to know why
the minister did not stand up for the National Film Board. Why
did she not protect Canadian filmmakers' rights to freedom of
expression?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again the Reform Party has to make up its mind. Last
week Reformers were accusing me of personally making decisions
about every film that was made under the Canada Council. This
week they are telling me that I should intervene to protect the
editorial content of the NFB. The NFB and the Canada Council are
arm's length organizations. I do not think politicians should be
deciding what is art.
* * *
[Translation]
MARIJUANA
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by voting
heavily in favour of my motion on the legalization of marijuana
for therapeutic purposes, this House has clearly demonstrated
its desire to move quickly in order to bring relief to patients
in need of this drug.
Today, everyone is asking the same question: when will the
Minister of Health table his calendar of clinical trials so that
this drug may be legalized as quickly as possible?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what
was passed yesterday by the House of Commons was the amendment
proposed by the government.
As I have made perfectly clear, we intend to act soon. Before
this House breaks in June, in fact, I intend to table the
details of the research we are going to propose.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we know that the government has
much difficulty in dealing with the Americans when it comes to
protecting Canadians' interests.
My question is for the fisheries minister. We understand from
British Columbia and the coastal communities on the west coast
that a Pacific salmon treaty deal is very near. Can he assure
the House that that deal will indeed take into consideration the
interests of coastal communities on the west coast? Will it
protect the interests of northern and southern fishermen in
British Columbia?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question,
absolutely. In response to the second question, absolutely. In
response to the third question, absolutely.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, no ordinary
person can meet with their local MP and get $600,000 of
taxpayers' money with no questions asked. No ordinary person can
summon well connected Liberals to squeeze another $100,000 from
the government.
The questions mount, but the Prime Minister's non-answers
persist. If the Prime Minister wants Canadians to trust him, why
will he not release every single document related to these shady
hotel deals, or will he continue to let the industry committee
chair fight his battles for him?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing shady about
this transaction.
There is the access to information law. All information could
be accessed quite easily if the member bothered to do his job
seriously.
The Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, has absolutely
done his job to promote employment in his region.
I can tell the hon. member that the transactions were absolutely
kosher, absolutely acceptable, and they were approved by everyone
else in the region.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
by Revenue Canada's own numbers, it takes 140 people to process
723,000 returns.
Why does the minister engage in smoke and mirrors whenever we
ask a question about Shawinigan? Would the minister like to
revise his earlier numbers which said there is only one person
involved in processing 723,000 claims?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the member does not listen very
well.
1500
First, the member from Calgary asked if we had moved hundreds of
jobs in Ottawa. I stood and said that we had moved one job.
Obviously the hon. member does not understand the difference
between moving people and processing tax returns.
I want to tell the hon. member that we will ensure that we
provide the best possible services in a way that is efficient and
cost effective to all Canadians.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Tota Singh, Minister of
Education for Punjab, India.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
BILL C-55
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, earlier today I saw on television two ministers of
the crown who referred to each other throughout the announcement
as Sheila and Sergio. They indicated that the government had
decided to significantly change the content and the operation of
Bill C-55.
They said that the Senate would be sending the bill back to the
House of Commons next week for alteration. It appears that the
Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister for International
Trade are part of the Senate public relations team.
May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, as to whether you have received
notification of the intention of the government to make
ministerial statements either today or tomorrow concerning Bill
C-55? I know the Chair will agree that any—
The Speaker: It is out of order to ask the Speaker any
questions. The hon. member might want to wait until Thursday to
find out the order of business.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during question period I raised a question regarding the
disbursement of public funds and was ruled out of order for doing
so. The business of the House is to consider how public money is
spent. By what criteria did you shut me down?
The Speaker: I refer the hon. member to citation 410,
subsection (17).
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands
asked a question of the Minister of Transport that dealt directly
with the role of the minister in his capacity as the keeper of
the gate, so to speak, for a crown corporation. That crown
corporation—
1505
The Speaker: With all due respect to my hon. colleague,
the opposition whip, I made a decision. I referred to the rule.
I would refer him to the rule. I consider the matter closed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association on the meeting held in London between March 7 and 9,
1999 on the occasion of a meeting with the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present,
in both official languages, another report on the meeting which
took place with the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development on behalf of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade.
In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, April 30,
1999, your committee has considered Bill S-22, an act authorizing
the United States to preclear travellers and goods in Canada for
entry into the United States for the purposes of customs,
immigration, public health, food inspection and plant and animal
health, and has agreed on Tuesday, May 25, 1999, to report the
bill without amendment.
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 20, 1999,
your committee has considered Bill C-79, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another act in consequence,
and has agreed to report it without amendment.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would ask the indulgence of the House. I will not be in the
House tomorrow to introduce my private member's bill. I would
respectfully request unanimous consent to introduce it today.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River have unanimous consent of the House to
proceed with the introduction of his bill at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-513, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(conditional sentencing).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank all hon. members present this
afternoon and my hon. colleague from Calgary Northeast for
seconding the bill.
1510
Conditional sentencing was introduced in the 35th parliament in
Bill C-41. Since that time over 18,000 conditional sentences
have been handed down. Most of these sentences are for petty
crimes. However, many have been handed down for crimes as
serious as sexual assault, manslaughter, drunk driving and drug
trafficking.
In 1997 the B.C. Court of Appeal stated in a decision regarding
conditional sentencing that “if parliament had intended to
exclude certain offences from consideration it should have done
so in clear language”.
My bill does exactly that. It lists the offences to be excluded
from any possibility of receiving a conditional sentence.
Canadian victims and their families have been wronged and in many
cases revictimized by sentences that do not reflect the crime. We
have an opportunity to correct this mistake and prove that the
justice system is meant to protect Canadians and punish criminals
and not the reverse.
A recent national poll states that 84% of Canadians are in
favour of the bill, so I encourage all members of the House to
support the bill and the overwhelming majority of Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
PROTECTION OF ANIMALS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present on behalf of my constituents and
people in the broader area of Toronto and Hamilton a petition
addressed to the House of Commons.
It calls on parliament to enact animal protection legislation
that provides for the abrogation of any part of the Criminal Code
which reduces animals to the status of property, that provides
for the imposition of sanctions upon those convicted of cruelty
to animals in a variety of ways, and that provides for the
severest penalties when crimes against animals are committed for
the purpose of financial gain.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present. The first bears 26 signatures.
The petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation such
as Bill C-225 so as to define in statute that a marriage can only
be entered into between a single male and a single female.
EUTHANASIA
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, bears 750 signatures. It deals with
suicide or euthanasia.
The petitioners call upon parliament not to repeal or amend
section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada of September 30, 1993, to
disallow assisted suicide or euthanasia.
PESTICIDES
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present the following petition
from Mount Royal riding constituents concerned with the use of
chemical pesticides for cosmetic purposes, that is for use on
lawns and golf courses as an example.
The petitioners believe that an immediate moratorium on these
products should be enacted until it has scientifically been
proven that these chemicals are safe and do not affect the water
or the lives and health of our children.
[Translation]
PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure of tabling in this House a petition bearing the
signatures of 155 people from the riding of Drummond.
This petition reads as follows: “We, the undersigned, residents
of the Province of Quebec, call the following to the attention
of the House:
“Whereas the elimination of taxes on sports millionaires is of
considerable concern to us; whereas our representatives in the
House of Commons have both the responsibility and the duty to
pass legislation that will maintain fiscal balance among all
Canadians and ensure, first and foremost, a basic income to the
most disadvantaged;
“Therefore, we present to parliament a petition entitled `No to
the abolition of taxes on sports millionaires' and request that
members of parliament pass the measures needed to ensure greater
fairness in Canada for taxpayers.”
HOUSING IN NUNAVIK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table a petition from the Inuit community of
Salluit in Nunavik.
1515
According to the petitioners, between 16 and 23 people are
living in three bedroom dwellings during the winter in Salluit.
The Inuit find the housing conditions in Nunavik extremely
distressing. They consider the situation totally intolerable. It
contributes to the high incidence of tuberculosis, infectious
diseases and social problems.
The federal government must assume its obligations under the
James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement on housing in Nunavik.
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition signed by
hundreds of Canadians from across the country on the critical
issue of health care facing all citizens of Canada.
The petitioners call upon the government to recognize that the
Canada Health Act must reign supreme, that the principles of that
act must be seen as paramount and that the government must do
everything in its power to guarantee national standards of
quality, publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen
as a right.
ANIMAL ABUSE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to stand
once again on behalf of petitioners from Quebec, Ontario, New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., Newfoundland, the prairie
provinces, British Columbia and the territories.
The petitioners point out that while the Criminal Code imposes
serious sentences on people who abuse animals in a variety of
ways, judges, by and large, do not take cruelty to animals too
seriously in terms of the record. Therefore, the petitioners
call upon the Government of Canada to impose harsher penalties
for serious offences against animals and to establish an
education program for judges to help them understand society's
abhorrence and condemnation of acts of cruelty to animals.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another petition from
petitioners from British Columbia.
The petitioners state that at some point during the production
of child pornography either a child or children have been
victimized, that child pornography hurts children, that it can
never be justified and that the possession of child pornography
perpetuates the production of children pornography.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to
recognize that Canadians reject the legalization of the
possession of child pornography and ask the government to
intervene on this matter to establish and strengthen laws
relating to the possession of child pornography to ensure that it
will never be legalized.
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition concerning
trade. The concern of the petitioners is that there seems to be
growing pressure to export fresh water from Canada. They are
very concerned and call upon parliament to do whatever is
necessary to safeguard the future of fresh water in Canada.
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from citizens from across New
Brunswick, from Fredericton, Shediac, Cap-Pelé and Robichaud.
The petitioners are very upset about Bill C-78, the pension
bill. They would like to see it stopped. They are very upset
about the $30 billion that the government is taking from them.
We must remember that these petitioners are the same people who
are experiencing no satisfaction because the government will not
recognize pay equity, so they are falling into the same group.
It is a pleasure to introduce this petition with hundreds of
names of workers and retirees who are very upset.
IMPOVERISHED NATIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition on behalf of citizens of Peterborough who
believe it is time to cancel the unpayable debts of the most
impoverished nations.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to cancel the
debts owed to it by the 50 most impoverished nations by the year
2000. They also call upon the Government of Canada to urge the
the lending countries at the upcoming G-8 summit in Cologne to
cancel the backlog of debt owed by the 50 most impoverished
nations by the year 2000.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to urge these
leaders to take effective steps to prevent high levels of debt
from building up again by promoting sustainable economic and
social development instead of supporting measures demanded by
international financial institutions that erode health care,
education and the environment, further impoverishing the poorest
populations of the world.
* * *
1520
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 121, 123 and
189.
.[Text]
Question No. 121—Mr. Mike Scott:
Could the government provide a complete list of all reserves in
Canada that showed a deficit or an accumulated debt on their last
band audit?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Nothern
Development, Lib.): The government could not provide such a list
given that the financial statements of first nations and their
organizations are mandatorily protected by paragraph 20(1)(b) of
the Access to Information Act. In addition, a federal court
decision of June 27, 1985 judged that information regarding
Indian moneys was confidential and not subject to release by the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
First Nations are required to make their audited financial
statements available to members of their community. Officials of
the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cannot
release the audited financial statements because of the third
party nature of the audit.
Individuals interested in reviewing a first nation`s audit can
contact the chief and council to request it. It is up to the chief
and council whether they wish to disclose audits to non-band
members.
Question No. 123—Mr. Mike Scott:
Could the government provide a complete list of Jack Anawak's,
Interim Commissioner of Nunavut, travel expenses from January
1996 to the present including: (a) the destination; (b) the
number and names of the staff that attended; (c) the total cost
of travel; (d) the name and cost of accomodation; (e) whether
the spouse attended and at whose cost; (f) the name of the
airline used; (g) the cost of the flight for each individual;
(h) the ticket class for each individual; (i) the name of
restaurants attended; and (j) the cost of meals for each
individual?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): The travel expenses information being
requested is not in the possession of the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development. The information is in the
possession of the Office of the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
undertakes to exercise her authority under section 71 of the
Nunavut Act to direct the Interim commissioner to supply the hon.
member for Skeena with travel expenses information being
requested that is in the possession of his office.
Question No. 189—Mr. John Cummins:
With regard to the herring spawn-on-kelp fishery and the response to the
directive of the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladstone that a new trial be
held to establish the extent of licences that ought to be available to the
Heiltsuk band: (a) how many spawn-on-kelp licences were in existence in
1996, 1997 and 1998, and how many of these were held by non-natives; how
many were held by the Heiltsuk band, and how many were held by individual
Heiltsuk band members; (b) is the government currently negotiating with
aboriginal groups in regard to the nature and extent of their claim to an
aboriginal right to commercially harvest spawn-on-kelp, and if so, name the
aboriginal groups; (c) how many and on what basis were additional licences
issued to the Heiltsuk in 1997 and 1998; were they issued to accommodate an
aboriginal right; what is the limit of the Heiltsuk aboriginal right; how
many licences are required to satisfy that right; what evidence was
considered in making that decision; was any effort made to determine what
the limit of aboriginal commercial right is and how many licences were
required to accommodate that right; (d) what role did the threat of
disruption of the fishery by the Heiltsuk play in the decision to provide
additional licenses in 1997 and 1998; how many additional spawn-on-kelp
licences were issued to the Heiltsuk; is there a plan to issue further
licenses to the Heiltsuk or other aboriginal groups; and (e) what was the
extent (in pounds) of Heiltsuk food allocations for spawn-on-kelp in 1997
and 1998; what is the number of Heiltsuk band members; have annual reviews
of the possible extent of illegal sales of these food allocations been
undertaken; and what were the findings and recommendations of these
reviews?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by the
Departments of fisheries and Oceans and Indian Affairs and
Northern Development as follows:
(a) The number and status of spawn-on-kelp licences for 1996 to
1998 is the following:
All Heiltsuk licences are issued to the Heiltsuk Tribal Council,
not to individuals. First Nations people participate in both
commercial and communal fisheries.
(b) No, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, is not
negotiating with aboriginal groups regarding the nature and
extent of the claim to an aboriginal right to commercially
harvest spawn-on-kelp.
(c) The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Gladstone decision,
1996, found that the Heiltsuk tribal Council had an
unextinguished aboriginal right to trade herring spawn-on-kelp on
a commercial basis. While the court held that there was no
internal limit on this right, it stated that external limitations
could be placed on the exercise of the right and that the right
did not provide exclusivity of priority. Some guidance was
provided on matters that might be considered to determine whether
the external limitations were justified. As part of aboriginal
fisheries strategy, AFS, discussions DFO consulted with the
Heiltsuk on the number of licences to be issued for the 1997 and
1998 seasons. In accordance with the agreement reached, six
licences were issued to the Heiltsuk Tribal Council for the 1997
season and nine for the 1998 fishing season. The agreement,
however, does not define aboriginal rights or their extent.
(d) Licences were issued to the Heiltsuk Tribal Council on the
basis of negotiations, not in response to threats or other
actions. The Heiltsuk were issued a total of six licences in
1997 and nine licences in 1998. In 1999 a total of nine licences
will again be issued to the Heiltsuk Tribal Council. There are
no plans to issue spawn-on-kelp licences to any other group.
(e) The Heiltsuk food allocation for 1997 and 1998 was 440
tonnes of herring, whole fish, per year. This allocation can
also be taken as spawn-on-kelp. The estimated equivalent weight
for spawn-on-kelp is approximately 200,000 pounds of product.
The total registered population for the Heiltsuk First Nation is
2,014. There is no annual review of the possible extent of
illegal sales of the Heiltsuk food allocation. There is,
however, ongoing enforcement in all fisheries.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the fact that Question No. 189 was answered
today. I just want to point out to the parliamentary secretary
that the last time I asked about questions he said that answers
were running at about 78% on time. With respect to the questions
that I asked it has taken, on average, 127 days to answer. I
think that is unreasonable.
I have two questions outstanding and I would surely like to have
them answered before parliament rises. They are matters that
should have been dealt with by the government a long time ago. We
are talking about things that occurred back in 1992-93. There was
a commission of inquiry report in 1997 on these matters and the
auditor general reported on them in 1999, so I am not too sure
why the questions have not been answered. I would like to see
those answers.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have
responded to at least some of the member's requests. As I have
explained before, some questions involve inquiries of every
department of government and in some cases twice. We go to one
department and then another, and that requires us to go back to
the other. However, I assure the member that I am looking after
his remaining questions.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of
Papers No. P-39 in the name of the hon. member for Skeena.
That an Order of the House do issue copies of the most recent
band audits at all reserves in Canada that showed a deficit or an
accumulated debt on their last band audit.
In dealing with this motion
I would point out that the financial statements of first nations
and their organizations are mandatorily protected by paragraph
20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. Portions are
mandatorily protected under subsection 19(1) which protects
personal information.
In addition, a federal court decision of June 27, 1985 judged
that information regarding Indian moneys was confidential and not
subject to release by the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
First nations are required to make their audited financial
statements available to members of their community. Officials of
the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cannot
release the audited financial statements because of the third
party nature of the audit.
Individuals interested in reviewing a first nations audit can
contact the chief and council to request it. It is up to the
chief and council whether they wish to disclose audits to
non-band members.
I therefore request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.
The Deputy Speaker: I see that the hon. member for Skeena
is not here. In the circumstances, I wonder if it might be
appropriate to withhold the request to withdraw until the hon.
member could be present and we could deal with the matter then.
Clearly, he has certain rights in the circumstances to accept the
parliamentary secretary's explanation or request that the matter
be transferred for debate. I think it might be more appropriate
if we wait until the hon. member is here, if that is agreeable to
the parliamentary secretary.
Is that agreed?
Mr. Peter Adams: Agreed.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like Motion No. P-54 to be called.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents,
reports, memos, letters, correspondence, minutes of meetings, and
notes used by the government to substantiate its claim that the
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board is responsible for driving
down drug prices.
The Deputy Speaker: I call Motion P-54. The motion is
transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of
Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that all remaining Notices
of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1525
[English]
BANK ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-67, an act to
amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act and
other acts relating to financial institutions and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third
time? Now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure
to present Bill C-67 for third and final reading in the House of
Commons.
The legislation before us would allow foreign banks to establish
branch operations in Canada.
[Translation]
The idea is to increase competition in our banking sector. This
should help increase sources of funding for small and medium
size businesses, and certain types of consumer loans.
Competition will be greater because for many foreign banks the
establishment of a Canadian branch will be more profitable than
the current system. A branch could use the funds of its parent
bank to finance its loan operations in Canada, while foreign
bank subsidiaries must use separate funds.
This bill will also make the Canadian system compatible with
that of the other OECD countries, with the exception of Mexico.
[English]
Let me briefly summarize what we are now proposing in this
legislation and how it will meet our goal of enhanced competition
in Canada.
Currently, foreign banks can take retail deposits in Canada by
setting up a fully regulated subsidiary corporation here. Under
this new regime this option is going to remain open to them, but
in order to give these foreign banks greater flexibility with
respect to their lending operations in Canada this bill proposes
two branching operations, either a full service branch or a
lending branch. The full service branch would be entitled to
take deposits of greater than $150,000, whereas a lending branch
could not take any deposits, large or small.
The benefit of offering two branching options is that the level
of regulatory requirements can be tailored to match the banks'
activities in Canada. Since lending branches would not be taking
deposits of any sort they would face fewer regulatory
requirements than would full service branches.
I believe that these measures will help foreign banks to enter
our current market and will help the 45 foreign banks that are
currently here to expand their existing operations.
Bill C-67 contains a number of technical changes to the
financial institutions statutes.
[Translation]
The proposed system is the result of extensive consultations.
The idea of establishing a branch system came up during the
consultations that preceded the 1997 review of the legislation
governing financial institutions.
1530
At the time, the House and Senate finance committees had
published reports recommending that the government allow foreign
banks to establish branch operations in Canada.
Later, the Minister of Finance released a consultation paper and
consulted all stakeholders extensively. This consultation paper
was examined by the House and Senate committees, as well as the
MacKay task force. These three groups supported the bill.
In fact, throughout our consultations we found broad support
among stakeholders, including SMBs, Canadian banks and
especially foreign banks for the establishment of foreign bank
branches.
[English]
We tabled this bill on February 11 in the House. Since then it
has gone through second reading and before the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Finance, which was a couple of weeks back,
we introduced a few amendments. These amendments were the result
of consultations we had had between the time the bill was
actually tabled and when it went before committee.
I would like to go through some of these amendments briefly.
They came about as a result of extensive consultations and
working very closely with our banking community. There are five
I want to talk about.
First, as I have mentioned, full service branches will not be
able to take deposits of under $150,000. This was intended to
ensure that only sophisticated depositors would be making these
deals with the foreign banks. As the hon. member of the NDP
opposite knows very well as he is an expert on these things, we
have deposit insurance for retail bank deposits. These deposits
of $150,000 and more are not insured. Therefore we want to
ensure that only sophisticated people make these deposits at the
banks.
We had a de-minimus provision of 1% in place. One per cent of a
branch's total assets could be deposits of less than $150,000.
This is to account for business flexibility, such as if one has
foreign exchange accounts. The foreign bank community pointed
out to us that in most cases this 1% de-minimus would not be
enough. We expanded that amount in order to ensure that they
could operate effectively and in conformity with their commercial
requirements but without causing undue risk or risk to retail
depositors.
The second amendment related to the funding options for lending
branches. The bill allows lending branches to borrow from
financial institutions but it prohibits the subsequent sale of
any debt obligations, bankers acceptance or guarantee issued by
that lending branch. Our amendment would permit these
instruments to be subsequently traded but mainly to other
financial institutions, again to sophisticated buyers.
The third amendment we introduced was to extend the time allowed
for filing of auditor's reports from 60 days to five months. That
is the period allowed for Canadian branches of foreign insurers.
The fourth amendment related to taxes.
We agreed that if a deposit is made in the branch of a foreign
bank here in Canada that for purposes of our pension funds or our
RRSPs this would not be considered a foreign property and
therefore subject to the 20% rule. This makes sense since it is
a branch of a foreign bank that is here in Canada, but it is a
deposit that is made here in Canada and is subject to Canadian
rules.
1535
The fifth change was also a tax change. This was to aid the
transition from the current subsidiary status for the 45 banks
that are here today to the branch format. We have offered a
temporary limited rollover so that the taxes otherwise payable
when a subsidiary corporation is wound up will be deferred until
the funds are actually withdrawn from Canada or the Canadian
operations of the branch are eventually wound up.
Why did we grant this? Because initially we did not give the
option, as we do in every other area of the law almost, for the
foreign banks to enter Canada in the branch form, which is the
accepted mode throughout the world. We insisted that they come
here under the 1980 laws as a subsidiary corporation. We have
changed that. We want to seek a continuity in expansion of
operations of these 45 banks that are here today, rather than
create a disruption and a penalty, so that they can restart
perhaps at a lower level of ongoing Canadian operations.
These changes respond to the informed comment, concerns and
research brought to us. No doubt in the future there will be
more changes that the foreign banks would like to see and that
our Canadian banks would like to see. These will have to wait for
our response to the MacKay task force. It would not be proper to
bring forward benefits for foreign banks which were not available
at the same time to our Canadian banks.
[Translation]
In conclusion, this bill follows through on the commitment to
allow foreign banks to engage in more productive competition in
Canada.
By eliminating pointless regulatory obstacles this bill will
encourage competition in our banking industry. By encouraging
the healthy presence of foreign banks we are ensuring that
Canadians have access to more financing sources.
[English]
We will be getting more competition here. This legislation opens
the door to more competition but without sacrificing the current
level of safeguards for consumers.
The most important thing is that these banks will bring more
activities to Canada. With that comes what is perhaps one of
their biggest contributions to Canada, not just the lending
activities that they carry out, but the expertise. Bankers
trained throughout the world in other systems in other countries
under other regimes know other techniques. When they come to
Canada they bring that expertise with them, expertise which can
benefit not only our consumers and our companies, but their
fellow bankers here in Canada.
I urge the House to move quickly to pass this important
legislation.
Before I sit down, may I beg the indulgence of you, Mr. Speaker
and the House to say thank you to the House of Commons finance
committee and to the Senate banking committee which have studied
these proposals, given us the benefit of their doubt and have
approved them. I thank the House of Commons finance committee
which gave the bill all-party approval.
1540
I also want to thank the Canadian banks. We would think they
would not want to suffer increased competition and increased
capacity of foreign banks coming in here to compete with them.
But no, they said that this is the way of the world. Canada has
to be up to scratch and has to have the most competitive
financial services sector in the world so they will not stand in
the way of competition.
That speaks a great deal about the confidence which our banks
have. It reflects the great success our banks have had in doing
business throughout the world and in providing first rate
services to Canadians which can compare with those of any other
banking sector in the world.
I would like to thank the members of the foreign bank section of
the Canadian Bankers Association who worked with us long before
1997 to develop this foreign branch regime. This group was
initially headed up by Mr. Fred Buhler of the Bank of America who
has since retired and returned to the United States. He did a
great deal of the groundwork in working with finance and in
bringing the foreign banking sector together. For the past year
or so following Mr. Buhler's retirement, although he has still
been available for consultation, this task has been carried out
by Gennaro Stammati of the Banca Commerciale Italiana.
Mr. Stammati has been a great support in bringing to us,
particularly since February 11 of this year, some facts on which
we could make some difficult decisions, the need for the tax
rollovers and things such as that. We have appreciated very much
the spirit of co-operation he has brought to this effort. Mr.
Stammati will be leaving Canada in July to head up BCI's
operations in Paris and we wish him well.
I am very grateful for the support of all members of this House
for this bill. We look forward to its early passage.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to support Bill
C-67, the government's proposal to allow foreign banks to branch
directly in Canada. We can support this change because it is long
overdue. The Liberals have dragged their feet on this issue
which of course is not unusual for that party.
At the World Trade Organization in 1997 the Liberals agreed to
the letting into Canada of subsidiaries of foreign banks by June
1999. Bill C-67 will permit foreign banks to accept deposits of
over $150,000. This means that foreign banks will not be
constructing branches all across Canada and their competition
with domestic financial institutions will be limited.
Let us look into the current banking environment in Canada. The
presence of foreign banks in Canada has been steadily declining.
It has been declining from a 12% share of total banking sector
assets in 1990 to just 10% today. There was a peak of 59 foreign
banks in Canada in 1987 and it was down to 45 in 1998.
Foreign banks cannot currently operate branches directly in
Canada. They must operate as subsidiaries largely unconnected to
the parent bank in terms of capital, governance and accounting.
Bill C-67 proposes a new regime for foreign banks in Canada as
well as some miscellaneous changes to financial sector
regulations.
This proposed legislation would allow foreign banks to operate
as branches of their parent banks with the ability to draw on
parent capital, to make loans and to conduct other banking
business. New full service foreign bank branches will primarily
serve the corporate market. Foreign banks that want to take
retail deposits, that is deposits below $150,000, will still have
the option of establishing a separate subsidiary in Canada.
New lending branches will not be permitted to accept deposits or
borrow except from other financial institutions.
1545
It is hoped these foreign banks will serve as sources of funds
for both small businesses and credit card users. Both full
service and lending branches will be allowed access to Canada's
clearing and settlement system with the approval of the Bank of
Canada.
As I understand it, changes to the Income Tax Act to place these
new foreign banks in a comparable tax position to Canadian
resident banks will be introduced as future legislation.
I would like to briefly explain why we support Bill C-67. The
Reform Party supports allowing foreign banks to set up branches
in Canada to provide more choice in banking for consumers and
businesses as well as to allow for the offsetting of reduced
domestic competition created by any future Canadian bank mergers.
As the hon. member said, direct foreign bank branching is the
norm in most other countries. The Liberals have been promising
the same for Canada since February 1997. The Liberals'
introduction of Bill C-67 is two years overdue. The government
has been sitting on its hands for two years.
Foreign bank regulations have not been substantially upgraded
since 1980, 20 years ago, when foreign banks were granted the
authority to establish Canadian subsidiaries. We will take what
we can get from the government and take the opportunity to urge
the government to work harder to keep up with other economies in
the world and reform our financial services sector.
The changes proposed in Bill C-67 represent the least that
Canadians want in terms of updates to the regulations governing
foreign banks operating in Canada.
The government is taking a piecemeal approach to financial
services sector reform when broad reform is needed to increase
competition. We regret that but it does not take away from our
support for Bill C-67. Large foreign banks generally would
rather compete electronically but the government has done nothing
about that.
The MacKay task force in September 1998 recommended that foreign
banks should be able to carry on any banking business in Canada
other than, of course, the taking of retail deposits below
$150,000 through branches of the foreign bank as well as through
their subsidiaries.
After reading through Bill C-67, I am convinced that there are
some safeguards for Canadians which I will briefly touch on. The
bill proposes that foreign banks obtain the approval of the
Minister of Finance and the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions before setting up a shop in Canada. That is pretty
good.
The minister must be satisfied that the foreign bank will be in
a position to contribute to Canada's financial system and its
entrance would be in the best interests of the Canadian financial
system. The foreign bank must be a bank in its home country of
sufficient size, experience and financial health and be
satisfactorily regulated in that country.
Authorized foreign banks must establish a customer complaint
procedure with staff located in Canada. The foreign bank must
also disclose to its customers all service charges, fees, the
cost of borrowing, the penalties if there are any, et cetera, to
customers before agreements are entered into.
1550
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI, will be
authorized to seize all assets of a liquidated foreign bank to
satisfy claims of depositors and creditors of the foreign bank
branch in Canada, including going to the parent bank for such
seizures if there need be.
Let us look at the reasons that the Liberals should have brought
this legislation to the House at least two years ago. The
Canadian economy has not had access to as much credit as would
otherwise have been made available by foreign banks, so that
opportunity is lost.
Canadian companies have not had access to the range of products
and services available from foreign banks that would have
assisted them in better managing their business risks and
facilitating growth internationally. Foreign bank competition
will push domestic banks to be more innovative concerning the
kinds and amounts of services they currently provide to
Canadians.
The Canadian financial services industry has not benefited from
learning from the technological developments that foreign banks
provide the industry all over the world. The presence of foreign
banks in our economy would increase the responsiveness and
accountability of domestic banks, which is badly needed.
The domestic financial services industry bears a
disproportionate share of the credit risk associated with the
Canadian economy. Consequently, when major credit events occur,
such as declines in the energy and real estate sectors, the
stress to the domestic financial services industry is
significant. The opportunity is also lost.
While the Canadian government is expending significant resources
to boost the export of Canadian products, the ability of foreign
banks to make the advantages of their global networks available
to all Canadian companies is severely hampered.
In addition, foreign banks are keen to finance Canadian
exporters who target emerging markets around the world, the sort
of risky ventures that Canadian banks often avoid.
Canada has forgone tax revenues at both the federal and
provincial levels due to marginal profitability and constraints
on growth on foreign banks. Such tax revenue could be funding
our beleaguered social programs such as health care and
education.
The average retail banking consumer may not see a direct benefit
from foreign bank branching. However, trickle down benefits are
expected to come to them by way of increased financing to small
and medium size businesses for starting up and/or expanding and
thereby creating more competition in the consumer goods
marketplace.
As foreign bank branches establish in Canada there will be
increased investment in the Canadian economy by way of foreign
banks purchasing goods to run their businesses in Canada, capital
cost expenditures for infrastructure and real estate leasing and
purchasing, among others. This increased investment will
translate into more employment for Canadians.
In conclusion, while we on this side of the House are supporting
Bill C-67 with no resistance at this time because we believe that
the bill is offering advantages to Canadians, we should take the
opportunity to scold the government for its foot dragging on
implementing further changes to the financial services industry
that need to occur.
This includes reforming the ombudsman system in the banking
industry, reducing federal-provincial regulatory overlap and
duplication, and reviewing the taxation regime encountered by
banks with an aim to improving competitiveness in Canada.
As I said earlier, the Liberals agreed to allow foreign banks
into Canada in 1997 as part of a commitment they made at the
World Trade Organization. However, they dragged their feet and
did not introduce legislation until this month, May 1999, which
is the last possible moment that they could have done that.
They did the same with changes to the equalization program.
As we know, the federal government updates the equalization
program every five years.
1555
The Liberals had five years to allow members of the House to
debate the changes. Instead, the Liberals introduced that
legislation into the House at the last possible moment, like this
one, and had to invoke time allocation on that bill in order to
get it passed before the deadline. This is a government that
lacks vision. This is the way organizations proceed when they
have no real long term vision or long term plan.
The Liberals are dragging their feet on changes to our youth
criminal justice system. They have frozen the progress of the
changes to the divorce laws that would give each parent an equal
amount of responsibility for children. I can count a number of
instances like this. They are also way behind in many other
areas where Canadians want changes, including our immigration and
refugee system. Today we heard the minister agreeing to allowing
a criminal, who has been convicted of drug trafficking in this
country, to become a refugee. This will allow him to continue
his drug trade and continue to feed drugs to our children.
Help from the government for our law enforcement agencies, such
as the RCMP in B.C., is very slow, and in returning integrity to
the accounting practices of the Minister of Finance who has been
cooking the books in the country.
The government is lagging behind in many areas of innovation in
the way we govern ourselves. It will not do anything about
leaked House of Commons committee reports. It just wants to
study them. We still do not have televised House of Commons
committees even though it was agreed to by all parties. It is
still dragging its feet and not allowing Canadians to monitor and
educate themselves on what we do in the House.
Bill C-67 should have been passed a few years ago, before our
dollar dropped so severely and before our taxes got higher and
they get higher during every session of parliament under this
government. Those were the days, two years ago, before the Asian
economic melt down, when if we had allowed foreign banks into
Canada then perhaps we might not have suffered in that meltdown.
The government is using incremental policy when it comes to our
financial sector. That means it is doing very little or nothing,
or certainly only what it absolutely must do. This is a shame.
Along with the passage of legislation like Bill C-67 that would
update the laws concerning our financial sector, we would see
improvements in our economy. Our economy could grow. Jobs could
have been created in the country. The Liberals leave the House
with a thin soup legislative agenda and they do as little as
possible.
The government goes as slow as possible and only does something
when it absolutely has to. It has no intention of allowing a
full debate on the legislation introduced in the House. We have
seen 52 motions for closure or time allocation in the House. The
government may also want to apply closure or time allocation on
this bill to ensure it gets passed without exposing too many
secrets that Liberal backbenchers know nothing about. They only
need to know how to vote and the Liberal hierarchy tells them how
to vote.
Yesterday we saw some Liberal backbenchers voting against the
government on Bill C-78 and one member simply sitting on his
hands. That bill will allow the government to take away the $30
billion surplus from the pension plans of our public servants,
our RCMP and our Canadian forces personnel.
The list continues to grow and it goes on and on. This is the
government that looks through the lens of political stripes and
not through the lens of the issues. It should be ashamed.
1600
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
particularly pleased to speak today. I gladly accepted to do so.
Before getting into specifics, I wish to remind the House that
on May 11 the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions acknowledged before the committee that, because of
tax complications in the bill, this initiative had become
practically useless for foreign banks operating in Canada.
In relating what the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions said, I wanted to emphasize the fact
that, improvisation aside, if the government had had a bit more
vision, we might not be here today debating Bill C-67 because
the government would have sent it back to the committee to make
it even better.
Nonetheless, it is with enthusiasm that I speak to this bill,
which deals with the establishment of foreign bank branches in
Canada.
Before explaining the position of the Bloc Quebecois on this
bill, I must say that the attitude of the finance minister shows
he is true to himself. This minister is unable to look at the
big picture with respect to national finances. He has lost all
credibility as our national treasurer, because of both his
budgetary forecasts and his financial achievements.
The Minister of Finance always tries to deal with complex and
general situations using a careless approach and in a piecemeal
fashion.
We will recall how he dealt with the MacKay report on the future
of financial services. The minister decided to ignore the true
issues raised in this massive report and dealt with only one
aspect of the document, bank mergers.
Acting unilaterally, and without waiting to see what would come
out of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance, the
minister took a position on the bank merger issue and, based on
incomplete preliminary data, decided to oppose the merger “for
the time being”, adding that he would see later what could be
done.
The Minister of Finance, who improvises on a daily basis and is
an amateur financier with no strict timeline for his political
agenda, continues along the same line with Bill C-67, an act to
amend the Bank Act. This bill will allow the establishment of
foreign banks.
To have legislation allowing foreign banks to open branches in
Canada without affording any protection to financial
institutions in Quebec and Canada is to open our market without
protecting ourselves. How
reassuring it is to be represented by such a government on the
eve of negotiations with the World Trade Organization.
Like his colleague the minister of agriculture, who weakened
Canada with his recent positions, the Minister of Finance is
about to act incoherently by opening our market against the
interests of our institutions.
Did the finance minister take the time to read the MacKay
report? Is he really aware of the impact of this review? I doubt
it.
Since we are talking about banking systems, I will take a moment
to look at the state of the Canadian banking system.
Out of the 51 Canadian banks that existed in 1874, there were
only 22 left in 1914 and a dozen in 1946. In 1955 the Bank of
Toronto and the Dominion Bank merged to form the TD Bank. In
1956 there was a merger between the Barclay Bank and the
Imperial Bank and in 1961 the merger between the latter and
the Canadian Bank of Commerce gave birth to the CIBC.
In the late 1960s Canada went through a period of intense
economic nationalism and became increasingly concerned about
foreign capital taking control of its economy. In that spirit,
in 1967 a major reform of our banking legislation established
the 10-25 rule, which provides that no individual shareholder can
hold more than 10% of shares in a Canadian bank and non-
Canadians cannot collectively hold more than 25% of shares in
our banks.
1605
Since 1967 the picture of the Canadian banking industry has
basically remained the same, and we still have all the same key
players, the so-called big five. However, there have been a number of
changes in smaller institutions.
Six new banks have been set up in the west, two of which went
bankrupt in 1985. In Quebec, the Provincial Bank took over the
Banques populaires, formely the Banque d'économie du Québec, in
1970, Banque l'Unité in 1976, and the Financière Laurentienne
in 1979 before it merged with the Bank Canadian National to
become the National Bank of Canada, in 1980.
Later on this bank bought the Mercantile Bank in 1985 and in
1987 the Savings Bank became the Laurentian Bank.
In 1988, with the free trade agreement, the limit of 25% foreign
ownership of shares of Canadian banks was abolished for American
residents, and NAFTA granted the same privilege to Mexican
residents.
In 1995 the negotiations of the World Trade Organization, or
WTO, on financial services led to an interim agreement
eliminating in all countries party to the agreement restrictions
on foreign ownership of national businesses. The 25% rule will
be eliminated for good when the agreement is signed, by January
1999. I take this from section 6.2 of the document of the World
Trade Organization.
In March of 1998, there were eight banks in Canada, namely the
Royal Bank—the “big five” as I said earlier—CIBC, the Bank of
Montreal, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the TD Bank, as well as the
National Bank, the Laurentian Bank and the Canadian Western
Bank.
Nowadays we also have in Canada some 50 foreign banks, about
50 trusts, 2,500 credit unions, with nearly 1,700 of these in
Quebec alone, 150 insurance companies and 80 mutual funds.
One has to wonder what the future will hold. Although there may
be as many visions for the future of the Canadian financial
industry as there are experts in the field, there seems to be a
general consensus that new technologies will stir up the
competition through the arrival of both new stakeholders and new
services.
What with globalization, the growth of financial markets from
which Canada and Quebec cannot hide, the ever changing business
world, the rapidly changing needs and lifestyles of the
consumers, today's financial system is facing huge if not
unprecedented challenges.
Given the demand for increased efficiency and competitiveness at
the international level we must react. The future world banking
industry is not yet fully set up, but is starting to take shape.
The future of the Canadian financial sector is up to us. The
decisions we will be making will greatly influence events for
decades to come.
Let us examine the banking system used elsewhere in the world.
There are, of course, no universal formula or general models for
a banking system.
In the United States, there are almost 9,150 different banks.
The five biggest of these manage less than 10% of the total
assets of the financial services industry. Then come 400 banks.
The five biggest of these manage close to 80% of the total
assets of the financial services industry.
Some countries like the Netherlands have opted for universal
banks that can provide every financial service one can imagine:
banking services, securities, insurance, mortgages, et cetera.
1610
Other countries, such as Sweden, appear to favour specialized
niches and companies. Sweden has savings banks, commercial
banks, investment banks, development banks, independent mortgage
societies and brokerage houses, as well as more than 500
different insurance companies which cannot provide both life
insurance and damage insurance. In short, they have a
relatively regulated system with a number of players.
Although each country has developed a banking system peculiar to
it, we note that generally the smaller countries have a more
concentrated banking industry than the larger ones.
In nearly all countries, as well, there is a trend toward
liberalization of the industry, which takes the form of an
unprecedented wave of mergers and acquisitions on the one hand
and a greater decompartmentalization between the various
financial sectors on the other.
Negotiations within the WTO framework accelerated this trend,
which is liable to be accelerated still more by the MAI.
Judging by the extent of the Asian crisis, which most observers
attribute to an opaque and corrupt financial system, there
appears to be a consensus that the solidarity of a banking
system lies primarily in the quality of its regulation. Without
proper and sufficient regulation to supervise and monitor
institutions, and to force transparency, at one point any
country could fall prey to a crisis of confidence which would be
catastrophic to its economy.
The finance minister, like his Liberal colleagues, hastens to
say he consulted various socio-economic stakeholders involved in
this issue. I submit that is pure bunk.
I would like to know if the finance minister consulted the
deputy premier of Quebec before introducing Bill C-67. Was the
president of the Mouvement Desjardins, Claude Béland, consulted?
If so, how?
The analysis of Bill C-67 leads us to the conclusion that this
piece of legislation introduced by the Minister of Finance is an
attack on the know-how and expertise of Quebec.
I draw your attention to clause 128, which amends the Office of
the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act. Let us have a
closer look at clause 7.1, which reads:
7.1 (1) The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in
Council, enter into agreements with the appropriate authority of
a province
(a) with respect to the administration, application and
enforcement of provincial legislation in respect of trust, loan
or insurance companies incorporated or regulated by or under an
Act of the legislature of the province;
(b) in order to authorize the Superintendent to exercise or
perform the powers, duties and functions on behalf of the
appropriate authority of the province, that the Minister may
determine, in respect of trust, loan or insurance companies
incorporated or regulated by or under an Act of the legislature
of the province; and
(c) in order to(i) make applicable the Trust and Loan Companies
Act, the Insurance Companies Act or this Act, or any provisions
of these Acts, and the regulations made under any of these Acts,
with the modifications that the Minister considers necessary, in
respect of trust, loan or insurance companies that are
incorporated or regulated by or under an Act of the legislature
of the province, and(ii) limit the application of provincial
legislation in respect of trust, loan or insurance companies
that are incorporated or regulated by an Act of the legislature
of the province.
We can see once again an undisguised attempt by the Minister of
Finance, through this legislation, to get involved in areas that
come under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Every day the Bloc Quebecois condemns the numerous federal
intrusions in areas of provincial jurisdiction, including those
of Quebec.
This is why we are opposed to the principle of the bill and will
vote against it.
We could have voted differently, of course, had satisfactory
amendments been made to section 7.1, which allows the federal
government to squarely intrude into Quebec's areas of
jurisdiction.
1615
This one-way provision would allow the government to appropriate
and control Quebec's know-how. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is
asking for the following amendments, which are essential in the
current context.
First, any agreement mentioned in section 7.1 should be the
result of government-to-government negotiations. Second, section
7.1 should be amended to provide for reciprocity. Under such
reciprocity the appropriate authority of a province, and a
provincial government, would enjoy the same privileges as those
enjoyed by the superintendent and the federal government under
section 7.1.
In other words, the Inspector General of Financial Institutions
and the Government of Quebec could subject federally chartered
financial institutions to Quebec laws.
Let us now take a look at the main amendments found in Bill
C-67. The amendments set the general requirements that must be
met by a foreign bank to establish a branch in Canada, the type
of business that such a branch can conduct, and the standing
regulatory requirements that will have to be met. The bill also
includes a number of changes concerning access by foreign
banks to the financial services sector.
Under the proposed system, on top of being allowed to establish
a Canadian subsidiary, foreign banks will be able to set up
either a full service branch or a loan branch.
We bemoan the lack of overall vision on the part of the
government regarding the future of the Canadian banking system
and financial markets.
Since 1993, the finance minister, who does not know where he is
going on this issue, has been improvising. He is putting at risk
one of the pillars of our economy, the financial services
sector. He should listen to what the Bloc Quebecois has been
telling him for years now, namely, first strengthen our national
industry, then open the market, and finally liberalize.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been of the opinion that the
merger debate should be seen as part of a broader debate on the
future of financial institutions. The same is true of the bill
before us today.
The government is acting irresponsibly. By refusing to proceed
cautiously according to the logical order suggested by the Bloc
Quebecois, it is leaving Quebec and Canada open to inconsistencies
and discrepancies in the quality of services between poor and
rich regions.
Let us not forget that under the federal Insurance Companies
Act a federally chartered insurance company or a foreign
company cannot sell policies in Canada to an insurance company
set up under provincial legislation. Only a federally chartered
insurance company, with the approval of the Minister of Finance,
can buy these blocks of business. This situation is unfair to
Quebec insurers.
This situation shows clearly that, while our financial markets
are about to become more and more open to financial
institutions, there are still barriers between our own
institutions and we do not have full competitiveness within our
own borders.
I remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois has proposed a
three-step approach that provides for a methodical opening up of
financial markets.
As a first step, the Bloc Quebecois asked the federal government
to change the ownership rules for banks and some of the
accounting rules in order to allow and foster the grouping of
medium and small size financial institutions into financial
holdings. For instance, a bank could join with a life insurance
company, an investment funds company and a brokerage.
This first step would allow the establishment in Quebec and in
Canada of giant financial institutions which would be able to
truly compete with megabanks.
1620
The government should allow a period of two to three years for
the establishment of these holdings, which would be subject to
the 10% rule and whose operations would remain
compartmentalized, as is already the case for banks. We should
begin by taking the necessary means to encourage competition
with the help of new major national players.
Second, the federal government could then allow bank mergers.
For instance, we would have on the Canadian market eight to ten
players of similar size and strength and we would therefore have
sound competition in our domestic financial sector.
Sound competition is vital if we want consumers and small and
medium size businesses throughout the country to have easy
access to services at competitive prices. In the interest of
fairness, the bank mergers should occur at the same time that
the multisector holdings become operational. All players should
be able to start at the same time.
At the same time, the Bloc Quebecois would call for a greater
democratization of banks and financial holdings along the same
lines as the
proposals of the Quebec association for the protection of savers
and investors. We would also ask for a mechanism to encourage
and measure the investments of banks and financial holdings in
communities.
In view of the human aspect and of the socio-economic effects of
this reform, the Bloc Quebecois will support measures aimed at
protecting access to financial services for the whole population
throughout the territory.
We will also be calling for a mechanism for parliamentary
follow-up in order to measure the impact of the changes made on
competition, service charges, employment, access to credit,
transparency, and services to outlying and disadvantaged
communities so as to be able to make the appropriate
corrections and adjustments as we go along, if need be.
Third, the federal government could open up the Canadian
financial services market completely to international
competition. Having made it possible for the small players in
Quebec and Canada to join forces, there are less grounds for
concern that they will disappear or pass into the hands of
foreign companies as soon as the market is opened up to
international competition.
I remind hon. members that our concern has always been, and will
always be, to increase the competitiveness of all sectors of
financial services in Quebec and in Canada, and to increase
competition in all of Quebec and Canada.
More competition means better and better-priced services for
consumers and small and medium size businesses throughout the
country. Enhancing competition is one of the concerns of the
Bloc Quebecois.
Our third concern is that these changes be made equitably. All
those involved in the financial sector must have an equal
opportunity to make changes so as to enhance their domestic and
international position, for example, by allowing financial
holdings which bring together institutions from various sectors.
Hon. members will agree with me that today's debate is liable to
have a great impact on our society. We must always remember that
public interest comes first and that there are people behind the
figures.
In this sense, the Bloc Quebecois has always advocated the
establishment of a parliamentary committee to oversee banks and
financial institutions, which would periodically check whether
consumers and SMBs are well served at competitive prices
throughout Quebec and Canada, regardless of their personal
wealth. We have advocated the entry of new players into the
market to increase competition and thus improve service to
consumers.
I should mention that Quebec is at the forefront in protecting
consumer interests. In October 1998 Quebec announced the
establishment of the Bureau des services financiers to protect
the public.
It receives public complaints, ensures the law respecting the
distribution of financial products and services is applied, sets
up an insurance information and reference centre to give
consumers access to clear and complete information, establishes
a fund to provide compensation in the event of fraud, keeps a
record of offices, independent companies and independent
representatives and issues certificates to representatives.
1625
To avoid duplication, the federal government should give Quebec
the role of protecting consumers in the area of financial
services.
The Bloc Quebecois also advocated greater democratization of the
banks. We share the concerns of Yves Michaud in this regard.
Moreover, I want to remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois is
the only party to have tabled a bill on community reinvestment.
We want the banks and other financial institutions to not only
fulfil their social role, but also to be transparent about the means
and objectives involved.
To conclude, I repeat that, barring appropriate amendments to
permit government to government negotiations and reciprocity, we
will vote against Bill C-67.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think the House needs a little
livening up of the debate on Bill C-67. I do not know if I am
more nervous for the millions of Canadians who will feel the
effects of the bill down the road, or for my daughter who has a
piano recital tomorrow and my other daughter who has a gymnastics
competition on Saturday.
I commend my hon. colleague from Kamloops and my hon. colleague
from Regina—Qu'Appelle who have done outstanding work in the
finance committee to bring the issue to a forefront, allowing
Canadians to know what is going on behind the bill.
The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions
said he was looking for our support for this bill. Unfortunately
I have to disappoint him one more time because parts of the
legislation came out of the south end of a northbound cow. We
certainly find it unacceptable that this is the way the
government is doing it.
I will provide a little background on Bill C-67. In December
1997 the federal government signed a financial services
agreement, the FSA, under the auspices of the WTO, the World
Trade Organization. The FSA aims at relaxing the rules governing
the entry of foreign banks into domestic economies of
participating countries. More than 100 countries signed the FSA
and Canada faces a June 1999 deadline to pass the enabling
legislation.
We have heard that the government has consulted the stakeholders
on this bill, but we wonder if the government actually consulted
Canadians on the bill, the average Canadian from Sointula, B.C.,
to Alert, Nunavut, to my riding of Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia. I
wonder if people in small rural towns and coastal communities
were consulted. I suspect not. I suspect it was the friends of
the government and of the official opposition, the Reform Party,
who were consulted. We cannot help notice that they are
financial contributors to the government and the opposition.
The government has succumbed in its international negotiations
again without benefiting Canadians. Bill C-67 will benefit very
few, a small percentage of very rich and capital wary investors
to the tune of anyone with $150,000 or more. It certainly does
not appeal or even go to the average Canadian who does not have
$150,000 to invest.
It will also put more pressure on Canadian domestic banks,
credit unions and caisses populaires in Canada because it will
bring back merger argument. The banks have already been told by
the finance minister that merger is not in the cards. That is
now. He never said it was permanently off the table.
The international financial institutions will come into Canada.
Most of them will be virtual reality. They will not even have
any bricks or mortar here. It will be through the Internet or
through a 1-800 Wells Fargo number or whatever it is they wish to
call it. They will take the cream of the deposits out of this
country, the 2%, 5%, or 10%.
As the House should know, every bit of capital that leaves the
country puts more pressure on the credit unions, the caisses
populaires and the chartered banks in Canada today, which puts
more pressure on the government to allow domestic banks to reach
their ultimate goal of merger. Eventually they will say that in
order for them to compete with international financial
institutions they will need to merge.
1630
That is one of the elements of Bill C-67. It will allow
Canadian banks to have a back door entry to a merger, which is
really what they have always wanted.
This bill will put more pressure on our auto leasing and
insurance companies because the banks have been putting a lot of
pressure on the government to get access to these markets in
order to increase their profits for their shareholders.
What will happen is, as their profits erode because of the
competition from financial institutions, they will in turn go
back to the government requesting access to the insurance and
auto leasing markets. That will create a lot of hardship in
small rural communities and even larger communities because there
will be bank closures, branch closures and insurance companies
will be put under a tremendous amount of pressure. In the end
that pressure will filter down to Canadians.
Foreign banks operating branches in Canada will be subject to
the capital adequacy requirements imposed by the bank's home
country. These banks will not be required to comply with the
Canadian capital requirements applicable to Canadian banks. That
means that the tax measures of Bill C-67 are very complex. The
intent is for the FBBs to remain in the same position as the
schedule II banks. However, Canadians will not have a full
knowledge or understanding of whether foreign banks or
institutions are being taxed at the same levels as Canadian
banks.
Bill C-67 does not deal with the virtual banks, which I
mentioned earlier, such as the U.S. equivalent of the ING Bank
from Holland. The Liberal government does not know what to do
with these banks, which only have an Internet presence in Canada.
So far these banks have been kept out of Interac and the Canadian
payment system. However, it is just a matter of time before they
gain access to that as well and that will put even more pressure
on Canadians.
Bill C-67 may erode the market share of charter banks in
lucrative, high end private banking niches. Access of highly
sophisticated American and European banks will compel Canadian
banks to rely more heavily on their regular Canadian consumer
base to extract their profits. Charter banks will likely offset
these losses by jacking up the price of bank services on
Canadians who have no access to the foreign banks.
One of the biggest complaints of Canadians from coast to coast
to coast is the poor service provided by the banks as well as the
high service charges. There are service charges on literally
everything they do.
A while ago I was at one of the chartered banks because I wanted
to open up an account for one of my daughters. I deposited $100.
Then, realizing that my wife had already deposited money at
another bank, I wanted to close the account, take the money and
transfer it to the other bank. I was told by the bank that in
order to close the account I would be required to pay $15. I
only had $100 in the account and the bank wanted to take $15 for
having the money for a day. I found that to be absolutely
unacceptable. We can imagine how the banks are ripping off
millions of Canadians right across this country.
What we should be doing is concentrating on improving our banks
and allowing our credit unions more access to the capital that is
available. Do we really need foreign banks to ensure a greater
level of domestic competition? The real issue is not whether we
should allow more foreign competition; the issue is what needs to
be done to increase the accountability of our banking system and
to increase the competition between our domestic financial
institutions. The key is to provide better services for
Canadians; all Canadians, not just a select few.
To increase accountability and ensure better banking services
for Canadians the government should force banks to disclose more
information on lending activities. This would reveal any unequal
lending patterns to lower income neighbourhoods and small
businesses. This would be similar to the Community Reinvestment
Act in the U.S., where over $650 billion U.S. has been reinvested
as a result of these laws. The laws are supported by 200 major
cities and over 600 economic development groups in the United
States alone.
My colleague for Regina—Qu'Appelle has been asking for
community reinvestment legislation for a long time.
Basically what that means to the average lay person is that if a
bank, for example in the community of Upper Musquodoboit, is
making a profit from deposits, investments and loans, then it
should be forced to reinvest some of the profit into the
community in which it is located. That would create economic
growth in the rural communities across the country from coast to
coast to coast. It would allow businesses to develop and grow in
these small communities.
1635
One of the scourges of Atlantic Canada is that communities such
as Halifax are the bread basket of education for the country and
yet most of our young people have to leave Atlantic Canada to
find work elsewhere within the country or abroad. That is
unacceptable. One of the ways the government could stop the
exodus of our young people, our greatest asset and resource,
would be to institute community reinvestment legislation.
What they have in the United States, which we do not have here,
is the ability to write off mortgage insurance on taxes. What a
novel idea, allowing young people, or anybody for that matter, to
own their own home. It is a wonderful dream for millions of
Canadians who cannot buy homes to be able to have pride in being
able to say “We own this house”.
One of the ways we could do that is to follow the example of the
United States and allow them to write off the interest, or part
of the interest, on their mortgages. That would promote economic
growth in the country that we would not believe. It is a great
idea. I do not see why the government cannot concentrate on
sound policies of that nature which would benefit the average
Canadian.
I know the government has difficulty when we use the term
average Canadians, but what average Canadians would like to see
is leadership from their government and opposition parties in
putting forth policies that actually are of benefit to Canadians,
their children, neighbourhoods, communities and small business
enterprises. They would then be able to stay in their
communities and have a good quality of life.
It would also enhance competition by broadening access to the
Canadian payment system and it would allow insurance companies,
large mutual fund companies and investment dealers to offer
banking services.
It is worth noting that in England the post office has banking
services. I understand that there have been conversations
between the Canada Post Corporation and the Government of Canada
about financial transactions. Although I do not have a firm
opinion on that myself, it is one of the aspects the hon. member
for Regina—Qu'Appelle is seriously looking into.
This is something that should really be done to benefit small
communities and Canadians throughout the country: the power of
credit unions should be enhanced. God love those credit unions.
Credit unions are a democratic alternative to the big banks.
Unlike the banks they have a mandate to plow profits right back
into the communities they serve, helping everyone who is a member
of those credit unions.
I notice that my colleague from Selkirk, Manitoba is a member of
a credit union, as well as myself and another member on the
Liberal backbench. Even members of parliament believe in the
credit union system and what a credit union does for a town.
We should be promoting financial institutions like the credit
unions or the caisse populaires in Quebec. For instance, we
could change the Credit Union Central Act to give credit union
provincial centrals, the CUPCs, more flexibility and powers. I
note that the finance minister had very positive meetings with
members and stakeholders of the credit unions a couple of weeks
ago. We are very hopeful that the finance minister will take
their recommendations to heart and implement some of the programs
they have initiated to help average Canadians.
CUPCs could provide services not just for credit unions, they
could directly serve individual members. This would allow
provincial centrals to enhance the viability of smaller credit
unions which cannot afford to provide directly certain services
like wealth management and mutual funds because they cannot take
advantage of economies of scale. That is the big problem. A lot
of small credit unions would like to offer the same services as
the bigger ones or other financial institutions, but
unfortunately they cannot because they just do not have the size
or the capital to do it. What we should be doing is encouraging
and enhancing the ability of credit unions in the country to do
that.
The banks should also be forced to facilitate to honour their
commitment to ensure that the poor have access to banking
services. This is something that I am sure all of us have
noticed when we go into a bank.
When an elderly person goes into a bank with their little bank
book in their shaking hand, if they are fortunate and do not have
to wait long in line for a teller, they may get one who is quite
compassionate who will assist them in filling out forms and so
on.
1640
I cannot count the number of times I have gone into a bank to
hear a teller say that because of the pressure put on the
customer service representatives by management to get the people
in and out, to reduce services and the hours that the branches
are open, people have to fill out their own deposit forms because
the tellers are too busy. These people are generally elderly
people. In the year of the older person I would think they could
have a little more compassion and sympathy. There should be more
services for these individuals.
Bill C-67 will allow international financial institutions to
provide services of that nature. They will turn around, take the
cream off the top and put more pressure on our individual banks,
which in turn will put more pressure on the consumer, the average
Canadian.
The government should create an independent financial service
ombudsman with teeth. We love the term with teeth. That
individual should answer to parliament and not to the government
of the day. The independent ombudsman would provide stronger
protection to consumers and small businesses than the current
banking ombudsman who is paid and controlled by the banks.
The finance minister has said that he is preparing to revamp the
financial services sector in response to the MacKay task force.
A white paper is expected later this year. These are the kinds
of policy measures that the NDP would like to see forthcoming.
I wish to thank my hon. colleagues from Regina—Qu'Appelle and
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys for their intervention on
this bill. We would like to say that we could support the bill,
but we cannot. Unfortunately it does not go nearly far enough.
It does not protect our institutions. It does nothing for the
credit unions and it does not do anything to protect average
Canadians from coast to coast to coast who use the banking
services.
If the government really wanted to spend some time on amending
the Bank Act it would have committee hearings from coast to coast
to coast in the small towns to ask Canadians what they would like
to see in their financial institutions, instead of going to Bay
Street to ask what the government could do to appease the people
on Bay Street in order to make life easier for the international
institutions.
In the end, all of us believe in competition. It is healthy.
However, we do not believe in competition which sucks the capital
out of our country and invests in other countries.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Halifax West, Canadian forces.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure today to speak to Bill C-67.
Bill C-67 is designed to increase and improve access to the
Canadian banking industry through foreign participants and
foreign banks.
The financial sector, both within Canada and globally, is in a
period of immense change and has been for some time. This change
is fuelled by a number of factors. Within Canada we have seen
the decline of the four pillars of the financial industry and
their dissolution is imminent. Technological advancements are
having an immense effect, particularly on the banking sector.
For instance, let us look at one element, bank machines.
Through the Interac network, through the telecommunications, the
computerization and the automation of this sector, these machines
are effectively everywhere. They are in many grocery stores.
Every teller has the capacity to give people money through the
debit system. Consumers have the ability to withdraw money or to
purchase goods and services. That technological shift and
advancement has improved banking services immeasurably for
Canadians. That is just one of the areas where that has
occurred.
Globalization has played a very important role. That is what we
are talking about today. The government is responding to the WTO
agreement on financial services that it signed. In fact the
government has to respond prior to June 1 and that is what Bill
C-67 is all about.
1645
Foreign bank participation in Canada has grown somewhat since
the early 1980s but it has continued to be stymied by regulations
and tax policies that have limited the growth of foreign banks in
Canada. Ultimately this has limited the services provided to
Canadians and the access to capital for instance that small
businesses need.
Despite the government's policies that have been discouraging to
foreign banks, we have seen the growth of companies like MBNA
banks including Capital One and Bank One. In the brokerage
industry we have seen Merrill Lynch purchase Midland Walwyn. We
have seen Charles Schwab, a discount brokerage, grow in Canada.
These companies are real and these banks and this competition is
real.
During the merger discussion the minister and some other members
on the government side were saying that foreign competition is
not playing that key a role. In fact, the role of foreign
competition in the Canadian banking sector has grown somewhat.
One example is Wells Fargo which about two years ago had 10,000
customers in Canada. In a 12 month period its 10,000 customer
base grew to about 120,000 customers in Canada, yet Wells Fargo
employs less than 100 Canadians. It is able to expand so
significantly with so few people in Canada because of
telecommunications and the nature of technology and its impact on
banking and the nature of globalization and its impact on
banking.
In the banking sector on a global basis there have been a huge
number of mergers in recent years. In countries such as Italy,
Switzerland and the U.S. significant levels of merger activity
have occurred. Banks are getting larger to develop economies of
scale in order to afford the types of technologies to compete in
a global environment which is increasingly competitive.
The intent of this legislation is logical. It is designed to
ensure that we are complying with the 1997 WTO agreement on
financial services. As I have said, the presence of foreign
banking in Canada has grown even before this agreement if we look
at companies like Wells Fargo and their success in lending
particularly to small business but also to medium size business.
This agreement will provide further access for foreign banks to
the Canadian market.
This legislation, despite some of its flaws to which I will be
speaking, should improve the competitiveness of the Canadian
financial services sector and ultimately the services and
products available in the banking sector to Canadians.
Ultimately one of the biggest challenges facing Canadian small
business for some time has been access to capital. As a small
business person I know that one of the difficulties faced by
small business is access to capital. Part of the problem has been
the concentration of banking in Canada over a period of time.
I spent some time in the U.S. I was amazed with the number of
U.S. banks and as a small business person the fact that if
someone with a business proposal was turned down at the Bank of
Bath in Maine, he could go to the Bank of Bangor with the
proposal and maybe get the loan. In Georgia if someone was turned
down by the Bank of Snellville, he would be able to go to the
Bank of Loganville. Both are actual banks. The Bank of
Loganville has been there for 150 years.
In Canada in recent years, certainly after the banks stopped
doing what they used to refer to as character lending, banks
started using something called ratio lending. If ratios did not
work for one bank, they probably would not work for any bank. It
was very difficult for a small business person to get the money.
It seemed for a lot of small business people the only way they
would be able to get the money was if they did not need it which
is counterproductive.
This legislation is designed to provide greater access to
capital for small business people. It may reach those goals.
However some issues need to be addressed.
Bill C-67 in its original form did not allow foreign banks to
carry losses forward to be applied against future profits to
reduce their taxes. Wisely the government changed this. There
would have been a competitiveness issue relative to the foreign
banks that currently exist in Canada as compared to those that
enter Canada after Bill C-67.
On May 11 the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions acknowledged before the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Finance that Bill C-67 would be virtually useless to
foreign banks in Canada without some changes in this regard.
1650
Wisely the secretary of state has announced some changes to
several sections of the Income Tax Act. There will be
alterations for a limited time so that foreign banks operating in
Canada can take advantage of this legislation.
The tax rule will allow the foreign banks' subsidiaries to
transfer assets such as property to their new branches without
being taxed for the next three years to allow for the
transitional period. Furthermore the retained earnings of the
subsidiary will be transferred to the new bank branches. The
government will also give the foreign banks a three year
transition period to enact all these transfers.
The Canadian Bar Association is still critical of the bill. It
has numerous concerns. For example, foreign banks will still
need ministerial approval for some transactions that Canadian
banks do not face, for instance in the area of takeovers. Foreign
banks will also be at a competitive disadvantage because they
will be subject to provincial laws as opposed to federal laws.
Domestic banks in Canada are subject to federal regulations. That
is a complication we would like to see addressed.
The Canadian Bar Association has also warned that Bill C-67 does
not meet the goal it was intended to, and that was to open up the
Canadian banking market to foreign competition to be in
compliance with the WTO.
Ultimately I believe that while this legislation is heading in
the right direction it does not go quite far enough. The
legislation will help domestic competition in the Canadian
banking sector as I said earlier, particularly in the area of
small business lending.
I would like to see greater competition in the Canadian banking
sector, for instance changes to the co-operatives act as
recommended by the MacKay task force, which would allow credit
unions to compete directly with banks. That would be extremely
positive, as would a loosening of the ownership rules to make it
easier for Canadian individuals and companies to start up banks
to increase competition in the Canadian financial sector, again
in compliance or agreement with the recommendations of the MacKay
task force.
We are waiting to see the government's response to the MacKay
task force in the spring with the white paper. I would certainly
hope that the government moves to change the co-operatives act,
to loosen the ownership rules and also to improve and broaden
access to the payment system to create greater competition
domestically.
These changes in addition to the changes brought about by Bill
C-67 will improve foreign access to the Canadian domestic market.
They should achieve certain goals as articulated by MacKay in
terms of improving the quality of banking services to Canadians
and the competitiveness of the Canadian banking sector.
The bill is positive but as I said there are some design issues
and some flaws in specific areas.
The MacKay report made 131 recommendations. One of those
recommendations was that a process be set out whereby if Canadian
banks wished to merge they should have to face a process within
which they would be given the opportunity and the challenge to
address the legitimate concerns of Canadians. Some of these
concerns included lending to small business, services in rural
communities, bank service charges and commitments on jobs and
hiring. Criteria like these would have to be met in the
processes articulated and represented in the MacKay task force
report.
With bank mergers Canadians feel that this type of process would
have been a good idea. A Maclean's poll in December
indicated that while 53% of Canadians were opposed to the bank
mergers, 57% of Canadians would be in favour if the banks were to
make commitments and meet the conditions and criteria that were
important to Canadians.
When the MacKay task force report first came out, the Minister
of Finance actually spoke positively of the process that MacKay
had put forward in terms of approving bank mergers but having to
meet the conditions and making commitments to Canadians first.
MacKay went as far as to actually recommend that these
commitments be legally binding for the banks and for the
directors of the banks.
1655
In response to some of the demands by Canadians to improve
services and to improve lending to small businesses and to commit
to better services for rural communities, some of the merger
proponents including the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal made
some very serious commitments during that merger discussion. They
said that they would reduce service charges. They made a
commitment to reduce service charges to Canadians by 10%.
Furthermore they said they would actually be increasing their
customer service staff as well as continuing the services to
rural communities. They were willing to make commitments in that
regard and increase their number of outlets.
One of the greatest commitments they made was to double the
amount of money that they were lending individually as a merged
entity. They would double the amount they were lending to small
business from $25 billion to $50 billion. It was a 100% increase
in the amount of money they would commit to lend to small
business. They were willing to set up a new separate bank focused
solely on the small business community. These were very positive
commitments the banks were willing to make.
The Minister of Finance however, even though earlier he had
stated that he felt favourably toward the MacKay task force
recommendation on a process for merger approval, in my opinion
and in the opinion of our party simply said no to the mergers for
political purposes. This was done before a proper negotiation,
before an opportunity for the merger proponents to make the
commitments on the types of services that were important to
Canadians and the types of commitments that could have benefited
Canadians.
We had an opportunity to negotiate with the banks. We had some
leverage. We gave all that up because of the Minister of
Finance's political ambitions for the next Liberal leadership
campaign and for the next federal election. It is unfortunate
that the focus of the members opposite is solely on the next
election. Canadians really need a government that is focused on
the challenges of the next century.
What has been the impact? We have had a few months to see the
short term impact. The Dominion Bond Rating Service has
downgraded the credit rating of the Canadian banks citing
directly the minister's decision on the bank mergers. When the
Dominion Bond Rating Service or any bond rating service reduces
the credit rating of a bank, a company, an individual, or even a
province, that means that entity, in this case the banks, pays
more money for its capital. Its capital is more expensive.
Ultimately that will lead to a higher price for consumers and/or
downward pressure on bank earnings.
There are many people who whenever the banks come out with their
earnings speak critically of the banks. The fact is over 50% of
Canadians directly or indirectly through their pension funds,
through their mutual funds, through their union pension funds are
bank shareholders. It is very difficult to invest in the
Canadian equities markets without buying bank stocks. They
dominate the Canadian equities markets.
Canada has an 80-20 rule where 80% of pension investments and
RRSPs have to be in Canada and not external. At the same time we
have to recognize that only 1.5% of the global equities markets
are Canadian. Those equities markets are dominated by banks. It
is almost impossible to have a diversified portfolio in Canada in
terms of the equities markets without owning a bank stock.
The government's policy of the 20% limit on foreign investment
for Canadians in their RRSPs and also for pension funds, combined
with its backward policies in preventing without proper
negotiation Canadian banks the opportunity to develop the
economies of scale to compete globally will result significantly
in reduced retirement incomes for Canadians in the future.
There has been a significant downward impact on Canadian bank
shares in recent months as a direct result of this decision.
1700
In terms of the general equities markets in Canada, we have seen
a 60% growth in the TSE since 1993, but during the same period we
have seen 180% growth in the Dow Jones Industrial Average in New
York. This is a very important issue because as Canadians are
getting poorer while our neighbours to the south are getting
richer.
In formulating public policy, we have to be very careful that it
is not only focused on leadership campaigns and the next federal
election, but focused on the opportunities and challenges faced
by Canadians in a global environment as we enter the next
century.
The best analogy of public policy is that it is more like making
a cake than it is eating from a buffet. The difficulty is that
the minister is treating public policy and the MacKay task force,
those 131 recommendations, a little bit like a buffet in that he
is choosing from that buffet what he considers to be politically
palatable and he is leaving the rest.
Public policy, and particularly a piece of public policy like
the MacKay task force, is more like a cake recipe. If we put
some of the ingredients in the cake but not others we could end
up with a flat cake.
I am concerned that this mishmash, haphazard, knee-jerk
reaction, crisis management approach to public policy that the
government is utilizing will result in the types of public policy
in Canada that would be analogous to the pastry chef's flat cake.
That is effectively what we are seeing with this government. It
is actually not focused on a holistic approach to these complex
issues and is only focused on short term politics.
The minister said that the upcoming white paper will respond
more fully to the MacKay recommendations. In the government's
response, we would like to see more flexible ownership rules on
banks, a broadening of the access to the payment system and a
change to the co-operative act to allow credit unions to compete
directly with banks. We want to see improved competition for
Canadians and improved services for Canadians. At the same time,
we do not want to sacrifice our banks' competitiveness globally.
The Canadian financial services sector is one of the growth areas
of the Canadian economy and we do not want to lose that.
We also do not want to see the types of policies that the
government implements in terms of denying mergers without proper
consultation and negotiation and at the same time exposing
Canadian banks to foreign competition while they are handcuffed
by a government that will not allow them to achieve the economies
of scale they need. It is very important that the government
become much more careful in developing public policy.
We will be supporting Bill C-67, but we hope the government does
not continue to hinder and handcuff the Canadian financial
services sector that will continue to lead to job creation in
Canada.
The government has a role to lead and to develop public policy.
The economic policies in Canada that have led to growth in the
late 1990s have been as a result of a forward-thinking government
in the late 1980s and early 1990s with free trade and the GST, et
cetera. We want to see the same type of leadership from this
government that will prepare Canadians to not only compete
globally but to succeed into the 21st century.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to hear
my colleague from the other part of Nova Scotia, Kings—Hants,
speak up.
I have to ask the member a question about one thing he said at
the very end. Does he honestly believe that his government, the
Conservative government of 1984 to 1993, was really
forward-thinking when it brought in the GST and its dreaded
cousin the HST, and when it ran up the debt and deficit of the
country to astronomical limits which put tremendous pressure on a
lot of public programs for the average Canadian? I am just
wondering if the hon. member really believes that is
forward-thinking.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
question from my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. In
answer to his question, absolutely yes.
The policies of that government, including free trade, the
elimination of the manufacturers' sales tax, which is a
euphemistic way of saying the implementation of the GST, the
deregulation of the financial services sector, the transportation
sector and energy sector were all pivotal in the economic growth
that we have seen in the late 1990s.
This is not just my opinion. The 1998 global preview of the
Economist magazine stated that the structural changes made
in the Canadian economy in the late 1980s and the early 1990s had
resulted in the Liberal government's ability to reduce and
ultimately eliminate the deficit. It then went on to list those
initiatives.
1705
Deficit reduction began back in 1984. The leader of Her
Majesty's Official Opposition, the Reform Party, said in the
House that the deficit reduction effort in Canada began in 1984
under the government of Brian Mulroney. The deficit as a
percentage of GDP was around 9% in 1984 and was reduced to about
5% by the time that government was politely asked to leave office
in 1993.
Tax reform has considerable political risk and the GST was an
example of that. It is very difficult to market a new tax, the
GST in this case, even though it was replacing the manufacturers'
sales tax, when only 17% of Canadians were aware that the
manufacturers' sales tax existed in the first place. Instead of
the government of the day replying on pollsters and focus groups
to develop economic policy, it realized that the manufacturers'
sales tax was killing jobs in a global environment that engages
and embraces the opportunities of free trade.
Instead of accepting the status quo because of politics, that
government had the courage to face the opportunities of the
future and implement what was and may still continue to be an
unpopular tax. However, it was the right public policy then and
has helped to lead to the economic growth that has benefited all
Canadians and in particular the gentlemen and ladies opposite in
the Liberal government.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am certainly old enough to remember the 1984 to 1993
timeframe. I also remember the change from the manufacturers'
sales tax to the GST. When I compare the two, I see that in fact
the take from the GST is probably 50 to 100 times larger than the
take from the old manufacturers' sales tax.
I would like to ask the member from the Conservative Party if
the changes that were instituted by Mr. Mulroney and company were
not the start of the gigantic tax increases that we are living
with today? I would like to have an answer to that.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, the tax burden in Canada
during the period 1988 to 1993 actually decreased in terms of
income tax due to the replacement of the manufacturers' sales
tax. That was developed as a revenue neutral tax reform designed
at that time to eliminate a counterproductive, productivity
killing tax policy that would have inhibited economic growth.
A witness to the soundness of that policy is the economic growth
we have seen, in particular in our export sector since 1993.
Forty per cent of our GDP now comes from exports. If the Reform
Party member had an opportunity to respond, I would ask him if he
would prefer that we tax the manufacturers that are exporting?
Would he prefer to see a counterproductive tax that would reduce
our economic growth in the export market? I do not believe he
would.
I know that most of the recommendations made by the Canadian Tax
Foundation and other tax think-tanks would like to see a further
shift to a consumption based tax and potentially some changes and
adaptations to ensure progressivity in a consumption based tax
which would be very important.
If given the opportunity we would like to see significant tax
reform now as we saw in the late 1980s and early 1990s under the
previous and courageous government of the Progressive
Conservatives. Unfortunately, the Liberals are not providing us
with the meaningful, broad based tax reform that Canadians need
in a competitive environment.
1710
Far from apologizing for the proactive and innovative leadership
of that government, I think Canadians, including members of the
Reform Party whose leader stated in the House that deficit
reduction started back in 1984, should be commending and
recognizing the innovation and leadership of that government in
providing the foundation for Canadian economic growth in the late
1990s and into the 21st century.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I rise again as a result of the
member's statement about the GST being good for Canada.
The auditor general just recently announced that $7 billion of
underground economy is resulting in losses to the federal
government and $5 billion to the provincial government. That is
$12 billion of underground activity.
If the member for Kings—Hants asked me as a contractor to
repair his roof and I said I could do it for $2,500 cash or
$3,300 with a receipt, what amount do members think the average
Canadian would agree to? They would agree to cash under the
table because of the dreaded GST.
Where the member and I live we are compounded with the HST. I
know the member is very proud of being a Conservative member and
I respect him for that, but he cannot honestly say that the
GST-HST is a good thing for the average Canadian. Average
Canadians get hurt in their pockets every time they purchase
something, especially reading materials and electricity. It is a
burden on Canadians and results in an underground economy. I
would like the member to respond to this.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, the one thing I can say
about the NDP members is that they are consistent. They opposed
the GST when it was introduced and they continue to oppose it. At
one point they opposed free trade and they continue to oppose it.
We at least know what the NDP members are thinking and they have
been consistent over a period of time.
The Liberals on the other hand do not suffer under the yoke of
policy consistency or integrity on public policy and can thus
move back and forth wherever they want on these issues.
I think most people would agree that a large part of the
underground economy is due to the fact that taxes are too high in
Canada. Income taxes are too high, capital gains taxes are too
high and payroll taxes are too high. We have to evaluate which
types of taxes have the most dilatory effect on the Canadian
economy.
I would argue that it is not the consumption taxes in a global
environment. In a traditional sense, consumption taxes would
reduce the consumption of Canadian produced goods which would
reduce growth in the economy. In the new economy, it is income
taxes that reduce the ability of Canadians to save and invest.
Productivity levels are very closely related to investment. It
is capital gains taxes that prevent Canadians from unleashing
their capital and selling assets to invest in new and innovative
opportunities. Those are the taxes that are punishing Canadians
and reducing Canadian growth in the new economy. It is not the
GST.
I would argue that the underground economy has more to do with
the general rates of taxation, in particular income taxes, which
are reducing the personal disposable income of Canadians. The
hon. member said that if he were a contractor and approached me
and asked me if I would pay him under the table, I would not do
that. I pay my GST.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, while the member for Kings—Hants was
speaking, I was thinking that there are probably 500 or 600
comedians out of work in this country and he is trying to break
into the business. That was hard to take.
Just for the record, the Tory legacy left behind by Mulroney
will always be remembered for the dreaded GST that was rammed
down the throats of not only his backbenchers but all Canadians.
He also tried unsuccessfully to ram the Charlottetown accord down
the throats of Canadian people. It is also important to note
that a $45 billion deficit was left to this Liberal government,
as well as a $500 billion debt. That is the record no matter
what the member says.
Apparently that allowed the Liberals to eliminate the deficit.
That is interesting because what allowed them to eliminate the
deficit was extracting an extra $40 billion in taxes from the
Canadian people since 1993. Let us be clear about that.
1715
We are here to talk about Bill C-67. My party supports Bill
C-67. We think it is a good bill. It will certainly add to the
financial landscape of the country. The only thing I can ask the
Liberal government is what took so long. It took six years for
the finance minister and the government to make some positive
steps in the financial services industry. That is a long time
for a government that says it is on top of things.
We support the quick passage of the bill and the implementation
of the changes to the regulations. We also anticipate sooner
than later the changes to the regulations governing credit unions
which will allow them to do some things such as pooling their
resources to take advantage of opportunities and perhaps becoming
more bank-like in some respects.
We would also encourage the government to do a very thorough
review of the tax regime, taxation as it applies to our players
in the financial services sector including bankers.
We want to close this debate and get the bill passed. I say
once again that we support the bill. It is a good bill for
Canada, particularly business in Canada, and the Reform Party
will be supporting it.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, certainly we support the bill. I heard the
Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
mention that the bankers of Canada, the Canadian banks, the big
five, also agreed that it was good.
Is there a possibility of any connection between the agreement
of Canadian banks to this competition coming in and the
possibility of the government having agreed in return to support
the mergers in the upcoming session in the fall?
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for
the finance minister on the question of mergers. We have spoken.
In my November 1998 report “Competition: Choice you can bank
on” we clearly said that given a far more competitive
environment in Canada among the financial industries it would be
possible to look at the mergers in a totally new light.
The finance minister would not be well served to make a trade
off deal. I am not sure if he did. I do not think so. I think
he realizes there is a lot of steps to be taken before he can
talk about the merger issue again.
However, as we talk about the banking industry and the
possibility of mergers in the House, all over the world major
banks are repositioning themselves and restructuring to become
bigger and stronger so that they can be leaders in the global
marketplace.
We in Canada must recognize it is important to get some changes
made to the industry to create a more competitive environment so
that our banks will also be able to put forward a reasonable
merger proposal. We in parliament can then have a look at it.
If it meets all the criteria we expect from our industry then
possibly those would be the steps to be taken so that our banks
could compete in the global economy. It is important to Canada's
economy that we have very strong world banks.
1720
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague from the
beautiful area of Prince George—Bulkley Valley talk about bank
mergers. I have a letter from the Canadian Vehicle
Manufacturers' Association. It is very concerned about the banks
entering into auto lease agreements as are insurance companies
about banks entering into the insurance industry.
Would the member not agree that if the banks were allowed to
merge and there is less competition in Canada domestically, the
foreign operators would not set up bricks and mortar branches?
There would eventually be virtual banking. Do he and his party
not believe that would have a detrimental effect on other
industries in Canada, which means a detrimental effect on workers
and their families, as well as on the service charges people are
now being forced to pay to banking institutions?
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I clearly said that
the government has to begin very quickly to change the
competitive environment of the financial industry in Canada. Then
and only then could mergers be considered in a new light and then
and only then could they be approved on the particular merits of
each merger. I am sure that is what the member heard me say but
did not reflect in his question.
With regard to the auto leasing and insurance businesses, we are
convinced in our party that the insurance business is well served
by the people involved in it. It is a vibrant industry. It is
very competitive. We think Canadian people are well served by
the current structure of the insurance industry, as well as the
auto leasing industry.
If a sector of the industry as large as the banks were to enter
into either of those two industries, given their vast databases
and the information they have it would have profound effect on
both industries. We do not think it would be beneficial.
Therefore our position was stated in my report. I would be glad
to send the member a copy of it. It clearly states that is not
advisable that banks be permitted to retail insurance products at
their branches or enter the auto leasing business.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, the Reform
Party keeps going after the former government, which proved to
be effective. I have here a study ranking former Canadian prime
ministers based on the following criteria: the fight against
inflation and unemployment and the decrease in interest rates
and the GNP growth rate. Out of 10 former prime ministers, Mr.
Mulroney ranks second.
I would like to know what my Reform colleague thinks of this
report that confirms the effective management of the former
prime minister. I would point out that the inflation rate stood
at 1.5% in 1993, the lowest in 30 years. Interest rates were at
their lowest levels in 20 years.
The growth rate was higher than the International Monetary
Fund had predicted.
I also want to indicate that the deficit is usually expressed in
terms of the gross national product. The deficit was 8.7% of the
GNP in 1984 and had been brought down to 5.8% of the GNP by
1993.
Figures do not lie. This study ranking all Canadian
prime ministers is based on objective and American criteria.
[English]
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Madam Speaker, we have the Tory
legacy of $44 billion in their final year in office, and thank
goodness it was their final year, $500 billion of debt, and
massive mismanagement of our country's finances. End of story.
1725
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-67. I only have a
few minutes, but it will be enough to present the Bloc
Quebecois' views on this bill.
We are concerned about this bill, especially section 7.1
which grants extraordinary powers to the Office of the Superintendent
of Financial Institutions.
The superintendent has the power, among others, to negotiate
with appropriate provincial authorities—which are not defined
in the bill—any measure which could result in the superintendent
applying
federal acts to provincial jurisdiction such as, for example,
insurance and securities companies.
However, there is no reciprocity. The bill does not provide that
negotiations may take place with the appropriate provincial
authorities so that these authorities can apply provincial laws
to federally chartered institutions. By contrast, the
superintendent of financial institutions will enjoy enhanced
powers in Quebec.
The bill could have included reciprocity provisions regarding
the enhanced powers of the superintendent of financial
institutions, even for federally chartered institutions such as
banks or insurance companies, with regard to the implementation
of acts in Quebec.
However, there is no mention of such reciprocity. The bill enhances
the powers of the superintendent of financial institutions and
allows him to get involved in provincial jurisdictions, but the
reverse is not true.
Two and a half years ago there was the case of a Quebec
insurance company, L'Entraide assurance-vie du Québec, which was
and still is governed by a provincial charter. Because of its
provincial charter that company was not able to conclude a
major transaction to acquire blocks of insurance from a
federally chartered insurance company.
Bill C-67 implements some of the recommendations of the MacKay
task force, as well as some of the recommendations of the
Standing Committee on Finance. We discussed this possibility of
allowing provincially regulated companies to buy blocks of
insurance from federally regulated companies. We would have
thought the Minister of Finance would have taken advantage of
this bill to include reciprocity and thus ensure fair treatment
for Quebec insurance companies in particular.
Furthermore, we are opposed to this bill because it puts the
cart before the horse. For instance, it makes it easier for
foreign banks or financial institutions to enter the Canadian
market. That is putting the cart before the horse.
At the finance committee hearings on the follow-up to be given to
the MacKay report, we proposed a three-stage strategy. First,
everything possible must be done to strengthen the Canadian
financial and banking industry.
No matter what people say, the Canadian financial industry is
not the world's most competitive. The day we fully open our
borders to international competition, we will see that even the
largest Canadian banks are not big enough to stand up to some of
the banks now evolving internationally, which have assets 10, 20
and even 30 times greater than those of the largest Canadian
bank.
The financial sector has to be strengthened.
The ownership rules also have to be changed so that large
financial holdings can be created and banks allowed to join
forces with a trust company or an insurance company in order to
form solid and sizeable financial holdings.
We do not see this in the bill, and that is why we will be
voting against it.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, I think we still have time to
vote on this, unless there are questions and comments. I
understand there have been discussions among the parties to
conclude the debate on Bill C-67 today. I may be mistaken, but
perhaps you should ask the question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour 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 yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Division on this motion
stands deferred until tomorrow following Government Orders.
1730
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, there have been
discussions with representatives of all parties and I believe you
would find consent for the following:
That the recorded division just deferred on the motion for third
reading of Bill C-67 be further deferred until Monday, May 31,
1999, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
COMPETITION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-235, an act to
amend the Competition Act (protection of those who purchase
products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with
them at retail), as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will
be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: a vote on Motion
No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 2 and 3.
[English]
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-235 be amended by restoring the title thereof as
follows:
“An Act to amend the Competition Act (protection of those who
purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who
compete with them at retail)”
That Bill C-235, in Clause 1, be amended be restoring Clause 1
thereof as follows:
1. The Competition Act is amended by adding the following
after section 50:
50.1 (1) In this section,
(2) Every vertically integrated supplier who manufactures
and sells a product at retail, either directly or through an
affiliate, and also sells the product or a similar product to a
purchaser who is not an affiliate but who is in the business of
selling the product at retail, and who charges the purchaser a
price that exceeds
(i) the supplier's own cost of marketing at retail, and
(ii) the supplier's reasonable return on the retail sale
in the case of a direct sale, or
(b) the price charged to the affiliate, in the case of a sale
through an affiliate,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not
exceeding ten thousand dollars for every day on which the offence
is committed, in the case of a first offence, and twenty-five
thousand dollars for every day on which the offence is committed,
in the case of a second or subsequent offence, or to a term of
imprisonment not exceeding two years, or to both fine and
imprisonment.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a vertically integrated
supplier is not required to sell a product to a retailer at a
price that results in the supplier receiving a lower return on
the retail sale of the product when sold by the supplier or its
affiliate than the customer's return on the retail sale of the
same product supplied by the supplier, in the same market area.
That Bill C-235, in Clause 2, be amended by restoring Clause 2
thereof as follows:
“2. Section 78 of the Act is amended by deleting the word
“and” at the end of paragraph (h), by adding the word
“and” at
the end of paragraph (i) and by adding the following after
paragraph (i):
(j) by a vertically integrated supplier, coercing or attempting
to coerce a customer who competes with the supplier at the retail
level in the same market area, in relation to the establishment
of the customer's retail price or pricing policy.”
1735
He said: Madam Speaker, I remind the House that the rumours of
the death of this bill have been greatly exaggerated. Many
people probably know the bill has been returned as a blank sheet
of paper. We are obviously entering new territory as it relates
to private members' bills.
However, I want the House to understand that the bill is the
product of many years of work. It is a recognition that in an
era of globalization and megamergers in the place of productivity
we are actually witnessing the need to have effective
legislation, effective guidelines to protect the people who
represent the backbone of our communities, small business
persons.
The process that got us here was a very interesting one. I am
pleased the House has seen fit to passing the bill at second
reading. I thank the member for Cambridge and the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce for their support notwithstanding some of the
objections by many who do not want to see a change to this
important piece of legislation.
The competition bureau has pretty well demonstrated, as has the
committee, that in five short days it could not possibly
understand the complexities of our market, let alone the
ambiguities and the shortcomings of our Competition Act,
sufficiently to protect, most important, consumers and small
businesses alike.
It is with that in mind that I argue why these motions are
necessary. There will be a motion by Mr. Peric to make an
amendment that would give wholesalers an opportunity to compete
effectively.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the hon.
member meant to refer to the hon. member for Cambridge rather
than his name. I know he will want to comply with the rules in
that respect.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, you are correct. It is a
tough but very complex issue. I assure members that when we get
down to it we will be telling more about what the bill really
means.
It is clear those who opposed the bill—the Business Council on
National Issues, the Chamber of Commerce, the CAA and
others—were doing so because of the vested interest which exists
in protecting the status quo.
We have come to that conclusion as 50 members on this side and
many members on the other side went through the gas report on the
shortcomings of the Competition Act. On page 156 of a very
telling book by Peter C. Newman it was put very succinctly. The
Competition Act, as it is currently written, was written by the
very people it was meant to police. Canada is one of the few
nations that has found itself in a position of self-interest with
a document which is there to protect consumers and businesses
alike from not doing that.
I can only say that against the weight of the telecommunications
side of Industry Canada and against the weight of the Competition
Bureau which surprisingly enough went out of its way to contact
hundreds of businesses to study the implications of the bill.
It became very clear to me that short of an act of contempt of
parliament, which I felt was not important enough to raise but
was nevertheless the case, we are dealing with a David versus a
Goliath. Against the chambers of commerce, against the large
interests of the country that want to maintain the status quo,
are the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and thousands
of retailers that may be struggling to stay afloat simply because
they are being pitted against the very suppliers that are trying
to put them out of business.
1740
I am not talking through my hat. I am sure the hon. member for
Markham will be interested in knowing that there has been study
after study by provincial governments. The latest one by the
Ontario government, ironically through the provincial member for
Markham-Stouffville, shows that something is awry with the state
of competition when there are 462 complaints and only three
convictions and when the competition bureau has virtually been
allowed to be correctly characterized as the bureau for monopoly
enhancement.
In an era of globalization and mergerization, rather than
dealing with the questions of productivity, with the questions of
standards of living and with the questions of brain drain, we are
consistently allowing our country to be sold by offshore
interests whose interests are to maximize profits at the expense
of competition at home.
There have been many criticisms levelled at the bill and the
fact that it does not cover all the issues attendant within the
Competition Act. One criticism levelled at the bill was the fact
that it somehow had a very strong criminal sanction.
A bill that only narrowly attacks a certain part of the act
cannot possibly deal with the entire question of sanctions.
However, on the questions of sanctions it is very interesting
that the competition bureau and many other organizations like the
chambers of commerce have an interest in trying to bring down the
penalty. It is obvious that civil sanctions are not the case at
all. In fact they carry no general application and they carry no
injunctive application.
The problem is that it virtually requires for someone to be
knocked out of business and to be proven bankrupt before the
competition bureau will assess and recommend to the tribunal that
the particular activity against the person so ordered should
cease and desist. This is contrasted to the legislation in the
United States which has an intent to protect consumers.
Protection of consumers comes in a number of ways but mostly
through civil remedies.
I understand the committee after trashing the bill, after
basically erasing it from existence, wants now to study the
Competition Act. I am pleased that is the case. I am however
concerned about the fact that it could very well be a whitewash.
I say that because once again with the competition bureau we have
police investigating, a judge, a jury and an executioner. If the
bill is any indication of the direction of the competition bureau
and those who support the status quo, it seems to me the outcome
will be flawed.
During committee meetings a book by a man well known for his
knowledge of competition law was bandied about. I encourage
members to read it. It is the 1999 annotated notes. It very
clearly states that it is not accurate to characterize reviewable
trade practices as practices which are prohibited with civil
sanctions. He suggests that the Clayton Act should be more
appropriate.
On the other side of the equation it seems to me that there are
those who have been gravely concerned about the application of
the bill. The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and many
others studied the question of gasoline and looked a bit at the
issue of groceries, but somehow it should not apply beyond that.
That argument, which was posited by the Minister of Industry in
his objections of October 19, is simply wrong in its direction.
There is no section of the Competition Act which applies
uniformly to one industry. That would be laughed out of every
court in the country as discriminatory. Therefore, we need, as
the Americans did 100 years ago in 1890, the equivalent of a
Sherman Act which was applied to the Rockefeller dynasty that was
controlling oil at the time. It applies to every commercial line
in the country.
Other objections that have come about were sort of picked out of
thin air. There were issues such as how this might discriminate
against farmers or might somehow hurt a supplier or a wholesaler.
The bill deals with the vertically integrated supplier, somebody
who is in the business of supplying his or her competitor and
competing in the same area. Let us put away the nonsense and all
the aberrations which have been heaped on the bill for what it is
not. The bill is not about regulating price.
It is very interesting to note that anybody in the business
would have to ask why a vertically integrated supplier would
charge its best wholesale customer more for a product than it is
willing to charge the general public.
Every person involved in the business knows that it costs less to
sell a product at wholesale than at retail. The only reason that
a vertically integrated supplier competitor wants to discipline
the retail competitors and in some cases eliminate them entirely
from the marketplace is simply because they are not prepared to
compete with them.
1745
This issue is not something that is confined strictly to one
area of our economy. I implore parliamentarians to look at the
examples of how small businesses are being undercut by their
suppliers.
Legislation exists in other countries. The Americans and
British have effective legislation to combat this particular
problem. It is not acceptable for our competition police, the
Competition Bureau, to act as lapdogs in the face of these
watchdogs.
More important I believe in Canada, a Canada which is without
its abilities to fight for the small person. I believe my
country includes businesses that will compete on a level playing
field. I believe that my country is a nation which above all is
prepared at every turn to ensure that we do not have more than 10
players dominate the entire spectrum of the economy.
That is exactly what this bill is for. I urge the House to put
aside its differences and support it.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-235.
I applaud the efforts of the hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. He is a passionate and tireless
champion for what he believes is right. He is rare among the
members of the Liberal caucus in that he is prepared to stand on
principle even when he stands alone. That takes both integrity
and courage.
However, this legislation is not about the hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. Despite the respect and admiration I
have for the member and his commitment to his constituents, I
cannot ignore that the legislation before us would shackle
Canadian industries and punish Canadian consumers.
As members of this place know, this legislation would prevent a
company that is both the producer and the retailer of a product
or service from selling the product or service at a retail price
that is below its own wholesale costs and the wholesale costs
charged to its retail competitors.
The purpose of this bill is to prevent vertically integrated
companies from using their corporate structure to compete against
their non-vertically integrated competitors on price. It was
intended to address the alleged problem in the gasoline retail
industry where vertically integrated companies are accused of
attempting to squeeze independent gasoline retailers out of
business by offering consumers a retail price that is below the
wholesale cost paid by independent gasoline retailers.
It has been argued that vertically integrated fuel companies can
incur a loss at the pump that non-vertically integrated companies
do not because the vertically integrated companies can make a
margin on their wholesale price that allows them to remain
profitable.
It is often the case that gasoline retailers will lose money at
the pumps during price wars where prices fall below wholesale
costs. This situation has fuelled innovations like car washes,
food services, mechanical services, and the list goes on. In
other words, competition in the retail gas industry involves more
than just gasoline.
In an attempt to address the alleged problem in the gasoline
retail sector, the bill will unintentionally regulate all
vertically integrated companies. The impact of this legislation
therefore would extend the intended scope. It would place
controls and regulations on vertically integrated companies that
would not apply to non-vertically integrated companies. A
non-vertically integrated company with deep pockets could use
this legislation to compete with its vertically integrated
competitors by selling its product or service below cost while
its competitors would be prevented by law from doing the same.
On a practical level below cost selling, or the practice of
offering a retail price that is below the wholesale price, occurs
every day in the business community. When inventory is cleared
or a new product is introduced to the market, this price is
typically set below the wholesale cost.
Additionally, companies providing a charitable service may offer
a product or service at a cost that is below the wholesale price.
For instance the federal government is currently engaged in
partnership with the private sector to provide Internet access to
Canadian schools. This partnership would be deemed illegal if
the proposed amendments to the Competition Act were adopted.
1750
I would like to take the time to address the economic arguments
upon which this entire bill rests. Predatory pricing, below cost
selling, is an attempt to drive competitors out of business. It
is an extremely rare and unsustainable practice.
Businesses that internalize the cost of manufacturing a product
or delivering a service in order to provide consumers with a
price discount incur a serious opportunity cost. While their
competitors are spending capital on innovations, they are
spending their capital on subsidizing the cost of their own
product or service. This is an unwise business approach with no
long term viability. Subsidizing the price of a product will
mean that eventually a company will drain its resources and be
left with a product or service that is outdated. Consequently it
is rarely practised.
Additionally, competition laws in Canada and the U.S. punish
those companies that attempt to compete aggressively on price
while others may aggressively compete on innovation or superior
service with impunity. Companies that invest their profits in
innovations for instance are forced to incur a short term loss in
order to attempt to capture a larger market share by providing a
superior product or service in the future. Strictly speaking,
this is a form of short term below cost predation but competition
law does not preclude it. It is okay to spend money to make a
product better but not to make a product cheaper.
The Competition Bureau has investigated the predatory pricing
situation presented by the author of Bill C-235 and has
determined that the impact on consumers will be detrimental. I
was very impressed by the presentations made by the commissioner
of competition and am now much more confident that the
Competition Act will not be used as a tool to regulate Canadian
business, strangle the Canadian economy and punish consumers.
The commissioner of competition stated succinctly that the
Competition Act is intended to protect competition and not
competitors. Those companies that are not vertically integrated
may find themselves at a disadvantage to those companies with a
superior corporate design. However, it is not the role of
government to intervene in private sector decision making.
Small businesses have always struggled to survive against large
businesses. They do so by providing a superior product or
service, by finding niche markets not properly served by larger
competitors, or by building a reputation for a certain service.
It is not easy but the government should not be in the business
of protecting competitors from competition. The Competition Act
instead must serve consumers.
The creation and maintenance of competitive markets is of the
highest priority for the Reform Party, make no mistake about it.
However, we have a fundamental disagreement with the author of
this bill and with big government solutions to market failures.
The key to competition is free trade. We must work to create
contestable markets. Companies that succeed in driving their
competitors out of business by providing consumers with a product
they want at a price they find reasonable will not subsequently
raise prices if a contestable market exists.
Yesterday at the Standing Committee on Industry I attempted to
address the issue of creating contestable markets to ensure
domestic competition but every Liberal member of the committee
rejected my proposal. We are attempting to use the Competition
Act to address problems in the market that should be solved
through trade liberalization.
Let met give the House an example. It involves Norm Wallace of
Wallace Construction Specialties Limited. As a result of a 1998
CITT decision, Mr. Wallace has not been able to get access to a
supply of jacketed pipe insulation at a price that would allow
him to be competitive because a punitive 70% anti-dumping duty
has been levied against those companies that import this product
from the U.S.
The vertically integrated Canadian producer-retailer of this
product, Manson Insulation, now has an effective monopoly in this
market and refuses to supply Wallace Construction Specialties
Limited with this product. Manson Insulation is arguably in
violation of the abuse of dominant position and the refusal to
deal provisions of the Competition Act. The cause of the problem
however is the CITT anti-dumping policy which falls outside the
direct jurisdiction of the Competition Bureau.
Competition and free trade are interconnected. The threat of
competition will force businesses to behave as if they have
numerous competitors. The number of actual competitors in the
market is a very poor indicator of the intensity of the
competition. There are hundreds of farmers in Canada yet these
farmers do not actively compete against each other. There may be
only two cellular phone providers in an area but they compete
vigorously for business.
It is therefore wrong to suggest that if small business loses out
to larger vertically integrated companies consumers will pay
more.
1755
The Reform Party is committed to small business. We have never
moved from the resolve to lower taxes and remove the regulatory
barriers that hinder the success of small businesses. Small
business is the backbone of our economy but there may be products
and services that are better provided by large companies, just as
there are business ventures that can only be managed by small
organizational structures. The Reform Party is therefore
reluctant to give government the power to protect businesses from
competition at the expense of the Canadian consumer.
I come from a small business background. I know firsthand how
difficult it is to compete. Canadian small businesses only
survive due to long hours and hard work. Instead of punishing
small businesses with more government regulations, let us reward
them with tax relief and deregulation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague on his private
member's bill, and as well on all the work he has done to
develop awareness, which I am sure will leave its mark.
It was hard work, especially since there has been a reform
recently—I should say a so-called reform—of the Competition Act,
which, in our opinion, weakened the powers and the influence of
the commissioner.
Doubtless, arriving afterwards, with a measure that tightens the
Competition Act is no easy job, but the member did not falter at
the prospect and should be congratulated for it. We know that he
fought a hard fight.
That said, our job here as parliamentarians is not to praise
worthy intentions, intentions that we share, but rather to see
whether this bill responds to the concerns and the problems
giving rise to it.
Let me try to explain the bill simply. The member wants all
integrated suppliers, that is, all companies producing and
selling, to be prevented from selling directly or through an
affiliate a product that is above the conditions set. That means
that an integrated supplier cannot sell at a cost lower than the
cost he charges someone who is not a company, a subsidiary or
himself directly.
Originally, it was to prevent the major oil companies from
selling gasoline at a price to retailers higher than the price
they set for sales to their affiliate vendors or their own
selling price.
We can understand how unacceptable it is for small scale and
larger retailers to be sold gasoline that has been
refined—because the oil companies have factories to refine
gasoline—at a price higher than the price at which it is sold to
affiliates.
That is the problem what is the solution? It should be noted
that the right to set prices is not under federal jurisdiction.
The competition commissioner, through his representatives, has
held that the federal government does not have the jurisdiction
to set prices.
1800
At this very moment there is legislation in Quebec aimed at
solving the major problem in the petroleum sector which the hon.
member wanted to address and there is a parliamentary
commission which has been hearing witnesses for some time now.
The outcome is still pending.
I recently saw some consumers on television who were concerned
about the effects of having a base price to which would be added
a specific minimum of operating costs so as to allow the small
retailers to survive.
There is a debate between the retailers' right to survive—not
just the small ones—and the consumers' right to pay a reasonable
price. That debate is going on at this very moment, and I am
anxious to see what the outcome will be.
For me, in particular, there is a question of the relationship
between this bill and what is going on in Quebec at the present
time. There are other questions as well, however. The main one
is the extension of this model, which had been designed for the
petroleum sector, to all other sectors, because it refers to
every vertically integrated supplier. There is no reference to
size, to how many billion dollars it has to earn annually, it
merely refers to “every vertically integrated supplier who
manufactures and sells a product”.
It could be a co-operative, manufacturing and selling through
affiliates.
A vertically integrated supplier could also be a
smaller manufacturing and selling company, which this bill would
prevent from selling in its store at lower prices than customers
could get elsewhere. This bill would raise its prices simply
because the products are available elsewhere.
It might be possible to change these provisions if we looked
only at the issue of integrated suppliers. However, these
provisions are necessary, because there are other sectors which,
at some point, realized that they might be affected and that
they should take a look at this issue. A lot more work should
have been done, and it might also have been appropriate to find
other solutions to settle the issue.
I congratulate the hon. member, because this is a first step.
However, as regards the issue that I just mentioned, namely the
expression “every vertically integrated supplier”, there is no
mention of the size of the business involved. We should look at
this aspect.
There is more. A large Quebec or Canadian company that
invests because of deregulation, for example in the
telecommunications sector, and pours money into research and
development, would not benefit from a return on its investment
in research and development.
We must question this, particularly since the expression “every
vertically integrated supplier” would not apply to an American
supplier. A product may come from the United States and be sold
here. When it is sold here, it is not deemed to be sold by a
vertically integrated supplier. We could therefore have
competitive conditions that would adversely affect a vertically
integrated Canadian producer. One can think of several sectors.
I am sure this is not what the hon. member had in mind. As the
committee kept raising more issues, I became convinced that this
bill could not be passed in its current form.
Again, I understand the hon. member's intention, which is
primarily to strengthen the Competition Act.
For starters, the Standing Committee on Industry, or another
one, could have even arranged for the competition commissioner to have
a larger operating budget. The commissioner has realized, from
the testimony he has read and heard, that many small businesses
in Canada and Quebec are worried because they do not think he is
doing his job right.
1805
He was so taken aback that he himself said there should be a
review. It was this review, suggested by my Reform Party
colleague, that members across the way would not go along
with. Another way must be found.
In conclusion, I congratulate the member on his work, encourage
him to continue, and tell him that the Bloc Quebecois and I will
continue to agree with his intentions but, because of the act
itself and the legislation that makes it necessary to extend his
initial intention to all sectors, the bill cannot, in my
opinion, be passed by this parliament.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something I have
not yet done in the House. I propose to share my 10 minutes with
a Liberal backbencher, the member for Cambridge, so that he can
also have a few moments.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
hon. member share his time as indicated, five minutes each?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, that is great
co-operation. It is only too bad that the industry minister does
not show that type of co-operation to the hon. member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.
I wish to thank the hon. member from our party for his efforts
in helping to protect small industry in this country, especially
when it comes to gas retail companies.
I also wish to thank Mr. Dave Collins who is the Director of
Eastern Canada for the Independent Retail Gasoline Marketers
Association of Canada and the vice-president of Wilson Fuel Co.
Limited. I must say that the number of Wilson Fuel stations in
my riding do an outstanding job in terms of customer service to
the small communities. He is a great example of what small
business can do for community services.
I also wish to thank the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre for his efforts in promoting Bill C-235, as well as John
Holm, the MLA for Sackville—Cobequid, Nova Scotia, who we call
the gas man, for his efforts in telling the Competition Bureau to
become a watchdog on competition in gas sales and vertical
integration instead of being a lap dog.
It is unfortunate that the government, especially the industry
minister, has a tendency to eat its young when it comes to
backbenchers. It is just an example of the government not
allowing independent, free thinking backbenchers who have
terrific ideas which would benefit the majority of Canadians from
coast to coast to coast to put forward those ideas in a manner
which does not stifle them and attack their integrity. We find
that deplorable and wish that the government, the cabinet and the
industry minister would start to listen to their backbenchers,
especially the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, and do the
right thing.
It is quite natural for the Reform Party to say what it keeps
saying because, as with the banks, the bigger the banks the
better everything will be; the bigger the gas companies the
better everything will be. That is just not going to benefit
Canadians.
The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge is absolutely correct
when he says that the vision of Canada is one in which
legislators protect small entrepreneurial businesses and people
who have aggressive attitudes in terms of protecting and working
in small communities, especially when it comes to small gas
stations.
It reminds me of the old days when the small gas station, for
example, was the focal point of the community, along with the
post office. People would get together and fill up their tanks.
I always think of Andy of Mayberry with Goober and Gomer and the
sort of camaraderie they had. It reminds me of a small town in
Nova Scotia, Goshen, where the guys gather at the gas station
around the hot stove to reminisce about the day and what is
happening on the weekend. They would not be able to do that if
we did not have laws like Bill C-235 to protect them from the
gouging practices of the larger companies.
I will end my remarks by saying that it was a pleasure to
discuss this very serious and important initiative.
1810
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
strongly support Bill C-235. Those who oppose the bill argue
that it will lead to higher prices for consumers. That is
completely false and misleading.
Under this bill vertically integrated suppliers can still charge
whatever retail price they want for a product. The bill only
seeks to create a level playing field by providing wholesale
consumers with an opportunity to purchase product from a supplier
at a price that allows them to compete at the retail level.
This bill is not an attack on big business. It comes out of the
clear evidence that predator pricing does occur, which lessens
competition and costs consumers.
Bill C-235 seeks to protect free, open and true competition.
Without a level playing field in which to conduct business Canada
will have only a few large companies controlling an entire market
with no true competition.
On that note, I move:
(a) by replacing paragraph 50.1(2)(a) with the following:
“(a) the vertically integrated supplier's own retail price in
the same market area or”
(b) by deleting subsection 50.1(3).
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak on behalf of the PC Party of Canada to Bill C-235.
Before I comment on the legislation itself I would like to
commend the many years of research and hard work on this subject
done by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. While I do not
necessarily share his belief in the need for this legislation, I
do applaud the initiative, energy and passion he has brought to
this debate.
As mentioned by other members, the intent of this legislation
would provide a basis for the enforcement of fair pricing between
a manufacturer who sells a product at retail either directly or
through an affiliate and also supplies the product to a customer
who competes with the supplier at the retail level.
This bill would presumably give the customer a fair opportunity
to make a similar profit. It would also provide that a supplier
who attempts to coerce a customer in the establishment of a
retail price or a retail marketing policy may be dealt with as
having committed an anti-competitive action under the Competition
Act.
While the majority of the PC caucus supported Bill C-235 at
second reading, most members did so out of the spirit of fair
play to allow this bill to be given broad study and scrutiny at
the industry committee. During committee proceedings, having
heard many reasonable objections to Bill C-235 from a variety of
credible organizations, which I will outline, I opted to support
the government's motion to report Bill C-235 to the House with
every clause deleted.
Mr. McTeague subsequently tabled amendments at report stage to
essentially restore—
1815
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Markham knows that he must refer to other hon. members by their
titles or constituency names. To refer to somebody by some other
name, he knows, is contrary to the rules. As with another member
earlier in this debate I have to admonish the hon. member and
urge him to use the name Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge or whatever
combination thereof he wishes to describe the hon. member whose
bill we are now discussing.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry about that. The
bill's proponents, which include independent gas stations,
independent grocers and the Canadian Federation of Independent
Businesses, cite the following reasons to support Bill C-235: to
give the Federal Competition Bureau of Canada the tools to fight
predatory pricing; to ensure the continuing existence of small
businesses, thus ensuring a competitive marketplace and lowering
retail prices; and to follow the example of the United States
which has strong predatory pricing laws at the state level.
Witnesses before the industry committee in March and April
clearly showed a lack of real hard evidence to support these
assertions. Although Bill C-235 proponents have used the
fluctuation in retail gas prices to substantiate their causes,
the bill would impact negatively on large segments of the
Canadian economy.
Organizations that have spoken out against the bill include the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian
Automobile Association, the Information Technology Association of
Canada, Bell Canada, the CRTC, the Canadian Petroleum Products
Institute, IBM Canada Limited, Sun Microsystems and Hewlett-
Packard Canada Limited. I note the importance of IBM Canada and
Sun Microsystems to the GTA economy. Both companies have their
head offices in Markham.
From a nationwide perspective the Canadian Chamber of Commerce,
which represents 170,000 small, medium and large businesses
throughout Canada, noted that the regulatory amendments in Bill
C-235 would lead to higher prices for both consumers and
businesses in the following industries: computer white goods, for
example, refrigerators, stoves, washing machines, dryers, et
cetera; electronic appliances, for example, stereo equipment,
microwave ovens, video recorders; computer products, including a
broad range of accessories; office equipment; telecommunications
products; furniture; clothing; grocery wholesaling; meat
processing, for example, poultry, pork, beef, fish;
transportation; petroleum products; paint, wallpaper and other
home improvement products; a broad range of petrochemical
products; and a broad range of industrial products.
The bill is not just about gasoline pricing. It is about how
our private companies maximize their legitimate marketing
channels.
What about the statement that predatory pricing laws in the
United States similar to Bill C-235 have kept prices down.
Credible studies conclude that legislation in numerous U.S.
states has proven to be counterproductive. A study prepared by
Terry Calvani, a former commissioner of the United States Trade
Commission, concluded that such gasoline pricing laws have
increased costs to consumers and appear not to have provided
independent dealers either higher profits or greater stability.
Let us never forget that the Competition Act already contains
provisions to deal with any competitive conduct as highlighted by
Bill C-235.
The predatory pricing and abuse of dominance provisions in
sections 50(1)(c) and 79 of the act sufficiently address
incidences of true predatory pricing. Furthermore, the conduct
proposed by Bill C-235's proposed addition to section 78(1) of
the Competition Act is already prohibited under section 61 of the
act.
I am not saying that the heartfelt pleas for action the industry
committee heard should be dismissed out of hand. There may be a
need for amendments to the Competition Act. That is why the
industry committee has decided to review the Competition Act to
evaluate whether it sufficiently reflects the demands of the
current marketplace. If the committee finds there is credible
independent evidence that amendments like the ones proposed in
Bill C-235 are needed, that is the time we should consider
amendments.
At present Bill C-235 is premature. With the negative effects
of our economy as a result of Bill C-235 presently appearing to
far outweigh any positive effect, we should not rush into passing
this law without careful review.
I recognize that my Conservative friends in the Ontario
government support Bill C-235. To me this demonstrates one of
the clear differences between a Conservative and a Liberal. While
Conservatives respect and allow for differences of opinion,
Liberals let loose the lash of the government whip to try to keep
members singing from the same song sheet.
While I have kind words for my Ontario Conservative friends, I
must object for the record to some of the tactics used by Bill
C-235 supporters in Ottawa, including some members of the House.
1820
While witnesses supporting Bill C-235 were treated with the
utmost respect by members representing all points of view on the
bill, witnesses opposing Bill C-235 had their motives questioned,
were interrupted and sometimes abused by committee members, and
were attacked as being pawns of large oil companies and big
corporations. This type of behaviour in promoting a cause smacks
of McCarthyism, Canadian style, and does little to enhance either
the image of parliament or the concerns which Bill C-235 attempts
to address.
To reiterate, the potential economic costs of Bill C-235 are too
high to enact new provisions to the Competition Act dealing with
topics already covered by existing sections. On behalf of the PC
Party of Canada I urge all members to oppose amendments to Bill
C-235 at report stage and to oppose the bill at third reading.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to speak to this initiative on the part of the hon.
member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Bill C-235, an act to amend
the Competition Act.
The bill is a well intentioned attempt to protect Canadian
consumers and small businesses from abusive power by large and
vertically integrated firms. The bill assumes, though, that the
current provisions in the Competition Act are insufficient to
deal with the practices.
The report of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing, chaired
by the same hon. member who is sponsoring Bill C-235, included a
number of recommendations for further study on these very
questions.
Does the oil industry majors exert the degree of power over
prices that is commonly suspected? Are the current criminal and
civil provisions of the Competition Act adequate to prevent the
big companies from eliminating competition from the independents
or from disciplining them in order to maintain high prices at the
gas pump?
The government is anxious to determine what is happening in the
retail gas industry. We have heard independents complaining that
the integrated suppliers are intent on driving them out of the
market or on using price competition coercively to keep retail
prices artificially high. We have heard the distress of
independents caught in price wars between the majors. We
understand the frustration and anger of people who have invested
years, perhaps a lifetime, in a business that becomes an
incidental casualty, collateral damage in a price war.
On the other hand, we have heard that the integrated firms value
the independent distributors. The independents provide a useful
alternative distribution channel for excess production. They
provide coverage in markets where lower sales volumes make it
less attractive for major firms.
We were also told that price predation is rare or rarely
successful because it is seldom that a single firm will have
sufficient marketing power to lower prices long enough to drive
competitors out of the market, then raise prices and sustain them
long enough to recoup the losses while keeping new competitors
out.
Because there are conflicting messages the government agrees
that there is a need to find out what is really happening in the
retail gasoline industry. Acting on the recommendations of the
Liberal committee on gasoline pricing, the Minister of Industry
has established a steering committee to oversee a major study of
the retail gasoline sector. This steering committee has
representations from all sides of the debate.
Co-chaired by Industry Canada and by Natural Resources Canada,
it includes representatives from all provinces and territories,
the Independent Retail Gasoline Marketers' Association,
l'Association québécoise des indépendents du pétrole, the Ontario
Fuel Dealers Association, the Canadian Petroleum Products
Institute, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian
Automobile Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business, and the Retail Gasoline Dealers' Association of Nova
Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
The government supports the objective of ensuring a level
playing field for independent gasoline retailers that compete
with the retail affiliates of the major oil companies. We trust
the study will give us a clear and comprehensive understanding
and allow us to legislate intelligently if changes to the law are
necessary.
Before leaving the report of the Liberal committee on gasoline
pricing, I would note that the government has already responded
to a number of other recommendations by ensuring that protection
for whistleblowers was incorporated into Bill C-20 which came
into force on March 18, 1999.
1825
Those provisions, which were the initiative of the hon. member
for Ottawa Centre, respond directly to the committee's
recommendation for provisions to protect the identity of
employees who report anti-competitive offences.
The enforcement of the Competition Act is not solely the
responsibility of the bureau. Unless parties are willing to come
forward to co-operate with the bureau and provide the information
they have relating to possible offences, the bureau will in many
cases simply not be in a position to take a case forward. It is
to be hoped that the whistleblower protection will serve the
purpose of encouraging people with evidence of a possible offence
to come forward.
Bill C-235 does not deal just with gasoline retailers. It would
apply broadly to any sector of the economy where vertically
integrated manufacturers use dual distribution channels. For
this and other reasons, when Bill C-235 came before the Standing
Committee on Industry, and after considerable deliberations, the
committee concluded that it would not support this initiative.
Bill C-235 as originally proposed would make it a criminal
offence for manufacturers with retail operations to sell to
independent retailers at a price higher than its own retail price
less its marketing costs and a reasonable profit. An alternative
bill would have made it an offence for manufacturers to sell to
independent retailers at a higher price than the price they
charge their own affiliates.
As the Minister of Industry noted in a letter to the bill's
sponsor on October 19, 1998, the bill would require the
government to involve itself in monitoring and evaluating pricing
strategies. As we know, when the bill came to the industry
committee, the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge offered
an amendment to deal with these concerns in part.
If Bill C-235 were to become law in either of the forms in which
it has been proposed, it would be illegal for a manufacturer to
charge an independent retail price higher than its own retail
price. This may look like a reasonable proposition at first, but
it has some odd ramifications. Here are some examples.
If an independent customer decided to drop its retail price to
stir up a little business and take a shot at a vertically
integrated supplier's market share, by law under Bill C-235 the
supplier would be prevented from lowering its own retail price to
match the independent's price unless it also lowered its
wholesale price and in effect subsidized the independent. In
fact, suppliers would be unable to lower retail prices to meet
any competitor's price unless they also lowered the wholesale
price they charge their independent customers and effectively
subsidize independents for the duration of the price competition.
Another concern is that Bill C-235 makes no exception for price
discounting for legitimate business reasons. Under Bill C-235 a
vertically integrated manufacturer selling off discounted goods
or deteriorating inventory could be charged with a criminal
offence. Moreover, as was pointed out by witnesses before the
industry committee, it is not uncommon to introduce new products,
particularly in high technology sectors, at below cost prices in
order to persuade consumers to switch and to build market share.
Under Bill C-235 it could be a crime for vertically integrated
firms to engage in such a marketing strategy.
Bill C-235 sets out to protect independent retailers, but there
is a potential for it to have disastrous effects on the people it
seeks to protect. The broad and sweeping application of Bill
C-235 was a consideration that caused the industry committee at
the end of the day to vote it down. The primary impetus behind
Bill C-235 is the situation of independent gasoline retailers.
They build their businesses on the premise that product will be
available to them at wholesale prices that give them enough room
to pay the bills, pay the staff and make a living.
The Competition Act protects independents from margin squeezing
and other abuses by dominant parties where the practice has the
purpose of impeding or preventing competition and where the
practice results in a substantial lessening of competition.
We have heard from representatives of Canadian businesses across
the country. We have heard voices on both sides of the question.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and many others made submissions
to the industry committee which members of the opposition have so
eloquently spelled out in this debate.
With respect, for the reasons I have outlined, independent
business should be concerned with the consequences should this
bill become law.
1830
In summary, the government agrees that the concerns of the
independent gas retailers deserve further study. We have taken
steps to ensure that an open, far reaching and broadly
representative investigation occurs.
Because Bill C-235 would prevent businesses from engaging in
legitimate price discounting, because Bill C-235 would discourage
vertically integrated suppliers, including even the smallest
manufacturer-retailer from using dual distribution channels, and
because legislation like Bill C-235 has the effect of raising
consumer prices, reducing the incentive to innovate and maximize
efficiencies, it is for these reasons I urge the House to follow
the lead of the Standing Committee on Industry and defeat this
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Accordingly, the
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
military personnel who live on bases in single quarters or in
permanent married quarters must contend with old and
deteriorating accommodations that are among the worst to be found
in this country. Those are not my words but those of the report
of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs.
The quarters in some regions were called dilapidated by the
committee and that was being very generous. From leaking roofs to
cramped, old deteriorating spaces, Canada's forces personnel
deserve much better from the country that they so admirably
serve, and in particular from the Liberal government responsible
for these decisions.
In one letter written to the forces publication The Maple
Leaf we find the words “In the last 40-plus years some things
never change. Morale seems to be every bit as low as it was
then, and housing hasn't changed since the 1950s”.
Just listen to the Ottawa jargon with which the minister
responded to these Canadians in need, “developing long range
plans” and “we have long term plans”. The Liberal government's
response to the report is equally unclear and noncommittal. It
said “Over time, access to accommodation that meets these
requirements will be realized”. Over time anything is possible
but what is impossible is accepting this so-called response.
Canadian forces accommodation policy cites the need for well
maintained quarters respecting dignity, privacy, safety and
security. The Liberal government's policy is tough luck, you
lose.
The Minister of National Defence announced last October that his
Liberal government had cash on hand to spend $15 million building
a brand spanking new armoury in Shawinigan which by great
coincidence happens to be in the Prime Minister's own riding. A
brand new armoury when Canadian forces troops live in
unacceptable conditions.
I wonder if there is any money whatsoever in the $4 billion the
government plans to spend on equipment over the next four years.
This is money which may be better suited to meet the immediate
needs of Canadian forces personnel condemned by the Liberal
government to unsafe and rundown housing. The government has
responded to a real crisis in Canada's forces with the words
“long term plans”, “accepts the intent of their
recommendations” and “over time, access to accommodation that
meets these requirements will be realized”. Fancy words but
empty words. Jargon at a bargain.
For married troops quarters, $40 million will be used to repair
and maintain existing rundown housing. The Liberal government
has decided to say to the families of Canadian troops, “Yes, we
heard how bad it is. We even spent taxpayers' dollars to tour
the country and find out just how bad it is, but we will not
build one single new residence for you as a result, not one”.
I expect the government will respond to my comments touting this
$40 billion band-aid and once again spouting jargon about how it
supports in principle the needs and is working toward a long term
plan.
I would like the government to respond to these comments with a
step by step plan as to what quarters will be replaced this year,
next year and the year after. By what month, in what year, will
all forces personnel be able to live in acceptable conditions? I
await the response to this challenge. The issue has been studied
to death. Now is the time for action.
An annual report of the Canadian Forces Housing Agency from
years ago said, “Without access to capital funding, little real
progress can be made toward improving the quality of the crown
housing portfolio”. Capital funding, not empty promises and
more studies.
1835
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to
this question.
The Canadian forces are an important national organization.
Canadian forces members do a great deal for their country and
they deserve both fair and reasonable compensation and a fair and
reasonable standard of living. The quality of life of Canadian
forces personnel has therefore been one of the minister's top
priorities.
To pay for all of our quality of life initiatives we will spend
approximately $538 million per year, $175 million in new money
and $363 million from within our existing budget. Our level of
spending will allow us to follow through on our commitment to
improve the quality of life of Canadian forces members, including
measures to improve housing.
We accepted all of the Standing Committee on National Defence
and Veterans Affairs 89 recommendations. We are already moving
on most of them, including spending $40 million this fiscal year
alone on immediate action for housing. This $40 million in new
funding is in addition to the approximately $83 million the
Canadian Forces Housing Agency currently collects in rents and
invests back into repairs.
Most of Canada's military housing was built in the 1950s. We
started repairs to military married quarters in fiscal year
1996-97. By the end of this fiscal year we anticipate that we
will have replaced 5,000 furnaces, reinsulated 4,500 homes and
improved drains and sewer systems for 6,000 homes. In addition,
9,000 homes will have received new doors, 6,500 will have
received new windows and more than 4,000 will have had new roofs
installed. The $40 million in new funding this fiscal year will
allow the Canadian forces to accelerate these repairs to military
married quarters.
We recognize that additional measures need to be taken with
respect to housing. That is why we intend to give the Canadian
Forces Housing Agency an expanded mandate to provide housing and
housing services on military bases.
The Canadian forces also recognize there is no comprehensive
accommodation policy on providing or managing accommodations.
That is why we are developing a comprehensive policy this year.
All these measures show the government's firm commitment to
improving the quality of life for our Canadian forces members
wherever they serve Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)