36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 164
CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 2, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEANNE BAIRD
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 2010 WINTER OLYMPICS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JAMIE HUNTER
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1405
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FARMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WOMEN'S CRISIS SERVICES OF CAMBRIDGE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOCKEY NIGHT IN OTTAWA
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1410
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TORONTO MAYOR
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOCKEY NIGHT IN OTTAWA
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOURIST INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1425
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1430
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1435
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1440
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1445
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1450
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAND MINES
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Finestone |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 2010 OLYMPIC GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1455
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1500
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments during Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1505
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-13—Speaker's ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1510
1515
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Notice of Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1530
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transport
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Bonin |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-61. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSION OMBUDSMAN ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-460. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-461. Introduction and first reading.
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1535
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FARM INCOME PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-462. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Financial Services Sector
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1540
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abortion
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Impaired Driving
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transferred for debate
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1545
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions 1, 4, 5, 12 to 24, 27, 30, 31, 34 to 36, 39 to 54,
57 to 63, 66 to 70, 73 to 99, 104, 105, 108 to 204
|
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1655
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43—Notice of time allocation
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Report Stage
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-UNITED STATES DAYS OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1800
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1815
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1820
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1825
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Environment
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1830
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Defence
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1835
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Poverty
|
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1840
![V](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 164
![](/web/20061116185815im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, December 2, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Surrey
Central.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
LEANNE BAIRD
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I stand today to congratulate an
outstanding and energetic young lady from my riding of Stoney
Creek.
Miss Leanne Baird, who was crowned Miss Canada International in
August, has recently returned from the Miss World International
competitions in Seychelles.
As Canada's ambassador to this prestigious world competition,
this dynamic 21 year old has displayed the highest level of
goodwill, sportsmanship and excellence. Leanne carried out her
duties with skill and compassion and should be very proud of her
accomplishments.
Her leadership qualities were clearly illustrated here in Ottawa
when she attended the week long Forum for Young Canadians.
Leanne is an inspiration to people of all ages everywhere and
has shown the world what is right with Canada's young people.
I join with all members of this House, Leanne's family and
friends and all the residents from the riding of Stoney Creek in
wishing Leanne congratulations for a job well done.
* * *
2010 WINTER OLYMPICS
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 2010 Vancouver and Whistler intend to
be hosts to the world's finest Olympic winter athletes.
Vancouver is already world renowned for its attention to culture
and enthusiasm to athletics, and Whistler has repeatedly been
acclaimed as the number one ski resort in the world. A
combination like this is truly second to none.
Yesterday, 72 voting delegates of the Canadian Olympic
Association said that British Columbia would be Canada's choice
for the competition.
Congratulations go to Arthur Griffiths, head of the
Vancouver-Whistler bid society, and to the many athletes and
organizers who have contributed endless time and energy in making
the bid successful.
Congratulations should also go to Calgary and Quebec City which
both presented top notch bids.
British Columbians look forward to the opportunity of showcasing
Canada's most spectacular province to the members of the IOC,
establishing that B.C. is certainly the gateway to the world.
* * *
JAMIE HUNTER
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
each year I co-sponsor an essay contest for students in my riding
of Mississauga South. This year's topic was “The famous
Canadian I would like to meet”.
The winning entry was submitted by Miss Jamie Hunter, a grade 7
student at Homelands Public School. The essay caught my
attention because it was about an outstanding Canadian, Cassie
Campbell, who has become a role model and an inspiration to
Jamie.
Cassie loved hockey and despite significant hurdles she became a
member of the Canadian National Women's Hockey team, representing
Canada in national and world championships and at the Olympics.
Cassie Campbell also obtained a university degree, did some
modelling, coaches and runs hockey camps, authored a book and is
a spokesperson for a program to prevent young women from smoking.
Jamie Hunter is in Ottawa today to meet the Prime Minister and I
want to thank her for sharing her story about her famous Canadian
role model.
When I encounter motivated young people like Jamie I am reminded
just how important it is for all Canadians who touch the lives of
children to provide the leadership, support and guidance that our
youth will need to become the leaders of tomorrow.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is the international day recognizing the abolition
of slavery. It is a day that is commemorated around the world by
countries whose citizens were victims of the slave trade.
The International Day for the Abolition of Slavery calls upon
each and every one of us to pause, to reflect and to take stock
of the vestiges of slavery and its implications for universal
human rights.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Human
Rights and we must not forget the human rights violations that
slavery fostered over 200 years ago.
I call upon my colleagues from all sides of the House to join me
and thousands of African Canadians in recognizing this day and
the history attached to it.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to recognize today farmers across Canada and all those in
Brome—Missisquoi. They represent a vital link in the agri-food
chain and contribute to a complex system involving suppliers,
carriers, processors, grocers and restaurateurs.
Despite our farmers' productivity, global circumstances beyond
their control have them facing a financial crisis.
Economic problems in Asia had a ripple effect worldwide, causing
a decline in sales. Great crops are usually good news for
farmers, but not this year. The loss of markets and inventory
surpluses, combined with the effects of American and European
subsidies, have caused a severe economic crisis in Canadian
agriculture.
I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and
we have been listening to farmers and to their suggestions as to
how this crisis might be resolved. I am confident we can respond
to them quickly and adequately.
[English]
Let us put our heart where our mouth is.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, talk like Santa, act like Scrooge. That is the finance
minister. With great fanfare he announces a drop in employment
insurance premiums, but hides the fact that he really owes
workers five times more than he is paying back to them.
The chief actuary of the employment insurance program says that
the finance minister owes each worker $350. So why is Scrooge
paying back only one-sixth of what he has been overcharging
workers? It is no wonder the finance minister has to talk so
much about an uncertain environment. He was the one who helped
create it with illegal taxes on Canadian families.
This Christmas there will be a hole in each worker's wallet
where $300 ought to be for Tiny Tim. Even Scrooge would hang his
head in shame.
* * *
1405
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has been working hard to
find a response to the farm income crisis.
Nationally, farm income is declining. Commodities taking the
deepest dive are grains and hogs. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan,
where concentration is particularly intense, farm income is
expected to drop about 40% and 70% respectively. Although the
impact is most severe on the prairies, wherever these crops are
produced farmers are hurting.
The problems that began in Asia have caused a multiplier effect
around the globe. Customers no longer have the funds to buy,
supply is increasing and prices are falling into the basement.
European and American subsidies are compounding the problem.
In my home province of Manitoba farmers tell me that the need
for assistance is urgent and the time to act is now. I urge all
members—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cambridge.
* * *
WOMEN'S CRISIS SERVICES OF CAMBRIDGE
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Women's
Crisis Services of Cambridge and North Dumfries, formerly known
as the Family Crisis Shelter of Cambridge, was recently awarded
$5,000 from the Donner Canadian Foundation Awards for Excellence
in the delivery of social services.
This national award is a testament to the innovation and high
quality of service provided to women and children in our
community who are victims of abuse. The Women's Crisis Services
provides a safe environment for those escaping violence in the
home, as well as counselling, legal advocacy, public education,
peer support and crisis intervention programs.
I congratulate all the volunteers and staff for their ongoing
dedication and achievements. I wish them continued success under
the new name.
* * *
THE SENATE OF CANADA
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday this House gave a standing ovation to Mr. Max Bacaus, an
elected senator.
When opposition members stood to applaud, we did so in support
of a triple E Senate. Liberals on the front benches jeered
despite the fact that the Prime Minister has promised an elected,
equal and effective Senate and has failed to deliver at every
opportuntiy.
Alberta pays for 10 senators, gets only six and receives the
services of none.
On October 19 of this year Alberta took steps to change that by
electing two senators. Here today are two elected senators from
Alberta who received the support of 593,000 voters, the largest
number of votes cast for any parliamentarian in Canadian history.
Canadians deserve democratic representation in their government.
The election of senators in Alberta is only the beginning.
* * *
HOCKEY NIGHT IN OTTAWA
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the action was fast and furious as Team Liberal
faced off against the opposition last night in an historic hockey
game. When the ice chips settled, Team Liberal skated away as
the political champions of Canada's national pastime.
Although the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough promised
to pepper Team Liberal with shots, our rotund member from
Bourassa stood on his head in the net as he kept a low goal
deficit. Our veteran member from Nickel Belt was a shining,
scintillating star for the winning team. Also accolades go to
our member from Nunavut. She was as graceful as a gazelle on
skates. Our member for Brampton Centre offered vocal and moral
support as our door manager.
Team Liberal was triumphant despite the opposition attack led by
the terrible trio of the members from Medicine Hat, Prince
George—Peace River and Surrey North.
The opposition did suffer a hold-out by the Bloc Quebecois
players, who refused to play unless there were winning
conditions.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Québec.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the ministers
responsible for the growth in poverty have just announced they
intend to continue fleecing employees, by making a nickel and
dime cut in EI contribution rates at a time when the program is
covering only four out of every ten unemployed workers.
The Minister of Human Resources Development can say that this
cut will put $1.1 billion back into the pockets of Canadians,
but what he is not saying and we ought to know is that, at the
same time, he is discreetly taking approximately $5 billion out
of their other pockets.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development let the
Minister of Finance help himself with both hands to a fund his
government does not pay a penny into, instead of recognizing
that the surpluses in the unemployment insurance fund belong to
those who pay contributions and must be paid back to them, by
substantially lowering contribution rates and improving the
employment insurance plan?
* * *
1410
[English]
TRANSPORT CANADA
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general has revealed that Transport Canada's
performance in managing and administering its highway investment
shows many weaknesses.
This is nothing for New Brunswickers. New Brunswickers know
about Transport Canada's mismanagement of money. Starting in
January they will have to pay tolls to drive on a highway that
was built as part of a federal-provincial agreement signed by
former transport minister Doug Young who now heads the private
company putting up tolls.
By 2001 it will cost cars up to $14 and trucks $45 for a round
trip.
The now transport minister has said that measures will be taken
to forbid tolls on federally funded highways in the future.
However, for this deal he has chosen to protect Doug Young's
interests instead of standing up for Atlantic Canadians.
New Brunswickers will have to pay tolls to drive to work, to go
to a doctor or to visit friends and family. The people driving
to and from Atlantic Canada will have to pay those tolls also.
Atlantic Canadians will also see an increase in the price of
goods.
* * *
[Translation]
TORONTO MAYOR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Mayor of Toronto compared the PQ government to the communist
regime of Fidel Castro. He also said that no federal buildings
belong to Quebeckers, and he called sovereignty a stupid
project.
How could the mayor of Canada's largest city not know that
Quebeckers pay close to one quarter of federal taxes? The
reality is that one quarter of the federal buildings in Toronto
belong to Quebeckers. And, after a yes vote, we will be prepared
to trade our federal buildings outside Quebec for all the
federal buildings located in Quebec. This is what sharing the
debt and the assets is all about.
How could the mayor of Canada's largest city consider it stupid
for a people to refer to its history and want to succeed on the
international scene? Why would something that is good for
Canadians be stupid for Quebeckers?
I do not see what interest the Mayor of Toronto has in publicly
airing his biases against Quebec. It seems to me that what we
need right now is an honest dialogue and constructive
discussions, not—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nunavut has the floor.
* * *
[English]
HOCKEY NIGHT IN OTTAWA
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
being a hockey mom of four boys, I can imagine how the opposition
must be feeling today. Defeat can be tough at times.
The opposition was trounced by a score of 13 to 8 at last
night's famous hockey game. Again we have proven that our
Liberal team is hard to beat. Our players came together as a
team of force. Liberals always do.
The ice became another venue where our members came out as
winners and I am very proud to be part of the team.
I have a message for the opposition. Everyone cannot be a
winner. It is all about trying one's best. Unfortunately, the
opposition's best could not topple our Liberal spirit.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I just
want to tell members that the reason the Liberals won was because
I was supposed to be the coach and I could not make it. That is
the only reason they won.
Yesterday the auditor general's report congratulated the
Department of Veterans Affairs for its reduction of the
turnaround time for veterans' applications for benefits.
However, many veterans feel that there are still problems that
exist within the system, one of which is the lack of credibility
afforded to veterans who have no way of proving their claim for
benefits due to the lack of accurate records.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party feel that veterans in
this particular circumstance should be given an opportunity to
testify under oath before the veterans review board as to the
validity of their claims; therefore, not only giving the benefit
of the doubt to the veteran, but also leaving the board to
substantiate its decision.
These men are entitled to better treatment and other people's
errors should not be a reason for doubt. Lest we forget.
* * *
[Translation]
TOURIST INDUSTRY
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to tell you about another
initiative of our government in developing our natural heritage.
On November 12, the hon. secretary of state responsible for
Canada's economic development announced a $1.6 million
investment to develop the recreational and tourist potential of
the Saguenay fjord. Through a partnership agreement between
Fisheries and Oceans, Economic Development and Heritage Canada,
the pier at Anse-Saint-Jean will be redeveloped.
In addition to restoring the site's beauty, the work will help
support the region's tourist industry.
The Government of Canada is proud to be associated with a
project based on partnership. This initiative will promote
tourism, which is a major industry in our economy.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this Prime Minister owes millions of Canadian workers
$290 each. This Prime Minister owes thousands of Canadian
businesses $415 per employee. That is how much further the
employment insurance premiums should have been cut yesterday
according to the chief actuary of the plan.
Why does the Prime Minister not simply tell his finance minister
to give that money back to the employers and the workers of
Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the department of the Minister of Human Resources
Development has a committee that has been established under the
law. It is made up of employers and employees. The three
members of the commission looking at all the circumstances
recommended a reduction of 15 cents.
When we became the government in 1993, EI premiums were to be
$3.30 on January 1, 1994. They have been reduced with this move
to $2.55. We are reducing premiums, contrary to what has
happened in previous years.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister hides behind the Employment Insurance
Commission, which is a frequent posture of the Prime Minister.
How independent are these commissions? Two of them work for the
Minister of Human Resources Development and the other two are
appointed by the government. If they object to this heist, they
will probably be collecting employment insurance themselves.
Why does the Prime Minister not just do the right thing and give
the employment insurance money back to the workers instead of
blaming the commissioners?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not blaming anybody. In fact, because we have
managed the finances of the country in a very careful and
responsible way, we are in the second year of a surplus position.
I am very surprised that the leader of the Reform Party wants us
to go into a deficit position again as quickly as possible.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not just the workers that the Prime Minister is
ripping off. The government has been ripping off hard pressed
farmers by up to $1 billion a year in income and input taxes. The
government is ripping off the working poor to the tune of about
$15 billion a year from families and individuals who make $30,000
or less.
Maybe the Prime Minister can tell Canadians who just do not
understand why he has instructed his finance minister to tax the
life out of workers, farmers and the working poor.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my instructions to the Minister of Finance were to be a
good, responsible Minister of Finance. I am very happy with his
delivery.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the chief actuary for employment insurance says that the EI rate
should be as low as $1.90 per $100 on Canadians' paycheques. That
is $1.90, not $2.55. That difference amounts to hundreds of
dollars a year for workers and small business in this country,
yet the finance minister insists on keeping it at $2.55.
Why is the minister being so stubborn? Why will he not lower it
more?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member owes it to her party to at least cite
the actuary correctly. The actuary quoted a range and the other
side of the range was $2.50.
The Prime Minister has just said that the actuary makes a
recommendation to the commission. The commission has
representatives from the employer side and the employee side.
That commission made a recommendation to the government which the
government has accepted.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in fact the government owes it, and it owes workers hundreds of
dollars.
The finance minister once said that payroll taxes like EI are a
cancer on Canadian jobs.
The chief actuary, whose judgment is not tainted by politics,
still says that EI premiums are way too high. Each business is
paying hundreds of dollars more than it should per worker.
Again I would like to ask the minister, how can he justify
jingling that money out of every Canadian worker's pocket?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think we should be very clear. This is not about EI
premiums, nor in fact is it about income taxes. It is about the
Reform Party's agenda to gut the health care system, to cut the
transfers to the provinces, to make sure that aboriginal
Canadians do not have decent health care and do not have decent
education.
The Reform Party talks about the working poor. When we brought
in the child tax benefit to help the working poor, the Reform
Party opposed it with its narrow fiscal agenda.
* * *
1420
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to an article in this morning's National Post, senior
federal officials have prepared a social union proposal, and an
announcement is expected shortly.
Is the Prime Minister going to pull his usual stunt and release
the proposal after the recess so as not to have to answer
questions in the House about his proposal to the provinces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is no.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I
understand correctly, the proposal will be announced before the
House adjourns. Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs told us that we might see it before February, but the
Liberals refused to amend yesterday's motion. This is double
talk.
If the Prime Minister seriously wants to be consistent and show
that he is interested in social union with all the provinces,
should he not agree to leave any new program that interferes in
provincial jurisdiction out of the next budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask the hon. member to be patient. He will have his answer when
we bring down the budget in February.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a day does
not go by that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and
the Minister of Health do not repeat that the federal government
intends to put money back into health care. However, they are
very careful not to say how much or how they plan to go about
it.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to reinvest the money he says he
wants to put back into health care through transfer payments, as
he ought, as long as there is no agreement on social union?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member will have his answer when the budget is brought down
in February.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we heard the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs saying that the federal
government wanted to retain its spending power in provincial
jurisdictions.
What message is the minister, who says he is acting in good
faith, sending to the provinces, when he says he is ready to
negotiate in good faith and then repeats that he will do what he
wants because, whatever the case, the federal government is
right?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in all federations around the world, the distribution
of powers applies to the power to legislate, but the federal
government can spend wherever it considers it in the national
interest to do so.
The provincial governments want us to use this federal spending
power in a way that does not upset their priorities. We are
very open to discussions with them, because we know that we will
end up with the best policies by working together for all
Canadians.
* * *
[English]
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister stunned Canadians yesterday when he said that he
does not see the link between the social union and the federal
budget. Canadians do see the link. It is more children living
in poverty, fewer unemployed receiving benefits, every single
Canadian harmed by health cuts. Why is the Prime Minister the
only Canadian who cannot see that his unilateral budget cuts are
tearing apart our social union?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I point out to the member that we have introduced a
national child tax benefit of $1.7 billion. Since we have been
in government we have increased the amount of the child care
deduction. We have provided a family income supplement for
roughly 350,000 low income parents on EI. We have enhanced the
community action program and the Canada prenatal nutrition
program for children at risk. I could carry on but I do not have
the time.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister boasts about balancing the federation but his cuts
have created a Canada that is dangerously out of balance. There
are 800,000 unemployed living without benefits. This year alone
37,000 more people have been forced to use food banks. There are
1.5 million children and their families living in poverty.
1425
Is this the Prime Minister's idea of balance? What kind of
balance lets our children go hungry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, because we are very concerned, I will carry on reading
the list.
We have introduced tax relief for low and middle income
Canadians, taking 400,000 low income Canadians off the tax rolls
completely. We have transferred $25.9 billion to the provinces
through the Canada health and social transfer in 1998-99. We
have introduced a millennium scholarship program to permit people
with low incomes to attend university. Above all, we have
established—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's former Minister of Transport, Doug Young,
signed an agreement to fund 100% of the cost of a highway in New
Brunswick. The auditor general revealed yesterday that the same
Doug Young has secretly altered the terms of the deal to allow a
private company to charge tolls on that same highway. Doug Young
is the president of the same company that is going to charge the
tolls.
It does not take an ethics commissioner to know this is a
crooked deal. Will the Prime Minister use the tools described by
the auditor general to stop this outrageous rotten deal?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member takes great licence with the auditor
general's report because he has come to conclusions that the
auditor general did not come to.
The auditor general came to some conclusions. Quite frankly,
Transport Canada disagrees with most of them and we told the
auditor general and his staff that we disagree with them.
We disagree that the federal government failed to control
highway funding. We disagree that Transport Canada failed to
provide accurate information. We get our information from the
provinces. We work with the provinces. We do not parallel the
provinces.
If the auditor general has a problem, he should talk to the
provinces about the information they provide us with.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, what the auditor general said exactly was that Transport
Canada failed to exercise the controls entrenched in the
agreement to ensure that federal positions are honoured. It is
the same thing we have been talking about for months and months.
I ask the hon. minister if he will take action, stop
boondoggling, stop the delays, stop stonewalling, use the tools
as described by the auditor general, take action and stop this
deal.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general confuses minimum acceptable
national standards for the national highway system with normal
evaluations.
We have engineers and experts of the provinces—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. David M. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the
auditor general appears to confuse minimum acceptable standards
and design standards. Those standards are developed in concert
with the provinces which have the engineers and the experts.
What the auditor general seems to imply is that the federal
government should set up a parallel department to mirror all of
the work the provinces do. We do not do that. His analysis is
predicated on faulty assumptions.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the finance minister announced that on January 1
payroll taxes are going up. He is giving back Canadians 15 cents
in EI premium cuts, but on the other hand he is adding 30 cents
to the CPP payroll taxes, a 15 cent hike per $100 from Canadian
workers' pockets. Apparently he thinks that workers are not
taxed heavily enough.
He is a pathological tax hiker. He never met a tax hike he did
not like. How many jobs does the minister expect to create by
hiking payroll taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again we are dealing with the real agenda of the Reform
Party.
Yes, unfortunately, because of the inattention of previous
governments, the Canada pension plan premiums, on agreement with
the provinces, are going up. But that is not where the
difference lies. The difference is that the Reform Party does not
believe in the Canada pension plan. It does not believe in
sharing the risk. It does not believe that Canadians of all
generations and of all income levels are entitled to a decent
retirement. We beg to differ.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
decent retirement is in part predicated on having some money to
put away.
1430
The minister has raised taxes more than any finance minister in
Canadian history. Every year he stands up here and gloats and
smiles but every year he raises taxes.
How many jobs does the minister think he could create by raising
payroll taxes on January 1?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the results are there: 1.3 million since we took office;
over 300,000 jobs created this year alone; and 57,000 created
last month.
That is not where the difference lies. The difference lies in
the forces of extremism. The Reform does not believe in the
positive role of government and we do.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development
was all thrilled yesterday to announced his amazing 15 cent
reduction in employment insurance contributions.
By stubbornly refusing to improve the program and to make a
substantial decrease in contributions, is the minister aware
that, between now and March 31 of next year, each and every cent
workers see as a deduction on their pay stubs is an unfair tax
going directly into the pocket of the Minister of Finance?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques acknowledges how
thrilled I was yesterday.
I believe it was an excellent piece of news, that we had
succeeded for the fifth year in a row in decreasing employment
insurance contributions, bringing them down to $2.55, and that
we did so in keeping with the unanimous recommendation of the
employment insurance commission comprised of both union and
employer representatives, while at the same time succeeding in
having a system that puts $2.7 billion into active measures to
get the unemployed back into the work force.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is seriously in need of taking
Fair Taxation 101.
How can he not understand that making low wage earners, who
already contribute too much to employment insurance, foot the
bill for general income tax decreases, including those for
ministers who do not pay employment insurance, is fiscally
unfair and morally unacceptable?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member needs
to take Math 101.
I can tell hon. members that there are also seniors who pay no
income tax and who would not have benefited from an additional
drop in employment insurance contributions either.
What we were seeking was a balance between an employment
insurance system that will remain in place for the workers of
this country, even if there should happen to be an economic
downturn, and at the same time a steady decrease in
contributions for five consecutive years.
I believe we have achieved the desired balance.
* * *
[English]
SOCIAL UNION
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day makes. Yesterday
it was no to the social union; today it is a go.
Yesterday one of the Prime Minister's own members described the
social union as “a warmed over Charlottetown accord which would
give more power to the provinces and weaken the federal
government”.
Canadians want to know whether the Prime Minister agrees with
the member for Wentworth—Burlington, or does he really support
the social union?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. When we speak about the
Government of Canada we speak about those who believe in the
social union. Canada has one of the best social unions in the
world.
Not only is the Government of Canada saying that. Recently
Harvard university released a study comparing 150 countries in
the world on the capacity of governments to give their citizens
good services while respecting their freedom. Canada was ranked
fifth. That is not so bad.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the problem: the
provinces believe there needs to be change and the federal
government thinks everything is A-okay the way it is.
We would like to put the Prime Minister and his government to a
test. If they really support the social union, will they commit
the government not to initiate any new social programs in the
budget unless the provinces agree to them?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is not in the best situation to ask for
clarification. Yesterday I asked the Leader of the Opposition to
say, if he was unfortunately the Prime Minister of Canada,
whether he would sign the proposal of the provinces as it is.
1435
He would not say that to Canadians. He never answered. Members
of the NDP said that they would not sign as it is. The Bloc said
it would sign because it would be a step toward separation. The
Tories were unable to say what they would do. Is that the new
definition of the united right?
* * *
[Translation]
2010 OLYMPIC GAMES
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know
that it was because of the direct intervention of the Minister
of Canadian Heritage, who claimed that she wanted to avoid any
political interference, that the Canadian Olympic Association
held off announcing its selection of Vancouver as a candidate
for the 2010 Winter Olympics until the day after the Quebec
election.
By taking this supposedly precautionary step, did the minister
not instead send the message that important political
considerations were involved in choosing Vancouver over Quebec
City?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unlike the Bloc Quebecois, the Government of Canada
wants to respect democracy—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Sheila Copps: —and allow a democratic vote. The decision
was made by a majority of the members on the Olympic committee,
in two secret ballots.
At least have the courage to respect a majority vote.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we now
know that two federal ministers, the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans and the Minister of Revenue, supported Vancouver's
candidacy. Their names appeared on the official list of
delegates and lobbyists for Vancouver.
According to the principle of ministerial solidarity, was this
not a message—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis
has the floor.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: According to the principle of ministerial
solidarity, was this not a message that the federal government
openly supported Vancouver's candidacy over that of Quebec City?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is unbelievable that the member is engaging in this
sort of speculation when I myself was with Quebec's minister of
culture, who spoke out in favour of Quebec's candidacy during
the nomination process.
So, if there is any double standard, if ministers from other
parts of Canada want to make their views known, at least respect
the democratic decision taken by a majority of 72 individuals
who—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake has the floor.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the foreign affairs minister and the agriculture
minister went down to Washington, cap in hand, to beg the
Americans to stop the unfair subsidies that are partly
responsible for destroying our Canadian farms. The trade
minister says that the heritage minister is a big part of our
trade problems.
Is it not true that the reason the Americans have not backed off
on their farm war is the heritage minister's personal vendetta
against U.S. magazines?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of agriculture went yesterday and made a
very strong case in favour of Canada.
I have received word from the Canadian ambassador in Washington
that he was very proud of our minister of agriculture.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not believe that. It says a lot about—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1440
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I do not want to hear from our
ambassador down there. I want to hear something strong from the
Americans saying they will abide by trade rules.
Quite simply the heritage minister has poisoned Canada's trade
relationship with the U.S. It refuses to co-operate on
agricultural issues because she has been so abusive to its
magazine industry.
Why would the Americans deal fairly with us on important matters
like agriculture when the heritage minister has been taunting and
abusing U.S. business for years?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the hon. member
very interesting when he went on national television the other
night and accused Canadian pork producers of crying. I found his
interest in agriculture to be very regressive.
* * *
[Translation]
2010 OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, in response to the accusation that the
federal government supported Vancouver's application, says that
the Quebec minister of culture supported Quebec City's
application.
No one is surprised at the B.C. premier's support for Vancouver,
that is understandable, as was Ms. Beaudoin's for Quebec City.
However, what is surprising—and this is my question—is why
were two ministers of the federal government identified by name
as supporting Vancouver's application, when no federal minister
from Quebec supported Quebec City's application?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first the member's statement that the federal
government supported one of the three cities is wrong. And if
he thinks so, he better be ready to bet his seat here, because
that is totally wrong.
Second, the member's remarks about the Premier of B.C. were
wrong too. He was not on the committee.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last September our $20 billion agricultural trade with the United
States was seriously hampered when a few governors and some
producers blockaded our borders. I understand they intend to
repeat that practice this weekend.
What is the agriculture minister doing to make it clear to our
American friends that the practice of blockading and rhetoric is
not the way to solve trade disagreements?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was in Washington yesterday speaking to
industry and political leaders, including two conversations with
Vice-President Gore.
I undertook to dispel the myths and misunderstandings of a
number of trade issues in the agriculture and agri-food industry
between our two countries. I urged them to explain to their
producers who are threatening to blockade again that the root
cause of all this is basically understanding, and that while
blockading the borders may get attention it does not solve the
problem.
We have too much at stake with $20 billion to lose it.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Sergeant Darnell Bass was associated with the Canadian forces
secret commando unit called JTF2. He was sentenced Monday to
seven years in prison for his role in a Calgary armoured car
heist.
In the meantime police have seized guns used in that Calgary
robbery from homes of other commando members living just outside
Ottawa.
1445
My question to the defence minister is what on earth were
commandos doing with prohibited machine guns and why were no
charges laid even though police discovered that they were the
same guns used in the Calgary robbery?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will respect
the chief of police of Calgary who said there were any number of
sources from which these weapons could have been obtained.
The matter is still under investigation by the Calgary police to
determine the source of these weapons. Certainly we will do
everything we can to co-operate with them.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the point of the matter is that the same guns used in that
robbery were seized from other military members in that commando
unit.
Darnell Bass unexpectedly used his preliminary hearing Monday to
plead guilty to a lesser charge of conspiracy to commit robbery.
He was immediately sentenced to seven years in prison; no
presentence report and no disclosure of evidence.
Bass quietly goes his way and the other JTF2 accomplices are
never charged. What deal did the military make with Bass, the
prosecutors and his accomplices?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): There were absolutely no deals, Mr. Speaker. This is
a crime and the courts have determined the appropriate punishment
in that regard. The Calgary police have investigated this matter
and we are fully co-operative with them on that.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
fewer and fewer unemployed workers are getting employment
insurance benefits.
At the same time, child poverty is on the rise and the gap
between rich and poor is growing. There is an obvious link
between the employment insurance reform and the rise in poverty,
but the Minister of Human Resources Development refuses to see
it.
When will the minister visit these regions and adjust his
reform, which generates so much poverty in Canada?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the employment
insurance reform implemented by our government better reflects
the new labour market for which we are headed.
The system had not undergone such substantial change in 25
years. We are aware, of course, that the reform must be closely
monitored. This is why the act itself requires that a report on
the implementation of the employment insurance reform be tabled
once a year.
This year, a new report will be tabled in the House in early
1999. But for the time being, the impact that we can see—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
NDP EI critic, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, is currently
touring the country consulting Canadians about our flawed EI
system. So far not one person has said they wish their premiums
were 15 cents lower. What we are hearing instead is people
saying they wish they could feed their families on these lousy
benefits, or they wish they qualified at all. This reduction in
premiums does nothing for unemployed Canadians.
What does the minister plan to do to expand the benefits so that
more Canadians qualify and fewer Canadians are shut out of this
flawed EI system?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 78% of Canadian workers who
lose their jobs are covered by the EI system.
This party is asking us not to lower EI premiums. It just told
us that it did not want to hear about the 15 cent lowering of the
EI premiums. That is the NDP. This party of the right is asking
us to lower it a great deal more and to be harsher—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
further on in the auditor's report, with respect to a $50 million
contract, the auditor says the minister directed department
officials on the management committee to review the alternative
financing arrangements to ensure that it met federal terms and
conditions. However, this was not done.
Because this was not done, thousands of people in Atlantic
Canada will pay Doug Young tolls every day beginning January 4 on
a highway that was already paid for.
Will the minister now use the tools available to make sure that
all parties comply with the terms of the agreement as originally
signed?
1450
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, despite the hon. member's selective quotes from the
auditor general's report, all the regular procedures were
followed. There was no impropriety on the part of the former
minister of transport or on the part of the New Brunswick
government in the establishment of this highway.
We have covered this issue a number of times in question period.
I have said the federal government will make no further
contributions involving any tolls on highways until we have a
full policy established after consultation with the provinces.
That should be satisfactory to the hon. member.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general goes on to say that although unable
to implement the minister's direction, the departmental
representatives signed the contract authorizations allowing the
province to claim the funding for the project costs on a $50
million project. He did not do the job. He did not tell the
minister. He signed the contract anyway which allows Doug Young
to collect tolls from Atlantic Canadians by the thousands very
day.
Will the minister simply follow the terms of the agreement and
make sure all parties comply with the original agreement like the
auditor general says?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the auditor general is saying that at
all.
All the parties to the agreement have complied. What the hon.
member is doing is raising in the House of Commons a very serious
allegation about the former minister of transport and I am
wondering if he will repeat that outside the Chamber.
* * *
LAND MINES
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on December 3, 1997, 122 countries came to Canada to work to rid
the world of antipersonnel land mines thanks to a new approach to
international consensus building initiated by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
Given that the convention will enter into force on March 1,
1999, faster than any disarmament convention in history was
negotiated, will the foreign affairs minister inform the House of
the status of the convention with a brief indication of what has
been achieved in this past year?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since the 122 countries came to Ottawa we have made
substantial progress. There are now 133 countries that have
signed the treaty and 55 countries have actually ratified it. As
the member properly pointed out, it will become international law
on March 1.
Many of the countries that have not signed the treaty have
actively abided by the treated and are not exporting mines so
that the trade in mines has virtually dried up.
The initiative announced by the Prime Minister for major
Canadian contributions has meant that in 22 countries Canada is
now active in taking mines out of the ground. We have destroyed
11 million mines in stockpiles. But perhaps most important,
today the number of casualties in many countries has dropped by
70%—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kelowna.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of public works last week assured the House that postal
franchisees would not lose any money as result of their new deal
with Canada Post. Yesterday Canada Post cut the commissions to
the postal franchisees by more than 50%.
How does gouging over 50% of the commissions to postal
franchisees live up to the promise that they would not lose any
money?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post for the
past two months met with more than 600 postal outlet franchise
operators. After discussing with them, yesterday it announced a
plan of compensation that any postal outlet making $300,000 or
less in sales per annum will not lose any money and will receive
a compensation package and those above $300,000 will receive a
$25,000 a year payment so that they can compensate for the new
commission fees.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
* * *
[Translation]
2010 OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, solemnly, from her seat, challenged me to put
my seat on the line to prove my allegations.
Naturally, when someone asks a member to do that it means they
are ready to do the same.
My question to the Minister of Canadian Heritage is this: Did
she see the membership list for the official delegation of the
City of Vancouver, which includes the names of two government
ministers, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister
of Revenue, and will she therefore kindly do what she asked me
to do and resign?
1455
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only lobbying done by the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, who was himself a medal winner in the 1960 Olympics, was
in support of having Quebec City as the site of the 2002 Olympic
Games. The only lobbying he has ever done was for Quebec City.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, North
Dakota farmers are threatening to resume their vigilante actions
this weekend, blockading the border against Canadian livestock,
grains and oilseeds.
We know trade officials from both countries are working in
Washington this week to try to put out this firestorm before it
flares up again.
Would the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food please inform
the House on progress in this important area and while he is on
his feet can he tell desperate farmers when he will be announcing
the long awaited disaster relief program?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it a pleasure to tell the hon. member and
everyone else that as a result of a previous blockade in the
Dakotas and along the Canada-U.S. border that started on October
8 negotiations have been continuing and are ongoing.
The negotiation teams on both sides of the border are very close
to some agreements that will be very helpful in demonstrating the
value and the importance of two trade between our countries. We
hope to announce some of those things in the very near future.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has stood in the House and
repeatedly said how he has consulted the provinces, the
stakeholders and the producers on the new aid package.
The reality is that very few of those people know what has been
presented to cabinet. In fact, our leader met today with the
minister of agriculture in Manitoba and he has no idea what is
going forward.
Is this the minister's idea of co-operative federalism? I do
not think so. How many more premiers have not been consulted
about this package?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they do not know the specifics of the
package that is being discussed because the final decisions have
not been made by cabinet. Those discussions will remain in
cabinet until a decision has been made.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week Canadians are holding vigils and public education
campaigns to raise awareness about the horror of domestic
violence and violence against women. It has now been nine years
since the massacre at l'École polytechnique.
Could the justice minister tell the House what the government is
doing to fight violence against women and tragic deaths by
firearms?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right to
remind all of us this week about the scourge of violence against
women. None of us should forget December 6 at l'École
polytechnique when so many young women lost their lives.
It is with great pride that I inform the House that yesterday we
implemented our new gun control legislation.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, New Brunswickers will be paying thousands of dollars on
toll fees. Consumers will be paying more for goods because of
all this added tax on businesses.
How can the government allow provinces to charge such tax on
highways already paid for by taxpayers? Why has the Minister of
Transport chosen to protect Doug Young's interests instead of
standing up for Atlantic Canadians?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one year after this matter on the question of tolls
on the Trans-Canada Highway by my friend from the Conservative
party was raised, the NDP has awakened to the issue because the
auditor general has made some reference to it.
1500
I have answered these questions in the House. We are developing
a policy on the applicability of tolls in the context of
federal-provincial highways. I welcome the opinions of the New
Democratic Party and others. As far as we are concerned there
are no improprieties in this agreement or in the conduct of the
former minister.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister was in Washington dealing with farm
producers in that area. It was nice to see that one country was
supporting its agricultural industry. Unfortunately it was not
Canada.
In one speech Vice-President Al Gore commented on four programs
that were put in place by the United States government. One was
a farm aid program on pork to Russia.
Why was our minister not looking at those types of programs for
our farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might remind himself of
some other things Al Gore said. He also said that they were
taking a look at improving their crop insurance program.
From time to time they continue to have people in Canada
studying our net income stabilization account. The opposite is
true. The Americans are up here looking at how we provide safety
nets for our farmers.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last summer fisheries scientists designated the north
coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands as a no kill zone for coho
salmon. Yet the minister of fisheries authorized a sport fishery
for his friends at Oak Bay Marine Group which killed 30,000 coho.
What does no kill mean to the minister? Does it mean that only
his friends and campaign contributors can go fishing?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the questioner is
the one member among us who is being convicted for infractions of
the fishing code in Canada—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. minister to please
withdraw his last statement.
Hon. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, a complex system was
put in place last summer—
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw
that statement.
Hon. David Anderson: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will
withdraw the reference. I will say—
The Speaker: That will bring to a close our question
period for today.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday you counselled members to use temperance in their
language in the House. Today we heard the finance minister refer
to the powers of extremism.
Could you shed some light on what the line is when it comes to
language—
1505
The Speaker: As I have explained, I have urged hon.
members since this parliament began to be judicious in their
choice of words.
Once again we have inflammatory words used on both sides. Do I
have a definite cut-off point? When I feel that the House is
being offended I usually intercept, but in this particular case I
decided to go the other way.
BILL S-13—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of
order raised by the hon. government House leader on November 18,
1998, concerning the procedural acceptability of Bill S-13, an
act to incorporate and to establish an industry levy to provide
for the Canadian anti-smoking youth foundation.
[Translation]
First of all, I would like to thank the hon. government House
leader and the hon. member for St. Paul's for their learned
contributions on this subject.
I also want to thank the other members who intervened on this
point of order: the hon. members for Macleod,
Winnipeg North Centre, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough,
Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Hillsborough,
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valley, Pierrefonds—Dollard, New
Brunswick Southwest, Lac-Saint-Jean, Delta—South Richmond,
Whitby—Ajax, Burnaby—Douglas and Wentworth—Burlington. Their
contributions were very helpful to the chair in examining this
case.
We heard almost two hours of argument on this point of order and,
while I do not propose to match those arguments minute for
minute, I ask the House to bear with me as I explain the facts of
the case before us and the conclusions which I have drawn from
them.
[English]
Bill S-13 establishes the Canadian anti-smoking youth
foundation, a non-profit corporation whose mandate is to reduce
and to work toward the elimination of the use of tobacco products
by young persons in Canada. To this end, Bill S-13 proposes that
a levy be imposed on tobacco manufacturers to provide the
foundation with the necessary funds to carry out its mandate.
A private member's bill originating in the other place, Bill
S-13, was adopted there on June 10, 1998 and was given first
reading in the House of Commons on November 18, 1998.
[Translation]
The point of order raised by the hon. government House leader,
simply put, is that the Bill S-13 proposes a taxation measure and
that, as such, the bill ought to have been introduced in the
House of Commons where it would have to have been preceded by a
ways and means motion. On that basis, he argues that the bill is
improperly before the House and asks the Chair to rule that the
House of Commons cannot proceed with its consideration.
[English]
Before I address the substance of this point of order, I want to
respond to the contention made by the hon. member for St. Paul's.
The hon. member argued that inquiring beyond the face of the bill
and questioning the express provisions of it is to go well beyond
the realm of procedure and into an area of law with which the
Speaker is not to deal.
The hon. member argued that the question of whether Bill S-13
imposed a tax was a matter of law and legal interpretation and,
as such, not normally within the jurisdiction of the Speaker.
1510
The general proposition that the Speaker will not decide a
question of law is set out in Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation
168(5) at page 49, although the hon. member for St. Paul's did
not invoke this citation. The examples provided by Beauchesne
involved questions that could only be considered as questions of
law and which had no procedural dimension. In both cases the
issue was whether the legislative proposal before the House was
within the legislative powers of the House as set out in the
Constitution Act, 1867.
The question that I must consider in relation to Bill S-13, that
is whether or not the charge imposed by the bill is a tax,
relates to the procedural rules and practices of this House as
well as to the time honoured privilege of this House in respect
of taxation measures.
More specifically, two questions are presented on this point of
order and both are clearly within my jurisdiction as Speaker.
First, is a ways and means motion required for Bill S-13? Second,
should this bill have originated in the House and not the other
place? However, both these questions depend on the answer to be
given to a third question, that is, does Bill S-13 impose a tax.
If it does, a ways and means motion is required and the bill
ought to have originated in this Chamber.
This third question is unavoidable if the procedural and
privilege questions are to be addressed. For this reason, though
this tax question might be characterized as a question of law and
in another context outside this Chamber might be raised and
considered as a question of law, in this context it is considered
only as an integral part of a question on procedure and
parliamentary privilege. Accordingly, it is proper that I
address this question and let me do so now.
[Translation]
In his presentation, the hon. government House leader argued
that Bill S-13 should have originated in the House of Commons
since it imposes a tax.
Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, states:
Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for
imosing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of
Commons.
Furthermore, as described in citation 980 found at page 265 of
Beauchesne's, 6th edition, bills imposing a tax must be preceded by
adoption of a ways and means motion.
To safeguard the financial privileges of the Commons, it is the duty
of every member of this House to be vigilant and to ensure that
every bill that comes before the House respects this criterion.
Standing Order 80 is categorical on the subject and states in
part:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament
of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all
bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the
House—
In short, the House of Commons claims pre-eminence in financial
matters—that is public expenditure and taxation—and all such
legislation must originate in the House.
[English]
To determine if Bill S-13 is properly before the House, the
Chair must ascertain whether or not it imposes a tax. If it does
impose a tax, the bill should have originated in the House of
Commons and been preceded by a ways and means motion.
Members will appreciate that this matter involves issues of a
complex and technical nature. For this reason, the Chair has
taken particular care to examine closely the relevant authorities
on this issue. I have consulted extensively the works of Erskine
May and have found May to be a comprehensive and reliable source
of information on financial procedures.
I ask for the House's indulgence as I offer the following
exposition of the problem at hand.
1515
As members know, financial procedure is primarily concerned with
the authorization of public expenditure and taxation. It has
been argued that the charge proposed by Bill S-13 is not a tax
because the funds collected would not form any part of the
consolidated revenue fund.
Under the heading of “Matters requiring authorization by Ways
and Means resolution”, May's, 22nd edition at page 777,
states:
Although impositions are not generally charges on the people
(that is to say, taxes) unless the proceeds are payable into the
Consolidated Fund, the absence of a requirement for payment into
the Consolidated Fund is not by itself conclusive indication that
a charge upon the people has been avoided. If, for example,
money raised by statutory imposition is not to be channelled to
the Consolidated Fund but is nonetheless to be used for the
benefit of the public at large or for purposes which might
otherwise have required to be financed from the Consolidated
Fund, that imposition is likely to need authorization by a Ways
and Means resolution.
In other words, if a charge raises funds that are channelled to
the consolidated revenue fund, that charge is a tax. Even if a
charge raises funds that are channelled elsewhere, the charge may
still be a tax, however. But a charge can only be considered a
levy, and thus free to go forward without the usual constraints
of financial procedure, if it is a charge made for an industry
purpose.
Thus, the point of order, as I see it, hinges on the nature of
the charge in Bill S-13 and its objects or purpose.
Consequently, a closer examination of the bill is required.
The argument has been made that Bill S-13 imposes a levy “for
an industry purpose”. In chapter 32, “Ways and Means and
Finance Bills” of May's 22nd edition, we read, at page 779:
Levies upon employers in a particular industry for the purpose of
forming a fund used to finance activities beneficial to the
industry are not normally regarded as charges (that is to say,
taxes).
May goes on to state:
Modern legislation, however, frequently makes provision for the
imposition of other types of fees or payment which, although not
taxes in a strict sense, have enough of the characteristics of
taxation to require to be treated as “charges upon the people”
and therefore to be authorized by a Ways and Means resolution
moved by a Minister of the Crown. This distinction between the
types of payments which are or are not covered by the rules of
financial procedure is not always straightforward in practice.
In other words, the central issue here is whether or not the
levy imposed by Bill S-13 is a charge that is imposed primarily
for a purpose beneficial to the tobacco industry. If so, the
charge would not be a tax.
Here too May is helpful when he describes a case which presents
some similarities with Bill S-13, namely, the U.K. Merchant
Shipping Bill of 1973-74. That bill obliged oil importers to
contribute to an international fund for compensation for oil
pollution damage. In the 21st edition, at page 731, May states:
This impost was so clearly not for the benefit of the industry
concerned that it was held to be a tax in spite of the fact that
its proceeds were not payable to the Consolidated Fund.
Ultimately, therefore, it was decided that particular bill
fell under the rules governing financial procedures and so had to
be preceded by a ways and means resolution before being
considered by the House of Commons in the United Kingdom.
[Translation]
In studying the case now before us, I have examined whether our
House has ever dealt with the public bill providing for an
industry levy. In a session of the 35th Parliament, Bill C-32,
an act to amend the Copyright Act called for the imposition of a
levy on blank audio tapes.
1520
The levy was of benefit to that industry since it permitted the
audio duplication of copyright material for private use. This
would enhance the market for blank audio tapes. The levy on the
tapes was designated to raise funds by which owners of copyright
material would be compensated for losses caused by private
duplication of that material. The link between the benefit to
the industry and the levy being imposed seems clear in that case.
The levy appears to satisfy the criterion that it was of benefit
to the industry and so would not normally be regarded as a tax.
Bill C-32 was not required to adhere to the usual financial
procedures and was not preceded by a ways and means motion.
[English]
In the case of Bill S-13, the Chair must determine the nature of
the charge being imposed by the bill. It has been argued that
the charge is a levy for the benefit of the tobacco industry. In
support of that view we are referred to clause 3 of the bill
which bears the heading “Purpose” and which states in
subsection (1), in part:
(1) The purpose of this Act is to enable and assist the Canadian
tobacco industry to carry out its publicly-stated industry
objective of reducing the use of tobacco products by young
persons throughout Canada—
I will set aside, without comment, the question of whether or
not the industry has publicly stated as its objective the
reduction of smoking in any segment of the population.
Let me simply continue to quote from clause 3(1) which expands
on the purpose of the bill to reduce the use of tobacco products
by young Canadians as follows:
—given that
(a) numerous debilitating and fatal diseases and other
consequences injurious to health are associated with tobacco use;
(b) young persons throughout Canada use tobacco products and
become addicted to tobacco and dependent on its use;—
(d) young persons can only use tobacco products because the
products are manufactured and sold;—
The text then goes on to read in subsection (2) of the same
clause 3:
(2) The Act complements the general legislative response to the
national public health problem of substantial and pressing
concern—
These statements seem to me to indicate that the purpose of the
bill is a matter of public policy, namely, the health of young
Canadians and not, as many members have argued, a matter of
benefit to the tobacco industry.
There are those who say that the two need not be mutually
exclusive and that the benefit to the industry is such that the
charge in question is not a tax, but a levy. Proponents of this
view point to paragraph (1)(c) of this same clause 3 which reads:
(c) the industry is incapable of addressing on its own the
problem of tobacco use by young persons because, by its own
admission, its members and agents lack credibility as advocates
for a reduction in the use of tobacco products—
Surely the lack of credibility referred to here is a function of
our common sense understanding of the self-interest of the
tobacco industry, namely, that as a commercial enterprise its
primary goal is to expand its markets and thereby to increase
profits. Young people would constitute the future growth
potential for the industry's market. How could it be to the
benefit of the industry to reduce smoking among the very people
who would constitute its growth market? It is this implausible
proposition that underlies the credibility problem to which the
bill refers.
Proponents of the bill argue that the public relations benefit
represented by the establishment of the foundation would be a
benefit for the industry. They cite the independence of the
proposed foundation and its role in the national co-ordination of
anti-smoking efforts.
Is it not reasonable to suppose, if the industry had wanted to
improve its public image in this matter, that of its own
volition it could have created an arm's length body like the
foundation? Why is legislation like this required?
1525
Let us return to clause 3, this time to paragraph (1)(e) which
reads:
It has been argued that this section points again to a benefit
to the industry since the foundation activities may pre-empt
further restrictions on the industry. This is to speculate on
future government measures and to conclude that the establishment
of the foundation will obviate the necessity for such measures.
But is this simply not another way of saying that this charge in
this bill is a benefit to the industry only because future
measures might be less palatable?
I have carefully considered all of the arguments presented and
have examined all of the cases which hon. members have brought to
my attention, even though I have not discussed each one in detail
in this ruling.
I am forced to conclude that the charge imposed by Bill S-13 is
directed not toward any benefit to the tobacco industry but to a
matter of public policy, that is, the health of young Canadians,
a laudable purpose without doubt.
The bill seeks to establish the Canadian anti-smoking youth
foundation whose objective is to reduce and eventually eliminate
the use of tobacco products by young persons in Canada. It
strains credulity to claim that this objective is a benefit to
the tobacco industry.
However ingenious the framers of Bill S-13 have been in drafting
and structuring the bill to resemble an industry purpose, one
that perhaps would enhance the standing in our society of the
tobacco industry, Bill S-13 has as its main object the reduction
and elimination of smoking. This is a matter of public health
policy and it is by virtue of this public purpose that I have
concluded that the charge Bill S-13 imposes on the industry is a
tax.
The House of Commons has the exclusive right and obligation to
legislate financial measures. Only the House of Commons, acting
on the initiative of ministers of the crown, can impose taxes to
generate the funds needed to support public policy programs. I
am obligated as your Speaker to ensure that these fundamental
financial privileges are not compromised.
Simply put, any bill imposing a tax must originate in the House
of Commons and must be preceded by a ways and means motion.
Since Bill S-13 proposes a tax, did not originate in the House of
Commons and thus was not preceded by a ways and means motion, I
therefore find that it is not properly before the House.
Accordingly, first reading proceedings are null and void and
this item is withdrawn from the order paper.
I thank hon. members for their attention.
(Order discharged)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means
motion to amend the Income Tax Act, along with some explanatory
notes.
1530
This measure is not a levy. It will make room for aboriginal
governments to levy their own income taxes. I ask that an order
of the day be designated for consideration of this motion.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to eight
petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
TRANSPORT
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present in both official languages the fifth
report of the Standing Committee on Transport with respect to
Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make
consequential amendments to another act.
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages
the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Pursuant to its order of reference dated Tuesday, November 3,
1998, your committee has adopted Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers
and has agreed to report it with amendments.
* * *
WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-61, an act to amend the War
Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the Merchant Navy
Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, the Department of
Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act
and the Halifax Relief Commission Pension Continuation Act and to
amend certain others acts in consequence thereof.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PENSION OMBUDSMAN ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-460, an act to establish the office of
Pension Ombudsman to investigate administrative difficulties
encountered by persons in their dealings with government in
respect of benefits under the Canada Pension Plan or the Old Age
Security Act or tax liability on such benefits and to review the
policies and practices applied in the administration and
adjudication of such benefits and liabilities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think you have summed it up very well.
It is a bill that I am sure all of us in the House can support.
It opens up the office of a superintendent of pensions for the
Canada pension plan and old age pensions. It will deal with
complaints. It will assist Canadians from coast to coast with
those complaints and will help facilitate them for ordinary
people in the country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.), seconded by the
hon. member for Saint John, moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-461, an act to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit coercion in
medical procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that
human life is inviolable.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill
to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit coercion in medical
procedures that offend a person's religious beliefs that human
life is inviolable.
1535
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that health care providers
working in medical facilities of various kinds will never be
forced to participate against their will in procedures such as
abortions or acts of euthanasia. The bill itself does not
proscribe abortion or euthanasia but makes it illegal to force
another person to participate in an abortion procedure or an act
of euthanasia.
Incredibly there are medical personnel in Canada who have been
fired because the law is not explicit enough in spelling out
their conscience rights. This bill will make those rights
explicit. It is my privilege to introduce it on behalf of all
health care workers in Canada today.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FARM INCOME PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-462, an act to amend the Farm Income Protection
Act (crop damage by gophers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I noticed a couple of chuckles on this
bill. In fact it is an extremely important bill for farmers who
are having crops damaged and acres and acres of crops completely
destroyed by gophers. My bill calls for compensation to be paid
through the crops protection act for farmers who have had damage
done to their crops because the proper concentration of
strychnine is no longer being allowed and they have no access to
it. Farmers have had thousands and thousands of dollars of crops
destroyed due to this lack of control.
This bill will allow for compensation for that if the government
will not change its mind and decide that the proper concentration
of gopher poison will be reintroduced.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
The Deputy Speaker: I want the hon. member for Lakeland
to know how seriously the Chair regarded his gopher bill.
* * *
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians,
including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the
House that human rights violations continue in many countries
around the world, such as Indonesia. They also point out that
Canada continues to be respected for its defence of universal
human rights. Therefore they call upon the government to continue
its efforts to speak out against countries that tolerate human
rights violations and to do whatever is possible to bring to
justice those responsible for such abuses.
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
submit to the House a petition signed by many of my constituents.
My constituents are asking that the government immediately comply
with the orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the
matter of pay equity.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my privilege to present in the House today a hefty stack of
petitions. These citizens of Canada are drawing the attention of
the House to the fact that a majority of Canadians understand the
concept of marriage as only the voluntary union of a single, that
is unmarried, male and a single, that is unmarried, female and
that it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage as it
has been known and understood in Canada be preserved and
protected.
These petitioners ask that parliament enact 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.
FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
also present a petition to the House of Commons and parliament
regarding the MacKay task force recommendations. These
petitioners strongly urge parliamentarians to not give in to the
pressure of the banks on the matter of retail, property and
casualty insurance.
1540
ABORTION
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition signed by 117 of my constituents.
They request that a national referendum be held at the time of
the next election to ask voters whether or not they are in favour
of government funding for medically unnecessary abortions.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my honour to present this petition on behalf constituents mostly
from Cold Lake dealing with marriage.
The petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation similar
to Bill C-225 which would define marriage and that marriage can
only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present another petition from citizens in the
Peterborough area concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons.
They point out that Canada, although it has the capacity to
build nuclear weapons, has rejected that option and in so doing
recognizes the military futility of nuclear weapons. They pray
that parliament support the goal of the abolition of nuclear
weapons on Earth by Canada, advocating the immediate de-alerting
of all nuclear devices, and that Canada join the nations of the
New Agenda Coalition, and that Canada advocate within NATO that
nuclear weapons have no militarily useful role.
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition from citizens in the Peterborough
area who are concerned about deaths from drinking and driving.
They point out that on average 4.5 Canadians are killed every
day as a result of alcohol related vehicle accidents. The
statistics for Canadians killed or injured as a result of
impaired driving have not changed for over a decade.
The petitioners pray that parliament immediately amend the
Criminal Code so that any crash resulting in injury constitutes
reasonable and probable grounds for blood or breath testing on
drivers. They urge the federal government to provide strong
support and encouragement to jurisdictions to continue to
introduce administrative sanctions that are user pay.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 158 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 158—Mr. Jason Kenney:
For the most recent taxation year data is available: (a) what is
the percentage of federal income tax collected from the highest
1% of income earners: (b) what is the percentage of federal income
tax collected from the highest 10% of income earners: and
(c) what percentage of individuals did not pay any income tax?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): The 1996 taxation year is the most recent year for which data
are available. (a) In that taxation year, 13.99% of the total net
federal income tax was payable by the highest 1% of income
earners; (b) 49.05% of total net federal income tax was payable by
the highest 10% of income earners; (c) 31.95% of individuals did
not have any income tax to pay.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
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-45 in the name of the hon. member for Calgary
Centre.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies
and/or reports since September 1993 of the operational and
regulatory costs of the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommucations Commission (CRTC) to Canadian industry and/or
consumers.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this Notice
of Motion for the Production of Papers, the information requested
is made public each year in the estimates, reports on planning
and priorities, also known as part III. I therefore ask the hon.
member to withdraw his motion.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the
parliamentary secretary wishes the member for Calgary Centre to
withdraw the motion, he should have given some advance notice of
this in order for him to consider the request.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I propose that Motion No. P-45 be transferred for
debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate
pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other
Notices of Motions for the Production Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1545
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-43, an act to
establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and
repeal other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are 206 motions in amendment in
the Notice Paper concerning the report stage of Bill C-43, an act
to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend
and repeal other acts as a consequence.
Group No. 1: Motions No. 1, 4, 5, 12 to 24, 27, 30, 31, 34 to
36, 39 to 54, 57 to 63, 66 to 70, 73 to 99, 104, 105, and 108 to
204 will be grouped for debate.
[English]
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 2, 3, 6 to 11, 205 and 206 will be
grouped for debate.
Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 25, 26, 37, 38, 55, 56, 71 and 72
will be grouped for debate.
[Translation]
Group No. 4: Motions No. 28, 29, 32 and 33 will be grouped for
debate.
[English]
Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 64, 65, 106 and 107 will be grouped
for debate.
Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 100 to 103 will be grouped for
debate.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 12 to 24, 27, 30, 31, 34 to
36, 39 to 54, 57 to 63, 66 to 70, 73 to 99, 104, 105, and 108 to
204 to the House.
[English]
Would there be agreement to dispense with the reading of these
motions? There are a hundred and some to read and the Chair is
going to go hoarse. If hon. members wish to hear them all, of
course, I could do so.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would
be disposed to having the motions deemed moved, seconded and read
so we can get into the actual debate and substance of the matter.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official
opposition, I would concur with the chief government whip because
the government has already indicated its intention to invoke time
allocation on this bill, so every moment spent reading motions is
a moment taken away from debate. I would appeal to all of my
colleagues to consider that.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement with the
suggestion made by the chief government whip.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement to dispense
with reading each of the motions being considered by the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The motions in Group No. 1 are deemed moved,
seconded and put.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
1550
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members are opposed to
this bill which is, in our opinion, simply an aberration. It
ought not to exist.
What has led the government across the way to want to create one
agency after another? Since when have politicians been afraid
to act and preferred to have outside agencies make the
decisions? Judging by a number of past experiences, these
agencies have not been a great success.
Here are a few examples. The food and drug inspection agency,
which I do not think is very efficient, and the wheat board as
well.
Nav Canada, which controls airports instead of the Department of
Transport, makes dictatorial decisions, closes control towers
without consulting those concerned, putting the flying public at
risk. Despite its promises to keep jobs, this agency has quite
simply got rid of more than 30% of its employees in the past 18
months alone.
Let us take another example of a government-created agency,
Aéroports de Montréal. The purpose of ADM was to promote the
Dorval and Mirabel airports, what did it do instead? Quite
simply, it destroyed Mirabel by transferring all international
flights to Dorval, by fiddling with reports by experts who
stated that such a transfer was not the best thing, the status
quo was.
I am not the one who said reports had been fiddled with. This
was the view expressed by Mr. Justice Viau in a decision
slamming ADM for its handling of reports.
The Minister of Revenue seems to be more interested in promoting
Vancouver and Whistler for the 2010 Olympics than in doing his
job, which is to consult people affected by the creation of this
agency. The minister is trying to convince us that he has
consulted just about everyone and seems to be saying that
everyone shares his view. However, no provinces have signed any
memorandums of understanding or wanted to have anything to do
with the agency. As things now stand, the minister is all
alone.
The minister dares to say that the government has created a new
tax collection vehicle. Instead of paying experts, engineers,
to design this new vehicle, which is really nothing more than a
Liberal monster, the minister should have put all this money
into promoting and restructuring his own Department of Revenue.
The majority of Canadians are beginning to have more confidence
in the existing Department of Revenue.
1555
The minister wants to create an additional structure that will
cost millions of dollars and that will have friends of the
government as its commissioners and members. All this does is
increase the number of officials in the system.
However, Department of Revenue employee representatives claim
that this new agency will means thousands of lay-offs, close to
40,000 across Canada.
Instead of spending money on this agency, the minister should
hire some decent professionals and he should hire enough of them
so that taxes can be collected properly.
A program on the CBC in the spring revealed that, in Toronto,
there is a shortage of between 500 and 1,500 tax collectors at
the department of revenue. This shortage of professionals cost
between $500 million and $1 billion annually. This is not
acceptable.
Creating a customs and revenue agency is totally unacceptable.
At the moment we are receiving a lot of complaints and letters
in our ridings from customs agents fearing for their jobs and
threatened with the loss of their job because of this new
agency. Everyone is on edge; everyone is afraid of this new
monster.
The minister of revenue, instead of wasting his time promoting
Vancouver and Whistler for the 2010 Olympic Games, should come
back, do his job, really look at the problems and improve the
revenue system.
We have no objection to a single window for collecting taxes,
but it should be under the control of the individual provincial
departments of revenue. Quebec can handle collecting
provincial, federal, municipal and school taxes.
How can my colleagues accept this national agency collecting
city tickets? It makes no sense. Can we imagine this agency
collecting municipal and school taxes? It is simply ridiculous.
But it is empowered to do so. It is just crazy.
I really hope that the minister will withdraw Bill C-43, which is
untenable and ridiculous.
We hope the minister understands common sense and that all the
members of this House understand it as well and ask the minister
to redo his basic homework, really consult all Canadians in
depth and not just simply say “I met a few people. They agree”.
Most people we heard in committee expressed their disagreement
with this bill.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to debate the motions in Group No. 1
respecting Bill C-43.
1600
The bill is pretty well the only major government piece of
legislation before us in this session which proposes to convert
the Department of National Revenue into a quasi-independent
agency governed by a board, appointed by cabinet and managed by a
commissioner appointed by cabinet as well.
The government suggests that this agency would be able to
operate more efficiently and would be more flexible in its human
resources policies, less bound by the strictures of the current
Treasury Board and other statutory guidelines that have hampered
its ability to recruit and retain highly skilled professionals in
the tax auditing and information technology fields in particular.
The government also suggests that this new agency would be so
structured as to work with the provinces on a contractual basis
to collect on their behalf provincial source taxes such as
provincial corporate and sales taxes.
Given that these are the first amendments before us, I would
like to say at the outset that the Reform Party has consistently
from the beginning of the debate on Bill C-43 made clear our
support for the concept of more flexible management in the public
service.
We believe that large sections of the bill are a positive step
forward, that by liberating Revenue Canada from the sometimes
absurdly bureaucratic regulations in Treasury Board and various
statutes on human resources practices the government could be
creating an agency which operates in a more businesslike and
efficient fashion.
We think this model should not be limited to the tax collection
apparatus of the government but rather should be replicated
throughout the public service. We do not oppose large sections
of the bill dealing with that issue. Nor do we necessarily
oppose the creation of a board whose directors would be
ostensibly nominated by the various provinces or the prospect of
greater federal co-operation with the provinces in tax collection
and administration.
However, we have expressed our very grave concern that the bill,
absent of some very meaningful amendments, would create the
possibility of less accountability in the administration and
enforcement of Canada's tax laws.
As I have said before, the power to tax is, next to or along
side the criminal law power, the most awesome power which
parliament wields. It is the power to destroy economically. It
is an enormous power. It is a power that must be exercised with
utmost discretion in ensuring in every instance that the
democratic representatives of Canadian taxpayers who sit in this
Chamber are ultimately able to answer for the practices of our
tax collection department.
The last thing Canadians want is an IRS style tax collection
agency. The last thing Canadians want is an agency which is a
law unto itself, which allows its tax auditors, collectors and
agents to enforce the law without regard for the milk of human
kindness but with the most rapacious kind of attitude of
squeezing money out of taxpayers to the best of their ability.
That is not the kind of culture we want to see.
An hon. member: Coercive.
Mr. Jason Kenney: “Coercive”, as my colleague says. A
coercive and intimidative culture is not what we want to see in
the tax collection agency of parliament and of government.
1605
The official opposition has put forward a comprehensive proposal
for a taxpayer bill of rights which would enumerate for the first
time in federal law a number of rights to due process for
taxpayers in the entire tax auditing and collection system.
Essentially our draft taxpayer bill of rights would include the
declaration of taxpayers rights first promulgated by the then
revenue minister, Mr. Beatty, in 1985. It would give it teeth,
legislative force, and would expand on it. It would essentially
ensure in legislation that taxpayers were presumed innocent until
proven guilty in the tax process. It would reverse the onus
which is now on taxpayers who are too often determined to be
guilty until proven innocent by the agents of Revenue Canada.
Furthermore, it would give taxpayers various avenues of appeal
which are not now open to them. Currently if taxpayers of
ordinary means find, as they find in many cases, that they have
been unduly targeted by heartless collection agents at Revenue
Canada, they have only one real avenue of recourse and that is
through the tax court. The vast majority of people of modest
means do not have the resources to use the appeal process through
the courts. They cannot hire tax lawyers and spend months and
years and tens of thousands of dollars defending their basic
rights.
We propose as part of our taxpayer bill of rights the adoption
of an office for taxpayer protection that would essentially be an
ombudsman to adjudicate legitimate disputes between taxpayers and
the revenue agency. It would essentially provide an avenue of
appeal far less costly and far more accessible to taxpayers than
what currently exists.
These two measures, a taxpayer bill of rights and the adoption
of an office of taxpayer protection, would go a very long way
toward protecting Canadian taxpayers in the new era of the Canada
customs and revenue agency. We can see no good reason, nor has
the government offered a single good reason, why a taxpayer bill
of rights ought not to be introduced and passed alongside the
legislation before us today, Bill C-43.
That is why at the outset of our debate over the next couple of
days on the amendments to Bill C-43 I would once again call upon
my colleagues in government to consider our sincere, detailed and
thoughtful proposal for a taxpayer bill of rights. If the
minister were to give us an inclination that he was willing to
seriously consider the kind of recommendations we have made, we
in turn as the official opposition would seriously consider
supporting the bill because of some of the incremental
administrative efficiencies that may be achieved by it.
Unless and until the government gets the message that Canadians
are not satisfied with the level of fairness and due process in
the tax collection system and takes some concrete steps to
further entrench and protect taxpayers rights, there is no way we
could support a bill which has even a slight potential for
spinning out of control into an IRS tax style agency.
Our party opposes put forward by
my colleague the Bloc Quebecois in Group No. 1 because they are
dilatory motions which seek to delete each clause of the bill.
We do not think thee are constructive amendments. We feel that
many sections of the bill, including those which these motions
seeks to delete, are worthwhile incremental improvements. We
will oppose the motions in Group No. 1 and oppose the bill unless
amended to include a taxpayer bill of rights.
1610
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say a few words about Bill C-43 before the
House today at report stage and invite some of my friends and
colleagues in the Liberal Party to express their points of view.
Many members in the House have independent spirits. I see my
friend from Prince Edward Island across the way. I am sure he
would not mind making a speech about the bill and how complicated
it will make the process. I am sure he would explain to us why
his province of Prince Edward Island, for example, has not signed
on to it. He is a good friend of his premier. Why has he not
been able to persuade the premier to sign on to the bill?
It is a very important issue. What is being established here is
a brand new taxation agency. It will take 40,000 people out of
Revenue Canada, which is 20% of the people who work for the
Government of Canada, and establish a brand new agency to collect
taxes.
Perhaps the idea came from the member for Prince Edward Island,
I am not sure, but it came from the thought that the government
wanted to get rid of the GST. It wanted to solve the problem of
a promise by harmonizing the GST with the PST. However, only
three provinces agreed: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and
Newfoundland. The thought was to have a new tax agency
collecting the new harmonized sales tax, federal income taxes,
provincial income taxes, maybe even the school taxes, the
municipal taxes, liquor taxes and all other taxes. In other
words it was to be a super agency.
My party and I are concerned about that for a number of reasons.
It is supposed to collect federal, provincial and municipal
taxes. Not a single province at this time has expressed any
interest in this regard except New Brunswick in terms of
collecting one of the small taxes in that province.
I wonder why the member from Prince Edward Island has not been
able to persuade his favourite premier to decide on this agency.
Perhaps he or his seatmate from Ontario could tell us about their
premiers. Why has the Ontario premier, Mike Harris, not signed
on to this agency? It is because Mike Harris is against the
agency as is the Government of Ontario.
What about Quebec? Quebec, by its very definition, will not
participate in this agency to collect taxes. We know that.
An hon. member: You don't buy a car before you see it.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I have been around here a long time.
I heard the member across the way. However, whenever I see a
piece of legislation that affects both the provinces and the
federal government there is a lot of discussion and agreement
ahead of time about how it should be done.
The Canada Health Act is a very good example. All kinds of
negotiations take place between the provinces and the federal
government when they agree on an agency and then the agency comes
forth. However, the government is putting the cart before the
horse in this regard. Not a single province has agreed but the
government expects us to agree before agreement has been reached
with the provinces.
I have an amendment which I hope members across the way would
support. It states that we should not proceed until at least
half the provinces sign on. That seems to be fair. I am not
saying half the provinces with two-thirds of the population or
something like that; I am just saying half the provinces.
The member from Prince Edward Island is champing at the bit
wanting to participate in the debate. I will not take very long
so that he can rise and say his piece on why he has not persuaded
his premier and his province to sign on to this agency.
There are all kinds of other concerns. One is the shrinking of
the size of government. We hear talk about the united
alternative. The Reform and Conservative Parties want to form a
very conservative alternative. We have a very conservative
government across the way. We have now the smallest federal
government we have had on a percentage basis since before the
second world war. The bill will once again shrink the size of
the federal government.
We see a Liberal Party that is more conservative than the
Conservatives who were there a few years ago. Yet the member
from Prince Edward Island sits there, clenches his teeth in
frustration and does not dare speak out.
It seems very strange that some of these members who are
reasonably progressive sit back and take this kind of
quasi-privatization on this particular issue.
1615
The other thing is the question of accountability. Once again
the government is going to establish an agency that will be arm's
length from the government, arm's length from the Parliament of
Canada. The new agency will have a CEO and a board of directors.
The CEO will report to the government through a minister. That
will be arm's length from this place.
I worry about the whole question of accountability. In setting
up this corporation that is going to collect taxes, what about
accountability for the people of this country?
Those are some of the issues we are hearing about when we talk
about this bill across the country.
There is also tremendous opposition from the workers themselves
at National Revenue, as articulated by the Public Service
Alliance of Canada, PSAC.
I look across at the member from Prince Edward Island, a former
national union leader in this country and the former president of
the National Farmers Union. His brothers and sisters in PSAC are
saying “Don't go ahead with this bill. It is a bad bill for
workers. It is a bad bill for the people who have to collect
taxes”. Yet this former union leader rests silent in his seat.
He is afraid to get up and speak his mind. That is very strange
for a former national union leader.
We should be listening to the workers. Those who will work in
this agency and collect taxes know best whether it is going to be
efficient and good for the people of the country, but they are
being ignored.
To top it off, the committee did not even travel to any of the
border communities like Sarnia or Windsor to speak to the people
who are on the front lines in terms of customs. It did not
travel to those communities.
Mr. Wayne Easter: It met them.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: It met a few of them. It had a few
hours of hearings, but very few.
The committee did not travel to Vancouver or other parts of
British Columbia. It did not go down to the east coast or to the
Windsor and St. Catharines border crossings to speak directly to
the workers. The government is afraid of what it would hear.
I am sure the member from Prince Edward Island must be hanging
his head in shame when he hears some of these reports, coming not
only from this side of the House but from members of his own
party who, because of our parliamentary system, do not have the
courage to stand and speak publicly in the House.
The auditor general released his most report the other day.
Yesterday it was before the public accounts committee, under the
able chairmanship of my friend from St. Albert. In this very
voluminous report there is a section that deals with Revenue
Canada. It says many things about Revenue Canada and about its
many problems. It makes a comment about the agency. It states
that “the establishment of a new agency will not in itself
resolve the problems outlined in this chapter with Revenue
Canada”. The auditor general is saying that the problems that
exist today in Revenue Canada will not be solved by the creation
of this new tax agency.
It goes on and on. There is problem after problem. There is
considerable opposition around the country. There is opposition
from the provinces, in view of the fact that they have not signed
on to this particular agency. There is opposition from the
people who work for Revenue Canada and the Public Service
Alliance of Canada. Yet the government wants to proceed.
We need some serious parliamentary change so that government
backbenchers can speak their mind, tell us what they think, tell
us what their constituents think and tell us what the workers in
this country think. We need that kind of parliamentary change so
the minister is not just jerking them around by the neck and
telling them what to do. That is the kind of change we need in
this country.
This is a very good example of a bill that should not pass, a
bill which should be delayed for at least six months until the
proper amendments are made, but the government backbenchers
cannot speak their mind. That is why we need parliamentary
reform.
If that were the case, the member from Prince Edward Island
would not be afraid to stand in this House. But he knows that if
he does that he may not be a parliamentary secretary any longer,
he may not be a cabinet minister, he may not be a chair of a
committee and he may be able to take a certain trip.
That is the kind of power the government whip has today.
1620
I appeal to some of these members to show courage and to tell us
whether they are concerned about the lack of accountability,
whether they are concerned that the provinces have not signed on
and whether they are concerned about the establishment of an IRS
type tax agency in this country like they have in the United
States. I am sure they are and I invite them to speak in this
debate.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the motions in Group
No. 1 respecting Bill C-43.
The issues are quite complex. The government claims that there
will be savings of $171 million to $285 million in compliance
costs and also savings of $97 million to $162 million in
administrative costs due to this new revenue agency. That is
assuming that all provinces opt in. That is a very big
assumption. The government has not succeeded, for instance, in
convincing provinces to sign on to the HST or the blended sales
tax, with the exception of a few provinces in eastern Canada.
The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers believes that there will be
no major savings from this new agency. The federation is
certainly well-versed both in terms of tax policy, tax
enforcement and also in terms of pointing out inefficiencies in
government. I would suggest that is a very significant criticism
of the government's plan to create this revenue agency.
We should be focusing, in a very holistic way, on the
simplification of the tax code. We should be working toward a
fairer, flatter, less Pavlovian tax code. We should be looking
at simplifying both business taxes and personal taxes such that
Canadians do not have to hire professional accountants and
lawyers to deal with their own government. Instead the
government is focusing on the logistics of the administrative
aspects of tax enforcement. I believe that this is a misdirected
effort at this time.
This revenue agency, the way the government is going about it,
is inconsistent with general trends of federal-provincial
relations. Provinces want greater autonomy. Quebec, for
instance, is not interested, and Ontario is indicating that it
may want its own agency. Ontario is looking to gain greater
authority over its tax levers and over the enforcement side of
it.
It cannot simply be said that the provinces are going to sign
onto this. There has not been dramatic indication from the
provinces. I would argue that without that commitment in advance
this simply should not go ahead.
The government says that it will create this good agency and the
provinces will at some point understand what a great agency it is
and what a great service it can deliver and they will want to
sign on. I am very skeptical, as are members of my party, that
that will occur. The provinces certainly have not bought into
the government's blended sales tax to the extent they were
expected to. Although, we have to commend the government on its
flip-flop on the GST. It certainly has come a long way in terms
of its support of consumption taxes today as opposed to where it
was in 1993. But hypocrisy is only half a mortal sin and I guess
we cannot pillory the government too far on that.
I am concerned about the appointment process of the board of
directors which will be responsible for this agency. I know that
the government is saying there will be federal-provincial
co-operation and that, in itself, will eliminate or reduce the
potential for patronage. That is the same assurance the
government provided, for instance, with respect to the Canada
pension plan investment board, and yet, of the 12 members of that
board, six are prominent Liberals. In fact, five were
significant contributors and one was a former Liberal MP.
The fact is that the process is tainted. The board that is
responsible for the appointments has representatives from each
province, but that board is chaired by a prominent Liberal, Mr.
Phelps. He gave a list of 20 names to the Minister of Finance,
and the minister chose 12 people from the 20. I suggest that it
is no coincidence that 6 of the 12, 50% of the board responsible
for the Canada pension plan investment process, are prominent
Liberals.
1625
Members opposite will say there is no patronage. But it is
interesting to note that only .2% of Canadians contribute to the
federal Liberal Party, and yet 50% of the people on the Canada
pension plan investment board are prominent Liberals. So when
they say there will be no patronage in the appointments to the
board of this arm's length agency, I am very skeptical and for
good reasons.
Questions we have to ask are: Why can the benefits being
promoted by the government in Bill C-43 not be achieved within
the framework of the department of Revenue Canada? It was
mentioned earlier that it is the largest government department.
The government indicates that human resources issues are part of
the stumbling blocks, including the difficulty in attracting and
keeping high quality people, as well as pay issues within the
public service. I would say that this would suggest a systemic
problem within all of the public service that requires a holistic
solution and not the stop-gap, knee-jerk, crisis management kind
of approach that this government is taking.
The auditor general speaks to the general government-wide
dissatisfaction with human resources management in his report on
matters of special interest. The auditor general says that
dissatisfaction with existing human resources management is also
reflected in the interest among government officials in
alternative service delivery mechanisms. One of the driving
factors has been that present staffing, classification and
compensation systems are too unwieldy and inflexible. The
government needs to ensure that the rush to get outside the
system does not divert attention from fixing the system.
Many of the human resources issues need to be addressed
throughout the public service. This is a prime example of an
opportunity for the government to address them, starting with the
largest government department, Revenue Canada, which represents
one-quarter of the public service, 40,000 to 46,000 employees,
depending on the time of year. We should start actively
developing a meaningful, holistic, long term approach to the
entire public service.
The public service has unprecedented low levels of morale. We
are dealing with a public service that is absolutely devastated
by the fact that the government has yet to agree to the human
rights tribunal ruling on pay equity.
Government members speak in code, but sometimes when they are
talking about the public service they refer to the unions as
being part of the problem, although they may not say that
directly. However, union issues are dealt with in the private
sector. There are many proponents of the free market system
which recognize that unions play a very important role in that
free market system. Without unions representing workers there
would probably be a need for a large government department to
look after those issues. Ultimately, that would be far less
effective and unwieldy.
If companies like Chrysler Canada and General Motors can work
with unions and achieve efficiency, productivity and advances,
why cannot the Government of Canada? Why can the Government of
Canada not lead the way in terms of human resources development,
as opposed to leading the way in ignoring issues within its own
human resources? Why is it seeking alternative service delivery
instead of fixing the problems in its own departments?
If we created incentives within all of our public agencies and
departments, incentives that recognize and reward excellence as
opposed to encouraging mediocrity and punishing excellence, and
if we introduced market incentives within the existing agencies,
we could achieve economies without necessarily creating new
agencies.
One of the tragedies in recent years with the government's
policies toward the public service and with politicians making
gratuitous attacks on it is that we have a public service that is
extraordinarily demoralized.
There are people who study public administration and learn many
of the same types of skills required for a business
administration degree, but they study public administration
because they want to be a public servant. They have a public
ethic. They want to work for the betterment of society and for
the people. We have to recognize that and ensure that we have a
system which encourages excellence, both in terms of attracting
the best and the brightest, and also keeping them.
My colleague from the Reform Party referred to the potential of
this agency becoming an IRS type of agency and I concur with that
risk.
1630
The issues raised by the member from the New Democratic Party are
relative to the agency and the risks to workers and their job
security. Keep in mind 25% of the public service is in this.
These are significant issues. I am not convinced that the
government has made a good case for why we should support this
agency.
If the government cannot address these human resources issues,
for instance, or if it cannot address why the advantages of this
agency cannot be achieved within the existing structure of
Revenue Canada, then I suggest the government has a significant
deficiency in its human resource management.
We need more consultation with Canadians. I suggest the finance
committee or a subcommittee travel throughout the country and
consult with Canadians and discuss any matter of the gravity and
importance of the new Revenue Canada agency proposed by the
government.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the APEC Summit; the hon. member
for Davenport, the Environment; the hon. member for Halifax
West, National Defence; the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington, Poverty.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
express my support for all the amendments that reduce the scope
of Bill C-43, because the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the
establishment of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
In the throne speech delivered in February 1996, the federal
government announced the establishment of a national revenue
collection agency. Just when we thought the government had
completely abandoned the idea, the Minister of Revenue tabled
Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency, just before the House adjourned for the summer.
What the minister came up with is not a mere collection agency,
but a terrible bureaucratic monster, which threatens the
confidentiality of personal information, the rights of revenue
department employees, and the provincial powers relating to
revenue collection.
Even the business community is opposed to the establishment of
this agency.
The minister admitted he wanted the House to pass Bill C-43
before the Christmas recess. We wonder why he persists in going
that route, considering that no one wants this national customs
and revenue agency. The minister proposes to change the current
structure of the Department of National Revenue by transforming
Revenue Canada into an agency that is quasi-independent of the
government.
It would have the job of collecting taxes, not only federal
taxes, but taxes of all sorts, including sales and property
taxes, provided of course that tax collection agreements are
signed with the provinces and municipalities.
Let me list the reasons why we should oppose this bill.
First, the customs and revenue agency is a threat to the privacy
of Quebeckers and Canadians. In the era of electronic
communications, the risks of trafficking in personal information
are inversely proportional to the concentration of information
within private organizations. If ever it is created, the agency
in question will have access to an incredible quantity of
personal and financial information.
In addition, this agency would be less accountable through the
minister and less subject to scrutiny by parliament than Revenue
Canada is at present. As a result, the dissemination of this
personal information about taxpayers would be completely beyond
public control.
Second, the customs and revenue agency could also jeopardize the
working conditions of Revenue Canada employees and even threaten
their jobs.
1635
In fact, 40,000 Revenue Canada employees would no longer be
covered by the Public Service Employment Act. In two years'
time, the agency could thus lower employees' salaries, lay them
off, or decide on their working conditions without having to
consult them. By passing this bill, the government is taking a
heavy-handed approach to modernizing the public service, instead
of trying to reach agreement with unions.
Third, the customs and revenue agency does not impress owners of
small businesses. The business community was supposed to be the
main beneficiary. However, reaction to the agency's
announcement was restrained and ambivalent, to say the least.
Such bodies as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business
have expressed misgivings about the concentration of power
within the agency. According to a Public Policy Forum study
commissioned by Revenue Canada, no fewer than 40% of businesses
indicate no interest whatsoever in the agency. More than
two-thirds also believe that its creation would not mean any
savings over the present structure, or that it would cost even
more.
Finally, and this is a vital point, the Customs and Revenue
Agency runs counter to the federal principle of provincial
sovereignty in areas that fall under their jurisdiction. Such
an agency would, therefore, violate the division of powers
between the federal and provincial governments If the provinces
have independent revenues, they must be the ones to collect
them.
Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who cannot be accused of excessive
support for independence, rose up more than 30 years ago to
denounce the practice of the federal government's collecting
more taxes than it needs in order to implement policies coming
under its jurisdiction. Trudeau saw such an act as illegal,
even. In 1957, he wrote that the federal government cannot
legally have funds in its coffers which it claims, after the
fact, are for provincial purposes.
What would happen if the federal government assigned to a
central collection agency encompassing the whole of Canada and
coming under federal authority the power to collect taxes of
various kinds, instead of the provinces and the municipalities?
In our opinion, it would then become impossible to halt the
centralization of the Canadian federation.
When the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says that Canada
is the most decentralized federation in the world, I think he is
the only one to believe it.
I will be blunt: if the federal government collects its own
taxes to finance its responsibilities under section 91 of the
Constitution Act, that is plausible. However, the fact that it
wants to give responsibility for collecting provincial and
municipal taxes to appointed officials, who are not directly
accountable for their actions, is inconceivable and
unimaginable.
As the Minister of Finance announces his surplus of billions of
dollars, he should respect the consensus reached by the
provinces and give them back the money he cut in recent years.
That would enable them to look after health, education and
social services, which are also their responsibility under the
constitutional agreement. For that, however, we should not
really count on our colleagues opposite. The mission of the
Liberal members is to defend the federal government and not the
interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.
The example of the Canada customs and revenue agency should
suffice to convince those who have not yet understood that for
the past 50 years Canada has been headed inexorably toward
centralization. The federal government, and this Liberal
government in particular, is trying to destroy all thoughts of
autonomy—be they those of Quebec, provinces or regions.
1640
The proposed customs and revenue agency will concentrate in the
hands of a few super-bureaucrats the power to dig into the
pockets of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, at the expense of
Revenue Canada employees, small businesses and provincial and
municipal governments.
We think that the federal government already collects too large
a share of tax revenues and that it uses its spending power in
an inconsiderate manner. We will not, on top of that, give the
minister carte blanche to collect all taxes across Canada.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-43, which
proposes the establishment of such an agency, and this is why we
support all the amendments that seek to reduce the scope of the
bill.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at the outset we oppose Bill C-43. It is a pleasure to
speak on the bill and on Group No. 1 motions.
There are good things in the bill. No doubt, as my colleagues
have mentioned, there are good things about reducing duplication,
about improving the efficiency within the tax system, with having
one agency to collect taxes. In my province of British Columbia
we have a mess.
We have a mess in the tax system, particularly on the provincial
level, where it is so complex that it is costing businesses to
pay and implement the provincial tax structures. They would
prefer to have a flat system where everything was taxed, believe
it or not in some cases, than have the system they have now that
is costing them an extraordinary amount of money just to
implement it.
We support those elements in Bill C-43 that will streamline the
system. However, if we are to a Canada customs and review agency
that will be a super agency, the Canadian public must have the
assurance the agency will be transparent and accountable to
parliament and therefore to the Canadian people.
We insist therefore that a couple of significant provisions be
made in the bill, provisions we feel are essential if the bill
goes through. One is to ensure we have a taxpayer bill of
rights. This taxpayer bill of rights is a check. It is a
balance. It is an assurance to Canadians that they will be
protected from an agency. Canadian do not mind paying fair taxes
but they do not want to be ripped off.
Some of the elements in the taxpayer bill of rights would
include tax laws in plain language that are understandable to
Canadians as opposed to the system now where even a person with a
Ph.D. finds it very difficult to understand. Taxpayers should be
treated properly, fairly and with honesty and have an avenue to
complain where the complaints are heard and not merely swept
under the carpet. They should be informed of overpayment in a
timely fashion.
One of the complaints I am sure we all get as members of
parliament is that even though Canadians are asked to pay their
taxes on time, and if not they are made to feel like a criminal,
if somehow they overpay it can take a month of Sundays before
that money is paid back.
Penalties ought to be applied fairly to all individuals. The
right to record any and all meetings with Revenue Canada should
be there on the part of the taxpayer. The taxpayer should have
the right to appeal any Revenue Canada rulings and that CCRA
should waive penalties and interest wherever possible where
taxpayers have acted in good faith in their payment of taxes but
for circumstances perhaps not in their control or due to an
unfortunate oversight they happened to pay less than they should
have.
1645
Canadians are overtaxed. Most Canadians do their best to pay.
Sometimes they run afoul of the payment schedule. We beg and we
ask that taxpayers are not made to feel like criminals, that
amendments can be made on compassionate grounds to make sure they
will pay their taxes in a way that is fair to them.
We want a fair tax system, not a tax system sitting there like a
cudgel over the heads of taxpayers and is used to bash them over
the head like a group of bovines.
That is not what Canadians want. They want a fair tax system.
They do not mind paying their tax, but they do not want to be
treated as slaves to a large system that can be created.
It is for those reasons that we want to ensure a taxpayer bill
of rights is put forward. The other thing we want is an office
for taxpayer protection. This office of taxpayer protection is
another element of adding transparency, another check and a
balance and a protection for the Canadian people.
We want this taxpayer protection office to report to parliament
each year on the state of the CCRA. A chief advocate can be used
to present this to parliament and that chief advocate can present
25 of the most serious problems in the system to the House so
they can be acted on in a timely fashion rather than what usually
happens where it is ignored or tossed under the table.
Also, this office can be used to assist taxpayers in resolving
disputes with the CCRA and can act as an advocate for last resort
for the taxpayer. This would be a very constructive role
by the government. We hope the government listens.
If the government instituted those two solutions then it
government would have the support of the Reform Party in passing
this bill. We will not support this bill unless those checks and
balances are there and unless the Canadian public is protected
from the CCRA.
Let us talk on the larger issue of tax cuts. We have been
accused of somehow favouring the rich. We have been accused of
instituting a plan that will destroy social programs.
If that were the case we would not support tax cuts. The cold
hard facts that have been seen across the country and around the
world are that tax cuts improve the health and welfare of people
and can generate more money for government to save social
programs.
That is one of the reasons the Reform Party came here. We saw
the degradation of our social programs. We saw the destruction
of our health care, our education system and the social safety
nets that are there, thankfully, to help those who through no
fault of their own are unable to work.
It has been sadly 20 years of overspending by governments that
has caused the mountain of debt and that has caused such a huge
amount of interest payments that have eroded into the spending
capabilities of government to support the social programs we have
all come to be fortunate enough to have in our blessed country.
Let us look at the facts. What do taxes do? Let us look at the
tax burden briefly for a second. If we look at individuals, if
we look at ourselves versus the United States, we can see that
personal taxes have increased over the last three decades 136% in
Canada personally compared to 31% in the United States of
America. Those are the facts.
In the OECD Canada suffers the highest personal income tax
burden of any major economy as a revenue proportion of GDP. Our
ratio is nearly 18%. In the U.S. it is 11% and 10% in Britain.
Britain lowered its tax rates. Ireland lowered its tax rates. It
decreased the complexity of its tax structure, decreased the
complexity of the rules and regulations that choked the private
sector. As a result, its economy is booming.
Lessons can be learned. Let us take a look at the tax increases
by the government. The government likes to say it has decreased
taxes. Au contraire. They have actually increased although they
have been nibbled away at the tax burden a little bit.
Tax brackets and credits have not been indexed to inflation,
therefore we have had bracket creep that has increased taxes 18%.
The CPP tax increase of 73% has actually increased the total tax
burden on Canadians by over $1.3 billion in excess of what the
government has actually decreased.
I challenge any member from across the way to refute that
argument.
1650
On the issue of the benefits of tax cuts, if we look at the 10
states in the United States with the lowest taxes they have had a
20% higher amount of money and a growth rate in jobs far in
excess of those 10 states with the highest tax rates. The lowest
tax rate states have had a much higher rate of income for their
average citizens. If we compare Ohio, Michigan and Ontario the
job creation to the marginal tax rates in the United States is
much lower than Ontario and as a result the job creation rates
were much higher than what we found in Ontario.
If the government wants to do something constructive and
productive for Canadians it can restore full indexation to the
inflation of federal tax credits and income brackets, eliminate
the 3% and 5% federal surtaxes and reduce each of the three
federal income tax rates by 2%. The government should listen to
that. If it listens to that Canadians will be wealthier,
healthier and have social programs and will be better off.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the New
Democratic Party opposes this new tax agency. We oppose it
because it is not needed. The auditor general says we do not
need it. It is not wanted. Businesses do not want it. The
provinces do not want it and territories do not want it. It
should be rejected right now because economically, politically
and socially it offers no benefit.
We want a tax agency or a tax system that is more responsive,
not less responsive. As an MP many people come to my office for
help on issues of taxation. We need it to be responsive because
it is important to be able to go to the minister and say this is
what is happening, this is how these policies are being applied.
I can give some examples. In Yukon the northern travel
deduction has been audited massively. We are talking of
thousands of audits of people of the north, and that is quite
significant for a small population. We have a local bank manager
who was audited three years in a row because he claimed the
northern travel deduction. In Dawson City all the employees
except for two at one place were audited. They used e-mail to
file their tax forms and we can bet they will never do that
again. That also brings in the whole issue of privacy and using
technology to file tax returns.
The northern travel deduction barely gives enough to walk
out of Yukon let alone travel out in any kind of comfortable
style, but yet northerners have been audited relentlessly on
this. We want a responsive minister when it comes to taxation.
As an example, a 74 year old had to pay back about $6,000 or
$7,000 because Revenue Canada had made a mistake six years
earlier. It sent him a bill seven years later saying he owed
approximately $8,000. He made arrangements to pay back $200 a
year, but it turned out that was not good enough and it would
garnishee half his pension to get the money back. It made me
wonder if it was determined to get all the money out of this man
before he passed on. Revenue Canada's other solution was for him
to get a bank loan to pay the debt. It would continue to put
intense focus on poor people.
In particular, the complaints that come to my office happen to
be from first nations people. There was an older couple who had
brought up their grandchildren and claimed the family allowance
and the child tax benefit through those years. They were told
they had to pay this money back because they could not prove they
had brought up their children. As MPs we are able to help in
situations like that.
If this tax agency comes into effect it will remove that kind of
accountability. It will put it at arm's length. That takes it
further away from the House and further away from the people who
need help to get through problems like that. The agency will
have a business mandate and we can only imagine an agency
contracting out collections.
1655
It would be truly intolerable for people who already feel they
are harassed and who feel they make a huge contribution to the
well-being of our country through their paycheques and through
their volunteer work in bringing up their families. An agency
should not be open to making a profit.
Another reason we should not have this agency is it would be
reviewed only after five years. Any new agency should be closely
monitored, especially in its set-up. I would say at least every
six months rather than waiting five years to review such a
massive change in how we look after our tax collection.
It brings into question how fairly we will treat the employees
who are transferred over to the tax agency. The union does not
support that kind of transfer of authority. It is a stressful
trying job for the workers who have to collect the taxes.
I take this chance to compliment the people who look after the
northern region. First nations people will now be paying taxes.
They have been very proactive. They have come to the north. They
have had public meetings, information sessions and have gone
through the whole process with the folks who will have to file
income tax for the first time in their lives. That is the kind
of dedication and service we want from public servants. They
were there making sure it happened for those people.
This kind of bill is abdicating political responsibility. I
know the IMF has suggested that some countries set up an agency
to collect taxes, but those are for the poorest, most unstable
countries in the world. Canada does not fit that description.
We should not be abdicating our responsibility as a government to
be accountable to the people we collect money from.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent for the following motion. All parties have
been consulted. I move:
That, on Thursday, December 3, 1998, at 3.00 p.m., the solicitor
general shall be permitted to make a statement pursuant to
Standing Order 33; and that any division required that day for
the disposal of amendments proposed at the report stage of Bill
C-43 shall be postponed to 5.00 p.m. on Monday, December 7, 1998.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, an act to establish
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal
other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee; and of the motions Group No. 1.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in the House today to participate in the report stage
debate on Bill C-43 establishing the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency.
First off, let me tell you that I am against the establishment
of this new federal agency, primarily because of the attitude
and actions of this government; this is an arrogant,
centralizing government, which ignores provincial jurisdictions.
We in the Bloc Quebecois cannot support a bill that only seeks
to centralize the collection of taxes in Canada, downsize the
Department of National Revenue and, more importantly, create an
agency that will be in direct conflict with Quebec's ministry of
revenue.
With this bill, the Liberal government is showing that it is
having more and more difficulty fulfilling its administrative
responsibilities. It is once again about to abdicate its
responsibilities.
This new agency could make it possible for the minister of
revenue to avoid doing his duty, which is to protect the
taxpayer against the abuse of power.
The purpose of the Liberal mania for creating independent
agencies is to then use any pretext for blaming them for
everything that goes wrong, while refusing to get involved by
saying that the independent nature of the agency must be
respected and the government cannot get involved.
I can already hear the words of the revenue minister when he has
to answer a question about this new agency “As members know,
this agency is an independent entity. I will carry out the
necessary checks and, as soon as we have the information, we
will make it known here in the House”.
In other words, while the investigation is going on, they will
be looking for a solution that will get them out of the
embarrassing situation.
1700
Let us now have a look at what lies behind Bill C-43.
It mandates the federal government to set up the right
conditions for one more anti-labour move. The result of this
bill would be that 20% of Revenue Canada employees would be
taken out from under the protection of the Public Service
Employment Act, and this would allow the new agency full rein to
raise or lower salaries, to hire or lay off employees. This
government is prepared to do anything to satisfy its excessive
need of centralization and its publicity seeking efforts to get
the maple leaf onto everything.
For the Liberals, simplification and duplication are synonymous,
and harmonization to them means interference in areas of
provincial jurisdiction. Quebec is opposed to the creation of
this agency. Ontario is also on its guard against this new
threat of centralization, and is even giving thought to setting
up its own agency.
Can the minister of revenue tell us why he is in such a rush to
create this new agency, when Quebec does not want it any more
than the majority of other provinces? Where does his support
for this bill come from?
We are in favour of the principle of a single collector, and in
Quebec this should be the Quebec Minister of Revenue, who would
collect all federal and provincial taxes. Judging by the
outcome of the joint collection of the Quebec sales tax and the
GST in Quebec at the moment, this is an effective formula.
The Canada customs and revenue agency is another federal
creation, the inspiration of senior federal revenue officials in
Ottawa, who want to create a sort of monster, a sort of octopus
reaching out its tentacles beyond the provinces to the municipal
and local levels.
They intend to administer everything, from provincial sales
taxes to gas and alcohol taxes. Are we going to take the risk
and let this arrogant, voracious and centralizing Liberal
government enact this bill?
Who is this agency accountable to? Will the members of this
House be able to obtain explanations on its management, its
results and its errors. Currently, the department of revenue is
accountable to the House of Commons.
The government cannot avoid embarrassing questions about family
trusts and the small privileges the Minister of Finance enjoys
with his little boats, for example.
We are afraid that this new agency will face less parliamentary
scrutiny than is currently the case for the Department of
National Revenue. Members can imagine an embarrassing question
on the agency's activities; the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime
Minister and the minister of revenue have already written their
answers.
From what we see in the debate on Bill C-54, some answers are
needed here about the incredible quantity of personal and
private information that will end up in the hands of the federal
government.
In the current debate on Bill C-54, the electronic commerce bill,
which once again collides with Quebec legislation on access to
information, we can see already how the federal government would
use this information to achieve its goal of centralization.
This new bill is doomed to failure. The Canada customs and
revenue agency, an agency that wants to collect everything and
that should convince the provinces to join it, lacked both
agreements and signatures when Bill C-43 was introduced. Even in
committee, when we asked the minister of revenue “Where is your
support, Mr. Minister”, he had none.
Who will foot the bill for this agency? Its users, but at what
price? Initially, the federal agency will try to show that it
is generating savings, but it will soon raise its user fees to
satisfy the voracious Liberals.
And, speaking of how voracious this government is when it comes
to finances, yesterday, the Minister of Finance and his
sidekick, the Minister of Human Resources Development, had the
nerve to announce a paltry 15 cent cut in premiums in response
to the Bloc Quebecois' many calls that something be done about
the present EI system.
1705
There is no change in the system per se, which continues to be a
wonderful method of collecting funds for the election fund of
the Liberal Party of Canada, or plumping up the future campaign
fund of the Minister of Finance, who has serious designs on the
leadership of his own party. And where do the surpluses go?
Into the Minister of Finance's pocket. What is this government
doing to correct regional rates based on the number of hours
worked? Nothing.
When it comes to the most disadvantaged members of our society,
this government turns a deaf ear. It is the embodiment of
arrogance and heartlessness, taking its cue from the behaviour
of the Liberal Prime Minister.
As far as the Y2K bug is concerned, will all the changes that
Revenue Canada employees will have to face make it any easier
for them to prepare for this transition in informatics, on which
much energy already had to be expended?
Where is Revenue Canada at in preparing for the year 2000?
Statements made by the Auditor General of Canada show he is
expecting the worst because the government is not taking this
potential bug very seriously. One can only imagine the
administrative and data processing chaos in which the transition
from Revenue Canada to a future customs and revenue agency would
take place.
In closing, I would like to summarize the reasons why I am
reiterating my opposition to Bill C-43: the centralizing
obsession of the Liberal government; the danger this agency
represents for the revenue department in Quebec; the inordinate
amount of power this agency would have; the anti-union attitude
of the government in this bill as it affects Revenue employees;
the intrusion on the privacy of our fellow citizens; the
performance of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in its
current handling of the scrapie crisis with Quebec sheep, where
there is such an administrative muddle that the minister and the
agency cannot even figure out where they are at.
I am saying no to the Liberals, I am saying no to the Minister
of National Revenue and, once again, on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois, I am calling for the immediate withdrawal of this
bill.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I
look through Bill C-43, there are a few things that concern me.
I noticed in clauses 22, 25 and 26, the deal with the
appointment of the chair and the commissioner of the agency, that
they are going to be appointed at the pleasure of the government.
We are dealing here with tax collection, something that is very
serious and something that perhaps could be construed to be akin
to a quasi-judicial agency.
With the powers that are going to be conferred on the
commissioner and because of his or her role as an independent
civil servant to collect taxes on behalf of the government, his
or her independence must be assured. Yet we find that he or she
is not being appointed on good behaviour but is being appointed
at the pleasure of the government. Therefore, if he or she does
not squeeze enough taxes out of Canadians, the government can say
“You are out of here. We are going to get somebody else to do
the job because we feel that you are not collecting enough”.
The appointment is at pleasure. I ask the government to come
forward and tell us why it does not make this appointment on good
behaviour. It seems to me that would be much more important. If
it were on the basis of good behaviour, then it would at least
provide some credibility that this agency was not going to be
interfered with by the government, but perhaps it will be.
Turning to clause 38, it reads:
The Commissioner must keep the Minister informed of any matter
that could affect public policy or that could materially affect
public finances, and any other matter that the Minister considers
necessary.
I draw members' attention to “affect public finances”. I
refer back to an issue that was raised by the auditor general two
or three years ago. It was called the family trust fiasco where
one ruling by the Department of National Revenue under a very
questionable situation cost the taxpayer $2 billion. To me, that
would certainly fall under materially affecting the public
finances.
1710
When the public accounts committee had hearings on that fiasco,
the deputy minister assured us under oath that there was
absolutely no political involvement in the granting of that tax
break on that particular family trust. It was one particular
issue, one particular taxpayer who got a $2 billion tax break
under the most questionable of circumstances one day before
Christmas. It was the best Christmas present he ever had.
The whole concept is that there be no political involvement in
granting tax breaks to Canadians and that the act be applied
fairly, appropriately and properly to every Canadian. Now we
find the commissioner is obligated to get the political masters
involved. He must keep the minister informed on matters that
could materially affect the public finances. Under this clause
the politicians in this House who give direction to the
commissioner now have the authority to direct to the commissioner
whether or not they will grant these types of tax breaks.
Political shenanigans are starting to go on in this bill.
Let us look at clause 33. This is where it gets kind of
convoluted and we have to wonder why the government is creating
this agency. While the agency is supposed to be at arm's length,
everything else is being treated as if the agency were a civil
service.
A board of 15 people is being created. It seems to be patronage
heaven because the members will have nothing whatsoever to do
regarding taxation and collection. The only thing they have to
do is run the agency. Clause 33 states:
The Board may advise the Minister on matters that relate to the
general administration and enforcement of the program
legislation.
The next clause specifically states that the board cannot tell
the commissioner how to handle the enforcement of program
legislation. The commissioner will be acting on his own, the
board is prohibited from telling him how to do his job of
enforcement of taxes, yet the board is obligated to talk to the
minister on behalf of the commissioner. It seems this is a kind
of make work project for the board to get it involved somehow
without giving it any teeth to act at arm's length from the
government. We see in clause 38 that the government wants to
keep that to itself. That is why I have a problem with the bill.
I have to concur with the government on clause 92(5) regarding
severance pay. Because the employees are being moved en masse
from the Department of National Revenue to the agency and as far
as they are concerned there will be absolutely no interruption in
employment, they will not be granted severance pay under their
collective agreement. Granting severance pay would amount to
several hundred million dollars. I am glad to see it is being
deferred until the employees retire.
I raised this issue with Nav Canada, which was a privatization a
little more at arm's length than this agency. There were people
who worked for the Department of Transport one day and who on the
following day went to the same job with the same desk, the same
telephone, the same boss, the same everything except that the
letterhead had changed to Nav Canada. They picked up $200 million
in severance pay. I was absolutely shocked that those employees
were given $200 million.
At committee I said to Mr. Daryl Bean, the president of the
union, that it was preposterous for the taxpayer to be expected
to shell out $200 million for a letterhead change. He answered
that that was the agreement. And not only that, if people's
employment were not severed until their retirement day, when they
retired they would get their severance pay.
1715
In the private sector there is nobody who can afford to pay
severance pay to every employee who sticks around until
retirement age. Yet we as the Government of Canada have deemed
it in their sense, not common sense, to grant that benefit to
employees. The taxpayers are on the hook for hundreds of
millions of dollars, $200 million for NavCan alone.
Fortunately, and I will give the government credit on this
issue, it has deferred the payment of severance pay until these
people retire rather than paying a bonus to them the day the
letterhead changed.
The agency is smoke and mirrors. The government wants to move
it off arm's length because it did not like the fiasco of the GST
and did not want to repeat it and be able to blame somebody else.
It is not our fault, it's their fault that they are squeezing
taxes out of everyone.
I think there are some serious flaws in this bill, serious flaws
in the whole philosophy of having an agency at arm's length
collecting taxes on behalf of the government. The government has
to be responsible to the taxpayers. There is a very close link
between the taxes paid by the people who are governed and the
taxes collected by those who want to govern. That link is
broken, as we see definitely on the reserves of the country where
the people who lead, manage and govern their native reserves have
no link with those they derive their revenue from. The people on
reserves are untaxed. There is no linkage between those people
who want to govern the reserve, collecting taxes from those they
are to govern and if we break that link here with ourselves, it
is very serious indeed.
I would be quite happy to see the government withdraw this piece
of legislation and move on to something a lot more important.
BILL C-43—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member has
told us we have to withdraw the bill and we cannot have any of
that, I must now regrettably do the following.
An agreement could not be reached under provisions of Standing
Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third
reading stage of Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada
customs and revenue agency and to amend and repeal other acts as
a consequence.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that, at the
next sitting of the House, a minister of the crown will be
moving a time allocation motion for the purpose of allotting a
specified number of days or hours for the consideration and
disposal of proceedings at that stage.
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, an act to establish
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal
other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendments) from
the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great concern and frustration that I rise today to express my
indignation and my anger.
Indeed, since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has kept trying to make
this government realize that the duplication of jurisdictions
between the federal and provincial governments costs a great
deal to the various levels of government.
With Bill C-43, which will create the Canada customs and revenue
agency, the federal government is once again interfering,
without consulting the provinces, in an area it has no business
getting involved in. Clearly, this is further proof of the Prime
Minister's insatiable desire to centralize everything.
But before going further, I would like members to take time to
look and examine this super agency, this tax monster that the
federal government wants to set up.
1720
As per usual, since this government has made a habit of avoiding
responsibility, of not facing the music and of avoiding any
exchange of ideas, on June 4, one week before the House
adjourned for the long summer recess, the revenue minister
sneaked in Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency.
The establishment of this tax collection monster is a project
that goes back to the throne speech of February 1996, in which
the government announced its intention to set up a national
revenue recovery agency. But already at that time, the Bloc
Quebecois had opposed the establishment of such an agency.
More specifically, the agency will convert the Department of
National Revenue into a semi-independent government body, with
responsibility for negotiating with provinces and municipalities
wishing to have it collect all taxes in Canada.
According to the Minister of National Revenue, the ministerial
responsibilities and parliamentary controls will remain
essentially the same. This means that the Public Service Staff
Relations act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act
and the Official Languages Act will continue to apply. In
addition, the minister says he will retain full responsibility
for the administration of tax, customs and trade legislation.
In short, very little will change.
So why create this agency? Why go to all this trouble, if
nothing will be any different?
According to the President of the Treasury Board, and I quote:
Creation of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is an
essential component of the government's commitment to modernize
the federal public service.
I do not get it. Modernize by doing nothing. This stunt by the
federal government is strangely evocative of the federal system
in which we live. A huge bureaucracy, an ideology rooted in the
past, with no vision: such is the federal system in which we
live. The Canada customs and revenue agency is more of the
same.
For the federal government, modernizing a bureaucracy boils down
to privatizing public services. It means jeopardizing the jobs
of 40,000 employees, or 20% of the entire federal public
service, to whom framework legislation such as the Public
Service Employment Act will no longer apply. Two years from
now, this anti-union attitude will give the agency free rein to
raise or lower employees' salaries, to hire or fire
unilaterally.
Henceforth, these employees will be at the mercy of the agency's
board of management. While we are on the topic, the board's 15
directors will be appointed for three years on the
recommendation of the provinces, and will occupy their positions
on a part time basis.
The chair, the commissioner and the deputy commissioner will be
appointed by the Governor in Council for a renewable term of
five years.
Great jobs, these, for the party's political buddies.
This is how the government treats its employees, to say nothing
of its recent treatment of the thousands of women in the Public
Service with its reluctance to give them pay equity. If I were
in the shoes of the 40,000 Revenue employees, I would be very
much afraid. With this government, a person never knows what
low blow can suddenly be delivered. Each day brings its
surprises and its trip-ups, courtesy of an immoral and heartless
government.
We could also speak of the employment insurance fund, or of the
unemployed who have paid into it and cannot even get their own
money back from a government that is literally ripping them off.
I could go on and on about this.
I was absolutely astonished, when I read this bill, by the lack
of accountability there will be for the agency executive. This
agency is a classic example of empire-building by senior
mandarins ensconced in their ivory towers in Ottawa. This is a
classic example of bureaucratic empire-building.
1725
The role and responsibilities of the commissioner of the CCRA
would make him a kind of czar of taxation, a super bureaucrat
invested with massive powers but more or less without any need
to report to anyone.
By removing the CCRA from the daily monitoring of his office,
the minister is putting himself at risk of having his
bureaucrats put one over on him. The CCRA would, moreover, more
or less have carte blanche over such matters as contracting out
property management, equipment management, and information and
technology management. With only limited outside monitoring,
there would be a greater risk of patronage and abuse of
authority.
This is inconceivable and unacceptable.
Clauses 47 to 49 are explicit about the agency's lack of
accountability. The agency submits an annual business plan to
the minister for recommendation to the Treasury Board for
approval. The plan would set out the objectives of the agency
and its strategies to achieve them.
The minister must cause a summary of the plan to be tabled in
both Houses within 15 days of his approval. Parliament has no
opportunity to question the agency's decisions once they have
government approval. Where is accountability? Where is the
transparency in this process?
According to the minister of revenue, private enterprise and the
business community will be the first to benefit from the agency,
but that is far from confirmed.
Organizations like the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business reacted rather coolly to the massive and centralized
power in the tentacles of the super agency. No less than 40% of
the businesses that took part in a Public Policy Forum study
commissioned by Revenue Canada indicated a lack of interest in
the agency. More than two thirds of them felt that, after the
new agency is established, the cost of dealing with the
department as currently structured would increase or remain the
same.
And what is the government opposite doing about the provinces'
ability to determine their own budgetary policy? Quebec will
not give in to this centralizing government. The Bloc Quebecois
and its members are reasonable and responsible. They will
certainly not vote in favour of this bill.
The federal Liberals' centralizing view of the affairs of state
is totally unacceptable.
We are in favour of a single tax collection body, but it should
be Quebec's Department of Revenue, which is already collecting
the GST. This department is fully accountable to Quebeckers.
For all these reasons, and for many others that I unfortunately
cannot go into, because it would mean sleeping here tonight, the
Bloc Quebecois will be voting against this bill. What we are
calling for is the withdrawal, pure and simple, of the bill and
the repeal of all its clauses.
It is such a pity to see that, once again, closure is being
invoked on a bill as important and as controversial as Bill C-43.
Several of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, as well as colleagues
from other parties, wish to speak to the bill. It is very sad
to see that this government, which is introducing bills in the
House, does not even have the decency to defend them.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
CANADA-UNITED STATES DAYS OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this
House, the Government should designate July 2 and 3, 1998, coming
between Canada Day and Independence Day (U.S.), as “Canada-United
States Days of Peace and Friendship” in recognition of the close
and peaceful relations that exist between the two countries, the
warm personal links that prevail between neighbouring communities
along the length of the common border and the commitments to
freedom, democracy and human rights shared by the two nations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to ask for
unanimous consent to make one amendment to the motion and that is
to delete the year 1998. With the way our Private Members'
Business works the motion is a bit redundant. It makes a lot more
sense that the two dates, July 2 and July 3, would continue in
perpetuity in accordance with the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent for the member to move the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today
on Motion No. 263 to say the fact that the Canada-U.S.
relationship is dynamic and thriving does not do justice to its
complexity, scope and depth. Our trade with the United States is
booming but our partnership is not based only on economics and
geography.
In dealing with important issues posed by a changing world,
Canada and the United States have extensive shared interests that
often complement each other's roles. The relationship is
thriving because it is carefully nurtured. A further step in
this nurturing is the motion we are speaking to this evening.
In 1987 a private American citizen named David Boyer felt
strongly that there should be an official recognition of the
friendship between Canada and the United States. Mr. Boyer
diligently contacted both Canadian and American elected officials
urging them to take the necessary steps toward such a
declaration.
In the United States a joint resolution of the Senate and the
House of Representatives was passed proclaiming that July 2 and 3
would thereafter be known as days of peace and friendship between
Canada and the United States.
The Canadian government introduced a similar motion on March 25,
1987, resolving that July 2 and 3, 1987, be designated as days of
peace and friendship. The 1987 motion was introduced by then
Deputy Prime Minister Don Mazankowski and seconded by the now
Deputy Prime Minister and member for Windsor West. The 1987
motion was also seconded by the current member from Qu'Appelle.
The motion was debated on March 25, 1987, agreed to by the House
of Commons, and subsequently agreed to by the Senate on April 2,
1987.
My predecessor from Erie, Mr. Girve Fretz, spoke in support of
the motion as the town of Fort Erie was preparing to celebrate
the 175th anniversary of the War of 1812 with a four day
friendship festival.
During the War of 1812 Americans attacked and burned government
buildings in York, the then capital of Upper Canada which is now
known as Toronto. In 1814 Washington, D.C., was torched in
retaliation. Similarly Old Fort Erie in my riding was burned by
U.S. soldiers. Now Old Fort Erie is one of the venues of the
celebration of our two nations in the friendship festival.
Therefore celebrating the end of the War of 1812 is significant
because when both Canada and the United States lowered their
weapons the peaceful result was the evolution of the longest,
oldest undefended border in modern history. That border is not
something that divides; it is something we build on. From rivals
in 1812 Canada and the United States have become fast friends,
best trading partners and staunch allies.
From those modest beginnings of a celebration in 1987 I am
pleased to inform the House that last July marked the 11th year
of the Fort Erie Friendship Festival, one of the major summer
attractions in the Niagara Peninsula where over 100,000 visitors
enjoy the cultures of our two countries.
The friendship festival organizers do a superb job of planning
the event which runs from July 1, Canada Day, to July 4,
Independence Day.
It attracts participants from southern Ontario and western New
York. It boasts the biggest Canada Day celebrations in the
peninsula and is a major attraction for the July 4 festivities in
LaSalle Park, Buffalo.
1735
It is interesting to note that recently this annual event was
opened by the former Canadian ambassador to Iran, Mr. Ken Taylor,
who, at considerable personal risk to him and his staff during
the occupation of the U.S. embassy by the forces of the Ayatolla
Khomeni, hid members of the U.S. staff from threatening mobs and
subsequently spirited them out of the country to safety.
In order to celebrate its 10th anniversary in 1997, the
friendship festival approached me about reintroducing a motion to
redesignate the days of peace and friendship. Unfortunately
Motion No. 327 died on the order paper when the spring election
was called in April 1997. When the 36th Parliament returned I
immediately resubmitted the motion, and here I stand today.
Due to the delay in being drawn for Private Members' Business
the date of the motion still reads 1998. I suggest that the
designation of any year should be eliminated and an amendment
moved accordingly. The most obvious reason is that the 1998
celebrations have come and gone. Also, by doing so, our
commitment to this partnership is clear and without time
limitation. It will endure and continue in perpetuity parallel
with the positive and beneficial relationship between our two
nations.
The fact that people from the Fort Erie community have
spearheaded the motion is not surprising. What better symbol to
emphasize the peace and friendship that existed between the
United States and Canada than the Peace Bridge spanning the
Niagara River and linking Fort Erie with Buffalo.
After 70 years since it was first opened by the Prince of Wales,
the Peace Bridge is now the second busiest land border crossing
between Canada and the United States. Next spring the sod will
be turned marking the start of construction of the Peace Bridge
twin span, a true testament to the trade and close ties with our
neighbours to the south.
Last month, on November 20, the largest duty free facility in
North America was opened at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie,
another example in bricks and mortar of the enormous number of
travellers who cross our borders each day.
Fort Erie is not alone in its efforts to celebrate friendship
between Americans and Canadians. For example, just to name a
few, the communities of Windsor and Detroit, Sault Ste. Marie,
Ontario and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan also have yearly events
that strive to bring us closer and to celebrate all that we share
together. I am certain they would appreciate this effort to
celebrate and mark our special relationship. This continues
across the entire country from the maritimes through Quebec to
the prairie provinces and British Columbia.
In February 1995, U.S. President Bill Clinton stood in the House
and stated that we needed to strengthen that relationship because
it was our job to spread the benefits of democracy, freedom,
prosperity and peace beyond our shores. We do this as emissaries
of the free world and as examples for the entire globe.
Political meetings between our respective countries regularly
take place not only between our leaders but at the elected
representative level as well. It was with our vital national
interests and our close relationship in mind that the 39th annual
meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group took
place this year in Nantucket, resulting in one of our most
productive meetings. Organized in three workshops—trade and
economics, political and global, and transborder issues—each
group discussed in detail from both Canadian and American
perspectives over 38 separate issues.
For instance, in the trade and economics workshop topics ranged
from culture to lumber and from potatoes, sugar, grain and dairy
to electricity.
The transborder workshop considered issues of congestion
encountered at a number of border points across our two
countries, stultifying the free exchange of goods and services.
There were candid in depth discussions in the political and
global workshop where our views differed and where we held common
views on the international field ranging from trans-Atlantic
trade to Bosnia, Cuba and China, to the economic fallout in Asia,
and to the consequences of nuclear tests in the Asian
subcontinent.
At the plenary all issues were reviewed by all delegates. The
plenary decided unanimously to start a much more active process
to exchange views of bilateral concern in a more detailed way
between the annual meetings as all delegates believed a number of
these issues required more regular, timely and friendly
exchanges. The plenary further decided that there would be a
bilateral meeting on the west coast to exchange views on the
contentious issues of lumber and fish.
I understand that a meeting will be arranged between our
parliamentarians and members of our respective governments to
facilitate a common North American front on drug trafficking.
Another bilateral meeting is to be arranged between
parliamentarians and officials to consider our common interest in
a trans-Atlantic trade approach and, it is hoped, a common
trans-Atlantic action plan.
1740
We share a common history and a common culture. We are two
nations blessed with great histories and resources and we have
great responsibilities. We were built, after all, by men and
women who fled the old world for the new. We are nations of
pioneers, people who were armed with the confidence they needed
to strike out on their own and had the talents to shape their
dreams in a new and different land.
Culture and tradition distinguish us from one another in many
ways, but we share core values, which is more important; a
devotion to hard work; an ardent belief in democracy; and a
commitment to giving each and every citizen the tools to achieve
an understanding of giving back the greater global community a
share of the advantages we enjoy.
These common values have nourished a partnership that has become
a model for new democracies around the world. They can look at
us and see just how much stronger the bonds between nations can
be when their governments answer the desires of citizens for
freedom, democracy and enterprise, and when they work together to
build each other up instead of working overtime to tear each
other down.
However the differences have been the true test of our
relationship. While we have many similarities, we are different.
We disagree on the issue of culture. While Canadians believe
that culture is part of our national identity, the Americans view
culture as an important commercial export. Canadians believe
that with bilateral trade and constructive engagement democratic
values can be better implemented in states like Cuba.
Our unique geography and small population impart a unique
relationship, one Canadian with another. Our bilingual society
reaches populations from coast to coast to coast through public
radio and television. Our education, health and justice systems
differ substantially as do our political systems.
However, the experience of these two great nations has taught us
unity through diversity can thrive, not a new concept for
Canadians. By celebrating our friendship and ties we can all
come to appreciate and understand those differences. Our
diplomacy in dealing with these differences, as I have said
before and will say again, is a model for other countries
struggling with their relations.
Our economy is another area. Our economic ties remain one of
the strongest aspects of our relationship with the United States.
I would like to sketch out the extraordinary breadth and depth of
the U.S.-Canada economic relationship.
Trade between Canada and the United States has more than doubled
since the signing of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement barely
10 years ago. A mind-boggling total of $1 billion in trade
crosses our border each and every day. Ninety-five per cent or
our trade is trouble free; it is the other five per cent of the
trade that grabs all the headlines, be it bilateral disputes over
spuds and suds or, more recently, hogs and logs. The value of
this trade to both countries is enormous. Exports to the United
States account for one-fourth of our gross domestic product.
U.S. merchandise exports to Canada exceed every other trading
relationship, including trade with the European Community. Just
the two way trade that crosses the Ambassador Bridge between
Michigan and Ontario equals all U.S. exports to Japan.
Much of this trade is in the auto sector. General Motors
Detroit Cadillac plant, for example, receives seats on a just in
time basis from a plant in Windsor, Ontario, as well as other
parts from plants in Canada and Mexico. Motors produced in
Tonowanda, New York, just outside Buffalo, are installed the next
day in motor vehicles bodies in Oshawa, Ontario. Overall autos
and auto parts account for about one-third of our bilateral
trade.
Energy is an excellent example of an economic sector that was
deeply affected by domestic regulations and policies which once
complicated our relationship but is now an area of close
co-operation and enormous mutual benefit. I do not have to tell
the House how well Canada does in exporting oil and natural gas
to the United States. Canada is the second largest oil supplier,
not far behind Venezuela, to the United States.
The future is even brighter. Private economists say the U.S.
and Canada have only scratched the surface on the potential of
jobs and higher incomes that economic integration through trade
and investment can bring to both Canadians and American.
Since virtually all tariffs on trade between the United States
and Canada have been eliminated as of the beginning of this year,
much of our current focus in on facilitating lawful trade through
removing non-tariff barriers, including more efficient customs
and immigration processing of cargo and people.
This has been a central theme of the U.S.-Canada shared border
accord announced by the Prime Minister and President Clinton in
1995. The accord incorporates a series of practical projects that
mix bilateral co-operation and pragmatism with intelligent
transportation technology to speed goods and people across the
border.
Let me add that Canada is deeply concerned about the potential
of the exit control requirements under section 110 of the 1996
immigration reform to create massive bottlenecks on our land
border crossing to the United States. Although section 110 was
to come into effect on October 1, the immigration and
naturalization service of the U.S. indicated that it will not
change its inspection procedures at this time. Canada will
continue to work with congressional counterparts to ensure that
the implementation of section 110 will be delayed perhaps
indefinitely and hopefully forever.
1745
I will conclude on friendship engagement. Canada and the United
States have shown the best there is in partnerships between
nations. As a monument commemorating the St. Lawrence Seaway
Authority at St. Lambert declares, we are “two nations whose
frontiers are the frontiers of friendship, whose ways are the
ways for freedom, whose works are the works of peace”.
Every day we see the enormous benefits this partnership brings
to us in jobs, in prosperity. There is also the creative energy
that our interchanges bring. The strength and character of that
co-operation is annually demonstrated by the spirit and goodwill
which prevails in our border communities, like Fort Erie, Ontario
and Buffalo, New York.
Canada and the United States are more than neighbours. Sharing
a common past, many interests and objectives, we have become
friends, allies and economic partners. Our relationship is a
model for the world.
Today more than ever, let us reaffirm and renew our great
tradition. We must maintain our partnership. We must make it
stronger.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to say only a few words about this private
member's motion and to indicate my support for the motion which
is to declare July 2 and 3 as Canada-United States days of peace
and friendship.
As the mover has said, this matter was presented to the House
about 11 years ago, in 1987 by the former deputy prime minister,
I believe it was Don Mazankowski from Alberta. It was seconded
by the now deputy prime minister who was then the House leader
for the official opposition, and myself.
I want to indicate my support for this motion which will promote
greater peace, understanding and friendship between the two
greatest trading partners in North America.
We have forever shared a very large and long boundary with the
United States. Obviously it is our most important trading
partner. I think it is very important to foster a better
understanding with the Americans.
From time to time we obviously have many trade irritants,
differences and disputes. We are currently having one in my
province with some American farmers in North Dakota when we try
to ship grain and some farm products to the United States. There
is the possibility of another protest developing there today and
tomorrow from what I understand from the newscasts.
The fact that we do have disputes is just another argument why
we need to set aside a day or two as a time to celebrate and
recognize the understanding and friendship between our two
countries.
I need not go on any longer than that. The mover has given us a
very good outline as to why this is a very good idea, a good
private member's motion and the reasons we should be supporting
it. I certainly concur with what he has said and offer him my
support and hopefully the support of most people in our party.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would also like to commend the hon. member for
Erie—Lincoln for bringing forward this motion. It is a very
appropriate motion for today, especially as the world gets
smaller and we do more things together instead of trying to
create division.
I have lived beside the American people for 35 years. My
property was only a couple of miles from the border so we lived
as a community more or less. We had a curling rink with
Americans. We had a skating rink. The figure skating club was
in Smoke Lake. The Americans provided us with a little grocery
store and a little bar. If we got too unhappy we could share
facilities. It was quite an interesting experience.
Manitoba has one of two international peace gardens. If members
ever have a chance to visit the peace garden located just south
of Boissevain, in the peace tower is a unique little chapel. The
piano was put in such a place that when a person plays the
morning hymn during the service, one hand is in the U.S. and the
other one is in Canada. It is a service that really binds the
two nations. It is a real experience to observe that and see how
close we as human beings really are.
1750
There is a funny incident I want to bring forward today. I went
on a tour of the Pembina watershed. The largest part of it is in
the U.S. On the bus coming back were American and Canadian
politicians. We came to the little town of Mowbray, Manitoba
which is on the U.S. border. We talked about entrepreneurs and
how they looked at different types of businesses in those days.
One of the elder gentlemen said “You know Jake, if you were out
here thrashing in Mowbray with your team of horses, you could
drive down this road, reach into the United States and pick up a
glass of beer after a long day. It was the first drive through
bar that was ever built”. It was there for a number of years
and never ran into political interference. It operated very
well. We have lost some of these things because of quicker
communications and transportation.
I want to talk a few minutes about the people across the border
from where I live. As human beings we all have more or less
similar needs. We want to do what is best for our families.
In the Snowflake and Wales areas, most people had relatives on
either side. The intermarriage between Canadians and Americans
was unreal during the early part of the century. There were no
borders and love crossed whether they wanted to regulate it or
not. Their girls seemed to be just a little prettier than ours
and vice versa. There was always that type of rivalry building.
An hon. member: Watch it now.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Well, I am part American too. I do
go down south once in a while to get that tan to make me look
like a farmer. We do not get too much of a tan in this House. We
also change the dialect somewhat. We get that southern drawl.
Those are the positive things.
My roots being in the Soviet Union, in the 1980s I could see how
big the disaster was over there and what their needs were. I was
astounded at the people who had tried to put up a huge defence
against the Russians. The American farmers were the first to
collect a whole bunch of durum wheat and ship it across to the
Soviet Union by plane. It got there and was used to make bread.
The American people have a heart just like we Canadians. That
is what we have to emphasize in this motion. It is not just an
issue about wanting a couple of days set aside to recognize that
our border is unprotected. I am sure that the hon. member will
agree with me that with these two days we want to recognize that
we are human beings on the same planet. The less distractions,
the less friction, the less feuding that goes on between our two
nations, the better off society will be and the better off the
whole world will be.
I commend the member for bringing this motion forward again.
When we see each other's weaknesses and help to overcome them,
only then will we gain the strength as two peaceful nations. We
have never had a war of any substance that we could call
detrimental to us.
An hon. member: Not since 1812.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: That is one that we kind of ignore
as a sparring match. Probably if we had done it in a different
fashion we would not have a border, but we do not know. That is
for history to debate.
1755
I encourage Reform members to support this motion. This motion
is worthwhile. It can only bring us peace and harmony. It is a
motion that will benefit either side of the border.
We can show to the world that even with the friction we have in
our trade issues, whether we like the wheat board or we do not
like the wheat board, whether we like supply management or we do
not like supply management, those things can be ironed out and we
can work for the benefit of all. We can work to the benefit of
all. It does not say that I have to have my way and they have to
have their way and we will separate and go in different
directions. We have to go in one direction.
I encourage the government to build a relationship with the
American government, to go to the next GATT negotiations or the
World Trade Organization and work as a team. Together we are a
lot further ahead. We have a lot more strength. We have a lot
more to gain than we will lose.
I conclude with an invitation for members to come to Manitoba to
see the international peace garden. It would be worth their
while, just for the feeling they would get when sitting in that
peace tower. The feeling of co-operation, friendship and kinship
that we have as North Americans will explode around hon. members
and they will go away with a very positive feeling.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion. I wish
members of the House well and I hope everybody can support it.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise before the House to debate the hon. member
for Erie—Lincoln's private member's motion calling upon
government to designate July 2 and 3 as Canada-United States days
of peace and friendship.
I would also like to congratulate the member for focusing the
attention of the House on the very cordial relationship we have
enjoyed for well over a century with our number one trading
partners to the south.
It is very important that we not take the good relationship we
have with our American neighbours for granted. We hear too often
of cases where Canadians try to bad mouth our American
neighbours. The Americans have been very important to us as
trading partners, but also as allies, friends, and for many of
us, relatives who reside in the states. We should not take it for
granted. We should work hard to keep those relationships on a
very favourable ground.
Even before Canada and the U.S. became independent countries,
commercial trading was very much a way of life between both
colonies.
I represent the constituency of West Nova which incidentally
encompasses Annapolis Royal, home of the first permanent European
settlement in North America.
[Translation]
There has been a history of trade between the United States and
Canada since the beginning of the 17th century, with the arrival
of Samuel de Champlain and his fellow explorers in North America
in 1604. Our new immigrants quickly took advantage of the
fertile farming land and an ocean full of fish to begin trading
with the new immigrants to the south.
[English]
Even when France and England were at war with each other during
the 17th and 18th centuries, trade between the French colony of
Acadia and the English colonies in the New England states
continued to trade among themselves despite directives from both
colonial powers to end this practice.
[Translation]
Throughout the 20th century, many Canadians have moved to the
United States in search of work. Like many of my fellow
citizens, I have relatives in the United States, particularly in
the New England area.
[English]
Cross-border relations between the two countries have improved
significantly in recent years. Despite rigorous objections from
the then official opposition, the Liberal Party, the former
Progressive Conservative government concentrated on strengthening
Canada's ability to reach new markets by entering into a free
trade agreement with the United States.
1800
Despite the fact that some trading disputes have evolved in
recent years, mechanisms for dispute resolutions are in place and
have adequately dealt with these issues.
I am very pleased to see the Liberal government endorsing our
free trade initiatives, particularly after it had promised to rid
itself of the free trade agreement once it took power.
I am not surprised by the about-face the government has taken.
This government has broken its promise on a number of very
important issues, not including its promise to cancel the free
trade agreement.
As I am certain everyone remembers, this government broke its
promise to cancel the GST. Instead it introduced the dreaded HST
that is causing much hardship for residents in the maritime
region.
This government has also broken its promise to abide by any
Canadian human rights tribunal decision on pay equity, choosing
instead to deny mostly low income female workers money they
worked hard for and rightfully deserve.
One of the first commercial trading products between Canada and
the U.S. was agricultural products. Yet this government appears
to have forgotten the important role agriculture plays in our
everyday lives.
The Liberal government continues to say it is committed to
helping strengthen Canada's farming community yet it has
effectively reduced its funding of our farm safety net programs
by some 30% since 1995.
Like most of the country, West Nova hog producers are
experiencing anywhere from 60% to 70% decreases in their prices.
Rather than help sustain our farming industry the government has
turned its back on our farmers. The government still has not
recognized the serious effects the past two years of drought has
caused our Nova Scotia farmers.
Perhaps our agricultural sector is not as large as others but it
deserves consideration by the government. I intend to let the
government know our farming community has been financially viable
in the past and it will be again.
The Liberal government had also promised to implement effective
conservation measures for our fishing industry immediately upon
taking office because it said if stocks were not conserved now,
there would be no fishing industry left on which we could build
sustainable development. Conservation was ignored in the lobster
fishery as illegal lobster fishing was allowed to operate off
West Nova shores almost completely unabated by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
With the 1998-99 fishing season less than a week old, fishers
have told me that some of their catches for opening day were
reduced considerably. Let us pray this trend does not continue
throughout the fishing season.
Let me apologize if I appear to have transgressed from the topic
at hand. However, I think all members recognize the importance
this fishery and our farming industry have had on the lives of my
constituents of West Nova.
I think the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln definitely has good
intentions with the introduction of this bill. Please correct me
if I am mistaken, but I believe Windsor, Ontario presently
participates in a very enjoyable joint celebration with its U.S.
neighbours precisely in recognition of this close working
relationship we have with our American neighbours.
Because I recognize the benefits of maintaining and enhancing
this close relationship with our American cousins, I believe we
should explore the possibility of perhaps doing some kind of
joint celebration with our U.S. counterparts. Perhaps we could
generate greater recognition of the important ties that bind our
two countries together by having both countries agree to
recognize a specific day or to participate in a special event.
I believe the hon. member has stumbled upon a good idea to help
foster even greater co-operation between two countries. However,
I would prefer we do something in conjunction with our American
neighbours.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Minister of Foreign Affairs I thank the hon. member for
Erie—Lincoln for bringing this motion to the House and for
reminding us of the deep historical ties that bind Canadians and
Americans together.
More than anything else, the unique and enduring relationship
between our two peoples rests fundamentally on the broad set of
values we share in common, a belief in democratic open societies,
respect for the rule of law, tolerance and an abiding faith in
the rights and responsibilities of each individual citizen.
Together these values shape our societies and the way we look at
the rest of the world. They are the underlying reason our shared
border is one of the most open in the world with more than 200
million crossings each year.
1805
Thirty-seven years ago in this Chamber, then President of the
United States John F. Kennedy described the relationship between
Canada and United States this way: “Geography has made us
neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us
partners. And necessity has made us allies”.
President Kennedy's words ring as true today as they did many
years ago. Among all the countries in the world Canada and the
United States are each other's most important partners. The
partnership covers the full range of bilateral and global issues,
from trade and investment, defence and international security to
the furthering of the human rights agenda. But the real measure
of our relationship can be found in the everyday linkages between
our peoples. For example, millions of Canadians have family
members and friends who are Americans.
Canadians continue to occupy key roles in American society, be
it in business, popular entertainment, sports, academia or
science and technology. Americans visit Canada more than any
other foreign country yet it is a mark of the closeness of a
relationship that most do not consider Canada a foreign country
at all.
Our native peoples share cross-border cultural and historical
bonds that are thousands of years old. This continuing flow of
people and ideas back and forth between our two countries has
been an enduring strength in our relationship and one that has
served to cement the bonds between our societies.
Our bilateral trade relationship within the framework of the FTA
and NAFTA has grown to create an unrivalled sphere of prosperity
for our citizens. Every day approximately $1.4 billion in goods
and services crosses the border creating jobs and raising living
standards.
Canadian exports to the U.S. support over two million jobs for
our citizens. This makes expanding our access to the United
States markets a key international trade objective. The joint
management of our shared border is another example of how our
close and productive partnership benefits both our citizens.
However, we believe we can do even more to expedite clearance
procedures, avoid the imposition of unnecessary bureaucratic red
tape and ensure the creation of a seamless border for the 21st
century.
Cross-border co-operation also extends to law enforcement where
Canadian and American police forces work together to fight crimes
such as telemarketing fraud and illegal child abductions.
The close ties between our two countries are nowhere more
evident than in border communities such as those represented by
the hon. member. Every day people flow across the border in
these communities forging friendships, new opportunities and
working together to create a better life on both sides.
The recent example of how communities on both sides of the
border helped each other during the devastating ice storm last
winter is a good example of the kind of friendship that Canadians
and American share. Who can forget the images of exhausted
American hydro crews working alongside their Canadian
counterparts in the struggle to restore power to cities, towns
and villages in Quebec and eastern Ontario, or the thousands of
tonnes of supplies and equipment that streamed from south of the
border. When the crisis struck our American friends were there
to help us out.
Another reason for continuing strength and resilience of our
relationship is the respect we have for each other as unique
societies, each with its own distinct identity, forms of
governance, traditions and political and social cultures. It is
fair to say respect is an indispensable condition of any
friendship, be it between individuals or between countries.
Internationally Canada works closely with our American friends
on a wide variety of global issues, from security to trade,
through a variety of partnerships. In the security field our
military co-operation has a long and noble history.
1810
Canadians and Americans fought together on the battlefields
during three wars in this century. We helped create NATO which
even now is working to ensure peace in Bosnia and Kosovo. We
co-operate in NORAD to share the burden of the defence of North
America. The changes to the international system since the end
of the cold war present us with new global challenges and threats
that NATO and NORAD are evolving to meet. The United States and
Canada are working together to ensure these two organizations
adapt to the changing world so they can continue to play a role
in contributing to international peace and security.
The hon. member's motion provides us with an important reminder
of the incredible number of ways Canadians and Americans
co-operate together in almost every facet of life every day. The
ties that bind us are strong and run deep. They will continue to
be based on the organic linkages between our civil societies. As
we consider the motion we must reflect on the fact that our
relationship with the United States is all encompassing and a
daily reality for many Canadians. It does not do that
relationship justice for the government to single out two days to
commemorate it.
Informal ease of interaction and the essential simplicity of
friendships among individuals, communities and regions across the
border is a phenomenon whose continued vitality exists apart from
the world of government, politics or economics. In an
environment where such a healthy and vibrant co-operation can and
does develop of its own accord, need we take the step of a formal
declaration?
Every day we celebrate the Canada-U.S. relationship through the
actions of our people. Every day a citizen of ours travels
across the undefended and peaceful border which is a symbol of
close ties. Every day our students seek to expand their horizons
and allow for unlimited options by examining the fine
institutions on both sides of the border. Every day our
businesses strive to expand as they enjoy unprecedented access to
the wealthiest market in the world. These are just a few
indications of the uniqueness of our close bilateral ties. Do
these need a formal declaration to bring them to the attention of
our citizens?
We should also consider the possible financial implications of
individuals, organizations and border communities seeking funds
from government to celebrate these commemorative days. These are
just some of the questions that merit additional consideration.
Before I proceed further with this motion it would be helpful to
have some idea of possible reciprocal initiatives by our American
friends. The hon. member may want to raise this issue within the
context of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary association. I
thank the hon. member for providing us with this opportunity to
remind ourselves of how lucky we are to have this special
relationship with the United States.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to participate in this debate to recognize our friends to
the south who share in many ways a common heritage of being
countries populated by immigrants from around the world. Many of
the people who live in both countries, I included, grew up in a
foreign land and decided the future would be brighter in North
America. They crossed the ocean from wherever they came from to
participate in one of these two wonderful countries.
I have enjoyed my sojourn during the 30-odd years I have lived
in North America. This country has been very good to me. I have
friends and relatives south of the border who enjoy living in the
United States. It is wonderful that through our common heritage
we are able to share so much and that we have been friends for
such a long time. We take great pride in having the longest
undefended border in the world.
1815
As a member of parliament representing the people of Alberta, we
are especially proud of our relationship with the United States
because so much of our oil and gas industry involves
communication with people in the United States. We have a large
agricultural industry which again depends heavily on markets in
the United States. We have tourism that draws heavily from the
United States. Of course, we have the Banff and Jasper national
parks which draw millions of people every year. Many of these
people come from the United States. They come here to enjoy what
we have to offer and many Canadians go to the United States to
enjoy what they have to offer.
The motion of the member for Erie—Lincoln is quite appropriate,
that we join Canada Day on July 1 with Independence Day on July
4, with the two days in between recognizing the peace and
friendship that exists between our two countries. There are
international parks, such as the one at the border crossing just
south of Vancouver going into Washington State, the International
Peace Park, as well as other symbols of the friendship between
the two countries.
I have to commend the member for Erie—Lincoln for introducing
this motion and I hope it passes.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to say a few
words on this motion.
I want to first commend the member for Erie—Lincoln for
bringing this motion forward. We take many things for granted
when we continually cross the border between our two great
countries. His motion would have the government designate July 2
and 3, the two days between Canada Day and Independence Day, as
Canada-United States days of peace and friendship in recognition
of the close and peaceful relations that exist between the two
countries and the warm personal links that prevail between
neighbouring communities along the length of the common border
and the commitments of freedom, democracy and human rights shared
by these two great nations.
I am reminded of the work that the member for Erie—Lincoln
does. He is responsible for a riding that stretches from the
border of Fort Erie, through Port Colborne, Lincoln, West Lincoln
and many other small communities. However, he serves not only
the border. He also serves two lakes and those two lakes also
serve both countries. His riding holds the biggest border
crossing of all the Niagara area crossings.
The announcement of the twinning of the bridges in his area is a
good indication of the capacity that crosses that border every
day. On the U.S. side, highway 219 is being considered for
expansion because of the number of trucks and the amount of
traffic, as well as the routes that it will have to the eastern
seaboard of the United States.
Recently the member for Erie—Lincoln, the member from Niagara
Falls and myself met with the Niagara regional council to talk
about the mid-peninsula border. That is to make sure that
traffic can flow from Toronto and Hamilton to the Peace Bridge
area of our great neighbour to the south.
I have worked on both sides of the border. For 30 years I
worked for a major automotive company, sometimes known as General
Motors. I had the opportunity to work in many plant cities in
the U.S. in conjunction with the plant cities in Canada. It was
the co-operation of those plant cities on an ongoing basis that
made the automotive business very competitive.
I am reminded that the auto pact which was struck many years ago
by a member of this government was an indication of the
co-operation and work that goes on between our two countries.
1820
It is with this in mind that I wanted the opportunity to speak
of the good work that the member for Erie—Lincoln does and the
fact that he works with the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group on an
ongoing basis to solve problems before they even get into the
legislature or house of either country. That is the way we have
been able to work for many years. We sit down, talk about the
problem, talk about the alternatives and then get on with making
a resolution.
I want members to understand that I give strong support to the
motion brought forward by the member for Erie—Lincoln. By
dedicating these two days, it would give all of us, on both sides
of the border, a chance to sit back, relax and really appreciate
the fact that we have two great countries, a very lengthy border,
and the fact that we have freedom, democracy, human rights and
many other things that are taken for granted.
I want to thank the member for Erie—Lincoln for bringing this
motion forward to the House today.
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my
colleagues in the House from all parties who have spoken in
favour of this motion. It is very much appreciated.
At the opening of the debate I requested unanimous consent to
put an amendment to the motion to delete the year 1998. This
motion was actually introduced back in 1997, in the last
parliament, and the year does not make an awful lot of sense at
this time. Accordingly, I would request unanimous consent to
delete the year 1998.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent to delete the year 1998 from the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United
States are broad lands: broad in mind, broad in spirit and broad
in physical expanse.
My friend, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, quoted a U.S. president and I would like to
follow that initiative by quoting another president. Over 50
years ago a U.S. president stated:
Canada and the United States have reached the point where we no
longer think of each other as “foreign” countries. We think of
each other as friends, as peaceful and co-operative neighbours on
a spacious and fruitful continent...
The example of accord provided by our two countries did not come
about merely through the happy circumstances of geography. It is
compounded of one part proximity and nine parts good will and
common sense.
The record proves that in peaceful commerce the combined efforts
of our countries can produce outstanding results. Our trade with
each other is far greater than of any other two nations on earth.
We seek a peaceful world, a prosperous world, a free world, a
world of good neighbours, living on terms of equality and mutual
respect, as Canada and the United States have lived for
generations.
This was said over 50 years ago by the late President Truman as
he addressed parliament in this very House. What was true then
is true today.
My friend, the Parliament Secretary for the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, also quoted the late John Kennedy, another
U.S. president. I would like to reiterate that quote as well
because it is very succinct:
Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends.
Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us
allies.
However, he went on to say the following:
Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put
asunder.
He then went on to say:
We do not seek the unanimity that comes to those who water down
all issues to the lowest common denominator, or to those who
conceal their differences behind fixed smiles, or to those who
measure unity by standards of popularity and affection instead of
trust and respect.
We are allies. This is a partnership, not an empire. We are
bound to have differences and disappointments, and we are equally
bound to bring them out into the open, to settle them when they
can be settled, and to respect each other's views when they
cannot be settled.
But our alliance is born not of fear but of hope. It is an
alliance which advances what we are for, as well as opposing what
we are against.
What was true then, when said by John Kennedy in this very House
on May 17, 1961, is true now.
This is really an apple pie motion. Canadian apples and American
apples make for a very great dessert. It is non-partisan. It is
equally applicable to Quebec as it is to New York state, as
equally applicable to British Columbia as it is to Washington
state.
1825
It is a good motion. My friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has suggested that maybe we
should see what is going on on the other side in the United
States and have something come from them. I certainly agree but
I think we should show the leadership in this. As a consequence I
am going to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have
the motion declared votable. We must take the leadership on
this. Let us do it. It is the right thing to do.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further members able to rise
for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item,
the time provided for the consideration of Private Member's
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order
paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you
may recall that on November 5 the Minister of the Environment
told the House that the protocol, the agreement for the reduction
and elimination of mercury and other heavy metals, as signed in
Aarhus, Denmark earlier this year will be ratified by Canada by
the end of the year. The minister on that occasion also
announced that in Canada, mercury emissions have been reduced by
64% in the last decade or so. The agreement in Aarhus, Denmark
requires however only a 50% reduction based on 1990 levels.
Unlike iron and calcium, mercury serves no function in humans.
It is a heavy metal and a persistent, highly toxic substance to
be found in the food chain. It must be noted that while mercury
occurs in nature as an element that can be found in water, air
and land, human activities increase the presence of mercury in
the environment to the point that human and ecosystem health are
at risk.
As a result, in six provinces and the territories, health
advisories have been issued warning of the dangers of consuming
mercury contaminated fish. In addition, it has been found that
some wildlife species with high mercury levels in their blood
have reproductive problems.
A recent study by Environment Canada found that loons have
problems with nesting and raising their young because of high
mercury levels in their blood. The study also found that mercury
levels in loons increase from west to east, presumably because of
industrial activities concentrated in eastern North America.
Evidently, industrial activities throughout North America
increase mercury levels in the environment and in wildlife.
In the Arctic, recent samples of ringed seal and beluga whale
show higher concentrations and higher rates of accumulation of
mercury than the samples taken in the 1970s and 1980s.
One major source of mercury is from the burning of coal for
power generation. Ontario Hydro, following the decommissioning
of nuclear reactors intends to meet short term power needs by
using coal-fired power plants. By burning more coal, more
mercury is released in the air.
In Ontario between 2.7 tonnes and 3.4 tonnes of mercury are
released to the atmosphere each year because of human activities.
Up to 2.5 tonnes are released into the Great Lakes waters
annually.
It is important to note that the national pollutant release
inventory is of limited help in revealing how much mercury each
company or operation releases because it reports only when the
process, manufacture or other use involves 10 tonnes of mercury
or more.
1830
Evidently while we must applaud the protocol, a reduction of 50%
or even 64% is far from adequate. As in the case of Denmark
where mercury is banned or about to be banned, we must protect
the public with a complete ban of mercury emissions resulting
from human activity.
I therefore ask the minister whether it is the intent of the
government either to ban mercury emissions or to introduce
regulations that will prevent mercury pollution entirely.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue
for the health of Canadians. The protocol we signed last June
will be ratified by Canada before the end of this year.
While 16 countries need to ratify the heavy metals protocol
before the obligations come into effect, this government is not
standing idly by waiting for the support of other nations.
While Canada can or has met most of its obligations, one of the
most significant gains from the United Nations heavy metals
protocol is that we have commitments from UN ECE countries to
reduce their emissions of mercury and other atmospheric
pollutants which we know are transported by air currents from
various countries to Canada's Arctic and eastern regions.
Canada has already developed extremely effective programs and
initiatives that have greatly reduced the atmospheric loading of
mercury in Canada.
The controls on mercury emissions imposed under CEPA and the
Fisheries Act have convinced the mercury cell chlor-alkali
industry in Canada to alter its technology to a non-mercury based
process.
While there were 16 such facilities in Canada, only 1 remains
and it consistently meets the strict emission control
requirements of both acts.
In concert with Environment Canada's accelerated reduction on
elimination of toxics program, the mining sector has shown
considerable progress in reducing mercury emissions. New
technologies developed by Canadian companies have reduced 18
tonnes of mercury emissions to the atmosphere.
Environment Canada officials have calculate that our most recent
data show our emissions have been reduced by 64% and similar
reductions are reportable for lead and cadmium.
Canada will not rest there. Our goal is to report further
substantial national reductions by the year 2000.
As a fully participating member of the North American agreement
on environmental co-operation, Canada is leading the development
of a North American regional action plan for mercury, scheduled
for submission to ministers by June 1999. Canadian, American and
Mexican citizens will have an opportunity to provide input to
this important initiative before the plan is adopted by the three
countries.
Other mercury reduction programs important to Canada include the
New England governors-eastern Canadian premiers mercury reduction
plan and the ongoing work to further develop a mercury reduction
program under the Great Lakes binational toxics—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the hon. member's time
has expired.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, are
the Sea King and Labrador helicopters safe? Was the tragic crash
on October 2 avoidable? Are any enlisted personnel or civilians
currently at risk because of the state of the Sea King and
Labrador helicopters?
These are some of the questions the Liberal government owes it
to Canadians to answer completely and publicly.
On October 2, 1998 a Labrador helicopter crashed near Marsoui in
Gaspé, Quebec killing all six of its crew. Apparently this
helicopter burst into flames and broke into three pieces.
In 1992 another helicopter crashed near Bella Coola, B.C.,
killing Corporal Phil Young from my home province of Nova Scotia.
On April 28, 1994 Major Wally Sweetman and co-pilot Major Bob
Henderson were killed when the fuel line of a Sea King helicopter
failed. In May 1995 another Labrador crashed at Margaretsville,
Nova Scotia. In all, 12 Sea King helicopters have crashed,
killing seven Canadians.
Both the Sea King and the Labrador helicopters were first put
into service over a third of a century ago, in 1963. At the
beginning of the year these helicopters went into service, John
Diefenbaker was prime minister, 19 current members of parliament
had yet to be born, Medgar Evers was still alive and Martin
Luther King had yet to give his famous speech.
The newly ordered Cormorant search and rescue helicopters will
not be delivered and put into service until the next millennium.
In the meantime, the Liberal government, largely due to its own
decisions, may now be in the position of deciding between the
health and safety of military personnel and the search and rescue
need of civilians at risk.
The Liberal government assured Canadians there would be no cost
to cancelling Mulroney's helicopter deal. That no cost turned
into $484 million of Canadian taxpayer money.
In 1994 the government issued a defence white paper with its
strategy for the military. Instead of moving ahead and issuing
tenders immediately for a new helicopter, it waited three years
until 1997. To top it off, the government then ordered basically
the same helicopter it had just wasted nearly half a billion
dollars of taxpayer money to cancel.
Here are a few questions the government owes it to Canadians to
answer. Why did the government cancel the original contract when
there was a demonstrated need for new helicopters? Why, after
assuming office, did it wait a further four years to order the
new helicopters? Why, having derided the Mulroney government's
original choice, did it opt for the same craft?
1835
The government has said that crews would not be disciplined for
refusing to fly the Labradors. By making this offer it seems to
me as if the government may be trying to protect itself in the
case of a future crash. Clearly there must be concern about the
safety of the craft to make that pronouncement.
Former Labrador pilot Lieutenant Colonel Dennis Hopping stated:
It is very difficult as a member of an air crew team to say “No,
I won't launch an operational mission to save someone's life”.
What a terrible position to put a professional pilot in.
Major Marvin Haagsma, retired, stated:
I have personally experienced engine failure rates that are 500
times higher than those accepted as `normal' by the current
generation of helicopters. It is time for people to hear the
truth: The Sea King and Labrador fleets are extremely dangerous
and ought to be grounded.
I would like to finish with two final questions for the
government to answer. Why is the government secure enough about
the safety of these helicopters to put them in active service
with so many indications to the contrary? What other options
have been pursued such as short term leases?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our highest priority is
the safety of our crews and our aircraft.
The Chief of Air defence Staff has assured the Minister of
National Defence that the Labradors can fly in complete safety.
The fact that problems have been detected and immediate remedial
action taken speaks to the stringency of our maintenance and
inspection program. The Canadian forces have high airworthiness
standards, not only for the Labradors, but for all the rest of
its equipment.
Since the Labrador crash in early October, it is not hard to
understand why Labrador flight and maintenance crews are taking
additional precautions to ensure that these aircraft are safe.
They are merely showing a great deal of caution.
As the hon. member is aware, an investigation is currently under
way to determine the circumstances of this crash, and it would
be ill-advised to speculate at this time about the cause. It is
important to allow the investigation to proceed in order to find
out what caused the crash and what steps should be taken to
prevent a recurrence.
It must be kept in mind that the armed forces have other
aircraft besides the Labrador helicopters, among them the
Hercules and the Buffalo, whose primary purpose is search and
rescue.
In January 1998, the government announced hat it would buy 15
Cormorant helicopters to replace the Labradors. The first of
them will be in service by 2001.
The supply strategy for replacing the old Sea Kings is under
study. Leasing is one of the options we are considering as a
supply strategy. As the Minister of National Defence said, he
hopes to make an announcement within the year.
We still intend to provide Canadian forces with the equipment
they need to carry out their missions at home and abroad.
[English]
POVERTY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
poverty is an issue that concerns all Canadians. A phenomenon
that is called the growing gap, the inequality between the
country's rich and poor, continues to be pronounced. Although
programs already exist to combat the growing gap, the effects
continue to be felt by many.
As more Canadians fall below the poverty line we must ask
ourselves what we might be able to do to counter this process.
The government needs to look at this issue and make changes to
rectify the situation.
As members know, a social report released this fall indicated
that a growing gap does exist between the rich and the poor. It
seems that the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are
getting poorer. Many factors contribute to this phenomenon and
they must be examined and countered.
For example, top executives in Canada consistently receive
enormous raises while the average worker faces a wage freeze or a
layoff or other effects of all too common cutbacks.
The already rich owners, managers, chairs and CEOs of the
country continue to get richer. The average worker meanwhile is
not getting large increases and in some cases is actually getting
poorer.
While in the 1950s and 1960s the average family income more than
doubled, this is certainly not the case today.
1840
The average CEO in Canada now makes $862,000 a year, which jumps
to $1.5 million if we include stock options. This amount has
increased at a rate of approximately 13% over the last few years.
They continue to make more money and to gain power and prestige.
Meanwhile in the same amount of years the wage of the average
Canadian worker has risen no more than 2%, which is less than the
rate of inflation. Furthermore, many Canadians are laid off and
must settle for lower paying jobs or depend on government
support.
In 1971 the average income for the richest 10% of families,
being $107,000, was 21 times that of the poorest 10%. The gap
was already present but to a smaller extent. By 1996 Canada's
richest families were earning on average 314 times the amount of
Canada's poorest. These figures are self-explanatory. The gap
has widened.
This growing gap between the nation's poorest and richest plays
a big role in the lives of most Canadians whether it be for the
better or for the worst. Poverty is a problem in Canada. It is
our duty as parliamentarians to implement legislation to try to
correct this problem.
In a country like Canada poverty is simply unacceptable. Canada
is a rich country both in natural and human resources. We are
proud to be one of the world's richest and most developed
countries and therefore cannot let the issue of poverty change
this status. We have always prided ourselves in being a strong
country economically, which is one reason why we will not accept
that this gap continues to grow. Something needs to be done. It
is important that as parliamentarians we try to rectify the
problem.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development to outline exactly what we as a government
should do to correct this situation.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
government has introduced a number of measures specifically to
help lift people out of poverty.
Last July we began to put $850 million per year into the
national child benefit. An additional $850 million will be
added. By the year 2000 the total will be $1.7 billion per year
going into the hands of low income families with children. This
money is on top of the $5.1 billion we currently provide families
with children that need financial assistance.
The long term solution to poverty lies in helping Canadians find
jobs. Our Canadian opportunities strategy gives Canadians
greater access to the knowledge and skills they need for the
better jobs of the new economy. This strategy includes the $2.5
billion investment in millennium scholarships which will give
100,000 low and middle income students per year access to
scholarships averaging $3,000. Up to 25,000 other students in
financial need with children will benefit from the new Canada
study grants.
Our youth employment strategy is there to help young people. We
know that about 86% of participants are either employed or have
returned to school six to twelve months after completing their
program.
The employment insurance system is a vital part of our safety
net. It gives workers the temporary support they need and the
tools they need to get back to work.
Over 31,000 jobs have been created through the transitional jobs
fund; $2.7 billion has been put into active employment measures
to help people get back to work; and the family supplement also
helped 350,000 low income families with children. A new
federal-provincial program will provide $190 million to help
disabled persons to gain better access to the workforce.
These efforts demonstrate clearly that we are committed to do as
much as we possibly can to reduce poverty and create equality of
opportunity for Canadians.
[Translation]
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 6.42 p.m.)