36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 157
CONTENTS
Monday, November 23, 1998
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| FIREARMS ACT
|
| Bill C-236. Second reading
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1105
1110
1115
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1120
1125
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1130
1135
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1140
1145
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1150
1155
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
| Bill C-53—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1205
1245
(Division 265)
| Motion agreed to
|
1250
| Report Stage
|
| Bill C-53. Report stage
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1255
1300
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1305
1310
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1315
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1320
1325
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1330
1335
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1340
1345
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
1350
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Motion
|
| Motion agreed to
|
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1355
| OSTEOPOROSIS AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| OXFORD COUNTY
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| LEBANON
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1400
| GREY CUP
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| JOURNÉE NATIONALE DES PATRIOTES
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| STANLEY FAULDER
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| GREY CUP
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1405
| QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| YVES BLAIS
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| BILL C-68
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1410
| HIV-AIDS
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| INTERNATIONAL FISHING DAY
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CANADIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ICEBREAKING POLICY
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
| SOCIAL UNION
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| HOUSING
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
1445
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1450
| YEAR 2000
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
1455
| NATURAL DISASTER
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1500
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1505
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| PETITIONS
|
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Bill C-68
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| MMT
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Marriage
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1510
| Bill C-68
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Public Interest Groups
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Canada Pension Plan
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1515
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
| Bill C-53. Report stage
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1520
1525
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1530
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1535
| Divisions on Motions Nos. 2 to 5 deemed demanded and
deferred
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Motions Nos. 6 and 11
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1540
1545
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1550
1555
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1600
1605
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1610
1615
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1620
1625
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1630
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1635
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1640
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1645
1650
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1655
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1700
1705
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1710
| Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Motion No. 7
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Motion No. 8
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1715
1720
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1725
1730
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1735
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1740
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1745
| >(Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)
|
| Motions Nos. 9 and 10
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1750
1755
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1800
1805
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1810
| Divisions on Motions Nos. 9 and 10 deemed demanded and
deferred
|
| Motion No. 12
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1815
| Division deemed demanded and deferred.
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Motion No. 13
|
| Mr. Francine Lalonde |
| Motion No. 14
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Motion No. 15
|
| Mr. Francine Lalonde |
| Motion No. 16
|
| Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
1835
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Health Care
|
| Motion
|
1845
(Division 266)
| Amendment negatived
|
| Motion negatived
|
| CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
|
| Bill C-53. Report stage
|
(Division 267)
| Motion No. 1 negatived.
|
1850
(Division 268)
| Motion No. 2 negatived
|
| Motions Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 12 negatived
|
(Division 269)
| Motion No. 4 agreed to
|
(Division 270)
| Motion No. 11 negatived
|
| Motion No. 9 negatived
|
1855
(Division 271)
| Motion No. 8 negatived
|
(Division 272)
| Motion No. 13 negatived
|
(Division 273)
| Motion No. 14 negatived
|
1900
(Division 274)
| Motion No. 15 negatived
|
(Division 275)
| Motion No. 16 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
(Division 276)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1905
| Poverty
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1910
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1915
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Health
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1920
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 157
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 23, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-236, an act to repeal the Firearms Act and to make certain
amendments to the Criminal Code, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to debate Bill
C-236, an act to repeal the Firearms Act and to make certain
amendments to the Criminal Code.
1105
Today I will direct my remarks first to the people who are
concerned about their own safety from criminals, especially
criminals who misuse firearms.
Hon. members can imagine what it must be like for senior
citizens to suffer home invasion at the hands of criminals with
firearms. That is becoming a common crime in our bigger cities.
It is one that is starting to make everybody sit up and pay
attention. It was bad enough when somebody's mother or
grandmother was afraid to go out at night and walk to the corner
store to buy a little milk for her tea. Now those folks are
afraid inside their own homes. Where is this going to stop?
The government and the media like to claim that crime is
decreasing. But people I talk to tell me that crime is so heavy
where they live that police do not even show up to investigate a
break and enter unless somebody has been injured. The police are
just too busy.
A big part of the reason for such crime is the lack of teeth in
the Young Offenders Act. That is another part of the crime
story. It is a fact that no single change is going to make
Canadian society safe again. It is going to take hard work by
politicians to make Canada a safe place again for our citizens.
We need a new young offenders act. We need a victims bill of
rights. We need, as my bill provides, tough penalties for the
criminal misuse of firearms. Instead of enacting these useful
measures, which would produce measurable results, the government
chose to require law-abiding owners of rifles and shotguns to
file papers, jump through hoops and pay fees in another Liberal
tax grab.
My private member's bill would repeal Bill C-68 and replace it
with real protection against criminals and the misuse of firearms
by enacting minimum jail terms that cannot be plea bargained
away.
My bill states that using, having or claiming to have a firearm
during the commission of or the attempt to commit a crime or in
flight after committing a crime would require a judge to impose a
minimum of five years' imprisonment or not more than 14 years.
My bill also states that if a firearm is actually discharged,
not just waved around or pointed at victims of crime, the penalty
will increase to a minimum of 10 years or a maximum of 14 years
and that these sentences will be served consecutively, that is,
after or in addition to other sentences.
Some people argue that five or 10 years is too harsh and too
long a time for the poor criminal to spend in jail. The way many
of our prisons are run today it is really like a trip to the
country club, not serious punishment. But that is another matter
not directly addressed today. Prison reform is one more piece of
the puzzle that the government could have enacted to achieve
measurable results in the fight against crime, but it abandoned
that responsibility and instead decided to target law-abiding
citizens.
If my bill were passed at least convicted offenders would be
deprived of their liberty and kept where they could not do more
harm to society in general. If some people object to this as
being too harsh, I remind them to look at the victims of crime.
Depending on the seriousness of the crime, it sometimes takes a
victim many years, sometimes a lifetime, to recover from the ill
effects.
Let us remember the parents all across Canada who have lost a
child through the criminal misuse of firearms. Or let us think
of those who got shot themselves, sustaining such injuries as
loss of sight or even paralysis. Think of the many fine police
officers who have been shot in the line of duty. When the
criminal gets out of jail their victim or victims will still be
serving their sentences.
Even what passes as a small offence today, like the waving
around of a shotgun during the commission of a crime, may lead
victims to have to change jobs or take medication or even get
counselling because they cannot cope with the endless nightmares
which result from being threatened with a firearm in the course
of their supposedly normal working day.
When we let people out of jail after they have committed crimes
like this we send a message if the sentence has not been harsh
enough.
In some countries the use of a firearm in the commission of a
crime is treated as a terrorist act, punishable by death.
1110
Perhaps we in North America have seen too many crime shows on
television and tend to take such things for granted. That is
unfortunate. The North American society would be much better off
if we considered the use of a firearm in the commission of a
crime as the terrorist act it really is. It strikes a blow
against the very foundation of our law-abiding society when
criminals armed with firearms can prey on law-abiding citizens
and be released with little or no time in jail.
Society must take a much more serious attitude toward the use of
firearms in the commission of a crime. The best way to
demonstrate that serious attitude is to demand that significant
penalties be imposed on the criminal. That would send a message
strong enough to shrink the demand for illegal firearms and to
help dry up smuggling. It would be much easier to reduce
smuggling if the smuggled items were not in demand. Criminals
would soon learn that they cannot use many aspects of the law and
loopholes such as using young people in the commission of crimes
because those young people are dealt with by the Young Offenders
Act.
Enacting serious penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms
is a key component of Bill C-236.
Another key component of my private member's bill is the
repeal of Bill C-68. Today some of my colleagues will focus on
reasons to repeal Bill C-68. For example, it will do absolutely
nothing to stop crime with firearms. Its cost is much higher
than the government promised. The stats used to support its
passage have since been shown to be grossly inaccurate. The
funds could be much better used. It gives cabinet excessive
powers. It infringes on the fundamental rights of citizens to
enjoy private property without government interference. It
crosses the line into provincial jurisdiction. It provides
police with the excessive powers of search and seizure. And it
can hand criminals a computerized list of the homes that have
firearms for them to steal.
All of those points are serious and deserving of many hours of
debate in the House. However, I will talk about one aspect of
Bill C-68 which may be more serious than any of the others. That
point is based on the fact that normally law-abiding citizens
have not consented to register their firearms and shotguns. When
I talk to them most of them tell me that they will not do so. As
with the legislation to enact the GST, Bill C-68 will have the
rare distinction of turning literally millions of normally
law-abiding Canadian citizens into criminals.
When the general public not only does not agree with legislation
but believes it to be wrong, that lack of agreement creates a
climate which broadly tolerates what some people might describe
as civil disobedience. Firearms owners generally view Bill C-68
as bad legislation. I certainly agree with them, as do many of
my colleagues, not only this side of the House but also on the
other side of the House. I know many people in rural Canada and
nearly everyone assures me that they will not comply with the
requirement to register their rifles and shotguns.
We are already well aware that millions of Canadians have lost
faith in our governmental process to such an extent that they do
not even vote. Their parents or grandparents may have shed blood
on foreign soil to defend our democratic rights. Nevertheless,
millions are ignoring their right to vote because they have lost
faith in government.
In addition to the falling percentage of voters, millions of
Canadians see themselves as being so overtaxed that they cannot
get ahead no matter how hard they work. There is a widespread
trend of people doing anything they can to avoid paying taxes,
especially the GST. We even have a name for it. We now call it
the underground economy.
When I was a child the only underground economy was mining.
Those were the days when the average Canadian regarded the
responsibility to vote as a primary concern and no law was
lightly broken. Average Canadians cared about their country and
their government because they believed this country and its
government cared about them.
1115
Instead today a broad cross-section of Canadians believe we are
politicians who only care about ourselves, not statesmen acting
in the best interest of the country. That sad fact has become
the source of many jokes. One of the most feared sentences today
in Canada is: “Hello, I am from the government and I am here to
help you”.
Due to the passage of Bill C-68 soon we will have buried rifles
and shotguns in backyards all across Canada. Some people,
especially those who suffered under totalitarian regimes in other
lands, view their firearms as the last defence against tyranny.
Others who learned to hunt with their fathers and grandfathers
see firearms as a basic element in their family traditions.
Ranchers, trappers and farmers as well as sport shooters and
collectors do not look at firearms as weapons for criminals to
use. They look at them as tools and an essential part of their
everyday lives. It is not only the first nations people who see
Bill C-68 as a threat to their culture. For many, Bill C-68 is
the latest example of the urban lifestyle and urban values being
crammed down the throats of the people living in rural areas
today.
Together with the majority of people who live in my riding of
Okanagan—Shuswap I see Bill C-68 as a sharp axe being used to
hack at the base of the tree of our Canadian lifestyle. It is a
solemn obligation of elected members of government to nourish
that tree.
Instead we passed Bill C-68 which is helping to kill some of the
most treasured aspects of our Canadian lifestyle. I believe
every responsible member of parliament should work hard to repeal
Bill C-68 to restore the Criminal Code to what it was before
legislation was enacted and to pass tough new penalties for the
criminal misuse of firearms.
As I mentioned, there are many other reasons parliament should
repeal the act respecting firearms and other weapons, which is
the formal title of Bill C-68 and which would happen by passing
Bill C-236. First it was presented in parliament under false
pretences. It was supposedly to reduce accidents by encouraging
safer storage, but the fact is safe storage was already required
by earlier legislation.
It was supposedly to reduce crime with firearms by requiring
law-abiding owners of rifles and shotguns to fill out some papers
and pay some fees. However the fact is that registration of
handguns has been required for many years yet small guns remain
the criminal's weapon of choice. It was supposedly to reduce the
number of crimes in which firearms were involved. We have since
seen RCMP Commissioner Murray write former Deputy Justice
Minister George Thomson to take exception to how the 1993 stats
of the federal police force were distorted to promote Bill C-68.
Commissioner Murray wrote:
We determined that our statistics showed that there were 73
firearms involved in violent crime compared to the Department of
Justice's findings of 623 firearms involved in violent crime.
Apparently some police forces consider a firearm to have been
involved in a violent crime if a drug dealer happens to have
firearms and ammunition stashed in his basement when he is
arrested. Members of the House did not have such an
interpretation in mind when they fell for the government's flawed
arguments in support of Bill C-68. I will end on that note and
hope everybody considers very carefully where Bill C-68 will take
the country.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in Canada we acknowledge and respect that there are legitimate
uses of firearms by responsible and law-abiding Canadians. That
is not at question at all.
Responsible law-abiding firearms owners have nothing to fear
besides the fearmongering on the other side from the new Firearms
Act. Canadians do not want to live in a country in which people
feel they want or need to possess a firearm for protection.
Further, if we in Canada want to retain our safe and peaceful
character as a country—and it is the best country in the world
to live in for the fifth time in a row—we should signal in every
possible way that we will not tolerate and we will severely
punish the use of firearms in the commission of crimes.
It is unfortunate the hon. member of Okanagan—Shuswap did not
recognized that Canadians understand the Firearms Act and that
the amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada which comprise Bill
C-68 are an investment in crime prevention which will help build
upon the culture of safety practised by responsible law-abiding
firearms owners in Canada.
1120
It might be a surprise for the opposition that 82% of all
Canadians support the registration of all firearms, a majority in
every province.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Of course they find this very funny.
Seventy-two per cent of rural Canadians approve of registration.
There is strong support for the universal registration of
firearms across Canada. Bill C-68 establishes a framework to
achieve a number of goals that relate directly to the safety of
Canadians in their homes and on the streets.
It creates stiff sentences for those who use firearms in the
commission of a crime. It creates systems and sanctions to deal
with the smuggling of guns into Canada. It provides that all
firearms in Canada must be registered, a cornerstone measure that
will help police fight smuggling and do their job more
effectively. It does all these things within a framework that
respects the rights of responsible law-abiding gun owners.
Let us review for a moment the background of how the legislation
came to be. The opposition keeps forgetting how many times we
have debated the issue in the House. We were elected on the
second mandate because of that piece of legislation. It was
introduced into the House of Commons on February 14, 1995 through
successive debates including an extensive list of amendments
brought to the bill by committee and debated at third reading.
On and on we have debated the issue in the House of Commons. It
has gone to committee. Canadians have had a chance to bring
forth their opinions. Two major sets of regulations have been
processed, the first being tabled in November 1996 and the second
set being tabled in October 1997.
The standing committee reviewing the first set of regulations
made 39 recommendations, 30 of which were accepted in whole or in
part. The government accepted more than 93% of the justice
committee's recommendations following extensive hearings on these
regulations.
My point in this brief review is to ask the opposition why, in
view of the extensive parliamentary involvement in both the
legislation and the regulations and in view of the number of
changes in accommodations which were made as the legislation
passed through the House, we would even consider repealing Bill
C-68, legislation that enjoys the support of 82% of Canadians.
[Translation]
Bill C-236 would have us believe that parliament's legislation
does nothing to address the criminal misuse of firearms.
Opposition members may wish to consult the Criminal Code in this
respect. A significant number of offences in the code were
modified to carry a minimum punishment of imprisonment for four
years.
A significant number of offences in the code were modified to
carry a minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment. These
Criminal Code offences are found under the headings of causing
death by criminal negligence, manslaughter, attempt to commit
murder, causing bodily harm with intent, sexual assault with a
weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking,
robbery and extortion.
Other offences are found for a variety of criminal offences
including activities such as weapons trafficking, possession for
the purpose of weapons trafficking, manufacture of automatic
firearms, automatic firearms importing and exporting when
knowing it is unauthorized, and tampering with the serial number
of a firearm.
We were very attentive to criminal activities in formulating
the offence provisions of Bill C-68. Increasing the minimum
terms, as the bill proposes, would add nothing useful to the
general approach approved by parliament when it passed Bill C-68.
If the supporters of Bill C-236 really took the time to study the
issue, they would also find that there have been a number of
appeals of the four year minimum sentences over the past two
years. All of them have been upheld on appeal as appropriate
sentencing, expressing the will of parliament. They also express
the will of the Canadian people, 82% of whom support this
legislation, as I mentioned.
The licensing of firearms users is one of the central features
of this legislation. Under Bill C-68, only people who are
responsible and have not within the past five years been
convicted of Criminal Code offences, of an offence involving
violence against a person or the threat of such violence, of an
offence involving criminal activity or of the contravention of
the Food and Drugs Act or the Narcotic Control Act are eligible
for licensing.
1125
Registration is an important component of the act. Let me remind
proponents of Bill C-236 that this aspect of the legislation was
recently validated by the Alberta court of appeal. People who
sell guns should know to whom they are selling. If the person
buying the gun has a licence, there is some reasonable assurance
that the person is a law-abiding, responsible person.
Safety is an essential component, and this is why persons with
licences will have completed and passed the Canadian firearm
safety course and will have at least the basics in respect of
the safe handling and use of firearms.
Many of the lost or stolen firearms eventually come to the
attention of the police.
A system of registration will assist the police in returning
these firearms to their rightful owners.
Since licensed users will have shown they were not involved in
criminal activity and are otherwise responsible, and since guns
will be registered, the police will have an invaluable tool to
assist them in their fight against crime.
Opponents of the legislation contend that criminals will not
register guns. However, the licensing and registration
provisions will assist the police by providing them with
additional tools to charge criminals and to fight organized
crime.
Many guns come to Canada from the United States. The attitude in
the United States with respect to guns is significantly
different from that in Canada. The illegal movement of firearms
into Canada is a problem of considerable magnitude and we
recognize that.
The registration system will register guns coming into and
leaving Canada and the movement of those guns within the
country.
Illegal shipments will be easier to stop. Customs officers will
be able to identify shipments against the registration database.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Obviously the opposition finds this
very funny. This is not a funny subject as far as we are
concerned.
[Translation]
It will be possible to track down any firearm imported into and
sold in Canada. Contraband reduction is an important tool
through which the Firearms Act can contribute to crime
reduction.
The Firearms Act allows honest and law-abiding sportsmen to
continue to practice their sport. It is possible to buy and sell
firearms, to hunt with a gun, to target shoot, to collect
firearms, to display them in a museum and to practice all sorts
of other sound activities favoured by gun owners.
[English]
To counter criminal activities in the country, the Department of
Justice is attending to a wide range of criminal justice issues
such as our crime prevention program, our efforts to improve
youth justice, our intentions to address organized crime issues,
which we have done, and our approach to firearms control.
In short, Bill C-236 seeks to return the system of gun control
to the status it held before Bill C-68. In so doing it ignores
the benefits of better licensing screening. It ignores the
benefits of registration. It ignores the cherry picking that
members opposite are suggesting in terms of the legislation. It
is simply regressive legislation. Above all it is not responsive
to Canadian people.
I said before, and I will close on this point, that there is
strong support across Canada for the direction we are taking. We
were re-elected on that point. We are implementing a reasonable
system that respects and encourages responsible firearm owners in
the safe practice of their sport.
Our legislation, which was ruled upheld by the Alberta Court of
Appeal, respects the rights of responsible law-abiding gun owners
at the same time as building a culture of safety in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today we have the opportunity to discuss Bill C-236, an act to
repeal the Firearms Act and to make certain amendments to the
Criminal Code.
This bill, sponsored by a Reform member, proposes the total
repeal of the Firearms Act, nothing more and nothing less.
Unfortunately, the hon. member seems unaware that there is a
very strong consensus that a certain degree of firearms control
is desired by the people of Canada and of Quebec.
Thus, in stating that the Firearms Act does not meet any real
need, and consequently does nothing except unduly infringe upon
the property rights of honest citizens, the hon. member is
engaging in a debate that is pointless, to say the least.
Prudence is in order when addressing the matter of gun control—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: —something the Reform members clearly
lack this morning—in order to clearly grasp the issue as a whole.
1130
It must be recognized that in proposing the
repeal of the Firearms Act the hon. member appears to wish to
defend a legitimate right, the right to unrestricted right of
ownership. The importance of that right cannot be
overemphasized. Enjoyment of property is a fundamental right,
and one that is protected by a number of important legal
instruments.
In Quebec, for example, section 8 of the charter of rights and
freedoms recognizes the following: “No one may enter upon the
property of another or take anything therefrom without his
express or implied consent”. The protection of right of
ownership is nothing new.
There is a common law principle four centuries old and well
entrenched in law, which states “a man's home is his castle”.
Therefore, one cannot intrude on someone else's property with
impunity, without incurring the anger of his fellow men.
However, it would be against good citizenship to contend that
our rights can be exercized irrespective of the common good.
Gun use cannot be viewed from a strictly personal point of view.
Any argument solely based on individual property rights would
just not fly. Living in a community necessitates compromises
and, sadly perhaps, gun registration is one of these
compromises, these reasonable measures to ensure our collective
safety.
Living in society requires limitations on the exercise of our
rights. These limitations are justified when public interest is
at stake. Combating crime is certainly a collective concern.
Rights may legitimately be limited when the safety of our fellow
citizens is the basis for the proposed measures. On the face of
it, the firearms legislation met that criterion.
As lawmakers, we could legitimately pass legislation for greater
firearms control. We had to do it to ensure the safety of our
children and the people around us.
Let us not fool ourselves: firearms are not like any other
property, firearms can kill. In many cases, firearms are
manufactured for a specific purpose: to harm or even to kill.
That is not insignificant. Few if any people will argue with the
fact that, even in the hands of conscientious individuals like
police officers or hunters, firearms have all the makings of
dangerous and potentially lethal weapons.
Out of respect for the victims of the misuse of firearms, we had
to do what was necessary. As legislators, we had to approach
this issue responsibly.
I have no doubt that, deep down, the Reform Party member is, as
I am, very concerned about the safety of his fellow citizens.
But suggesting that the Firearms Act be repealed is taking this
concern much too far. There is no denying—and I am choosing my
words carefully here—that the legislation has a number of flaws,
but this does not mean it should be repealed.
One flaw is undoubtedly the fact that the Liberal government is
moving much too quickly, criminalizing something that should not
be criminalized, in order to look good or cover up its failure
to give the public what it wants.
The government's bill is poorly drafted, costly and
unenforceable, and the government has failed to build a
consensus among the main groups of firearms users, particularly
hunters and suppliers, who are fiercely opposed to it.
Nonetheless, it is very important to remember that a gun control
bill is primarily intended to reduce crime and bring about a
drop in the number of accidents caused by the mishandling of
firearms. It is thus possible to be in favour of gun control
but to question certain important aspects of the legislation,
the unfortunate effects of which could have been avoided. That
is the position in which I find myself.
However, the Reform Party member questions the very legitimacy
of the Firearms Act, and that is where he loses me. Repeal is
not the same as improvement.
1135
By suggesting that this legislation simply be scrapped, the
member is closing the door to any constructive discussion that
might lead to a workable consensus benefiting everyone.
In the circumstances, it will come as no surprise to anyone that
I have great difficulty supporting such a bill.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to my colleague's private
member's bill which I support fully. Before going directly to the
bill I think we should pass out some warnings.
On December 1 Bill C-68 will come into effect. We want to send
a warning to all smugglers. Bill C-68 is coming in, so all
smugglers beware. As of December 1 they can no longer smuggle
guns as Bill C-68 will be in effect. But wait a minute. I
thought smuggling was against the law long before Bill C-68 came
in. This is what is so hilarious about this government. Suddenly
it has come up with a bill that is probably going to cost $1
billion to implement. It is going to stop such things as
smuggling.
We should send a warning out that effective December 1 all
smuggling will cease. Mind you, we do not have any officers at
the borders to prevent a lot of the smuggling from happening. We
do not have money for that. We cannot supply any more police
officers to enforce this because they are going to be very busy
with the paperwork. They have to register all these guns that are
causing such a problem. And according to their statistics that
was totally false. The head of the chiefs of police was quite
concerned that they supported this bill on false information put
out by this government. He has been quoted from his letters to
the justice minister as stating his disappointment about this
false information being presented.
The idea that smuggling is going to be stopped because of Bill
C-68 is just another farce. I imagine smugglers are having a good
time laughing about that one. At no time has this Liberal
government taken any initiative to put a stop to smuggling.
Standing on the bridge at Port Erie I watched the traffic coming
and going across the border. I watched boats going across the
river. I asked how they knew what was on the boats as no one was
checking them. They said “We watch from the bridge. If they
are like this, it is probably cigarettes; if it is like this, it
could be booze; if it is like this, it is probably guns; and if
it is like this, it is probably people. So if it is like this,
maybe we will go after it”. They do not have any manpower. I
asked what was on a truck that was going through the line and
they said they did not know. I ask if there was somebody in
pursuit and they said no, they did not have the manpower for
that.
The government comes out with this huge document giving Canada's
justice minister all kinds of power and authority through order
in council to change things, that it will make a difference.
Two people were shot with shotguns in my riding. The people who
did that are really going to be in trouble. They are going to
face the Liberal law. They will probably get a life sentence,
although wait a minute, they will be paroled in 25 years. I
think that is mandatory. But who knows, even with Liberal
justice, under section 745 of the Criminal Code, they could be
out in 15 years. Yet we are getting tough with Bill C-68. Under
Bill C-68 they will still get life and will have to be paroled in
25 years and they will still have the opportunity for a section
745 hearing. That is Liberal justice. And they wonder why
people laugh.
In 1993 this government was elected and it was going to do
something with the Young Offenders Act. It is almost 1999 and
nothing has happened. The attorneys general across Canada are
asking the Minister of Justice “When are you going to do
something with that act?” Of course she is having a difficult
time doing anything about it. I understand her caucus is not in
agreement with it, but then I think she is glad they are balking
about changing the Young Offenders Act. After all, it is a
wonderful old Liberal document. It was enacted in 1984.
Since then youth crime has escalated like we would not believe
and it still is going up.
1140
There are cries all across Canada. There is a member yapping off
on the other side of the House. People in his riding are saying
do something about youth crime. Since 1993 the Liberals have
done absolutely nothing. But we have Bill C-68. According to the
auditor general it is going to cost probably $1 billion to bring
it into force. That is the auditor general's figure. We have
already spent several hundreds of millions of dollars.
Let us look at another thing. In 1993 the government announced
that there were over a million young people starving and in
poverty in this country. Guess what it will announce in 1999.
There are a million young people still living in poverty. Why
does the government not take the money it is wasting on such
things as Bill C-68 and do something for the needy? Why does it
not take hundreds of millions of dollars and do something for
them, instead of wasting its money on a document that will not
have any effect?
Going back to those two people who were shot by shotguns in my
riding, the next sometime somebody shoots somebody with a shotgun
it will be registered. That will make the victims feel much
better. I am sure a husband or a wife will be very glad that
their spouse was shot with a registered shotgun. And the
government wonders why people laugh at what it says. Liberal
justice is a joke and people laugh at jokes.
There was an incident in Saskatchewan. Mrs. Lorraine Dewetter's
husband was out in the field and his half-ton pick-up got stuck.
He died in the field from a heart attack. The police discovered
the fellow had a .410 gauge shotgun in the pickup. They picked
the shotgun up and rightfully so. They went to the house to
inform Mrs. Dewetter that her husband had died from a heart
attack in the field. While they were there, they searched the
house and confiscated three more weapons: a .22, another
shotgun, and I do not know what else, all because of such things
as Bill C-68. That is what those things bring in.
If we want to look at the history of registration it is not too
difficult. Look at it. The main purpose of registration,
regardless of what the Liberals say, is confiscation. That is the
final result. That is the purpose of it.
When the Minister of Justice is given the authority by order in
council to declare which things are illegal and which are not, it
is pretty easy to do. Just start snapping fingers and they will
make things illegal as they go along. And then we are doing a
great job of attacking the wrong people, the law-abiding people
of Canada.
All the criminals must think this is funny. Sixty years of
registration of handguns and we do not see much change. In fact
it has gotten worse. It did not solve any problems. Then we
heard from the parliamentary secretary. I remember. She had a
great statement. It is really important to get these
registrations done because if we find a stolen gun, then we know
to whom to return it. That is worth a million or so. It is
worth spending lots of money on documents and using up a lot of
police time to make sure that happens.
I do not know what kind of a world the Liberals live in when
they talk about justice. People across this land are not happy
at all with Canada's justice system. They want it changed. If, as
I just heard, somebody would say to hang them, I would certainly
believe there are those who probably would do just that. Maybe
we should ask the 11 or 12 families of the victims of Clifford
Olson whether or not that should be the penalty. Maybe we should
take a little more seriously how people feel about the justice
system, but the Liberals do not.
1145
The government came up with Bill C-68 which will not change
anything. I have carefully gone through the present Criminal
Code. We have a safe storage law. We have laws against the
criminal use of firearms in the commission of a crime. All those
things are covered. The only thing that is not covered is
registration, and the government had to write a huge document
full of gobbledegook which does not change anything except the
registration of firearms. It spent over a billion dollars,
according to the auditor general.
When children are still facing poverty, when we have poverty on
Indian reserves and on city streets it is a shame that we are
spending money for things that will not be effective.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the
debate today.
The bill brought forward by the hon. member from the Reform
Party is consistent with a long held position of the Conservative
Party that the registry system under Bill C-68 is ill conceived
and is in fact a reactionary piece of legislation that will not
accomplish the goals it was set up to achieve.
Although the well intentioned persons who support the
legislation have bought in the idea that somehow registering a
shotgun will be an effective way for the government to respond to
organized crime and violent crime, the sad reality is that this
is not the case. Millions and millions of dollars are being
spent by the government as a ruse to somehow hold itself up as
being in favour of tougher legislation when it comes to the
criminal use of firearms.
The reality is that the legislation focuses on law-abiding
citizens. We have heard many members of the opposition and
government members discuss who it will affect most. It will
affect most farmers, fishermen, sportsmen, hunters, collectors,
and individuals presently engaged in an activity which under the
current law they are lawfully entitled to do. The legislation is
now criminalizing with sanctions something that individuals
participate in by their own free will, of their own volition.
In all reality one has to question the priorities of the
government in the area of justice when it has decided to target
law-abiding citizens as opposed to those who have been referred
to on this side of the House as being the true criminals, those
individuals who make the conscious decision to pick up a firearm
and use it for an illegal purpose and not those individuals
engaged in lawful activities which they are entitled to enjoy.
Let us get down to the root of Bill C-68. It is a tax on a
law-abiding activity. The cost of that bill has become somewhat
prohibitive in the minds of Canadians when a person looks at what
it will eventually attach as a price tag. The initial assessment
of the Minister of Justice who first dreamed up the piece of
legislation was to be in the range of $85 million. Within
months of its passage and movement in the direction of the gun
registry it became clear this was not possible.
By September, the opening session of this year, 1998, the tab
had run up to $133.1 million. As we approach the start-up date
of December 1, one can only assume that it is in the range of
$200 million. As the hon. member for Wild Rose mentioned there
are estimates in the range of $500 million to $1 billion, to
which he received a lot of heckling and acrimony from the
government side.
How much does it cost in human life? Not one iota of evidence
suggests that the legislation will save lives. Not one bit of
linkage, statistical or otherwise, shows that registering
shotguns will somehow save lives. That is simply not the case.
The police reaction to Bill C-68 is quite interesting. There
have been statistics from the Canadian Police Association. The
Canadian Chiefs of Police have spoken in favour of it. However,
frontline police officers, those who are tasked with
administering and enforcing the legislation, will tell us very
quickly that they would far rather spend their time and efforts
fighting real crime, not going with warrants to individual houses
based on some premise that they might have a gun stored there
illegally or that they might have an unregistered gun.
They would far rather spend their time and efforts fighting real
crime, not going with warrants to individual houses based on
some premise that they might have a gun stored there illegally or
that they might have, more important, to tie it to the
legislation, an unregistered gun. It will become an
overbureaucratic, time consuming exercise. Police officers admit
they could spend their time in a far more effective and
worthwhile effort helping to keep Canadian streets free from
crime.
1150
One questions the priorities. One questions the emphasis the
government has placed on Bill C-68. Let us talk about how the
bill was originally sold to the general public. There were
tremendous statistics showing that the criminal use of shotguns
and long guns was impacting on a rise in violent crime. The
assistant commissioner of the RCMP wrote to the government and
said “Wait a minute. These statistics are wrong. This is not
true”.
These statistics were spun to effectively support the
government's position that these guns had to be registered. These
statistics were wrong. They were grossly exaggerated 10 or 100
times. The same statistics were used in the Supreme Court of
Alberta in arguing a case which favoured the government by a slim
three to two majority. It has now been appealed further to the
Supreme Court of Canada. It begs the question why the government
is to go ahead with the registry on December 1 knowing that it is
before the courts?
It is always possible when a case goes before the court that
judges in their wisdom decide legislation is unconstitutional. It
appears that more and more of the provinces and the territories
are joining in this effort, this court action, to somehow
question the government priority on the issue. If that happens,
why would we spend more money? It is another blatant waste of
money by the government, throwing bad money after bad to somehow
preempt the court. One has to question why the government is
choosing to do this, knowing that a court challenge is pending.
It is interesting to note the absence of members of the NDP from
this debate. They have been all over the board when it comes to
gun registry. It would have been interesting to hear their
remarks with respect to this bill.
The spin doctoring that has taken place is something of note. It
is increasingly discouraging for Canadians to hear the government
misquote statistics and their wishes in the Chamber and outside
the Chamber when it comes to gun registry. One can always find
statistics to support a position. That is not a difficult thing
to do. However when one goes into the court of public opinion,
one hears a completely different version of what Canadians want
with respect to gun registry.
I want to be very clear in stating that the Progressive
Conservative Party is very much in favour of gun control and gun
registry, for that matter, when it comes to pistols, the weapon
of choice, but registering long guns is simply asinine. It is
going in the wrong direction when it comes to trying to fight
crime, organized crime or otherwise.
Efforts should be put into shoring up our borders, into putting
more money into policing budgets which we know have been
drastically cut, and into better legislation aimed at organized
crime or more sanctions for the criminal use of firearms. I am
sure Canadians would applaud the government for those efforts if
it were moving in that direction, but that is not the case.
The spin doctoring that has gone on is remarkable. The
government has become very good at it. It has high priced
individuals who spin its positions and tell Canadians effectively
what it wants Canadians to believe. This is incredibly
irresponsible on the part of the government.
The benefits of Bill C-68 are very negligible. One only has to
look again at the government's use of statistics. Where are the
statistics the government is relying on to say that it will save
lives? They are completely absent from the debate because they
do not exist. Is that not what it is all about? Should criminal
justice not be about protecting people and saving lives?
Bill C-68 does not measure up. It does not meet those
requirements. That is why we are supporting the private member's
bill that has been brought forward. Let us end it now. Let us
stop spending money and throwing bad money after bad to try to
register long arms and shotguns that are not weapons of choice
when it comes to crime.
The cost is only one aspect of the legislation, the cost and the
use the government has made of these statistics. Thousands and
thousands of Canadians appeared on Parliament Hill at the
beginning of this session to express their outrage as to what
would happen with this tax, this burdensome bureaucracy that will
be put in place.
1155
Bill C-68 is not indicative of what Canadians want. If
anything, Canadians are crying out for a system that is simpler,
more direct and delivers what it is supposed to deliver to
Canadians.
Bill C-68 certainly does not deliver justice. It creates a
false expectation for police and citizens. Police officers are
already labouring under a CPIC system that they cannot rely on to
be accurate. To suggest that we will have a national gun
registry which will prevent a police officer from going to a
house and knocking on the door, knowing there is or is not a gun
behind that door, is completely asinine. It will not give the
confidence police officers need to carry out their task.
Those are the reasons I put forward to support this private
member's bill and I urge other members, particularly my
colleagues in the NDP, to do the same.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate although I must say that was
not my intention when I arrived here a few minutes ago.
For six weeks all parties on this side of the House have been
engaged in directing questions toward the Prime Minister, the
Deputy Prime Minister and solicitor general about what he did or
did not say on October 1 on that now infamous airplane ride.
Frankly a lot of us, certainly in our caucus and in I suspect in
other opposition caucuses, would have preferred to talk about
other things than whether the solicitor general would stay in his
post.
A farm crisis is going on in Saskatchewan. There is the
employment insurance issue which my colleague from
Acadie—Bathurst is trying to raise. What should we do with
budget surpluses? There are any number of questions, but because
of the intransigence of the government we have been stuck dealing
with the future of the solicitor general.
Here we have a private member's bill which talks about something
that will not be decided by the House of Commons until the
Supreme Court of Canada rules some time down the road. The
Alberta Court of Appeal ruled after September 21. The Reform
opposition party members could not wait. Never mind uniting the
right. They were busily concerned about uniting themselves by
having the motion on firearms.
The case is going to the Supreme Court of Canada. It will not
be decided here. It was decided here between 1993 and 1997 when
Bill C-68 passed the House of Commons. I was not in the House at
that time. I do not know whether it is a good bill or a bad
bill, but I know that it will not come back to the House at least
until the Supreme Court rules against it. Why are we wasting the
time of the House of Commons and of the people of Canada talking
about something that is totally irrelevant?
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is no surprise to me that the NDP member who spoke to
bill has not even read it. That is quite typical.
Bill C-68 was sold to the Canadian public and the House under
extreme false pretences. We like to talk about the Alberta court
and what happened there. Need I remind the House that four of
the five judges said that it was an infringement on provincial
jurisdiction. Due to the government saying that it was a
criminal act they decided three to two that the federal
government had that right to infringe on provincial jurisdiction
under a criminal act. Even that was sold as a guise to the
Canadian public.
1200
We will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to enact
legislation that most law abiding citizens who
own firearms will probably not comply with in the first place.
While we are doing this I remind the government of its
responsibility. The government's foremost responsibility is to
the safety and well-being of its law abiding citizens.
What did the government do when it was at fault in terms of the
legislation to compensate all hep C victims who contacted hep C
through the tainted blood system? It said that we had no funds.
It said it could not afford to pay them, but it can afford to put
hundreds of millions of dollars into firearms registration while
those with tainted blood are dying. I have to ask where the
government's priorities are.
For years navy merchant marines have been fighting to be duly
compensated for their war efforts. These people have suffered,
been left maimed and some have died in acts of war in order to
feed our troops, yet this government has stated time after time
that there are not enough funds to pay these people but it can
spend hundreds and millions of dollars on a useless act causing
total disagreement across the country.
I have to wonder where the government's priorities are.
Government members will say anything to be re-elected, in order
to come back to the House, but they think nothing at all of the
true victims. Instead they would impose another tax or levy on
law abiding citizens of Canada, which is shameful. I hope those
people on the other side can sleep at night when they enforce
this act after they read the letters of those suffering from hep
C. It is a disgrace.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
BILL C-53—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-53, an act to increase the
availability of financing for the establishment, expansion,
modernization and improvement of small businesses, not more than
one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of
the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be
allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen
minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government
business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report
stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the
said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interpreted
if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every
question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then
under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively
without further debate or amendment.
1205
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1245
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sekora
| Serré
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gauthier
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Southeast)
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Loubier
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 72
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
1250
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed from November 17 consideration of Bill C-53,
an act to increase the availability of financing for the
establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small
businesses, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and
of Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I might say that the vote that we just had is somewhat
alarming in that in the last parliament closure was moved 35
times either by time allocation or by closure motions. In this
parliament we find that already time allocation has been moved
nine times, including the bill we are now debating.
When I talk with people in the community I talk with them in
private more often than in public because in private people are
more apt to say things which they would not otherwise disclose.
The amendment that we are debating is designed to prevent one
family member who is part owner of a small business from taking
out a loan if another family member has already done so.
With respect to financing for small business, we only hear of
the times when it proves to be successful. What the government
never hears about are the disastrous effects of ill-conceived
loans. It is my purpose this afternoon to draw this to the
attention of the House. I could go from now to midnight talking
about what is designed to be a positive thing which turns out in
fact to be a negative thing.
I can assure hon. members opposite that it is not very pleasant
to sit in the kitchen with people who have run a third generation
family business and hear their story about being put out of
business because of a government loan to a competitor while they
continued to struggle to survive and eventually lost their
business.
This is not a rare occurrence. It is very common throughout
Saskatchewan. Depending upon whom a person knows at the right
time, which could be a politician, they get a loan to build a
business in an area when that general trading area cannot support
another business.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to a couple of
instances. There were four eating establishments in a small
town. Of those eating establishments, three of the four were
family businesses. They had been family businesses since the
town virtually began. All of sudden two of those businesses
received big government loans, one in excess of $100,000 and one
in excess of $125,000.
The total pie was divided. There was not sufficient business to
support those six eating establishments in that town. Two of the
businesses which were struggling went under, while the other two
businesses which received the government grants continued. I
might add that one of them is now closed. We never hear what
happens when government makes small business loans which create
competition for a family business or some other business which is
struggling to survive.
1255
There is a long list of names. Hundreds of thousands of dollars
have been paid out.
There was a small cafe owner who had always paid his local
taxes. He was a part of the community and supported every
activity in the town. Government money came in, his money in
effect, and another business moved in and forced him to dilute
his business to the extent that it is no longer a profitable
organization. Did that happen once? Not at all.
When we look at the budget and the amount of money that is given
to small business we never know how many times it happens. I
could take two hours going through all of the business places I
know of that have gone out of business because the government,
with disregard, put money into an area which could not support
another business of that nature. It is a sad story.
I know of as many people who have been desperately hurt and
ruined by the Small Business Loans Act as I do of those who have
prospered. The government only tells us about those businesses
which have prospered. In all fairness, we need to look from
coast to coast to see those who have been hurt.
I draw the attention of members to another incident. This was
in a fair sized town where there were two bakeries. Again they
were both family enterprises. They were both doing well. They
both supported their community. They were both engaged in such
things as the town council. A person came in who knew the right
person at the right time and a loan was floated. That loan was
in excessive of $140,000. As a result, that person was able to
keep going on government funding until they put a community owned
bakery out of business. There was not enough business to support
three bakeries.
This motion is designed to stop a current practice. This motion
has been put forward to prevent one family member who is part
owner of a small business from taking out a loan if another
family member has already done so. In other words, at present it
is possible for an individual who is a member of a family running
a business to get another loan. Even though the first loan was
not under his name, he can take out another loan for a different
purpose when the business is already operating with a government
loan.
What are we doing? We do not have a careful watchdog to monitor
who is getting the loans and for what purpose. I am not just
talking about the banks which guarantee the loans. In my
province we have business development corporations that would be
a better source to inform the government under this loan
procedure as to what business is most likely to succeed without
hurting the businesses already in place.
1300
Where I come from I cannot afford nor do I have the time to sit
and listen to those people in my cities, towns and in some cases
my villages who have been totally put out of business and have
moved simply because government money is going in opposition to
them.
The government should reconsider this bill because a person does
not deserve to lose his or her business of three generations and
be wiped out with government money going in opposition to their
business which has probably been in existence over the last 50 or
60 years.
I wish the government would consider this motion which I will be
supporting.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to support the amendments put forward by my
colleague.
These amendments will do two things. First, they will lower the
maximum of a small business loan from $250,000 to $100,000.
Second, they will prevent a second family member from obtaining a
small business loan for a business when one has already been
granted to another family member.
I would also like to comment on this whole small business loans
program which, again with all due respect, I think has completely
gone down the wrong track in what we are doing for the Canadian
people.
This bill essentially will put $1.5 billion into the small
business loans program where businesses that do not qualify for
any other funding, that have been turned down by the banks and
financial institutions for various reasons, would then try to
obtain financing from the small business loans program.
I would argue this is the wrong approach. These people
obviously are a higher risk. We are using taxpayer money as a
poor investment. We are giving it to the worst business plans of
this country, the businesses that are most likely to go broke and
most likely to go bankrupt. The taxpayers will receive zero
dollars on their investment. We are throwing money at bad
business plans.
I would argue it is the role of government to be responsible for
introducing legislation in this House that ensures there will be
a strong economic climate. Again, I do not necessarily support
subsidizing business after business by throwing money at it.
Instead, we should be creating an economic climate where
businesses can survive without government subsidies. In essence
that is what this is. That is what we have failed to do.
My home province of British Columbia is in an absolute crisis
state. As an example we can look at the forest industry in
British Columbia. Many of my colleagues from British Columbia
can attest to the fact that one of the principal reasons the
forest industry and the business climate in the forest sector is
in a crisis situation is largely government policy and the
direction the government has been going in both provincially and
federally.
The federal government cannot be let off the hook. It has
created an economic climate, due to the quota system with the
United States, where British Columbia has now lost a significant
part of its quota to eastern Canada. The mills are suffering
incredibly.
I was speaking with the senior forester in one of the forest
product companies in British Columbia over the weekend. He tells
me that their wood costs in 1994 were $43 a metre. Today their
wood costs are $83 a metre. This has almost doubled. I asked
him why they had doubled and what had caused the cost of the wood
landed in the mill to be double to what it was three or four
years ago.
1305
He said strictly government policy, both federal and provincial.
I am a big defender of small businesses. They are the economic
backbone of this country. If we are to have successful
businesses, let us not do it with government subsidies. We have
the government saying here is $1.5 billion available for small
businesses.
Many of the ones that probably are struggling and will survive
do not have access to this. Again, only the highest risk
business plans are going to get access to this. We may never
recover this money. I would argue very little we will recover.
The government gives out but takes right back through high
payroll taxes. The EI premiums are billions of dollars higher
than what they should be. The list goes on and on.
Speaking with small business owners, even very small businesses
with only a few employees, they say they get government forms,
both federal and provincial, in the mail two or three times a
week. It never ends.
A full time bookkeeper is needed to keep up with the
bureaucracy, the paperwork, whether it is the GST or the payroll
tax forms or worker compensation forms. Some of them are
provincial but the list goes on and on. How can they possibly
survive?
It is our role as legislators to cut that down, break down these
barriers. What kind of taxes are these companies paying? Can
they be competitive? It goes further. Some of our most
entrepreneurial people who should be creating these small
businesses are running down south of us to the U.S. the day after
they leave school. Why? Because of the economic climate in this
country. Why? Because of the taxes they pay.
People pay double the taxes to our friends to the south. These
are realities. These are the things the government should be
focusing on.
The small business loans program has been around for a long
time, which would only reinforce that the government is
absolutely prepared to accept the status quo. It thinks things
are just fine. Let us not change, just send out another $1.5
billion and that will take care of itself.
Some people cannot go to the bank. They get turned down and
then go to the finance companies and get turned down there. They
cannot raise any money, but we will give them some taxpayer
money. We likely will never see it again because their business
plans are flawed to begin with. The point I am trying to make is
that government subsidies are not the answer. It has been proven
time and time again.
Let us look at the fishing industry on the east coast in
Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces. What has this
government done since 1993? It has spend $2 billion paying
fishermen to sit at home and wait for the fish to come back but
it has not changed anything within the department and how it
operates. It has not looked at the root problems. It has not
focused on anything.
The idea was to throw money at it and hopefully the problems
will solve themselves. It accepted the status quo. That is not
good enough. We need change. It is the same thing with the small
business plan. That analogy can be drawn with small business
people. Throwing money at them and saying go create a new
business, we will create another level of bureaucracy to help
them with their bankruptcy in six months is not the answer.
We have to create an economic climate where these businesses
will thrive, where they will create employment, where they will
be valuable contributors to their local economies.
We are not doing that. It is in every sector whether fishing,
forestry or mining. All these areas are suffering. We have our
heads buried in the sand. We are not looking at it. Now the
government has forced time allocation. It will shut the debate
off on this.
Again I plead with the government to look at the real problem.
Travel to British Columbia to some of these interior communities.
Go up to Lumby. Go down to Duncan. Go into Cranbrook. Go up
to Prince George and see what is happening.
One and a half billion dollars in the small business loans
program will not solve anything. It will just be a high risk. If
that is what the government is going to do it might as well go
down to Vegas and dump it into a slot machine.
1310
Some will argue I am against the small business programs. I am
not. I will stand up and fight for small businesses. But I
would do it differently. I would ensure that they have a strong
economic climate. I would ensure that they are not being taxed
to death on payroll taxes. It can be done without government
subsidies. If I can leave one message, the answer to our
problems is not government subsidies. It is our job to create
the economic climate where they can survive.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to lend support to Bill C-53 and to join in the debate
around the motions that have been put forward.
The Canada small business financing act is designed to assist
small business. We in the NDP feel strongly that small
businesses are a very important part of our community, a very
vital part.
We believe that small and medium size businesses are an integral
part of successful communities. I am sure that all of us can
think of our various communities and point to many of the small
businesses within our communities, whether they be construction
companies, restaurants or information technology businesses, and
we can see examples of people who are working hard, people who
are dedicated, people who put in long hours to earn their living
and to contribute in a meaningful way to our society.
I think of a small business in my riding of Halifax West, a
small family restaurant. I go there sometimes in the morning for
breakfast. I am served the most beautiful breakfasts, home cooked
by the lady who operates this restaurant. This business creates
an aura of hospitality, an aura of friendliness within the
community. A lot of the local people come to that restaurant.
They sit there and talk over the affairs of their community.
They relate one on one with their neighbours. There is an
atmosphere which is really good to see, people in the community
interacting around this family business.
But it is also very noticeable that the owner of this business
works very hard. She is in there first thing in the morning.
She bakes homemade goods. She then deals with the customers who
come in on their way to work. She is going all day. At the end
of the day she has worked very hard and many long hours.
In 1996-97 small businesses created 81% of all new jobs, we are
told. In 1997-98 small firms with fewer than 49 employees
created 56,516 new jobs. Of the businesses operating in 1989,
51% were still operating in 1995. This is a testament of the
endurance of these small businesses.
It is very important to realize that the people who operate
these small businesses are people of integrity. They are people
of honesty and they are people who would not necessarily take
advantage of the programs that are being offered in a negative
way. It bothers me when I hear Reform talking about not making
things easier for people to access loans and to have help with
their businesses. The inference is almost that these people will
automatically take advantage of the grants and the programs
available. But we must realize that most people in their small
businesses are people of honesty and integrity and they are
people who want to succeed. If we as a government, if we as a
society, can help them, we certainly should be doing that.
It is for this reason that I urge all members in the House to
give full support to the kinds of initiatives and the kinds of
effort which will assist small business persons.
1315
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the
member for Halifax West. I think he misconstrues the intent of
the amendments in Group No. 2, which is to protect existing small
businesses.
I fully concur with his remarks concerning the little
restaurant, the great service he gets and how hard the owner
works. Full marks for that lady and full marks for the business.
These amendments are aimed at preventing somebody from moving in
and setting up another restaurant right beside it and getting a
government loan which would allow it to unfairly compete and put
that poor woman out of business. We have seen that happen in
Saskatchewan. It is not an uncommon phenomenon.
In my part of Saskatchewan and in that part represented by the
hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain the towns and villages are
dying. The small businesses that remain are hanging on by their
fingernails. When another business moves in to a place where
there cannot possibly be room for two, and that business has a
small business loan or a government grant, the business that is
already there and just barely hanging on goes down first. Then
the business that came in with government help usually goes down
within a couple of years because it does not have the feel for
the market nor does it have the skills of the business that had
survived in that place for two or three generations. Instead of
having one struggling business making it on its own, we end up
with nothing, thanks to the beneficence of our government in
backing these loans.
That type of interference with the marketplace is not good for
society. I am not here to get into a long ideological harangue
about the free market. We can debate that at another time and in
another place. I am sure the hon. member for Halifax West and I
could have a wonderful time debating that. We are debating a
specific government bill and some proposed amendments to it
which, in our eyes, would make it a better bill.
I know there are men and women in small business on the benches
opposite. I have talked to some of them and they appear to be
very reasonable folks. I think that in their hearts they
understand what we are talking about in these amendments.
I would be surprised if there is a member in this House who has
not had someone say to him or her “A new business has opened
just down the street from an existing business providing a
similar type of service in my hometown. It looks like the new
business is going to put the old one out of business. We think
it must have got a small business loan or a grant”.
There is this cynical outlook. Whenever anybody starts a
business in a place where conditions do not look good, the public
immediately concludes it was done with government help and by
George, I think that 90% of the time the public is right. That
is not the way to run a country. However when push comes to
shove and the big shepherd holds up his staff, those people over
there who understand this phenomenon and who are small business
people all say “baa” in unison and the bill passes. This is not
parliament as it was intended to be, which brings me to the
matter of time allocation.
We are now debating with a gun at our heads. In the 35th
Parliament the government used time allocation 32 times and
closure three times.
In this the 36th Parliament the government has already used time
allocation nine times.
1320
Instead of calling this the House of Commons, perhaps we should
rename it the Dumas or the Reichstag because this is not
parliament as parliament was intended to be. This is contrary to
300 years of tradition. It is contrary to the way that this
parliament operated for the first half century or more of its
life.
I believe closure was first used in this House by Borden. It
was used extremely sparingly right up until the Trudeau
administration. Then they started to lay it on heavier. Even
that administration did not use it as many times in the several
incarnations that it had as this government has used it in the
last five years. The Mulroney government used it more extensively
and with a heavier hand than the Trudeau administration but it
was still a piker compared to this administration which is now
routinely using it. The government uses time allocation time
after time after time, no pun intended, and for no reason.
If there is an extremely important bill in the hopper and the
opposition is being a little obstreperous and the bill has to get
through or the country will collapse the next day at six o'clock
in the morning, then yes. The technique was put in for a reason,
but it was not put in to be used frivolously or habitually.
This is an affront to the traditions of parliamentary democracy.
It is an affront which is practised routinely by this government.
That is wrong. We have to get back to the tradition that
parliament, not cabinet, but parliament is the overall authority
in the country. Regardless of what the cabinet wants, parliament
should be free to debate the issues of the day for as long as
parliament wants and in any way it wants.
The heavy-handed manipulation has to stop. The whole institution
is falling into disrepute. Unfortunately, people outside this
place do not take us very seriously any more. I am sure, Mr.
Speaker, you have run into comments of this nature in your
riding.
About three or four years ago I was severely taken to task by a
clergyman in my riding for having made a comment to the effect
that under the system of parliamentary democracy as it has
evolved in Canada, we now have a system of an elected
dictatorship somewhat akin to what there was in certain periods
in ancient Rome. He was irate. He said that was disrespectful
of the country and its traditions. A few weeks ago I met this
gentleman at a function and he said “You were right”. And I
was right. This place is decaying because we no longer observe
the democratic traditions.
It is a sad thing for me to have to stand and make these remarks
about an institution of which I am a part, but I think it is time
for a little honesty and a little truth. I am not alone in my
views. This view is widely held outside this place. It is
hurting us, it is hurting the institution, and it is severely
damaging Canada.
1325
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to this group of amendments today. I find it rather
interesting that with over 150 Liberal members in this present
government, none of them feel compelled to get up and defend why
these amendments should not pass.
I believe that part of a debate is to put both sides of an issue
on the table and to argue back and forth the merits of the case.
What we have here today is a government which is totally
abdicating its democratic responsibility. The Liberals not only
do not want to debate this matter themselves, they just want to
ram it through, but they have also said we cannot debate it.
Both of these are rather insulting.
It is insulting that the government would use its majority to
force through a closure motion, or time allocation as it is
technically called, in order to restrict the length of time of
the debate. It is also very insulting that the Liberals will not
engage me in debate. I am really nonplussed by it. The silence
on the other side probably says that they will support this
motion.
When I am debating with someone, for example if I have a
difference of opinion with one of my children, we debate things
back and forth. I will say something and my son will say
something else. We will go back and forth giving opposing points
of view. Eventually we have to come to an agreement. I hope it
does not characterize me as a soft father when I say that
sometimes things go my way and sometimes my son is able to
convince me of his point of view and things will go his way. That
is what the process of debate is about. We do not have that here
which is most regrettable.
Just as the government has used its majority to ram through the
time allocation motion, it is also going to use its majority to
pull the strings of the members opposite who will then dutifully
vote against these amendments. These are good amendments. These
are amendments which protect the taxpayer. These amendments
protect businesses across the country. These amendments really
are worthwhile. The government will not tell us its reasons for
opposing them.
I do not know if this is parliamentary but I will be corrected
if it is not. Is it because the government members are cowards?
That is asked as a question so I hope the Speaker does not stop
me. It is just a question. Why are the government members
afraid to defend their position on this debate?
The government will go ahead and use this process and ram
through whatever it thinks is right. We see this over and over
in this government. We saw it big time when we were discussing
the wheat board issue. This government was totally out of touch
with the aspirations of farmers in western Canada. The government
used time allocation, used closure debate and control of its
members, even from the west, in order to do something which is
diametrically opposed to what Canadian farmers need.
I know I am straying a bit from the specific amendments that we
are talking about but I am using it to illustrate a very
important point. The point is that democracy only works when we
have true representation from the members who were sent here and
elected by the people in their respective ridings. I wish that
would actually occur. Instead we have another dog and pony show
where the master in the centre of the ring snaps the whip and
everybody else jumps through the hoops on cue. It is very
depressing.
It is time for me to say a few things about the actual
amendments. We should recognize a couple of things.
1330
It is absolutely true that small business is one of the most
important factors in a vibrant economy, and in Canada there is no
doubt that is the case. We are told over and over again that
the highest proportion of jobs are created by small business. The
role of the government should definitely be to provide an
environment in which small business can thrive.
I believe quite strongly in the principle of free enterprise. I
believe very much in the forces of the free marketplace in
determining who is successful and who is not. I have observed
over and over in my short life that individuals who have been
risk takers and hard workers very often have good luck. There
seems to be a correlation there. Those who are timid and pull
back say “I want everybody else to look after me”. In Canada
we often think there is an inalienable right that “I do not have
to work. I do not have to take any risks. Somebody else has an
obligation to look after me and my family”. This has become a
way of thinking.
I have genuine concern for the many who have absolute needs such
as those who are disabled and cannot work. We will make sure
they do not suffer. However there are many people who are able
bodied. We now have a string of governments that has arranged
the affairs of the country in such a way that the motivation for
people to take risks, to do things that are unusual, to work
hard, to get up early and to go to sleep late because they are
working hard all day, has been somewhat taken away. A principle
has been adopted that somehow it is an appropriate role of
government to take away from the person who has earned it and to
use it to subsidize the person who has not earned it.
Small business is important but we need to be careful the public
policy we develop is such that small business can survive and
thrive because it is successful, not because of having made the
correct political donations to the correct party and thereby
being eligible for subsidies from the government, which is a
legalized form of taking away from the person who earned it and
giving it to the person who did not earn it.
Am I opposed to small business loans? Absolutely not. I have
had experience with loans. I was fortunate in the sense that my
partner and I had a good business plan and good backing. We went
to an ordinary bank, got a loan, got our business started and
away it went. I wish I could say that it was very successful,
but unfortunately it was in the farming industry and in the end
it did not work out that well, again partially because of
government policies.
I emphasize that some people have very good ideas but do not
have the capital or have not accumulated capital in their
lifetime to be able to access loans. In this amendment we are
saying that perhaps there is a role to play. I know that my
colleagues and I have had representations from some individuals
who say the Small Business Loans Act and the small business
financing act have some merit and have helped people to get on
their feet who otherwise would never have been able to do so.
Let us make sure that we do not put the taxpayers at a huge risk
that ordinary financial institutions are not willing to take. If
the bank down the street is not willing to give an individual
with a business plan a loan, maybe it is because the business
plan is not workable. Maybe it is because there are too many
flaws. Maybe it is because the individual has not demonstrated a
record of financial accountability.
For us to say that we should limit the value of the loan is a
valid comment.
1335
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to
the amendments to the legislation. I want to give brief
consideration to why I am a little concerned about the
legislation in terms of dealing with funding to small business.
When funding businesses government does not often look at
whether or not the businesses are new or whether they will be in
competition with existing businesses that have not had government
funding. People who have worked very hard, made sacrifices over
a number of years, and built up businesses in communities often
find themselves suddenly confronted with a government subsidized
business that is working in competition with them.
To the business person who has worked for a number of years to
establish a business it does not seem fair that the government is
subsidizing someone to actually work in competition with them in
an unfair and unequal way.
One has to ask what is the priority of government in funding
small businesses and what the parameters of the decision to fund
them should be. A colleague of mine has put forward an amendment
that no two people in the same family can apply for a loan for
the same business. This shows that the legislation has serious
flaws.
If a business cannot get funding from a traditional source and
goes to a government source of funding, it would only make sense
that it be very controlled as to the risks of the taxpayer. It
should be quite obvious although not explicit that the government
should show due diligence in making sure that there is only one
loan going to a particular family business.
Another motion under Group No. 2 talks about the level of
funding that should be available. The amendment is suggesting
that the level of $250,000 as set out in the legislation is far
too extravagant. It is too great of a risk for taxpayers to put
funds into a business that cannot get funding through a
traditional source.
I will expand upon that concept. We have banks. As a matter of
fact we now have a commitment from two major banks to establish a
single bank responsible for lending money to small businesses.
They have committed a substantial number of dollars solely to
funding small businesses. If I remember a comment made by the
CEO of the Royal Bank not too long ago, presently only a portion
of that funding is used. I believe the number he mentioned was
something like 70% to 80%. This means that 20% of the funds put
aside for small businesses has not even been lent out.
The people who are applying for support from a government agency
for whatever reason, and generally it is because the risk is too
great, have not been given funding from traditional sources.
When we start asking taxpayers to risk a maximum of $250,000 per
applicant we are asking them to put at risk a fairly large sum of
money.
1340
It is interesting that the average size of loans made under the
old program was only $65,000. We have to ask why the government
would feel it should raise the maximum loan amount from $100,000
to $250,000 when the average loan is only $65,000. It seems to
me that the $100,000 was plenty. It allowed some discretion on
the part of loans officer or the people putting together the
finance package. It allowed them a considerable amount of
support. The fact that most successful applicants only get
two-thirds of it shows that $100,000 was adequate.
We have to question why the government feels it is necessary to
amend the legislation. Why does the government feel it is
necessary to put that kind of financial support behind small
businesses?
Having been a small business person I do not want to say that
the government has no role to play. However I am not convinced
through my experience with community leadership. I watched
governments fund industries that had no hope of success. The
government ended up having to eat the investment in industries
that had no hope of success. I have seen governments do the same
with small businesses. I have to ask whether it should be an
area of federal government involvement.
The government has no business in areas of responsibility where
it is not needed. This is one area where we have private
institutions, banks, credit unions and other areas where people
can get financial help. If they cannot it is often because their
proposal is not solid enough. Maybe individuals need to be
encouraged to make sure their business plans, concepts and ideas
are solid enough to make their own sacrifice and not look to the
taxpayers to make a like sacrifice for them.
I have great difficulty supporting the legislation although some
of the amendments proposed by colleagues, particularly the
amendment limiting the number of family members who can apply for
a loan and lowering or keeping the level at $100,000 instead of
$250,000, gives me an opportunity to say I can support it to a
lesser degree. I question whether the federal government would
be satisfying more Canadian taxpayers and Canadians in general if
it were to put that kind of money into health care, education and
those areas where Canadians feel the federal government should
put its dollars.
That is all I will say on the bill and amendments. I want to
take a few minutes to talk about the government's response to
debate on the legislation. It is deplorable that the government
has chosen one more time to seek closure on debate. I question
that in any democracy a government should have the right to say,
because it does not agree with what we have to say, that it will
not allow us to be heard.
It is shameful the government continues to use closure to limit
debate and to try to minimize any criticism on the legislation it
brings before the House. If it honestly feels that the
legislation it brings before the House is good, it should not
have any problem with people challenging and debating it. If the
government cannot defend it in the House of Commons perhaps it
should withdraw the legislation and come up with something that
is better and meets the needs of the Canadian public.
1345
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after
listening to the comments today I am a little surprised at what
appears to be a lack of knowledge of Bill C-53. I say that with
all due respect to my colleagues who have just spoken.
Members seem to think that there are no fees involved in this
loan and that people who qualify for small business loans do not
necessarily pay for them. The fact is that they pay
administration fees and higher rates of interest. The loans are
there to help those businesses which otherwise would not be able
to get loans.
That being said, I want to speak specifically to the motions
that were presented in Group No. 2. The first motion, presented
by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, proposes that persons
not be related. Obviously he has not read clause 3 where it is
already defined.
If he would recall correctly from our discussions at committee,
we had a very long and lengthy discussion on this very topic when
we discussed the proposed regulations that will be coming down
later. As a committee we wanted to ensure that everyone is
entitled to apply.
We also wanted to ensure that one business is not beyond the
aggregate amount, which I believe is already covered in the bill
and regulations will further define it. As well, we wanted to
ensure that if a husband and wife are in separate businesses
neither one is prohibited from being able to apply for funding.
I also want to speak briefly to Motion No. 3. This is a
proposal that would reduce the loan amount under the program to
$100,000 from $250,000. Again I think it would be important for
members opposite to go back and read the testimony that we heard
at committee, the discussions that took place and to look at the
groups that appeared, the witnesses and those who had benefited
from the Small Business Loans Act in the past.
The fact is that even representatives of the Canadian Federation
of Independent Business said we should not go back. They
suggested that it stay at $250,000. They suggested that it not
be raised. They said that in the past they would have liked to
have seen it lowered, but now that it is there we should not go
back. They also suggested that we look at the types of
businesses, and that is being done. They suggested that we look
at who needs assistance and where the difficulties are in lending
practices.
I remind my colleagues on the other side that the average loan
amount is around $60,000 to $70,000 under the SBLA presently.
Even though the limit is $250,000, the majority are falling much
below that. There is no research at the present time which
proves that larger loans pose any greater risk than smaller
loans.
Several groups appeared before the committee. We asked the
opposition for witnesses. The only groups that came before us to
discuss the SBLA were those which had used the SBLA and were
successful businesses. Some had borrowed to the tune of the
$250,000 limit. Some of them told us that if the limit of
$250,000 had not been there they would not be in business today.
They have gone on to develop businesses that are worth $2 million
or $3 million. Those businesses started with a small government
assistance loan.
Let us remember that the assistance is paid for by higher than
normal rates. If these businesses could go to a bank and get a
regular small business loan without the assistance of the
government or a guarantee then they would pay a lesser rate of
interest. They are paying more money for this loan, but they are
still doing well in their businesses. They were able to make it
and survive once they got their foot in the door. If it was not
for the government's guarantee they would not have been able to
get that loan and they would not be in business today.
Motion No. 4 is pretty straightforward. Motion No. 5 is very
much a housekeeping amendment because when the bill was
originally introduced there were 85 loans under the Fisheries
Improvement Loans Act that were still in existence. Those will
soon be taken off the books, so we are just trying to ensure that
the act and the legislation as it is written is as clean and
understandable as possible.
I want to take this opportunity to talk about the successes of
the Small Business Loans Act, the importance of continuing it,
the new name for it—the Canada small business financing act—and
the fact that so many businesses today will be able to get their
foot in the door because it exists. The guarantee gives a little
reassurance, when necessary; an extra push to get them in the
door.
1350
Many witnesses appeared before the committee, in particular from
the restaurant sector, who said it is very difficult. We have
spoken to the banks and we continue to speak to the banks at
committee about the restaurant sector in particular, which has
difficulty getting small business loans from banks. New people
in business do not necessarily have long credit histories or long
records of doing business and they need that extra assistance.
We want to be there for them as a government.
The government knows that it is small business that is creating
jobs. We know the potential that exists in Canada. We want to
ensure that all small businesses have access to financing. That
is what the Canadian small business financing act, Bill C-53, is
all about.
I am a little disappointed by some of the amendments that are
before us today because we had many of these discussions at
committee. We discussed very thoroughly the size of a loan and
the importance of it and the fact that individuals, to be able to
have their businesses, need to be able to renovate, need to be
able to open their doors and to run a good operation. We also
discussed the differences between different types of businesses,
about leaseholds, about existing businesses, about how people can
move on and what people want to do.
It is a little disappointing that we are discussing loan limits.
I really find it surprising, considering the fact that we have
moved beyond $100,000 to $250,000. Evidence before us indicated
that some people do need that much. Even the Canadian Federation
of Independent Business, as I said earlier, said not to go back.
There are many, many success stories. We had people before us
who talked about a building they had bought. They renovated it
and leased out space. They were able to attract tenants and to
become a centre for that community. If it was not for the Canada
Small Business Loans Act, soon to be called the Canadian small
business financing act, they would not be in business today.
They would not have had that opportunity.
They put up a lot of their own dollars. The government
guaranteed up to $250,000. That was it. In this case, in
particular, each of the individuals matched that with their own
personal money and put up their own personal guarantees as well.
There is a lot of investment in making small businesses grow, in
making small businesses happen and I think as Canadians we want
to see this happening from coast to coast.
We know that different areas go through different times. We
know there is difficulty in financing from time to time. We are
trying to ensure that everyone has access and everyone has
opportuntiy.
Some ideas are too new for the banks to feel comfortable with in
the normal scheme of lending. Again, some people do not have a
credit history or a credit risk history. It is important that we
be there as a government and that we continue to deal with small
business.
I speak from earlier days, before I was elected, when I was
practising law and the administration of loans. I think it is
important that people realize that the borrowers are paying a
higher rate of interest. They are paying a fee. It is not a
freebie. It is not that the government gives money and gets
nothing back. The majority of these loans will be paid over
time. Sure, there will be losses, but the majority will provide
jobs, the majority will be successful. Many of these businesses
will go on to hire people and will continue to develop.
One group in particular that appeared before us started very
small and now has several tenants. They are collecting thousands
of dollars in rent and they are able to continue.
I think it is important that we all participate in the debate
today. I am sure that many of my colleagues will join me in
reminding the opposition that the SBLA in the past has done a lot
of good for small business and will continue to do a lot of good
in the future. We need to ensure that the economy moves forward,
we need to ensure that small business has access to this money
and we need to ensure that small business can create jobs.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous
consent for the following motion:
That all remaining amendments at the report stage of Bill C-53 be
deemed to have been read by the Chair and to have been duly moved
and seconded and that, when the time allocated for debate has
expired, the amendments will be deemed to have been put and a
recorded division requested.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Do members wish to proceed in this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I am going to recognize the hon. member on
debate, but I am going to give you the option. I think you might
get two minutes into your speech before I have to interrupt you.
Those two minutes might give us time for a few extra statements
by members. I will recognize you. You will be given the floor
and you will have your full time right after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1355
[English]
OSTEOPOROSIS AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to inform the House that November is Osteoporosis
Awareness Month.
Osteoporosis is an insidious chronic disease characterized by
bone loss.
This disease makes people susceptible to hip, spine and wrist
fractures, often leading to reduced activity and quality of life.
Long term hospitalization and nursing home placement can be the
result.
Osteoporosis is most common among women 60 to 69, and 42% of
women over 79 have this disease. Younger women and men can also
develop osteoporosis.
The month of November presents an opportunity for all Canadians
to “bone up” and protect themselves.
On behalf of the House, I commend the Osteoporosis Society of
Canada for its efforts and wish the society a very successful
Osteoporosis Awareness Month.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, RCMP Staff
Sgt. Fraser Fiegenweld took the fall for the botched Airbus
investigation. The extent of Fiegenweld's responsibility was
never fully determined as he was allowed to retire from the force
before his disciplinary hearing. As a result, Canadians do not
know who is responsible for the Airbus fiasco.
It appears that history is about to repeat itself. Once again
an RCMP officer has been singled out as a possible scapegoat.
This time “Hughie” will take the fall.
If this is true, RCMP officer Hugh Stewart will shoulder the
full blame for the pepper spraying of students at last fall's
APEC summit, while any role the Prime Minister played may never
be revealed.
For the sake of justice and the reputation of our beleaguered
RCMP, I implore the Prime Minister to establish an independent
judicial inquiry to ensure the complete truth is revealed and the
integrity of the RCMP is maintained.
* * *
OXFORD COUNTY
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October
30 I had an opportunity to visit telecommunications projects in
my county with a number of distinguished international visitors.
Visitors from Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Honduras, India,
Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, the Philippines, Senegal, South Africa,
Suriname, Tanzania, Uganda and Vietnam visited Oxford county.
The tour showcased Canadian expertise in rural
telecommunications and provided the international visitors with
firsthand insight into how groups in the county are using new
information technologies to improve their services to our
citizens.
Oxford County is a leader in rural connectiveness. In the first
round of community access program funding Oxford County libraries
received 25% of the total approvals in Ontario. Now we are
building an integrated network across Oxford County.
I am pleased to see the county expertise shared with
representatives of this international delegation. The visit was
a success due to the hard work—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bourassa.
* * *
[Translation]
LEBANON
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was
Lebanese Independence Day. Tomorrow, Lebanon's new president,
General Émile Lahoud, will be sworn in.
On behalf of the Canada-Lebanon Parliamentary Friendship Group, I
would like to tell our Lebanese parliamentarian friends and the
Lebanese Canadian community that we are committed to Lebanon and
to the development of co-operative relations between our two
countries.
[English]
As Canadian parliamentarians, we are fully supportive of the
construction process taking place in that country. We are also
in favour of the full and immediate implementation of United
Nations resolution 425 regarding the integrity of the Lebanese
territory.
[Translation]
On behalf of the chairman of the Canada-Lebanon Parliamentary
Friendship Group, my colleague, the hon. member for
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, who will be representing the Canadian
government tomorrow at President Lahoud's swearing-in ceremony,
in Beirut, I would like to wish every success to the new
Lebanese president and express our solidarity with our Lebanese
parliamentarian friends in meeting the great challenges ahead.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when a Liberal government introduced the
Canada Health Act and national medicare 30 years ago there was a
commitment for the federal government to provide 50% of the
funding. Under this Liberal government that commitment has
dropped to 11.5%, yet it claims that health care is its top
priority.
This government spends millions of dollars a year funding golf
courses, ski hills and banks—not only Canadian banks, but
foreign banks as well—yet it claims that health care is its top
priority.
1400
While the premiers are unanimous in requesting that this Liberal
government restore some of the billions of dollars that it cut
out of health care, the response is that it would be foolhardy
to do so.
The only thing that is foolhardy is to believe that health care
is this government's top priority.
* * *
GREY CUP
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again Winnipeg has demonstrated why it is the greatest city in
the world. Despite the fact that our beloved Blue Bombers
decided to take the year off Winnipeg nonetheless put on a
terrific show for the rest of Canada.
In typical Winnipeg style more people offered to volunteer than
were needed. Volunteers greeted incoming visitors, showed them
the many wonders to be found in the city with the warmest heart
in Canada. They taught them how to party and they saw them off
at the airport.
Hubert Kleysen, a resident of the best federal constituency in
the greatest city in the number one country in the world,
organized the festival of lights parade honouring Winnipeg's
central role in transportation.
The halftime show included the largest fireworks display ever
put on in Manitoba. Susan Aglukark sang O Canada. Fred Penner
and Donovan Bailey entertained young and old alike and, oh yeah,
a couple of teams played some football.
The energy to be found in Winnipeg was felt by those teams and
they played what is being called the greatest Grey Cup in the
history of the league. Once again Winnipeg comes through and if
that is not enough good news I am told that next year the Blue
Bombers are coming out of retirement.
* * *
[Translation]
JOURNÉE NATIONALE DES PATRIOTES
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is with pride that I rise to recognize the Journée nationale
des patriotes, held yesterday in Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu to pay
tribute to these men and women who fought for the fundamental
values of freedom and democracy.
By demanding greater civil and political rights, a truly
democratic and responsible government, and their homeland's
independence, the Patriots have had a profound impact on the
development of Quebec and Canada.
Regrettably however, this government has misrepresented the
sacred trust of responsible government. Given how the Liberal
government is spiriting away the surplus in the EI fund for
instance, we have every reason to wonder what has become of this
principle that cost the Patriots so dearly.
A government that is answerable to the legislative assembly and
does not make any expenditure that has not previously been
approved by Parliament is part of the Patriots' precious legacy.
I urge cabinet to act accordingly, that is like a responsible
government.
* * *
[English]
STANLEY FAULDER
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 17
days remain before Jasper, Alberta native Stanley Faulder is to
be executed by lethal injection in Huntsville State Prison in
Texas.
Stanley Faulder's case presents some very troubling issues.
Although in custody since 1977, Canadian officials were only
notified of Mr. Faulder's situation in 1991, an apparent breach
of the Vienna convention on consular representation which meant
that Faulder did not have access to proper legal representation.
No juror has ever heard testimony about the brain damage Mr.
Faulder suffered in childhood that left his behaviour
occasionally unpredictable. And no court has dealt with the fact
that James Grigson, the forensic psychiatrist whose testimony was
critical in convicting Stanley Faulder, was later expelled from
the American Psychiatric Association for unethical and
unscientific testimony in death penalty trials.
I urge my colleagues in the House and every Canadian interested
in justice to write to Texas Governor George W. Bush and the
Texas Board of Parole and Pardons seeking clemency for Stanley
Faulder.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November 30,
Quebeckers will make an important decision for the future of
Quebec.
They will have to choose between a Liberal government whose
priority is economic growth and another government that wants to
hold a referendum, whatever the cost.
They will have to choose between a Liberal government that wants
to improve the Canadian federation and another government that
wants to continue its endless battle with the federal
government, to the detriment of Quebeckers.
They will have to choose between a Liberal government that is
working for Quebec's interests and another government that is
focussing its time and energy on Quebec's separation from
Canada.
This is the choice that Quebec will have to make on November 30.
My mind is made up. I will be voting Liberal and I urge all
Quebeckers to do the same, for a strong Quebec in a united
Canada.
* * *
[English]
GREY CUP
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while recognizing that national unity is a sensitive
issue, I do feel it is important to draw to the attention of the
House that yesterday the best football team from western Canada
beat the best football team from central Canada in the annual
Grey Cup classic.
The Calgary Stampeders from the heart of Reform country beat the
Hamilton Tiger Cats from the heart of Copps country by a score of
26 to 24.
1405
We offer our sincerest congratulations to Sid Gooch, Wally
Buono, Jeff Garcia, Mark McLoughlin and all the rest of the
Calgary Stampeders. We also want to offer our congratulations to
Ron Lancaster, Don Southern, Danny McManus, Darrel Flutie and all
the rest of the Hamilton Tiger Cats.
Congratulations to the Canadian Football League for a great Grey
Cup classic.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Parti Quebecois is still spreading
confusion. On the one hand, he talks about the need to discuss
social union; on the other, he wants to prepare the way for a
referendum on Quebec's separation.
The choice on November 30 is a clear one. A vote for the
Liberals will be a clear vote for keeping Quebec within Canada
and for economic growth.
A vote for the Liberals will foil the Parti Quebecois' wily
efforts to prepare the way for another referendum. A vote for
the Liberals will be a vote in favour of moving Quebec forward
economically and socially.
On November 30, it will be up to Quebeckers to take a stand in
the debate on the future of our country.
On November 30, I will be voting Liberal and I urge all my
fellow Quebeckers to do the same.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with
their return to Parliament Hill the merchant marines' fight for
justice continues. It is very disturbing today to see that the
concerns of the merchant navy veterans remain unresolved many
years after faithfully serving their country. The current
treatment of merchant marine veterans is one that I personally,
and as the federal NDP spokesperson for veterans affairs, find
deeply disheartening.
Just as other brave Canadian service personnel, the merchant
marines served our country proudly and steadfastly. They risked
their lives to transport to our armed forces the necessary
provisions for war. Our merchant marines paid a high price for
their service, suffering a higher rate of loss in the second
world war than any other branch of the Canadian services. Yet the
surviving veterans have received and continue to receive unequal
treatment at the hands of this government. When it came time to
serve their country, Canada's merchant marines did so with
dedication and courage equal to their military comrades.
Why then are the merchant marines not receiving equal treatment
in terms of veterans benefits and access to programs and
services? There is no reason to continue to deny the merchant
marines the rights and benefits due them. I urge—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Repentigny.
* * *
[Translation]
YVES BLAIS
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
sadness and emotion that I rise today to mark the passing of my
friend, Yves Blais, the MNA for the riding of Masson.
Mr. Blais was a member of the Quebec national assembly since
1981. I therefore had the privilege of getting to know him and
of working with him and his supporters.
Yves Blais loved his work but, above all, he loved his fellow
citizens. In spite of his health problems, he was convinced he
could still be with them and work for them for some time to
come.
Yves Blais was an enthusiastic and convincing sovereignist.
He would often say “I am a sovereignist with hopes and dreams”.
He will be greatly missed, but we will remember him for his
fervour and determination in working to build our country.
I offer my condolences to his family, his friends, his
supporters, and to his great companion and friend, Percival
Broomfield.
Yves Blais, we thank you.
* * *
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
referendum race is on again with the PQ.
This weekend, at a rally held in the Quebec City region, Lucien
Bouchard made a plea for sovereignty. He does want a referendum.
On the weekend, the social union was all but forgotten.
A vote for the PQ is a vote for a referendum. A vote for the PQ
is a vote for separating Quebec from the rest of Canada. A vote
for the PQ is a vote for political uncertainty in Quebec for
another mandate.
On November 30, Quebeckers must vote for economic growth. They
must vote for job creation. They must vote for their Liberal
candidate.
* * *
[English]
BILL C-68
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to express the displeasure and disbelief of all law abiding
gun owners in St. John's West and indeed all of Canada. This
poorly thought out law, Bill C-68, which requires legitimate
hunters all across the country to register their rifles and
shotguns, is still subject to a supreme court ruling.
To continue to spend a significant amount of taxpayer dollars
to advertise this program is absurd.
1410
At a time when all policing agencies across the country are
crying out for more money so they can do their jobs properly,
government is spending an additional $1.3 million to advertise a
law that will have no significant impact on crime. This
advertising campaign is geared to rural Canada where crime rates
are lowest, once again showing the absurdity of this law. This
$1.3 million advertising campaign should be cancelled and the
money redirected to fighting crime or, even more appropriately,
to the victims of criminal acts.
* * *
HIV-AIDS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
November 23 to November 30 marks the eighth annual National AIDS
Awareness Week. The theme for this year's campaign is the faces
of HIV-AIDS. Communities across Canada will help increase
awareness about AIDS and raise funds for services and programs
through red ribbon campaigns and other activities.
HIV-AIDS continues to be an international issue. Canadians have
taken a proactive approach in dealing with this growing epidemic
in the Canadian strategy on HIV-AIDS. Our national strategy
focuses on research, treatment, care and public education. I
believe it is an excellent example of how all levels of
government can come together and work in the best interests of
Canadian citizens. I encourage all members of the Chamber and all
Canadians to support National AIDS Awareness Week activities in
their ridings and their communities.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
few finer examples of Canadian wartime success and magnificent
effort can be found than in the annals of the battle of the
Atlantic during which merchant seamen sailed the enemy infested
sea to keep the Allies supplied. Canada's merchant navy of World
War II kept England alive while the Atlantic war tide turned
toward victory in 1943.
Now, fifty years hence, Canada's merchant navy veterans are
still held hostage to unresolved concerns. Determined veterans
threaten to fast on the steps of this House to garner government
will to correct what has been wrong for far too long. Merchant
navy veterans are not seeking great wealth, only the respect and
benefits given their armed forces brethren, to be recognized as
war veterans, to have prisoner of war status, to have
compensation for years of denial of equality and to have
recognition on ceremonial days.
The minister must respond to our merchant navy—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, a month has
gone by since the standing committee on national defence tabled
its report on quality of life.
After visiting military bases across the country and the
Canadian troops in Bosnia, the committee made 86 vitally
important recommendations.
Today, unconfirmed reports are saying that the Minister of
National Defence is asking cabinet for $700 million in order to
implement the recommendations.
Is cabinet aware that the Canadian forces are facing a crisis?
Is cabinet aware that some members of the forces do not earn
enough to feed their family or even to heat their homes in
winter? Is cabinet aware that the families of certain pilots
are terrified every time they head out on a mission in
helicopters that are over 30 years old?
Are the members of cabinet listening to their own minister? Are
they not concerned about the life and future of the 60,000
members of the Canadian armed forces?
* * *
INTERNATIONAL FISHING DAY
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday,
hundreds of young people from the Lafontaine community centre in
Néguac took part in a march and in the raising of the orange
flag. This was in preparation for the first international
fishing day.
[English]
I was fortunate to spend some time on Saturday with the good
people of Néguac in my riding of Miramichi to mark this important
day. The livelihood and way of life of so many fishers have
depended on the sea for centuries. However, over the past
decades overfishing and environmental mismanagement have led to
the problems we are facing today. Fishers from across Canada are
on the Hill today to draw attention to the need to work together
to protect the fish stocks of our waters.
I congratulate and thank Madam Lucie Breau of Néguac for
organizing these special events in my community and for all those
who are here on the Hill today to celebrate with us the orange
drapeau.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): One down
and one to go, Mr. Speaker, Now it is the Prime Minister's turn
to come clean.
Six weeks ago the solicitor general was caught red handed
prejudicing the RCMP complaints inquiry, but for six weeks the
Prime Minister's response was evasion, excuses, covering up, and
even attacking people who asked the hard questions.
Why did the Prime Minister not fire the solicitor general six
weeks ago when it might have meant something with respect to the
RCMP complaints commission?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not fire the solicitor general. He is an
extremely honourable member of the House.
Because of the constant attack from the opposition he decided it
was too difficult for him to do all his work and he decided to
offer me his resignation. I have accepted his resignation with
regret because he was a good minister. He is an excellent member
of parliament. He is a man of great integrity and honour and
that is why I was happy to defend him.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for six weeks the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime
Minister have been rabidly defending the integrity of the
solicitor general. Even today, after he has been removed from
his position for compromising the RCMP complaints inquiry, the
Prime Minister defends him rather than give the proper
explanation.
Is the Prime Minister's ethical standard to evade, to excuse and
to cover up as long as possible and only to act when he is
absolutely cornered?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only thing the government wants is for the
commission, which exists under the laws of parliament, to look
into all the controversy of APEC as soon as possible.
The government has absolutely no fear of the commission. That
is why we made available all the documentation and all the
personnel it wanted so that it could look into all the facts. We
want the truth to be known completely as soon as possible.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if that is true, if the Prime Minister has nothing to
fear, will he then appoint a full blown judicial inquiry and will
he testify under oath before that inquiry with respect to his
role in the APEC security staffing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the commission exists under the laws of parliament to
look into this matter. We want the commission to do its work
absolutely.
I said and I repeat that the government is willing to help the
commission as much as it wants because we have nothing to hide.
The RCMP has done its job and always did its job. Now if it has
to explain some things it will do it and the commission will have
access to any people that it wants to interview. Even my own
chief of staff has offered to testify if it wants him to.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this resignation is the last nail in the coffin for the public
complaints commission.
Peter Donolo from the Prime Minister's Office said today that
the government does not consider the resignation an admission
that the commission process is tainted.
My question is very simple. If the former solicitor general did
not taint the process, why in the world did he resign?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was because the solicitor general was attacked
unfairly by the opposition day after day.
Being a man of honour, he knew that it was not giving him all
the time he needed to devote all his energy to his job. As a man
who has great respect for his job in the House of Commons, and as
he could not give all his effort to the job that needed all his
attention, he decided to step down and I have accepted that with
great regret.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the only thing worse than that behaviour is defending it. We are
going to attack the government for 30 days more, for weeks, and
the only bonus would be that this Prime Minister would step down
at the end of it.
On the very day that the solicitor general quit the Prime
Minister is still stonewalling and talking about what an
honourable fellow he is. The only way to get to the bottom of
this is an independent inquiry with an independent judge to find
out what the Prime Minister's independent involvement was.
Will the Prime Minister stand right now and announce immediately
a full judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of this and quit
this charade that has been going on for weeks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope the opposition will let the inquiry, which has
been set under the laws of parliament, do its job.
It is quite evident that the opposition does not want the
inquiry to work. It wants to postpone it. It cannot attack the
government on many fronts so it uses the inquiry. This is why
the Reform Party is now behind the Tory Party in the polls.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general's resignation is clear proof that he had no
credibility left whatsoever. The solicitor general had no other
choice. The Prime Minister has no other choice either.
Is he going to bow to the evidence at last and call for the
creation of a commission of inquiry to cast full light on this
affair so that everyone can know the truth Is he going to go
right back to square one with the inquiry process?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
an independent commission of inquiry was struck under a law of
Parliament, and is in operation at present. We have no
intention of going back to square one. We want it to finish its
work.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, lets
us keep in mind that this entire business of APEC and
“peppergate” has its roots in actions by the PMO.
Now that he has lost his cover, will the Prime Minister create
an independent commission of inquiry in order to cast full light
on the actions of the RCMP, the actions of his own office, and
his very own actions, if he is still able to recall them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, this is exactly what the commission started to do months
ago, and we hope that the House of Commons will let the
commission get on with its work as the law of Parliament
requires it to.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister needs to understand that the entire APEC inquiry
process has been sabotaged by the former solicitor general.
Does the minister not consider it essential to go back to square
one with the inquiry process so that everyone will know
everything that happened in the APEC affair between the PMO and
the RCMP?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the commission of inquiry is entitled to ask any and all
questions that it may wish to ask. Besides, my chief of staff
and Mr. Carle have already offered to testify and have said “If
you wish to interview any other public servants, they are
available to you”.
The commission has been working for months, and if people want
to know the truth, let us allow the commission to get on with
its work. I have no intention of going back to square one.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everyone
wants to know what really happened between the Prime Minister,
the PMO and the RCMP in the shameful events of the Vancouver
APEC summit.
The sabotaged RCMP commission cannot cast full light on these
questions.
Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's answers that, by
sacrificing the hon. member for Fredericton, he has done
everything he was prepared to do and now thinks he can get away
without an independent judicial inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
commission of inquiry is working on this at the present time,
and we want it to ask all the questions it has to ask, and to
answer all the questions the hon. member has asked.
1425
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, now that
the solicitor general and the Prime Minister's cover are gone and
now that the public complaints commission is hopelessly
compromised, an independent judicial inquiry must be permitted to
get to the truth about the role of the Prime Minister and his
staff in the APEC fiasco.
When will the Prime Minister do the right thing and appoint a
judicial inquiry?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are three commissioners on this inquiry. They are
three honourable people who have been in the job for months. They
have invested a lot of time and effort into it.
We want this tribunal, set by the laws of parliament, to look
into the operation of the RCMP, to do its job as quickly as
possible and to interview all the people which it decides to
interview.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is the only living, breathing Canadian who
continues to maintain that the former solicitor general did
nothing wrong.
First Hughie was going to take the fall. Now the former
solicitor general has taken the fall. How many more people will
have to take the fall to protect the Prime Minister and his
staff? How many more people will take the fall before the Prime
Minister appoints a judicial inquiry into his handling of the
APEC fiasco?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, she wants me to name an inquiry. An inquiry was named a
long time ago by the laws parliament, with three independent
people who are looking into that.
I want them to do their job. I want the opposition to let them
do their job. Three times the leader of the NDP made
affirmations in the House and later when she was proven wrong
made no apologies to anybody.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new solicitor general.
Now that the Prime Minister has one less fall guy it is time to
focus on the real issue, that is one of serious political
interference by the Prime Minister's Office at last year's APEC
summit.
The public complaints commission has never had a mandate to
investigate these allegations. The government has an obligation
to pursue the truth over the entire APEC affair. When will the
new solicitor general, in his first exercise of office, call a
complete independent judicial inquiry into the security at APEC?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this question is a repetition of all the other
questions.
At this time we have an inquiry under the laws of parliament. I
have said and I repeat that it can ask questions on all subjects
it wants to of anybody in the bureaucracy, and even in my office,
and not only of the RCMP.
It has already started its work. I want it to finish it as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had such confidence in this
process he would not have allowed his solicitor general to twist
in the breeze for six weeks.
Why does he persist with Bill C-44 which will allow the
government to fire the chair of the RCMP Public Complaints
Commission at will. Will the solicitor general admit that a
mistake is there? Will the Prime Minister remove this sword that
hangs over the public complaints commission in the form of Bill
C-44, which further politicizes the entire process?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like the member to listen to the answers that have been
given in the House.
I announced last week that the government would amend that
section in Bill C-44 so that CBC is seen to be as it is with all
the possible freedom in its operational and program requirements.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said the commission was not
compromised. He can say it until he is blue in the face. The
solicitor general's embarrassing resignation this morning proves
that it was compromised. If this had happened in a court of law
there would have been a mistrial.
Could the new solicitor general tell us that he will take his
responsibilities on and ask the Prime Minister to create an
independent judicial inquiry immediately to get to the bottom of
this issue?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general has been the solicitor general for
an hour. He has taken over the job and has to be briefed on
everything.
I repeat that we have a commission that wants to do its job, but
the opposition is not interested in the truth.
The opposition just wants to debate that in the House of Commons
because it cannot find anything else to seriously attack this
government on.
1430
If the opposition really wants the truth, it will let the
commission do its work and not ask it to start all over again.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, blaming the opposition for the solicitor general's
resignation is like Brian Mulroney blaming the Prime Minister
when he won the election.
The solicitor general resigned, a very serious resignation. The
lawyers for the government and the RCMP have applied to have the
APEC commission quashed. It is the government, the RCMP and the
solicitor general's people who want this commission quashed.
When will the government give us an independent judicial inquiry
just like its own lawyers are asking for in Vancouver?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat again that the commission will finish its job.
It was set up under a law of parliament, a law introduced in
parliament and voted on by parliament. The member of parliament
was a Tory at that time and voted for that law and today he is
attacking the leader who got him to the House of Commons at that
time.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In Nagano, the Minister of Canadian Heritage explained that she
could not intervene with the olympic committee to defend the
French language, because the committee was independent.
Why did the Minister of Canadian Heritage decide this time to
intervene with the Canadian olympic committee in the case of the
city hosting the 2010 games?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the hon. member opposite that her claim
that I did not intervene in the case of Nagano is absolutely
false.
I would ask her to withdraw the false remarks she just made in
this House.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
everyone thinks the minister should have abstained from
political meddling with the olympic committee.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister
not consider, once again, that one of his ministers was lacking
in judgment by intervening as the Minister of Canadian Heritage
did with the olympic association?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member does not remember, I will remind her that
in a letter written in the hand of Suzanne Tremblay dated August
14, 1998, she said “I remind you that during a similar incident
at the Nagano games—”
The Speaker: I would ask the minister not to use the members'
names.
Hon. Sheila Copps: In a letter written in the hand of the member
for Rimouski—Mitis, she says clearly that yes, I should have
intervened in the case of Nagano, and congratulated me on doing
so.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first
there was a Mountie named Hughie who was being set up to take the
fall. Now the solicitor general has sacrificed himself to
protect the Prime Minister. That still does not get at what
started this whole scandal.
My question is easy and is directed to the Prime Minister. What
role did he play in having a crackdown on the students at the
APEC conference last year?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the long answer is none.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, now
that the Prime Minister has said that, then surely he will be
happy to set up an inquiry and testify before the inquiry that
his answer is none.
The solicitor general said that a senior Mountie named Hughie
was going to take the fall. Take the fall for whom, the Prime
Minister?
1435
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that there is an inquiry and the inquiry will
do its job.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in my reply to the member
I thought he was still a member of parliament at that time but he
had turned to being a Socred in British Columbia. So I do not
know. Now he is a Reformer. It is difficult to follow. I am
sorry. I made a mistake.
* * *
[Translation]
ICEBREAKING POLICY
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week,
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans introduced the concept of
intraharbour transit to exempt the Quebec City-Lévis ferry
service from icebreaking charges. However, the Sorel and
Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola ferries also run an intraharbour service.
Why, therefore, has the minister not announced an exemption for
the Sorel—Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola ferry service?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week, I replied to several questions on this
topic, and I pointed out that we were considering what we heard
about the region's industry. When we have considered all
submissions, we will announce our fee schedule.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when all
is said and done, does the minister realize that it is not just
the ferries, but Quebec shipping in its entirety that will be
penalized by his unfair policy on icebreaking fees?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the idea is to recover 17.5%
of costs, leaving Canadian taxpayers to cover the remaining
82.5%. Two-thirds of vessels will be foreign owned.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to be implying that the
statements made by his former solicitor general did not prejudice
the RCMP complaints inquiry. But there are two affidavits before
that inquiry where his solicitor general, referring to someone
being investigated by that inquiry, said “Oh Hughie. Oh you
mean Hughie” and commented to the effect that Hughie might have
to take “a” or “the” “hit” or “fall” for that.
Is the Prime Minister saying that that statement by his former
solicitor general did not prejudice the RCMP complaints
commission?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the affidavit of November 18, 1998 by Frederick
Toole, the gentleman who was there, it very clearly said that in
no way anything Mr. Scott said could affect the outcome of the
inquiry. Some lawyers are arguing that at this moment in front
of the commission and I do not want to comment. Let the
commission do its work.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that affidavit from which the Prime Minister just read
and which he acknowledges must be valid also contains these words
“Oh Hughie. Oh you mean Hughie” and commented to the effect
that Hughie might have to take a hit or a fall.
Is the Prime Minister saying that this statement, not the one he
read, the one I read, that that does not prejudice the RCMP
complaints commission?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a debate going on at this moment in front of
the commission. The commission will look into the matter. The
commission exists because there is a law of parliament which gave
the commission the authority. It is being debated at this time
in front of the commission. Just let the commission do its work.
That is the only thing I am asking of the Leader of the
Opposition.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the premiers of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan asked the
federal government again, as they did last summer in Saskatoon,
to restore by the next budget funding that was cut from health
and to stop interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
My question is for the Minister of Justice, who is responsible
for the social union. Can the minister tell us if the federal
government intends to settle the social union issue before the
end of 1998, as unanimously requested by the premiers?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is definitely in the federal government's interest
to co-operate with the provincial governments to improve one of
the world's best social unions, a union that the member, his
party and his leader in Quebec City seek to destroy.
* * *
[English]
HOUSING
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
winter sets in and the condition of the homeless grows more
serious and urgent in Canada's urban centres, I would like to ask
a question of the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services.
Would the government convene a meeting of interested parties,
including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, for the
purpose of launching an adequate program for the homeless for
this winter and for the years ahead?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are concerned
about the homeless situation. As a matter of fact, the Canadian
government has already contributed $300,000 to the task force
headed by Mrs. Ann Golden.
I understand that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is
involved in the discussion. CMHC is preparing regional
workshops. We hope we can combine this together in a national
conference. I am pleased to say that CMHC is also ready to give a
financial contribution so that this conference can be organized.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, today the Government of Ontario followed through with
its promise to compensate unilaterally pre-1986 and post-1990
hepatitis C victims. Recognizing the federal government's
failure to do the same, will the minister provide us with an
update on the unacceptable slow delivery of the compensation
package several months ago? What is the status of that package?
What is the minister doing to expedite the delivery?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in this context, I want to remind the member what the Government
of Canada has done.
We have committed $1.3 billion for those who have contracted
hepatitis C through the blood system; $800 million with the
provinces to settle the class action lawsuit; $300 million to
share the cost of medical services not covered by insurance for
those who got the disease at any time; $125 million to strengthen
the regulation of the blood system following on the
recommendations of Mr. Justice Krever; $50 million for research;
and $50 million for trace back programs.
We have taken our responsibilities very seriously. We have done
what is right in the interests of those who have this disease.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
merchant navy men are back up here on the Hill. They have been
wronged since returning to Canada after World War II. They were
denied the same benefits that were provided to other veterans.
Every other allied nation in the world has recognized and
compensated their merchant navy men, even Germany. The Dominion
Command of the Royal Canadian Legion called last week and fully
support the men. The Department of Veterans Affairs had over $46
million in lapsed funds in 1997, more than enough to compensate
these men.
Will the minister please give these brave men what they deserve,
or will he allow them to die fighting for their—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, seven years ago I was very proud as a member of the
opposition to put forward legislation with three other members
that would give merchant navy veterans the same benefits as other
veterans.
I am even more proud as the Minister of Veterans Affairs for
this government to write the final chapter that will give them
total fairness in all areas, not a few, not some, not many, not
most, but all, every single one.
The hon. member should get out of Wayne's world and get in the
real world.
1445
The Speaker: I would appeal to hon. members not to use
each other's names in question period.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the
province of Ontario announced hepatitis C compensation for every
single victim. No lawyers. No hassle. Just help. Does that
not prove Premier Harris has more compassion for hepatitis C
victims than this minister has in his whole body?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member was barely able to keep a straight face during
that question. He knows along with everybody else in this House
that it means no such thing.
To judge the measure of a government's commitment, look at what
the Government of Canada has done. It has dedicated $1.3 billion
to help. In terms of those before 1986 and after 1990, we have
taken the position that those who are sick should get care, not
cash; they should get treatment, not payment. That is the
approach taken by this government. We believe it is in the
interests of those who are sick.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Premier
Harris made the promise of compensation for all the victims and
today he delivered. This Liberal health minister made the
promise of compensation for a few victims and what has he
delivered? Zip. Nothing.
Do his actions not prove who really cares more for the victims
of hepatitis C? I am not interested in rhetoric.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when I met some weeks ago with my provincial counterparts in
Regina I offered to share the cost of medical services not
covered by insurance so that no one who contracted hepatitis C
through the blood system would have to pay out of pocket. I
offered up to $300 million to share that cost. I have yet to
have agreement from the minister of health for Ontario.
I wish Ontario would join with this government in making sure
that those who are sick are looked after properly. In Ontario
today it can cost up to $10,000 to get interferon, the only drug
that can be used. Will the Government of Ontario not work with
us to provide care to the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development keeps saying there is
nothing wrong with Liberal EI reforms. In my national tour on EI
I am hearing a different story from Canadians. In P.E.I. alone
4,000 islanders are now waiting six weeks to have their claims
processed. Does the minister believe this situation is
acceptable? Does he still believe there is nothing wrong with
Liberal EI reforms? If not, what is the minister going to do to
correct the situation?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I keep saying is that
this reform has been such an important one for Canadians that we
as a government will monitor very closely its impact and we will
make the right changes when they need to be made, as we did not
too long ago with the small weeks to address the concerns of my
Atlantic colleagues.
A number of problems have been raised. We used to talk about
the gappers. There used to be 7,500 gappers. That was the big
problem the NDP kept talking about. We are now down to under
2,000 gappers because we have been working at it. We are solving
the problems one after the other—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I trust the
new minister from New Brunswick will be more sensitive than her
colleague to the fate of the unemployed.
In my travels across the country, I met a young unemployed New
Brunswicker who confided in me about his despair. He had
accumulated 22 weeks of work, but this is not enough for a
first-time worker to be eligible for benefits. The young man is
no longer able to meet his payments. He is feeling suicidal.
What does the new minister from New Brunswick intend to do to
put an end to this discrimination being suffered by unemployed
young people?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the present time we have an
hours-based system. The hon. member is well aware that there are
many seasonal workers who benefit from the new system because
they work a high number of hours over a short time. That is
because, in the past, people were covered for only 30 or so
hours per week and if they got up to 60, the rest were not
covered.
1450
There are a number of situations where people are benefiting
considerably by the new program. The program was necessary, and
we continue to monitor labour market developments, to keep right
on top of them. I will be extremely open to any suggestions the
hon. member may wish to make to us after he has toured the rest
of the country.
* * *
[English]
YEAR 2000
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
just over 400 days to go, the year 2000 is quickly approaching.
If the government has not properly prepared there could be
serious problems in the delivery of essential services that
Canadians expect from their government.
Will the President of the Treasury Board assure this House today
that the federal government will be well prepared for the coming
of the new millennium?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Treasury Board is sparing no effort to be ready for January
1, 2000. At present, on government-wide critical systems, the
government is 70% ready.
However, we will not leave anything to chance. We are
continuing our efforts and we are hoping that in the next few
months we will be able to complete work on all the critical
systems in the government so that Canadian voters will be well
served.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tonight this House will vote on restoring $2 billion of
the $7 billion the Liberals have slashed from health care.
The Prime Minister has an opportunity to declare a ceasefire on
his attack on health care by calling off the whips for tonight's
vote.
Will the Prime Minister cease attempts to prevent Liberal
members from voting the will of their constituents on tonight's
vote to put $2 billion back into health care?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms prohibits
discrimination based on social condition and the legislation of
seven other provinces tends in the same direction, the Canadian
Human Rights Act is completely silently on the topic.
Will the Minister of Justice undertake to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act so as to prohibit discrimination based on
social condition?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably
aware, we are about to begin a broad review of the existing
provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act and I have every
reason to believe that the ground of social condition will be one
which many will suggest should be added to Canadian Human Rights
Act. I look forward to that discussion and the hon. member's
participation in that discussion when it happens.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government continues to ignore the crisis in the
Shamattawa First Nation. Four out of every five youths in the
community are addicted to solvents.
Last Friday the chief had another fruitless meeting with Indian
affairs. At the same time there was yet another solvent related
death in Shamattawa. A teenage boy, high on solvents, shot his
14 year old brother. This brings the death toll in the tiny
community to at least 22 solvent related deaths since 1992.
In light of this latest tragedy, will the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development overrule her department's
refusal to grant Shamattawa the healing centre and solvent
treatment beds it so desperately needs?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed there was a terrible
tragedy in the Shamattawa First Nation last week and our
sincerest sympathies and condolences go to the family of Charles
Redhead and to all community members in that first nation.
Indeed there is an issue before us in that community. I want to
recognize and thank the Minister of Health for the support that
he has shown that community in providing solvent abuse
professionals and mental health professionals.
We have to work together to deal with this chronic problem in
Shamattawa and we will do so.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
merchant navy men stopped their first hunger strike because they
were led to believe there were going to be negotiations and
discussions with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. These
discussions did not take place.
If the minister thinks what he is doing is right, why does he
not have the courage to sit down with these men in a room, look
them in the eye and tell them that he will look at compensation?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member was wrong when she said that every other
country does this. No other country engages in retroactive
legislation. I just want to correct the books on that.
With respect to the merchant navy veterans, I have met with them
twice, my parliamentary secretary has met with them twice, and I
will meet with them again as necessary.
* * *
1455
NATURAL DISASTER
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the world has watched in horror at the circumstances in
Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador caused by hurricane Mitch.
No clean water, mud up to their knees and now thousands of land
mines are adding to the situation of horrible disease.
What is being done to help the people in these countries with
respect to the land mines which are maiming and killing them?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to acknowledge the important
work that has been done by CIDA and the defence department in the
overall rescue effort.
Since then we have recognized the critical impact of the mines
being dislodged by the flood waters. As a result the Minister
for International Co-operation and myself announced on Friday
$3.7 million in aid to work with the OAS on mine rehabilitation
and to deal with the severe problems in Central America now and
in the coming months.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister said a few moments ago that we should look at the
Liberal record on health. Let us do that specifically.
When the Liberals took office there was $18.4 billion in
transfer payments for the provinces. It was going down to $11.1
billion, but they pulled the ripcord and stopped it at $12.5
billion.
The minister says that is an increase in funding for the
provinces. Could he tell me what $18.4 billion decreased to
$12.5 billion becomes? Only in Liberal math is that an increase.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, since we have taken office the tax points
allocated to the provinces have increased substantially in value.
Second, in the budget last year we increased the transfers by $7
billion over the next five years.
At the same time equalization for seven provinces to provide
fundamental services has been increased.
In every single budget we have increased research and
development funding for medical services. Last year it virtually
doubled.
We have put in place transition funds.
This government, which is the government that brought in the
Canada Health Act, stands behind the Canada Health Act.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA POST
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is
now in the process of renewing its retail postal outlet
franchise agreements across Canada.
The goal is to recover $8 million annually. I need hardly point
out that the negotiations amount to a thinly veiled threat to
sign or be shut down.
When will the minister decide to step in, so that this kind of
gun-to-the-head negotiation does not result in the bankruptcy of
thousands of Canada Post outlets, as well as a major
deterioration in Canadian postal service?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon.
member that I have already stepped in and imposed a moratorium
on Canada Post until December 1, precisely so that it may sit
down with franchise operators and negotiate a solution.
We will be following the progress of negotiations, and I will
have an announcement to make on December 1.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in Alberta today a debate about the unthinkable
continues, and that is authorization for a private hospital under
Canada's health care system.
In a book launched today about corporate control over Canada's
health care system, author Colleen Fuller states “When the
present Minister of Health was installed, Liberal rhetoric about
a private hospital violating the CHA died down until finally the
federal protector of medicare was comfortable with the
corporation's for profit investment in health care”.
Does the silence of the minister today mean he has been silenced
by the Minister of Industry?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member has not read my correspondence with the Alberta
College of Physicians and Surgeons to which I wrote not once, but
on two different occasions to express our commitment to the
Canada Health Act, our concern about the privatization of
services, and our request, which the college ultimately acceded
to, to put off the consideration of the private hospital's
application for a licence until after the debate on Bill 37 in
the Alberta Legislature.
That debate is now going on and the Liberal Party in that
province is making its position clear, as we do here, that
privatized medicine is not acceptable.
* * *
1500
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, before I get to my question, I want to recognize the
hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, the latest addition
to the cabinet from New Brunswick. It is nice to see her.
I want to ask the Minister of Health if there is any possible
way that the funding of $1.1 billion for compensation to
hepatitis C victims from 1986 to 1990, which has been agreed on,
can be moved along through co-operation with the provinces. Many
of these people are hurting badly.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are increasingly optimistic that the claim can be resolved
quickly. I inquired last week whether we could fast track the
payments to the emergency claimants and I am told that the
lawyers think they are close enough to an agreement with the
parties on the overall claim that it might be reached before we
would get payment to those in emergency need.
I am hopeful that progress is being made and I hope to be able
to report to the member and the House soon that those claims have
been resolved.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 43th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of
reference from the House of Commons of Thursday, October 29, 1998
in relation to the supplementary estimates B for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1999 with regard to vote 5b under Parliament,
House of Commons. The committee reports the same.
1505
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on
Finance.
* * *
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition
today signed by several residents from the Calgary region asking
that parliament enact legislation such as Bill C-225 so as to
define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
THE SENATE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have two
petitions today from my constituents in Red Deer.
The first, signed by 175 people, states that Canadians deserve
an accountable Senate. Therefore the petitioners call for
parliament to request the Prime Minister to accept the results of
the Senate elections in Alberta.
BILL C-68
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, my second
petition is for the repeal of Bill C-68 and to redirect the
hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to license
responsible firearms owners to cost effective reduction of
violent crime and improving public safety.
MMT
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
a petition signed by residents of Grand Bend, London, and Newbury
who note that all studies show how manganese based MMT in
gasoline has been proven to foul emission control devices
resulting in higher smog levels which will devastate our Kyoto
climate change commitments. They call on parliament to ban the
use of the additive MMT.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, once again I am pleased to present on behalf of my
constituents another long list of Canadians who understand that
the concept of marriage is only the voluntary union of a single,
that is unmarried, male and a single, that is unmarried, female.
I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of my
constituents.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
this year is celebrating the 50th anniversary of the UN
declaration of universal human rights. I am pleased to present
the following petition relating to human rights signed by a
number of Canadians, including from my riding of Mississauga
South.
The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that human
rights violations continue in many countries around the world,
including Indonesia. They also point out that Canada is
internationally respected for its defence of universal human
rights.
The petitioners therefore call on the government to continue its
efforts to speak out against countries that tolerate human rights
abuses and to do whatever possible to bring to justice those
responsible for such abuses.
MARRIAGE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition signed by
several people in Edmonton and surrounding areas.
Whereas the majority of Canadians understand the concept of
marriage as only the voluntary union of an unmarried male and an
unmarried female, and whereas it is the duty of parliament to
ensure that marriage as it has always been known and understood
in Canada be preserved and protected, therefore the petitioners
pray that parliament enact legislation such as Bill C-225 to
define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I present a petition from a large number of constituents
of my riding concerning the lack currently of a definition of
marriage in legislation.
1510
Their wish is that a clear definition relating to a single male
and a single female be included to clarify any such confusion.
BILL C-68
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a number of petitions. The first two petitions
are part of the continuing saga with respect to Bill C-68. The
petitioners are residents of the districts of Nipawin, White Fox
and Swift Current.
Basically these identical petitions express the opinion of the
petitioners that C-68 will be a virtually unenforceable bill,
that it will have no effect on criminal activity, and that it
would constitute a breach of traditional civil liberties and be
an affront to law abiding Canadians.
Therefore these petitioners call on parliament to repeal Bill
C-68 and all associated regulations with respect to firearms or
ammunition and to pass due legislation designed to severely
penalize the criminal use of any weapon.
These two petitions are signed by 139 people which brings to
4,537 the number of petitioners who have contacted me recently on
this matter.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I also have two petitions from residents of my riding
containing a total 71 signatures.
The gist of their petition is that whereas the majority of
Canadians understand marriage to be a voluntary union of an
unmarried male and an unmarried female, and whereas it is
parliament's duty to ensure that marriage, as it has always been
known and understood in Canada, be preserved and protected,
therefore the petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation
such as Bill C-225 to define in statute that a marriage can only
be entered into between a single male and a single female.
PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have another petition bearing 1,048 signatures from
many different districts in Saskatchewan which I will not attempt
to name.
Because the financial statements of the Government of Canada
have recorded annual deficits since 1970, which have led to a net
federal public debt of over half a trillion dollars, because
funding for public interest groups by the federal government is
partly responsible for creating that public debt, and because
these public interest groups further their own interests and
force other Canadians to subsidize their causes, whether they
agree with them or not, the petitioners call on parliament to
eliminate all funding of public interest groups in each and every
forthcoming budget of the Government of Canada.
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my final petition is signed by 724 residents of
Saskatchewan, again from widely separated communities.
The federal and provincial governments are poised to raise the
Canada pension plan's contribution rate from 5.85% to 9.9%, a $10
billion tax increase or $1,380 per year for the average taxpayer
and his or her employer. Canadians cannot afford such a massive
tax increase to support a pension plan that is unsustainable and
will probably lead to further tax increases. A mandatory defined
contribution, fully funded, privately managed plan or mandatory
retirement savings plan would address the deficiencies of the CPP
and negate the necessity of perpetual tax increases.
Therefore the petitioners request that parliament reject any
further CPP premium increases and enact legislation that would
abolish the CPP and replace it with an MRSP.
* * *
1515
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-53, an act to increase
the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion,
modernization and improvement of small businesses, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4
and 5.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to support Bill C-53, particularly because it improves
existing loan guarantee programs that effectively stimulate
economic growth. It helps to create jobs through small
businesses. It encourages the kind of economic activity and
entrepreneurial qualities among Canadians that can ensure our
prosperity in the coming century.
There is no question that the proposed Canada Small Business Act
would continue the existing act's history. That act's history
over the last 37 years has been to support innovation. It has
been there to support risk taking, a significant element of the
government's investment for Canada's future. Most important, it
is meeting the demonstrated needs of our small business community
throughout Canada.
For example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business
released its survey of small businesses this past January,
“Credit where credit is due”. Nearly 30% of the business
owners who were surveyed listed availability of credit among
their most serious business concerns. They need financing for
buying and modernizing their equipment, for renovating, for
purchasing premises and for buying land.
Two kinds of businesses face especially difficult problems in
securing financing. These are very small and very young firms.
It happens that these are also the financing gaps that the
current act has been especially designed to help.
On the issue of size, nearly three-quarters of the firms taking
out a loan guaranteed by the existing act have fewer than five
employees, far more than regular bank borrowers who are of the
same size.
On the question of the age of firms, the difference is even more
striking. It is important to note that almost 38% of small
businesses with a loan guarantee under the act are less than one
year old. By contrast, among small businesses with ordinary
financing from banks only 5% are younger than one year.
It is important to note that last year over 60% of loans under
the act went to firms that had been in business for three years
or less. The entrepreneurs who start these small firms and the
spirit that drives them and moves them to succeed are Canada's
economic hope for the future.
Small and medium businesses are the anchor of our national
economy. They made crucial contributions to our collective
economic well-being over the years.
This is an important reason why we should be supporting the bill.
1520
Even giant multinationals started in a niche market, and some
quite literally in the corner of a garage. I can point out that
Magna International started in Richmond Hill over 30 years ago.
Today Magna International is one of the leading, if not leading,
international automotive part manufacturers in the world. That
environment is exactly what is proposed in the bill to help
create those kinds of opportunities. Small business people need
the federal government to appreciate and encourage
entrepreneurial spirit, the willingness to take risk, which has
been the hallmark of our country.
Canada needs over 2.5 million small businesses and self-employed
entrepreneurs. They account for approximately 40% of the gross
national product. Small businesses are responsible for the
overwhelming portion of new jobs, 70% to 80% over the past three
years.
The loan guarantee program is more than an investment in small
businesses. It is an investment in jobs and an investment in job
opportunities. We have to do more than talk about it. We have
to provide those opportunities. We have to be able to act. The
bill addresses those issues. In the last year alone borrowers
expected to create an additional 74,600 jobs as a direct result
of the loans. That represents more than 2.5 jobs per loan in
just one year.
During the last five years borrowers anticipated creating over
480,000 jobs. We consider that the average loan guaranteed last
year was approximately $68,000 and that the loan guarantee
program is moving toward cost recovery. This is a remarkably
cost effective way of expanding the nation's economy.
Governments, financial institutions and private lenders will
certainly continue to come up with new ideas and plans for
financing small business, innovative services, products and
delivery channels. However it is important to note that none of
them is primarily targeted to the young, small firms.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe we are debating the amendments and the hon.
member is speaking to the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point I would
ask the hon. member to focus his comments on the amendments.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Speaker, I was highlighting the
changes that were made in the bill. Perhaps the hon. member
thinks it is a bit of history. It is also helpful to put the
amendments in some context, which I was doing, and to address
those concerns to members of the House.
As I said, it is targeting the young, small firms whose needs
are served by small business financing programs. There is no
question that the bill will help assist in that regard. The
measure of success of the program is the extent to which small
businesses would have had to borrow money without the program
being in place.
I would like to point out some key provisions the member was
asking about. The bill would provide authority to the Department
of Industry to conduct audits to ensure compliance with the act
and regulations. It certainly will provide authority to create
limited pilot programs, something that we need on a cost recovery
basis, on capital leasing and lending to the volunteer sector.
1525
The government's contingency liability would be capped at $1.5
billion over five years. This means again, regardless of the
dollar value for the loans made under the act, the taxpayers
would never have to cover more than $1.5 billion on loans during
that period.
It is clear that economic impact studies also show that the
program has been successful in providing funding to firms that
predominantly would not otherwise be able to obtain it. The
amendments in the bill, as pointed out, would strengthen the
capacity and the ability of small business entrepreneurs to
provide necessary jobs, to develop necessary technology and to
expand their businesses.
Small business is the engine of the country. It is important
that all members note that in giving support to the amendments
and to the bill we will have a stronger small business community
across the country, thereby creating the kind of economic output
necessary to continue our strong recovery.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-53 and the
various amendments that are before the House.
Some of the amendments, if I am not mistaking, are enacting
amendments or enabling amendments. I would like to focus on the
substance of the bill, which is to provide access to capital to
small business. The Small Business Loans Act has been an
effective tool for helping small businesses access financing over
the past 37 years.
Bill C-53 was designed to meet three objectives: to continue
helping small young businesses access financing, to increase
program accountability, and to move the program toward cost
recovery. Bill C-53 contains no changes to the basic program
parameters. The new provisions it contains are aimed at ensuring
the program's long term viability, cost effectiveness and
stability to better meet the needs of small business.
The recent and quite unexpected volatility in currency and
trading markets that we have all witnessed confirms again the
importance of sound, consistent public policy. Small businesses
need stability, even more so at a time when we face the prospect
of restructuring in the financial services industries.
Decisions related to the recommendations of the MacKay task
force and the proposed bank mergers will have a direct bearing on
the well-being of small business, which is the source of economic
and job growth in every region of the country.
[Translation]
Small and medium size businesses are the cornerstone of our
economy. Their contribution is vital to our economic welfare.
This is one of the reasons why it is so important to support the
bill before us.
In Canada, there are over 2.5 million small businesses, if we
include the self-employed. They account for 99% of all Canadian
companies and for between 70% and 80% of all the jobs created in
Canada in the past three years.
[English]
The SBLA has been serving Canada's small businesses since 1961
and is widely recognized as a necessary and effective program.
Last year it helped some 30,000 small businesses across the
country to access nearly $2 billion in financing from Canadian
lending institutions.
These firms acquired necessary financing that might otherwise
not have been available to them for the establishment, expansion,
modernization and improvement of their businesses. Some 9,000 of
these firms were in rural communities and the majority of loans
averaging nearly $68,000 went to firms less than three years old.
1530
Bill C-53 results from a comprehensive program and policy review
conducted over the past year in consultation with both private
and public sector stakeholders. It takes into account
recommendations of the auditor general and the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts.
[Translation]
The Canada Small Business Financing Act will keep the basic
parameters of the Small Business Loans Act: loans granted by
approved lenders for a maximum of 10 years; possibility for
businesses of borrowing up to $250,000; requirement that lenders
pay only once the 2% registration fee, which the borrowers can
absorb; and requirement that lenders pay an annual
administration fee of 1.25%.
[English]
Bill C-53 is a step forward in streamlining, improving and
stabilizing the Small Business Loans Act. The key provisions are
as follows.
First, the bill will provide authority for the Department of
Industry to conduct audits to ensure compliance with the act and
regulations.
Second, it will provide authority to create limited pilot
programs on a cost recovery basis on capital leasing and lending
to the voluntary sector.
Third, we are also proposing to replace the current sunset
clause. Every five years Industry Canada will conduct a
comprehensive review of the program. The resulting report on the
program's performance would be tabled in parliament for committee
consideration.
As a means of maintaining and ensuring cost recovery, the
governor in council through regulation would have the power to
restrict eligibility criteria for access to program loans.
[Translation]
The maximum amount of the government's potential liability would
be set at $1.5 billion over five years. This means that,
regardless of the monetary value of the loans granted under the
act, the taxpayer would never be required to cover more than
$1.5 billion of the loans granted during that period.
That $1.5 billion figure would only be reached in the highly
unlikely event that all loans were defaulted on. Historically,
the loss rate on loans is 5.6%, which means that over 94% of all
loans were paid back without incident.
This potential liability would be renewed automatically every
five years. Loans could therefore continue to be made while
Parliament carries out its in-depth investigation.
[English]
Since 1961 the SBLA has served the small business community
well. The Canada small business financing act will provide an
even more effective mechanism for the government and financial
institutions to share the risks of lending to small businesses to
help them grow and create jobs.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I will not be using all the time available to me. I
would simply like to take a few minutes to speak against Motion
No. 3 in particular.
The purpose of this motion is to reduce the maximum available
capital from $250,000 to $100,000. My main argument can be
found in the title of the bill, which reads “an act to increase
the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion,
modernization and improvement of small businesses”.
When the stated goal is to increase financing, I have difficulty
going along with cutting back on what was previously available
to small businesses.
1535
I would like to take advantage of the presence in the House of
the Secretary of State for Regional Development for Quebec to
point out that this particular program of small business loans
is important precisely because of the shortcomings in the
programs under the secretary of state's responsibility. Because
of the absence of good regional development measures, businesses
need access to such a program.
There are the CFDCs, of course, but they are of no help to small
businesses wishing to expand. The emphasis is often on new
small businesses, which are very important, and capital funding.
The amendment moved by the Reform Party member would not create
problems for those wishing to start up a business.
However, existing businesses sometimes need loans to consolidate
their activities, to expand, to develop and to create jobs.
I often criticize the government's prime interest in big
business or high tech companies. I have nothing against them,
they are extraordinary. However, these businesses set up
primarily around big cities and centres. This is unfortunate for
businesses in rural areas, in the regions that want to keep
their young people and staunch the flow to the major centres.
This program will help local businesses create jobs or keep
them. Businesses sometimes modernize to keep jobs. If they do
not, they could have to close.
This program then makes this possible, and we in the Bloc
Quebecois support it.
Though sovereignists we may be in the Bloc Quebecois, we are not
always negative, we do not always oppose government measures,
although this measure, in our opinion, should have been
improved. This bill should have been improved. We would have
hoped for a broader vision for all government programs, not only
those of the federal government, and that they would have been
compared to those of the provinces, especially Quebec, and the
financial opportunities offered by such organizations as the
CFDC.
Failing the best, we will have to be satisfied with what is
not too bad. This is why the Bloc Quebecois supports this
bill. Obviously, however, we oppose any attempt to limit the
availability of funds to small businesses.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to agreement
made earlier, all motions in Group No. 2 are deemed put, recorded
divisions deemed requested and deemed deferred.
The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group
No. 3.
[Translation]
Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the motions in Group
No. 3 are deemed to have been moved and seconded. This group
contains Motions Nos. 6 and 11.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-53, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 26 on
page 5 with the following:
That Bill C-53, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 20
to 22 on page 9 with the following:
“15. (1) The Minister will routinely conduct an audit or
examination of the”
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am delighted to lead the debate on the Group No. 3 motions.
Before I do that, I would like to show my disappointment and that
of other opposition members. We had an agreement that we were
going to move to Group No. 3. The government knows there are
more members who want to speak on this bill, however the
government has put time allocation on this bill.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We were going to spend time discussing the motion
directly. This was put by the member from the Reform Party. If my
memory serves me right, the previous 25 to 30 speakers did not
speak on the motion but decided to speak on the whole general
bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We are getting into
debate now. I would ask the hon. member to please focus his
remarks on the debate.
1540
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I was leading into the
debate but I wanted to show my disappointment that the Liberal
government has used time allocation or closure 44 times since it
came to power. We have more speakers. I was sitting here waiting
for my turn. More speakers are coming up and they will be
disappointed.
Getting back to the bill and the group of amendments, I have
read the bill very thoroughly. I attended the auditor general's
briefing on Bill C-53 and the Small Business Loans Act.
From the beginning I have been addressing the issues on Bill
C-53 and the particular amendments. I addressed this bill at the
first stage. I proposed right from the beginning certain
amendments or recommendations and I am very delighted to speak on
those recommendations.
Group No. 3 contains two motions, Motion No. 6 and Motion No.
11. Motion No. 6 deals with clause 8 and Motion No. 11 deals
with clause 15. I will go over these clauses separately. These
amendments are put forward by the official opposition. I am very
delighted to speak on them and I will support them.
Clause 8 deals with the liability of the minister. We are
proposing that the liability should be reduced to 50%, or any
prescribed lesser percent. The rationale behind that reduction of
the liability of the government is that lowering the percentage
of the government's liability for a defaulted loan means that the
lender must also assume a larger portion of any loss. By
lowering the government's liability from 85% to 50%, the lender
also assumes a greater risk in making the loan. In fact the risk
would be equally shared.
The default rate under the old Small Business Loans Act was
nearly 10 times higher than that in the private sector. This bill
does not provide an adequate review of risk analysis. There is no
provision for losses. Borrowers are not guaranteed but financial
institutions are guaranteed. If bad decisions are made by the
financial institutions, they are guaranteed.
Furthermore the bill does not put a mechanism in place to
prevent financial institutions charging administrative fees when
small businessmen go to them for loans. They should not be
charging a fee in the first place but the auditor general has
reported that they have been charging a fee in the past.
By lowering the government's liability from 85% to 50%, it will
be the lenders who will be given more responsibility to share the
risks.
The auditor general has noted various cases where major
borrowers were able to obtain numerous loans with totals
exceeding certain limits because they were operating the same
businesses. In one group, 23 related corporations obtained more
than $4 million in loans.
This practice are contrary to the intent of the act. Currently
there are no provisions under the Small Business Loans Act to
prevent this practice, even though such rules exist under the
Income Tax Act. That act has provisions designed to limit access
to the corporate tax rate for small business and to prevent abuse
by the creation of a number of related corporations. The
government needs to address that issue more rigorously in the
bill.
I am delighted to support Motion No. 6.
1545
In Motion No. 11 we are making an amendment in clause 15 which
deals with the audit or the examination of various files. We are
recommending that lines 20 to 22 on page 9 of the bill be
replaced with “the minister will routinely conduct an audit or
examination of the” files.
Industry Canada does not audit any account until the file
becomes a claim file, which is absolutely wrong. It should audit
files that need to be audited.
The rationale in putting forward this recommendation is that as
presently worded Industry Canada officials must give written
notice to a lender before conducting an audit of the lender's
records or documents. This change would allow officials to
conduct an audit routinely. Moreover, they could do so whenever
they desired. It would ensure federal accountability in the
process.
The December 1997 auditor general's report highlighted examples
where lending institutions have not exercised due care in making
a loan. In short, better auditing provisions need to be in place
and it becomes very important that we deal with these issues.
Industry Canada introduced a policy of full cost recovery for
loans issued after April 1, 1995. The department reduced its
loss sharing ratio from 90% to 85% and imposed on lenders a 1.25%
annual administration fee. According to Industry Canada
projections, these modifications to the program should result in
full cost recovery over a 10 year period.
The auditor general has reservations regarding the department's
ability to move toward full cost recovery, noting an increased
proportion of riskier loans in its guaranteed loan portfolio.
An internal study undertaken in 1997 by the department confirmed
a significant increase in risk in the program's loan portfolio,
stating higher default rates which are occurring earlier in the
life of a loan. As a result, the auditor general urged the
department to undertake greater efforts to develop systems and
practices to better evaluate program performance in order to
assist in monitoring loan portfolio risk so that smaller
businesses get the benefit from this whole program.
The auditor general recommended that industry take steps to
ensure that lenders have complied with the regulations of this
act. It was found that some loan files did not contain the
information necessary to perform a total credit risk analysis.
This bill does nothing to address the shortcomings of the audit
process outlined above. It is likely that the same criticism
levelled by the auditor general in this regard will continue. As
a part of its review, Industry Canada does not assess whether the
lender has exercised due care when making a loan.
The amendments would make the process more accountable. The
auditor general's recommendations would be in place. Small
businesses would be getting the advantage, not the large
businesses.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, again it
is a pleasure to speak on the very important topic of the
well-being of small business in Canada.
I would like to say something very obliquely about the whole
issue of closure. The government uses that technique in order to
stop the debate. It wants to have the bill finished, in this case
today, and it is at a loss to try to persuade us to pass the bill
really fast. We want to discuss it and see whether we can
persuade the government to make some amendments.
This is very important to us. I believe that we represent the
well-being of the taxpayers much more than does the government
side. It is important for that point of view to be stressed.
1550
We are talking about the government's inability or lack of
desire to seriously consider our amendments. If the government
would say that the amendment makes a lot of sense and that it
would go along with it, that would be the end of the story. We
would not have a long debate. It would not take a whole week of
debate to come to a conclusion.
However, the government says “It is our way or the highway. We
are the only ones who know perfectly how this should be done”.
That is not an accurate assessment of the government's abilities.
Undoubtedly the government has very capable members of
parliament but their ability to represent their constituencies is
severely hampered by the fact that they do not have the freedom
to vote according to the wishes of their constituents, even on
amendments to a bill. I cannot understand that. I want that to
be changed.
This group of amendments has two very important components. One
is Motion No. 6 put forward by one of my colleagues. This is an
amendment which protects the people who earn the money, the
taxpayers.
It has already been alluded to that some people and some small
businesses are concerned because as taxpayers they have to pay
their taxes both as individuals and as businesses. That money is
taken by the government whether they want to give it or not. It
is not a voluntary fund. It is not a charity.
It is not a case of somebody from the government or elsewhere
coming to the people in the little towns which I represent and
saying “There is a person in your town who wants to start a
business and we would like to give them a little bit of help.
They are just not quite solid enough to qualify for a loan from
the bank, so we would like to give them your money. How much
money would you like to give them?”
In the event that the person has a solid business plan, a good
reputation in the community and is not seeking to undermine by
direct competition a business which is already in that town, then
perhaps the individual business person would say “Yes, having
this business in my town is going to be helpful. I trust this
person. I will give you a cheque for $500 to help”. That would
be a voluntary way of collecting this money, but that is not how
it works.
When the tax man comes, it is not a voluntary donation that we
make. The tax man reaches into our pockets and takes our
earnings, against our will in some cases. Certainly it is true in
my part of the world that most Canadians whom I speak to are
quite happy to pay a reasonable level of taxation. However, in
this case, that money to be taken is to be given to another
business person. We are taking money away from those who are
successfully earning it and giving it to others in the hopes that
they will also earn it, which is not entirely a bad premise.
However, statistics show that many of these small business
people who get started have a much higher than average rate of
default. I guess that is to be expected because not everyone's
good dream will come to fruition. Some people unfortunately will
not be able to put their dreams into action and things will not
quite work out the way they wanted them to. That is why ordinary
banks and lending institutions will not advance the money to
them. Hence they come to the government, to the taxpayer.
The amendments we are proposing are reasonable. They are
probably going to be rejected by the government.
Instead of listening to reasoned debate, the government would
rather call all its members on command to stand up and vote for
time allocation so we cannot talk about it.
1555
We will vote on these amendments and the government will say to
vote against the amendments. All the individualized robots will
stand up when their strings are pulled and say that they are
against the amendments, without having heard the arguments,
without having heard the reasoning. Meanwhile, it all comes to an
end and the taxpayer gets to pick up the bill.
I am talking about these two amendments, the first of which says
that the liability that the taxpayers should pick up should be
restricted to 50% of the loan. This has two effects.
The first one is very important. When a loan is granted under
this program, the bank or financial institution administering it
on behalf of the government will be a little more careful. It is
too easy right now to say “We will decline you. Go to the Small
Business Loans Act people and they will give you the money”. The
banks and other institutions basically cut their potential losses
but they cut them at the expense of somebody else.
I have discovered over the years that people generally are much
more careful with their own money than they are when they spend
someone else's. This is the premise here. The administrators of
the loan system are spending someone else's money. They say
“Sure, we will pick up 85% of the responsibility if this person
wants to start a business. We do not think it will work but it
is tough to say no to someone. Let's just say yes. If they do
not make it, we will pull it out of the taxpayers' pockets. We
will pull it out of the pockets of those who are competing
against this person. We will end up being covered. Spread out
over all the taxpayers, it does not make that much difference”.
I appeal to the Liberal members, all the green Liberals over
there. I am not permitted to point out to people that empty
chairs in this House are green so I will not say that. I am
making an appeal to the Liberal members to vote in favour of the
amendment in order to protect the taxpayer. The taxpayer is
footing the bill.
It is an added incentive on the part of the person granting the
loan to say “We carry a full 50% of the responsibility and
therefore we must be careful”. The second reason this is a good
amendment is that it saves the taxpayers money. It saves the
money of the person who has put a successful business together,
is earning money and is paying taxes.
Hopefully by putting in measures like this one, we can look
forward to that great and glorious day when we will actually have
some tax cuts, some real tax cuts and not some phony declared
cuts from the other side.
Madam Speaker, I would like to have another 10 minutes to speak
on Motion No. 11. If you would seek unanimous consent, I would
be quite willing to do that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member would
like to have an extra 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this group of amendments.
I come from a province where $250,000 is a lot of money and
$250,000 in risk capital would do a whole lot for my constituency
and for industry at this time.
1600
Let us take a look at the maximum of $250,000 and what it would
do for my constituency which grows the world's best durum to
produce the world's best pasta. That industry could not get a
loan because the government would not allow it. I challenge
members opposite the next time they or their spouses go shopping
to see if they can find a pasta product in any mall in Canada
that is packaged in Canada.
This $250,000 strikes home. I had some producers who wanted to
borrow money to produce organic grain. They could not get a loan
because the government said that grain could not be handled in
that way. It is making quarter of a million dollar loans to
people in some areas of Canada, but raw material producers cannot
even get a loan for the grain and meat packaging that should be
done in my constituency and in western Canada because it violates
some government bill.
I want members to think for a moment about where I live. We
have the largest inland terminals. We handle more grain in one
town than in any other place in Canada. No one is allowed as a
private individual to turn that grain into flour, let alone
borrow the money from the government to do so. While the ceiling
is being raised from $100,000 to $250,000 it is not going to
produce raw materials in our province, particularly in grains.
There is hardly a butchering plant left in western Canada. Most
of them have closed out. At one time the city of Winnipeg had
four plants. The policies of the government removed the ability
of wheat and meat producers to sell finished product.
It is against the law for individuals to obtain a loan of
$250,000 to build a plant to sell organic flour. As a result,
the people in my area of the province are not interested in
increasing the ceiling of the loan or in increasing the risk of a
business to the tune of $250,000.
Again I challenge members to go to a mall to see if they can
find pasta produced and packaged in Canada. We do not do it. We
do not allow for that. We ship it to Minneapolis by train load
and buy it back, but it must never be produced in Saskatchewan
because it is a crime.
At the present time prairie pasta producers have the biggest
project going. Would they be able to get a loan? Not on their
life. The government would deny them a loan because they are
violating some antique policy in the Canadian Wheat Board. The
government is telling the people in the west that they are hewers
of wood and drawers of water and will stay that way. That is the
policy of the government.
The state of North Dakota which borders my constituency is to
put up millions of dollars to build a pasta plant near the U.S.
border within a few miles of my constituency. Should I come to
the House to congratulate the Liberals for moving the loan level
up to $250,000 when they deny western Canada the right to produce
its raw products and make a sale?
I will not support it for the simple reason that most of this
money would be denied entrepreneurs in my province.
1605
For that reason and until the government recognizes that we in
the west have a right to produce products from our natural
resources—and I am talking about grain, flour and the packaging
of meat and so on—I cannot support it. When it comes to raising
the amount of money that we will be put at risk I will not
support it, and the people of Canada should not support it
either.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said $100,000 is
plenty. If $100,000 will not get a small business going,
$250,000 certainly will not either. I will not support it.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to the
motions and to speak to the bill.
I return to the remarks of the member for Elk Island. When we
were in opposition, which is almost 10 years ago, this bill was
on the floor of the House of Commons. At that time Minister Tom
Hockin from London, Ontario, was responsible for amending the
Small Business Loans Act, amending the legislation, and we
decided that the bill was so important for activating
entrepreneurial spirit that we supported the government's bill.
I must say that it was not perfect. I have never seen an
absolutely perfect piece of legislation in the House in the 10
years I have been elected or in the previous 10 years that I was
a minister's assistant or a prime minister's assistant. The
reality is that legislation is never perfect but we try. The art
of politics is to try to design something that is doable and
something we can activate as soon as possible. At the time when
we were in opposition we put the legislation through the House in
one day. We supported the government and in fact—
Mr. Ken Epp: If you put it through, why are we doing it
again?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: The hon. member for Elk Island is
asking a question. Why are we amending the legislation? This is
the nature of this place. We are constantly amending, updating
and refining laws. This is the Small Business Loans Act. This
is a bill which normally all members of parliament in all parties
get behind. This is the first time in the history of this bill
where we have the Reform Party using a delaying tactic.
In the end the bill will go through. The Minister of Industry
and his parliamentary secretary have done a great job in
listening to witnesses and in listening to literally thousands of
small businessmen and women who participated in the Small
Business Loans Act. Anything the government has done in the bill
in consultation with opposition members and with the small
business sector is a result of that listening experience. Yet
here we are today and Reform Party members are almost being
obstructionists.
We should put the bill through with a snap of our fingers.
1610
If there is one thing we have done in this House in the last 10
years—and I believe we have done it with the help of all
parties—it is that we have created a sense of importance and a
sense of urgency that we all must get behind the small business
community.
Here we are on the eve of Christmas and they are doubting and
questioning. I have heard remarks from members of the Reform
Party on the bill over the past couple of weeks. They are
wondering whether or not small business deserves the legislation.
We have heard them say that the legislation is essentially no
different from another tax on all Canadians.
There is nothing further from reality than that assertion. The
loan loss provision in the Small Business Loans Act is absolutely
minuscule in comparison to the number of jobs that are being
created which are generating billions of dollars worth of income
tax revenue for the treasuries of Canada, the provinces and the
municipalities. That activity emerging from the small business
community is something we can all be proud of.
The notion that the Reform Party would try to take us off focus
by proposing amendments and distractions linked to tax reform is
going in the wrong way. We will lose some of the momentum we
have been building in the House. Over the last 10 years we have
been a fist in support of small business. It does not matter
whether it was the Reform critic of Industry, the NDP, the Bloc
or the Conservative Party. We have all worked together. We have
all been in unison. This legislation was one of the prize pieces
that managed to go from first reading to third reading in no time
flat.
I hope members of the Reform Party would reflect on whether it
is good to be seen as breaking rank from the special collegial
approach we have always had in terms of the Small Business Loans
Act. Before they drag out the debate much longer maybe we could
say they have some concerns and made their points, but it is time
to put the legislation through the House and obtain royal assent
so that all financial institutions in Canada use the Small
Business Loans Act to keep the focus, to keep the morale and to
keep the energy of small business moving forward.
I appeal to members of the Reform Party to end the debate so
that the bill will go through all readings and bring the act up
to date.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder if you would seek unanimous consent for me to ask the hon.
member a question or two.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent of the House to let the member ask a question?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1615
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion of the hon.
member of the official opposition. Yet I am sad at the same
time because, as my colleague on this side of the House has just
pointed out, all members of all parties worked together on the
industry committee on this legislation introduced by the
Minister of Industry, and I find it regrettable that the hon.
member of the opposition has moved this motion.
Let us see what the motion is, and I shall then address the main
points.
[English]
The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt is proposing in Motion No. 6
that Bill C-53 in clause 8 be amended by replacing line 26 on
page 5 with the following:
What does that mean? It means that under the present
legislation the loans which are awarded under the small business
loans program are guaranteed up to 85%. He wishes to reduce that
to 50%. What impact will that have on our small and medium sized
businesses?
It is quite simple.
[Translation]
There are two types of businesses that run into particular
difficulties in obtaining financing. These are the very small
businesses and the very new businesses. The current legislation
helps remedy this double shortcoming. As far as size is
concerned, close to three-quarters of businesses obtaining loans
under the present legislation have fewer than five employees.
This is a far higher fraction than for those obtaining loans
from the banks in general. That is one very important point.
Research and recent experiences with this program show that the
level of loan guarantee has a major impact on use of this
program and the banks' interest in it. I would point out that
there are 1,300 institutions using this program in Canada, via
13,000 service points.
Someone on the other side mistakenly referred to 13,000
borrowers. The right number is 1,300 borrowers using 13,000
service points.
Lowering the guarantee rate given by government on each of these
loans would have a negative impact on the entire sector of small
and medium size business, particularly the very small and the
very new.
As far as the number of years in existence is concerned, the gap
is still more striking. Some 38% of small businesses benefit
from a loan guarantee under the act. These have been in
existence for less than one year. When we look at regular bank
customers, however, only 5% of small businesses are less than
one year old. It is therefore clear that the act must maintain
the 85% guarantee. This is one of the main reasons I cannot
support the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
Another reason has to do with the businesses owned by members of
ethnocultural communities. All the surveys tell us that members
of such communities have trouble getting access to credit and
capital. These are people starting small, and often very small,
businesses.
1620
If the figures show that the impact of reducing the
guarantee from 85% to 50% would be very negative for small
businesses in general, it would be even more negative for small
businesses managed and operated by members of ethnocultural
communities. The same would hold for businesses run by women.
I fail to see how someone with a certain degree of
intelligence—and I have to assume that we are dealing with an
intelligent individual, because he did, after all, have the
trust of his constituents—cannot understand that lowering the
guarantee from 85% to 50% would have a very negative impact on
the development and growth of small businesses in Canada.
As for the second motion, I frankly find it a bit confusing. It
asks, and I quote:
[English]
[Translation]
This motion eliminates completely the notice of several days the
minister must give a business subject to an audit.
[English]
This amendment completely eliminates the notice period for
audits of loans under the act and provides that they be done on a
routine basis. What does routine basis mean?
I am not an accountant, but I have taken accounting classes. I
also studied fiscal law when I was in law school. When we talk
about audits it is very clear that notices are given when we are
talking about specific legislation.
The government is proposing that Industry Canada have the power
to conduct audits on the basis of lenders' application of the
program. However, neither the auditor general's audit nor the
sample audit which was done for the department indicates
pervasive or systemic compliance problems. Only such
circumstances would justify routine audits without notice. It is
quite clear that the member's motion calls for routine audits,
but provides no notice period.
Research has shown that compliance is sufficiently ensured
through sample audits. As well, the notice period of at least 21
days was added in response to the concerns which were expressed
by the stakeholders. The lenders who deliver the program
originally asked for a notice period of 45 days.
Eliminating that notice period would be a reversal of a
commitment made to the financial institutions which deliver this
program. This was a commitment negotiated by all parties
represented on the industry committee. All of the members who
sit on the Standing Committee for Industry negotiated that
commitment. Now we have one of those members submitting a motion
which goes completely against it. Here again, without calling
into question that member's intelligence, I wonder where his head
is. The member obviously has a short memory.
The proposed amendments are simply unacceptable. They go
against all of the discussions that took place in the industry
committee. The amendments go against the very objective of the
legislation. I do not understand the member. I wish the member
were here in the House right now. I would like to be able to ask
him a question privately, outside of the House.
These two motions simply cannot be supported. They go against
the very objectives of the legislation and they go against the
objective of the government, which is to assist small businesses.
1625
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood made a very
telling remark during his dissertation on these amendments. If I
may paraphrase, he asked why we were bothering to debate this. It
is all decided anyway. We are wasting time. The government
knows what it wants. The government knows what it is going to
do. This is all theatre.
I sincerely compliment the member for Broadview—Greenwood
because he has reached the nub of what this place is all about. I
could not have said it better myself. I know I was paraphrasing
his words, but that in essence is what the hon. member said.
An hon. member: That is not paraphrasing, that is
distorting it.
Mr. Lee Morrison: The hon. member says I am distorting
it. I would invite him to check Hansard when he gets home.
With respect to Group No. 3, the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine stated that it is totally
unacceptable that the level of government responsibility for
defaulted loans should be decreased from 85% to 50%. Why should
the taxpayers of this country be on the hook to support bad
management decisions by the poor, impoverished, helpless
chartered banks? Good heavens. These are small business loans.
These are small loans, period. Do we have to carry the can for
people who are talking about annual profits of $1 billion or $1.5
billion? It is absurd.
The eminent economist Walter Williams once made a statement
about this sort of thing which I think should be engraved above
the Speaker's chair so that everyone can read it. He said “If
someone with a business venture of doubtful credibility came to
me and asked me to loan him $50,000 to support the business, I
would tell him to go play in traffic. But when this gentleman
who needs the $50,000 to support a dubious business venture wants
money, he does not come to me but to the government, which has
the coercive power of the majesty of the law to say `You have to
give this business some money. If it goes broke, that is your
bad luck. But you have to give it to him because we the
government say that we are going to force you to do it through
your taxes. Mr. Walter Williams, if you do not pay your taxes,
we will put you in jail”'.
By a very direct and easily chartered course we can see that by
giving this huge degree of guaranteed support to what may be
loans of rather dubious quality we are telling ordinary taxpaying
Canadians that they are going support to the utmost these dubious
business ventures. If they do not, the government will put them
in jail. That is the simple, very easily traced path of what we
are talking about.
I do not feel as strongly about the second amendment as I do
about the first. The hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine became very emotional about this. I
would like to know what is wrong with performing audits without
notice. Do we have to allow loans of dubious quality not to be
audited through the lending institutions? What is going on?
Taxpayer money is being put up to guarantee these loans. Surely
we can have the privilege or the right to audit these things
without notice. But the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine says no, that would be a
terrible thing to do. She has not heard of accountability.
1630
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: It happens all the time.
Mr. Lee Morrison: The hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood should get together with the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to discuss this because they are
obviously coming from two diametrically opposed directions on
this question.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: You guys are just stalling.
Mr. Lee Morrison: The hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood says I am stalling. He said earlier that it
was a waste of time to debate these amendments because the
decisions have already been made. Having said that, I guess I
should give him what he wants and not continue to debate this ad
infinitum or ad nauseam. I will defer to the hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood and we will get on to the next group of
amendments.
We will endeavour to show these folks opposite that some useful
improvements could be made to their legislation, that there are
improvements that could even cause my colleagues and I to support
their legislation but we certainly could never dream of
supporting it in its present condition.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the problem with these
motions is that Reform Party members voted against this bill in
the House and voted against the bill and the amendments in
committee. They have tried every deceptive way to stop this
bill—
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not believe the rules of the House permit attributing to
members motives of deception. I would ask you to require the
member to retract what he just said.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sure all members
will be careful in debating these amendments.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Madam Speaker, the Reform Party has
tried to obstruct every part of this bill. I will first talk
about Motion No. 6. It is very clear to me that the opposition
is trying to completely water down the importance of this bill
because it does not believe in small business and it is going to
pay for that.
It is very important that small business be able to obtain a
loan that is of higher risk than conventional loans. That is the
objective of this bill. This motion would take away from that.
Borrowers do pay a higher interest when they obtain these loans.
Motion No. 11 was debated in committee. It was agreed on by all
parties. The industry committee is made up of all parties.
1635
After much discussion with the stakeholders, including financial
institutions, it was agreed that instead of 45 days it should be
reduced to 21 days in order that a proper audit could be done, an
audit that the auditor general experienced. We are using the
auditor general's experience as we put information into this
bill.
Remember, there are some 1,500 lenders and 13,000 points of
service that have to comply with this request. It would be
easier to have 21 days notice. On the other hand, it was also
agreed that the minister would respond within 21 days to make the
audit procedure in a proper manner.
Again I emphasize the importance of the small businesses
financing bill. These motions water it down and should not be
approved. I will continue to defend and make sure we have a
Canada small businesses financing act that is valuable for small
business from coast to coast. Therefore, I ask that members not
vote for these two amendments.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, speaking on Group No. 3 motions before
the House for debate, I challenge the previous member who said
that Reformers are not in favour of small business. That is a
crock.
Reformers very much support small business. What we do not
support is the Canadian taxpayer funding businesses that may or
may not survive and being responsible for the debt incurred.
Motion No. 6 is simply asking for an amendment that lowers the
percentage of the government's liability for defaulted loans.
What we are talking about when we are talking about the
government's liability is that the government does not have any
money itself. It is taxpayer money.
What we are talking about is making an amendment that lowers the
percentage of taxpayer liability for a defaulted loan. What is
meant is that the person who is lending money to a small business
that is more risky, that has a higher chance of defaulting on
that loan, has to assume a higher risk. That is a very logical
move to make.
What we are asking for is instead of the taxpayer assuming 85%
of the risk in covering a default that they assume only 50%. I
suggest that if the lender is still responsible for 50% of a
defaulted loan, they will be a little more judicious in making
sure that some very extreme risk cases are not funded.
An hon. member: They just won't make the loan.
Ms. Val Meredith: The member opposite says that maybe
they won't make the loan. If the taxpayer is paying for the
default of that loan, maybe the person should not be getting a
loan. Maybe small businesses that are too risky should either put
up more collateral or be a little more responsible rather than
putting the responsibility on to the Canadian taxpayer.
I do not know about the members opposite, whether they ever
communicate with their taxpayers, the people on the street who
vote for them. When I get letters from my constituents, from
taxpayers, they are concerned that the priorities of government
are skewed. That government is responsible for providing
essential services to the people of Canada and by not putting its
priority on funding special interests or businesses is a mistake.
We feel it is prudent for the government to be protecting the
taxpayer by making sure that when it is covering loans or putting
its neck out and supporting loans that may be defaulted there is
a balance in that of what the taxpayer is responsible for and
what the lender is responsible for.
1640
The purpose of Motion No. 6 is to make sure that balance is
kept, that the taxpayers are responsible for one half and that
the lender is responsible for the other half. What we are
talking about are high risk loans that are being loaned because
traditional sources and vehicles of loans for small businesses
are not available to them. We are talking about a very small
percentage of small businesses that may or may not succeed.
Members across seem to feel it is the responsibility of the
government and the taxpayers to make sure that everybody who
wants to start a business is given money to do so. It does not
work that way.
Not every child in this country has an education or has the
available means for a post-graduate education. They have to earn
that right. They have to go to school and get the marks. They
have to show they are diligent in the requirements to go on to
university or college. The same should apply to the small
business community, to somebody who decides that he or she wants
to be in business. There has to be an onus put on that
individual to make sure that business has a market and is in a
community that can support it.
When an individual asks for financing, either from a bank or a
government protected bank, there should be minimum risk. The
banks must know the business has the ability to survive.
Motion No. 6 states the lender would assume 50% of that
liability and the taxpayer would assume 50% of that liability. It
would put the onus on the small business to show the lender and
the Canadian taxpayer that it has done everything possible to
make sure the business is viable and will go ahead. I suggest
the number of loans written off would probably decrease.
My understanding now is the default rate is 10 times higher on
these loans guaranteed by the federal government. I suggest that
10 times higher is perhaps too much to put on the Canadian
taxpayer. I think they would feel the priority of their money
should be in things like health care and education, the things
they feel are far more important than perhaps taking 85% on the
default of a loan.
I think Motion No. 6 is reasonable and logical. I also believe
it would have the support of the people who pay the bill when
these loans are defaulted, Canadian taxpayers.
Motion No. 11 is self-explanatory when it states that the
auditor should not have to give a 21 day notice. They should be
able to do what Revenue Canada does, phone up and say they will
be there in three days to go through the books. There is no
reason why the same degree of short notice that Revenue Canada
can avail on should not be applied to this bill as well. I hope
everybody will support these motions.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Vancouver East, Poverty; the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington, Immigration; the hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre, Health.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to first of all set the record straight. I
am very pleased to support Motion No. 6. It would in effect
change the bill to ensure that the borrower would assume at least
half the responsibility and the government or the lender the
other half, which is sponsored by taxpayers.
Right now it would be 85% to the lender and 15% to the borrowing.
I suggest it should be an equal partnership if they have
enough confidence in their own business plan when they come
forward for that loan.
1645
More important, I want to set the record straight with respect
to Reform's commitment to small business. I think it is very
important. We believe very strongly in small businesses and are
a great defender of them. I think we would just go about it
differently. We think it is very important that we provide small
businesses immediate tax relief. We also want to make sure they
have decreased payroll taxes as opposed to putting money into
this small business loans program.
The initial legislation, as everyone well knows, would provide
$1.5 billion to small business loans programs. I think there are
other ways we could do it than again through government subsidies
for businesses. I think there are other ways that would be more
beneficial.
We could look at capital gains tax. Now the tax rate is 75%;
perhaps lowering it to half that. There are other ways to attract
investors, other ways for people to get money, without taking it
out of the pockets of taxpayers.
This motion would decrease the liability of the lender or the
bank down to 50% from 85%. That would make sure the person who
is wanting to borrow this money would have enough confidence that
they would assume liability for half. That is not a lot to ask
when we are using taxpayer dollars.
Again, if the borrower is liable for only 15% of this loan, what
kind of confidence do they have in their business plan to ensure
that it will be viable and not be a burden on the taxpayers?
Small business is the economic engine which drives this country.
We in the Reform Party believe that. We recognize that. In
fact, 75% of our caucus are small business people. We believe
very strong in that. But government subsidies are not the
answer.
We have the government again giving out $1.5 billion for small
business loans programs. But with incredibly high payroll taxes
and incredibly high bureaucracy it is just not working. It is
our job as legislators to create an economic environment where
small businesses can succeed. Right now they are struggling
through extremely high levels of bureaucracy, red tape, forms,
paperwork and the list goes on and on. They are buried in it
from all levels of government.
Again I would argue there are many other ways that we can
help small business. Make no mistake, that is one of the
principle objectives of the Reform Party of Canada. We believe
strongly in ensuring that small business has an economic
climate where it can succeed.
Unfortunately this small business program is just throwing money
at it and hoping the problem will fix itself. I would argue that
is not going to happen. I can never imagine in the private
sector anywhere where anybody could borrow money and only be at a
liability rate of 15%. They would be laughed at. The banks would
absolutely laugh at them anywhere else in the private sector.
So assuming 50% liability, if a person has the confidence in his
or her business plan, I would think what would be quite
reasonable and would have been an excellent amendment to this
legislation, equal partnership between the lender and the
borrower in the liability of that loan.
I encourage all members of the House to support this Reform
amendment to create an equal partnership. We need, more
important, to move away from government subsidies and take away
that liability on the taxpayer. These are high risk loans. The
default rate is very high with taxpayer money. It is not our
money. It is not our money to do as we please with. The people
who send us here hope we will use tax dollars wisely. It is not
that we would not invest the money in small businesses. We would
do it different to ensure that they were getting the help they
need.
1650
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
want to speak in general terms about the whole aspect of the
government's loaning money to small businesses.
I guess the reason the government first got into the business of
loaning money to small businesses was that the banks simply
refused to take on some of these ventures that had a little more
risk involved in them.
We have to look deep down into the purpose of government's
loaning money to small businesses. I think everyone will agree
it is to encourage entrepreneurship, to put people to work in
order to allow these people to flourish and perhaps even expand
their businesses.
Some of the speakers today came up with instances where
businesses had started in somebody's garage and then grown to
nationwide and international businesses. That is exactly what I
think is the optimum goal of getting into a situation where the
government loans businesses money.
Everything we do here with regard to the Small Business Loans
ACT should be pointed in that direction but I had a constituent
who came to me the other day with an absolute horror story about
borrowing money from the government. She is 58. She was involved
in a government sponsored loans act. The Alberta Women's
Enterprize Initiative Association loans money under western
economic diversification. I realize that is not exactly what we
are debating but it is along those same principles.
This lady went to the organization and asked to borrow some
money. She needed approximately $60,000. It wrote her a
contract for $60,000 at the rate of 17%. This was in 1996 at a
time when if you had any collateral at all you could borrow money
for 6% or 7%. Here it was saddling this person with a 17%
interest rate. If that is helping small businesses it seems like
a rather underhanded way to do it.
On top of that the lender chose not to release all the funds. No
doubt it was written into the contract. The lender kept about
half the funds the person borrowed and on which she was paying
interest. Half the funds were kept on deposit in the financial
institution from which she had borrowed the money.
If that is helping small business that is a little like throwing
a drowning person a cement life saver. If going into a new
business were not risky enough, withhold about half the capital
borrowed and charge 17%.
By the time the lady came to see me it was too late for me to
intervene. She had declared bankruptcy. They had foreclosed on
absolutely everything she had. She had signed over her
condominium, her life savings, her pension plan, everything she
had as collateral toward this debt in order to get into business
and be self-sufficient. Now she is basically a charity case. She
has had to move in with her daughter and she is in a terrible
predicament.
I felt very badly when this lady came to me and asked what I
could do to help her.
1655
The short answer was that I could do very little if anything to
help. Likely I could do nothing. At the time she came to see me
this case was before the courts. She is being sued for
outstanding debt.
All I could do was sympathize with her and say that if I had the
opportunity I would bring her case before parliament. She agreed
that there was nothing I could do to intervene. She wondered if
there was something that parliament could do to prevent this from
happening to other unsuspecting people. She admits quite freely
that she was not cautious enough. She should have read all the
fine print. She definitely made some mistakes.
I think when we are talking about small business loan programs
we should bear in mind what our ultimate goal is. If our goal is
to help small businesses that had the other more established
conventional lending institutions turn their backs on them, then
we must make sure we are actually doing that and not simply
putting a mill stone around these peoples' necks that they simply
cannot carry.
We have to make sure taxpayers money is secured and that there
is reasonable expectation for the business to flourish. I think
the people who are borrowing money to invest in a business must
prove they have expertise to carry on this business and that they
have the necessary training, some rudimentary understanding of
how business works, rudimentary accounting abilities and also
have some good independent counsel available to them.
I would like to leave today thinking that the House and the
committee considering this bill will bear in mind the burden
placed on them to ensure this legislation is fair and does do
what people such as the lady who came to see me expect it to do.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on Motion No. 6 put forward by my colleague from Saskatoon.
We support this amendment.
The amendment lowers the percentage of the government's
liability for a defaulted loan. This means the Liberals want to
increase the government's liability with regard to small business
loans.
People are probably asking themselves have the Liberals not
learned lessons with regard to liability. Obviously not. They
are the masters of this. They have a $600 billion liability
called the national debt that does not take into account the
unfunded liability with the Canada pension plan, with native land
claims and a host of other things we could toss on to the kitty.
The Liberal government, according to independent estimates such
as the Fraser Institute, has put a total liability, in other
words dug a potential hole, of two trillion dollars. The
government wants to once again saddle taxpayers with future debt
and future taxes with an even greater liability. The government
does not think the way to solve the problems of small business is
to actually lower taxes.
No, the Liberal solution for these things is always to increase
the government's liability and therefore the taxpayers'. The
government feels it at election but the taxpayers are the ones
who feel it in the long term.
The people of my generation are certainly going to be paying for
all the boondoggles this government has got us into and for all
the debt that it dug us into when it had some of its former prime
ministers and finance ministers at the helm.
1700
This amendment also means that the lender must assume a larger
portion of any loss. Business is about calculated risk. That is
something which unfortunately some of my Liberal friends across
the way forget about.
If a business person is going to go to the government or is
going to turn toward the Small Business Loans Act as opposed to
going to a conventional bank or any other type of lender as they
would for just about anything else, aside from any of these kinds
of protections or special arrangements made through the Small
Business Loans Act, they go ahead and negotiate a loan under
normal circumstances. Under these circumstances, of course, the
government picks up the liability.
It is only fair for people who want access to money, especially
when it is arranged through some special contrivance with the
government, to be willing to accept some level of risk. I do not
think we would be asking them to accept too great a risk with the
way the Small Business Loans Act would be structured by our
motion. It means that there is some sort of individual
responsibility. That is something that my Liberal friends across
the way do not understand very well. They understand collective
responsibility very well, but not individual responsibility.
I am going to digress and talk about the Charter of Rights an
Freedoms to illustrate this point. The charter was based upon
the idea of collective responsibility. That is something Pierre
Trudeau believed in. He believed that rather than going ahead
and representing people as individuals, the charter should
safeguard their rights as groups. As a result, we have all sorts
of groups across this land claiming victimhood status or some
other sort of label. The charter does not protect people as
individuals, it instead protects peoples' collective rights.
That is part and parcel of the Liberal philosophy here. It is
representing collective rights. It is representing group rights.
It does not talk much about the individual.
Motion No. 6, put forward by my hon. colleague from Saskatoon,
states that by lowering the liability from 85% to 50% the lender
also assumes a greater risk in making the loan.
The Liberals would like the government to have more liability
which means that the taxpayer would have more liability. It also
means that the Liberals are disregarding the idea of individual
responsibility for small business accountability. They are
trying to up the ante for the government to pick up the cost. As
well, lo and behold, it was not bad enough that they beat up on
two groups with a baseball bat, they took that bat to a third
group. They actually now want the lenders, the banks or the
institutions that give these loans, to have greater risk in terms
of giving out this money. Is that not the solution?
When I talk to small business people they do not tell me that
they want to have greater access to rope with which to hang
themselves. They do not want unending supplies of rope to
regulate themselves, to tie themselves up or to strangle
themselves and cut off the creative juices of productivity. No,
they do not want any of that.
They want lower taxes. That is what businesses are talking
about. They want less regulation. They want less payroll taxes
so they can employ more people and provide more jobs. But that
is not something these Liberals understand very well.
Mr. John Richardson: Nobody does it better than the
Liberals.
Mr. Rob Anders: Nobody gives out jobs to their political
friends better than Liberals. That member across the way who
heckled about Liberal jobs knows only too well about patronage.
This institution is full of people who got jobs because of their
friendship with the Prime Minister or other members across the
way. But I do not think that is the way to provide employment in
this country.
I do not think that is the solution. I think the Liberal job
creation strategy of patronage puts the taxpayers on the hook for
these types of things and that is not the way it should go. I
have never door knocked a small businessperson in this country
who told me they want to make sure there is full employment in
this country and, therefore, every Liberal hack across the land
should get a job, and a good patronage one at that. I have never
heard them say that yet.
1705
The default rate under the Small Business Loans Act is nearly 10
times higher than in the private sector. The changes that the
government wants to make will make it even worse. How is the
government helping small businesses by giving them more rope to
hang themselves with? That is not what they are asking for.
Small business across the country is asking for tax cuts, less
regulation and less government interference. They want
government out of their face and the Liberal government will not
give it to them. It comes back again and again. It is always
meddling with private business in this country.
The Liberals think it is more important to give money to foreign
aid than they think it is to give tax cuts. They think it is
more important to forgive foreign banks their debts, to the tune
of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars—
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We are debating Motions Nos. 6 and 11. The previous
speaker did mention after a request from the Reform Party that we
should focus on the motions.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we could continue to speak on
the motions that are on the floor.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The parliamentary
secretary makes a cogent point.
I invite the hon. member for Calgary West to return to his
dissertation.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, it is just like a Liberal to
interrupt you when you are on a roll about some of the problems
the government has.
The Liberals talk about the Small Business Loans Act. They talk
about wanting to increase the problems for the banks and the
lenders which will be left holding the bag. The government will
be left holding the bag. The default rates are going to continue
to increase because of Liberal policies. This whole philosophy
is wrong-headed. It is Liberal wrong-headed thinking. It is not
talking about allowing greater competition.
I know small business people in Calgary who, when they needed
money to expand their business, did not go grovelling to the
Small Business Loans Act or any of those types of places. To get
entrepreneurial capital they went to the banks themselves, but
they could not get it because of the conservative lending
philosophies. That is the way banks operate. I understand that.
Where did they go? They could not get it anywhere in this
country. They went across the border to institutions in the
United States because there was greater competition and less
regulation. As a result, they got access to the capital they
needed. That is a real solution that Liberals across the way are
not talking about, greater competition and less regulation in
banking. That would be a—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Markham.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to rise today to speak to Motions Nos. 6 and 11.
I have heard a lot of inaccurate information coming from members
of the Reform Party. It truly shows that they have a lack of
understanding of what the Small Business Loans Act is.
I would assume that any financial institution would do proper
due diligence on any person applying for a small business loan.
I heard somebody say that the loss is 10 times higher than it is
in the private sector. That is not true. It is about double.
The private sector has a loss of about 3.7% on its loans, and the
average is 6%. I cannot see how that is 10 times higher.
There is also the 50% proposal. Reform members assume that it
is 50% of all losses. It is not. If it is a financial
institution and it has an accumulated loan portfolio of $100
million, it is 90% on the first $250,000, 50% on the next
$250,000, and for any losses over and above that it is 10%.
1710
They are saying there is going to be a huge amount of losses.
That is not true. I have trouble understanding their logic.
Most small businesses would prefer to get their loans from
financial institutions because to get small business loans they
have to pay interest which is 3% above prime and another 1.5% in
administrative fees. It is unfortunate that these people cannot
get their loans from financial institutions, but they help to
create a lot of jobs. Over the life of the Small Business Loans
Act several hundred thousand jobs have been created. A lot of
businesses have grown bigger and they will create a lot more jobs
in the future.
Motion No. 11 concerns the 21 day notice period. A financial
institution may have many loans across many of its branches. When
it is given notice of an audit it takes a few days to collect the
information. That is the reason the committee supported 21 days
for the notice.
My party will not be supporting these two motions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
made earlier this day, the questions on the motions in Group No.
3 are deemed to have been put and the recorded divisions are
deemed requested and deferred.
The House will now proceed to debate Group No. 4, Motion Nos. 7
and 8. Also pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motions
in Group No. 4 are deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved:
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-53, in Clause 13, be amended
(a) by replacing line 32 on page 6 with the following:
“made to borrowers in the voluntary sector, to guarantee loans
made to finance working capital or to guarantee”
(b) by replacing line 4 on page 7 with the following:
“voluntary sector, to guarantee loans made to finance working
capital or to guarantee capital leases, the Minister”
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
spoke to the earlier amendments and I am delighted to speak to
the amendments put forward in Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 7 and 8.
Motion No. 7 was put forward by the official opposition. Motion
No. 8 was put forward by the Bloc. I will be supporting Motion
No. 7, but I have no reason to support Motion No. 8.
Motion No. 7 would entirely delete two pilot projects aimed at
expanding the loans program to the volunteer and capital lease
sectors of the economy. Capital lease ventures are those in
which the major assets of the business are leased. This serves
to lessen the amount of money that can be recovered from the sale
of assets in the case of default. The volunteer sector is made
up of not for profit organizations. The Reform Party can rightly
question why the taxpayer should be guaranteeing loans made to
non-profit organizations.
The Reform Party opposes the initiative outlined in clause 13 of
Bill C-53 as it represents a broadening of the program that we
cannot support in principle.
The Small Business Loans Act is intended to help small
businesses in our economy. Small businesses are the engine of
the economy. They keep the economy running. Ninety-six per cent
of the jobs in this country are created by small businesses.
The Liberal government promotes bigger and larger businesses. It
forgets about the small businesses. Small businesses are already
under pressure. They have to pay high premiums for employment
insurance. They have to pay high premiums for the CPP. They
have all kinds of red tape. Government is on the backs of small
businesses.
1715
On the contrary, the government is giving subsidies, guarantees,
loans and all kinds of good things to big business. Recently the
government gave a $25 million tax free loan to Bombardier. The
government is taking care of big business, not small business.
When the government expands the scope of the SBLA to volunteer
or non-profit organizations, it deprives smaller businesses of
the opportunity to get financing from this program. The intent
of the act is therefore defeated. Neither my colleague nor I can
support this expansion of the Small Business Loans Act.
Motion No. 8 was put forward by the Bloc. It would effectively
expand the loan provision contained in the pilot project advanced
by Bill C-53. This pilot project includes the ability of
industry to grant loans to the volunteer and capital sectors
of the economy. This would deprive entrepreneurs of the
opportunity to start a business and create jobs.
The Reform Party is fundamentally opposed to expanding the loans
program to include volunteer organizations in our economy. All
our MPs will support the initiative or any amendment to enhance
prospects to help small business. Based on that our position is
very clear. We cannot support any amendment or any of the
sections which will expand the scope away from small business to
anywhere else.
The auditor general clearly identified in his report that larger
organizations had been taking advantage, that smaller
organizations had been collaborating, and that subsidies applied
to other organizations that had received further loans. The
system has already been abused. The auditor general has made
some clear observations in that regard.
Rather than clarifying the situation, making it simpler and
focusing on small business, the government intends to diversify
the scope so that small businesses will have to compete with
medium and larger organizations for financing. Through this
amendment they will have to compete with non-profit and volunteer
organizations.
If government wants to support volunteer organizations there are
other means to do it. We do not mean that volunteer
organizations should not be supported, but they should not be
allowed to compete with smaller businesses.
The government always gets things wrong. It has been supporting
larger businesses. I gave an example the other day of being on
the verge of an storm. When the storm comes the bigger trees
will fall and the smaller plants such as the grass will remain
green. Small organizations have this ability because they are
grassroots organizations run by between two and five individuals,
but they will only survive the storm if we support them. We need
to nourish the small business sector of our economy if we want
the system to work.
In summary, government should set things right in terms of how
the economy works. The government should look at employment
records to see who creates the jobs. Many times the government
pats itself on the back because it has created jobs. It is not
government that creates jobs. It is the small business sector or
its entrepreneurs that create jobs.
1720
I have been an entrepreneur. I have been involved with small
businesses from time to time. I understand as many other small
business entrepreneurs understand. Small businesses are
independent organizations. The small business organization, the
CFIB, has
90,000 members. It has been pleading with the government to
ensure small businesses can take advantage of the act.
In a nutshell I ask government members to look into the
effectiveness of the program to ensure that it achieves the
objectives for which it was intended. With these observations in
mind I am hesitant to support the amendment made by the Bloc, but
I will support Motion No. 7 put forward by the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt which highlights the withdrawal of that
clause.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to participate in this debate, especially as the fourth group is
being considered, because I can speak of an amendment I made,
which is supported by the Bloc Quebecois.
But I will not explain my amendment without responding to our
colleague who has just spoken. I think we cannot say how
important the small and medium businesses are to the creation of
jobs and to economic development and yet not look at the
difficulties they have getting financing.
The Small Business Loans Act, as the auditor general pointed
out, needed a tightening of accounting criteria. However, it
works and its principles carry over to other sectors and to
other credit requirements.
That is the aim of this part of the bill, which proposes—I
would say even timidly—that pilot projects be set up to
permit, among other things, what we in Quebec call social
economics, that is, all the private projects that do not come
from the co-operative sector, for example. The labour and other
co-operatives sector live and develop in the private economy
sector, but it has its own internal rules.
This part of the social economy formed by co-operatives includes
businesses not trying for maximum profits, but to create jobs
and provide services.
Their objective being financial self-sufficiency, why would this
sector not also have access to the government guarantee?
That is why I have no hesitation whatsoever in agreeing with
this part of the bill. What I would like to see is to have
another element added which would also be studied, in a pilot
project, the operating capital fund. I shall explain.
Contrary to what the Reform members keep on saying about this
bill, small and medium size businesses experience horrendous
problems, particularly at time of setting up or of rapid
expansion. They have enormous difficulty in obtaining credit.
If the laws of the marketplace are the only things coming into
play, they will not get any credit, or they will have to pay
exorbitant rates reflecting the risk they represent.
1725
At the industry committee we receive representatives of the
major banks every three months, and they tell us that, when
fledgling or rapidly expanding businesses are concerned, there
is a risk. If there is no government guarantee, they tell us
that this risk will have a very costly impact on small and
medium size businesses and on economic development.
I support the pilot project aimed at making the government
guarantee accessible to businesses in the social economy sector,
but I would also like to see another dimension added, the
financing of working capital.
In the studies that have been carried out for some time on the
review of this act, a recommendation was looked at for
guaranteeing working capital under certain conditions.
No trace of this was evident in the bill itself, but it was
discussed a great deal. Some people were really very much in
favour of this, because when financing is insufficient to cover
the company until there is some revenue coming in, the project
can fail completely because no credit was given at a certain
point. This is a serious problem.
Of course, people can say that other solutions will be found,
that there will be funds from this or that source. In Quebec
there are a few of these, but they do not cover all localities
and all municipalities. This holds true even more in the rest
of Canada than in Quebec. Why not include, therefore, in the
pilot project a means of studying the conditions under which
working capital could be guaranteed, for instance through
management advice? There is nothing to prevent adding such
advice to the regulations.
I tried an experiment and proposed to a number of Bloc Quebecois
colleagues to follow my example and send a questionnaire to SMBs
asking them if they were in favour of guarantees for working
capital. One of the questions was “Do you think that if SMBs had
more ready access to sufficient credit in hard times and to
management advice there would be fewer bankruptcies and greater
development?” The number of yes responses was astronomical,
because this is their experience.
Often the credit lacking, plus the management advice, makes the
difference between a business going bankrupt and weathering the
storm and developing. It is the governments' responsibility to
be aware of this.
Business people often start up without the necessary training
and background, but once they have started and invested money
they have accumulated for years—or money from their
brother-in-law, and so on—there is no question of leaving them
there saying “Too bad, they will learn a lesson going
bankrupt`'.
We have to be there with management advice and loan capability.
The rate of bankruptcies is too high, but there is no need for
that. It could be different. For things to change, SMBs need
help and not just to be left to the market. The market will
allow the big businesses to come through.
Right now, public companies can get financing by selling stocks.
They made the fortunes of people who bought stocks for a while.
The situation is uncertain at the moment, and I know that in
Great Britain there is concern about the American bubble, but
that does not affect SMBs. They need accessible credit, a sort
of a blood transfusion, in conditions that are not too
difficult, with a dose of management advice.
I hope my colleagues opposite, since I do not think I can expect
this from those beside me, will understand that it is easy to
include working capital in the pilot project because it is a
pilot project.
1730
If this were possible, I think it would a very important plus
for a number of businesses that would otherwise be facing an
unhappy ending to their adventure. They lose everything,
because at some point they lacked sufficient funding and
management advice.
I really hope that this addition to the pilot project will mean
progress in understanding the conditions in which businesses
grow and develop rather than die.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member for Mercier was very passionate in her
defence of small business people. I certainly appreciate her
passion.
However, I wonder whether she has her priorities just a little
skewed. The parts of the bill that we do not like are not about
small entrepreneurs. They are about big banks and making their
lives easier.
These 85% loan guarantees are not meant to be of benefit to the
borrower. These are of benefit to the lender. I am sure the
hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre agrees with me on
this point. It is probably the only thing in the world on which
we agree.
We do not have to make the world safe for Matthew Barrett. This
is exactly what we are doing. If we were to amend this piece of
legislation to remove any reference whatsoever to lending money
to people in capital leasing ventures, we would be improving the
legislation because we would be lowering the risk to the
taxpayer, not the risk to the banks. The banks do not take a
risk. The parts of the bill we just discussed ensure that the
banks are not going to get their hands burned. The only people
who are going to get burned are you and me and all the other
taxpayers.
As someone who was an independent businessman for most of his
adult life, I find that this is unconscionable. I will go from
unconscionable to obscene when I look at the provision for
allowing small business loans to not for profit organizations.
Good heavens. What does this have to do with economic growth?
This is just another backdoor handout by this Liberal government
to people who really have no legitimate call on public funds. Of
course for the Liberal government that is nothing new. There is
always money for SNC Lavelin, for Bombardier and for the
Desmarais family, for anybody who is really big and powerful and
on the inside.
Mr. John Solomon: Liberals have to have friends too.
Mr. Lee Morrison: The hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre says that the Liberals have to have
friends and he makes a very good point because aside from the
type of people I have been discussing, I do not know who they
would have for friends.
I have spoken as much on this piece of obscene legislation as I
care to. We know from what the hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood said earlier that it is a waste of time to
debate things in this House. I will leave it to my colleagues if
they wish to continue the debate. Perhaps my colleague from
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre will say a few words.
1735
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to focus my
remarks on Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 7 and 8.
Motion No. 7 basically wants to eliminate the pilot projects as
mentioned in the bill. We have had committee hearings and
consultations with the stakeholders and we have had an indication
of strong support for this innovative pilot project under Bill
C-53. The removal of the clause would eliminate the proposed
pilot projects which respond to the express support for
innovation by the stakeholders and various Senate and Commons
committees. As was mentioned in committee, the industry committee
would be instrumental in designing the proposed pilot program
which would operate independently on a cost recovery basis.
Given these measures the government sees no reason to eliminate
an element of this bill which responds to the clearly expressed
wishes of various parliamentary committees.
To point out what the Reform Party wants to eliminate, I will
use as an example the Merritton Lions Club. It is a very strong
club which is non-profit and is volunteer based. It has a large
community centre and a large community arena which are operated
on a not for profit basis and which address the concerns and
needs of the community.
The Merritton Lions Club raises a lot of money to put on Labour
Day parades and various other functions. It does good work in the
community and returns everything back to the community. As far
as I am concerned, it is a very responsible and accountable group
and its objective is the betterment of the community.
This non-profit group could borrow money in a pilot program
perhaps to renovate the kitchen facilities which have become
obsolete. This would better serve the community at large and all
visiting teams at the arena and various participants that use the
community centre and bowling alley. That could be a typical pilot
project.
Eliminating that pilot project would shortchange us for being
innovative and looking to the future on how the citizens of
Canada could benefit. For that reason I cannot support Motion
No. 7.
Motion No. 8 would include working capital as one of the pilot
projects. It was clear from the consultations that access to
working capital remains a critical problem for small business.
However, during our consultations on the Canada business
financing act and specifically with the stakeholders, we heard
over and over again that this was not the right tool for working
capital. Stakeholders, including the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, believe that the risks are too high
requiring business owners and lenders to apply more due diligence
and monitoring than is currently needed for loans under this
program.
The CFIB stated in its presentation to the industry committee
just a few weeks ago “We have long been on record as saying that
working capital needs should not come under the SBLA because it
could ruin the entire program. Lending for working capital
purposes is a very different game”.
I want to commend the member for Mercier for her desire to
continue to help small business, which is not necessarily the
same for most of the parties in the House, except one. Her
efforts continue to help small business get on with doing
business and creating jobs for this country. I would like to
thank her for her work on behalf of small business.
I am sure as a result of her amendment that further discussion
needs to be done in the Standing Committee on Industry. She
brings forward a very good suggestion.
It is probably not the right one at this time, but the industry
committee needs to look at how to provide working capital for
small business in a better manner. I am sure that the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business would be able to add its
remarks on how that should be done.
1740
I want to thank members for the opportunity to spend some time
explaining Motion Nos. 7 and 8 which are in Group No. 4.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the
government members are not willing to speak about the glowing
virtues of Bill C-53, this bill they say they are so proud of,
then they are going to have to listen to me critique it a bit
more. That is the way this place works.
I want the folks back home to clearly understand what is
happening here today. We have a debate on Bill C-53, the Canada
small business financing act. The opposition has once again made
some very useful amendments to this piece of legislation. Once
again, the government has brought in closure and is trying to
shut down the debate. It does not want to seriously consider the
amendments that have been brought forward by the various parties
on this side of the House to try and make it a better piece of
legislation.
Before I talk at great length about Group No. 4, I would like to
note that this is not the first time the government has brought
in closure. This is not the first time it has used time
allocation or closure motions. As a matter of fact in the 35th
Parliament the government brought in closure 35 times. There
were 32 time allocation motions and three closure motions. In
this brand new 36th Parliament since I was elected on June 2,
1997, the government has brought in nine time allocation motions,
including the one on Bill C-53. The grand total is 44 times.
There have been 41 time allocation motions and three closure
motions.
The government likes to say that Bill C-53 is a boon to small
business yet the Liberals want to bring in time allocation. If
this were such a boon to small business, if these Liberals were
so generous to small business, all of them would be in here
giving speeches and sending copies off to their constituents,
preening themselves about how they love small business. But no. I
think they are ashamed of the fact that they have raised taxes 40
times. They have raised payroll taxes.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We have had a number of discussions here today about
staying focused on the motions. I have heard this member a
number of times go far away from the motions.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for St. Catharines
for raising this point. I am sure the hon. member was
zeroing in on it.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, focus we shall have. I
shall focus on Group No. 4.
Motion No. 7, the Reform motion put forward by my friend the
hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, would change the nature of
Bill C-53. We would not have as much of an expansion of the loans
program.
The government across the way knows only too well about
expansion. It started off as a fairly small government when the
Liberals first got their hooks on it many moons ago and it has
grown and grown. The taxes have gone up and up and up to deal
with this growing government and this expansionist philosophy.
Speaking with the great focus which those Liberal friends of
mine would like me to speak, I will deal with Motion No. 7. The
volunteer sector is the not for profit organizations. There is a
legitimate question to be raised about why the taxpayer should
guarantee loans made to some of those organizations.
More important, Motion No. 8 expands the loan provisions. As
well, this involves the ability of industry to grant loans to the
volunteer and capital leasing sectors of this economy.
Industry is not just industry in terms of other businesses.
More specifically, it means the department and that touches on
the minister. It touches on political interference and there
certainly is a history of that.
When we look at government involvement in loans and the granting
of loans, we could rattle off a litany of political interference
with regard to loans by the Liberal administration.
1745
I hearken to think of just a few days ago when I talked about
the blood bank scandals in the fair province of Newfoundland.
People are on the hook for millions of taxpayer dollars there.
Jobs have gone belly up. The government loves to bleed on about
how it wants to create jobs when just a few close friends are the
ones milking the best of that.
Another example of political interference with regard to loans
is one of the reasons we are opposed to this type of thing. I
think of Charlottetown, that failed constitutional agreement that
was rejected by Canadians from coast to coast. I remember how
there were threats and musings over the phone by people who
represented the government, saying that not for profit volunteer
organizations better back the Charlottetown accord otherwise
their grants might not be approved.
They went ahead and supported the Charlottetown accord. Then
after they were told they had better get their grants in right
away because they had been good loyal supporters of the Liberal
regime. That is the reason we cannot have political
interference. That is the reason we have problems with this
legislation. That is the reason the opposition is talking about
amending it.
The Speaker: Pursuant to the order made earlier today,
the divisions on the proposed motions in Group No. 4 are deemed
to have been demanded and deferred.
The House will now proceed to the debate on Motions Nos. 9 and
10 in Group No. 5.
[Translation]
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the motions in Group No. 5
are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos.
9 and 10.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-53, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 22 on
page 7 with the following:
That Bill C-53, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 19
on page 9 the following:
“(3.1) No regulation made under subsection (1) shall come into
force unless and until it is affirmed by a resolution of both
Houses of Parliament introduced and passed in accordance with the
rules of those Houses.”
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
government members were so proud of this piece of legislation I
know they would stand in this place to defend it, but they do
not. There is a general lack of interest on the government side
in this regard yet they have brought in closure. Something
smells funny.
My Liberal friends across the way would like me to focus on the
motions actually mentioned in Group No. 5. They are Motions Nos.
9 and 10. This is all about making the process a more open
process. The way it is done right now we need an effective check
to be placed on the minister, the minister's departmental
officials and their ability to arbitrarily implement changes in
the legislation.
I will talk about these back door regulations that the
government can bring in. I remember in the red book promises of
1993 and 1997 how the government across the way, the Liberals,
talked about wanting a more open, transparent government. I
support that. I think we should have a more open and transparent
government. The reason I do not vote Liberal is that I believe
in those things but I have not seen them deliver. That is the
problem.
Once again I speak to the people at home. They are the ones who
will have to make these decisions in the next election. They
should make sure they get a hold of Motions Nos. 9 and 10 in
Group No. 5 with regard to Bill C-53, the Small Business Loans
Act. The government has brought in closure. It has tried to
stifle the debate the opposition has tried to generate and
the amendments to improve the legislation.
1750
The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt put a lot of time,
blood, sweat, effort and tears into coming up with these changes
so that we could improve the legislation. The people across the
way do not want to listen to these things. Indeed I mentioned
before how 44 times they have brought down closure in the House
because they do not like listening to the ideas of the
opposition.
Why do we want a more open process? Why do we want to prevent
departmental officials in their ability to arbitrarily implement
changes in the legislation? It is because small business owners
want some sort of degree of predictability. They do not like
being at the caprice or at the whim of the government and some of
its back door officials or some of its henchmen. They do not
like the idea of having legislation changed just because some
bureaucrat some place, some hidden face in the bureaucracy, would
like to make their lives a little more difficult or change the
circumstances upon which they started their business and upon
which they are going ahead and pushing forward with that
business, or their ability to go ahead and access capital and
financing. They do not need that type of intervention.
I spoke with respect to political interference. When one allows
some bureaucrat or departmental official the ability to go ahead
and tweak these regulations and do with them as they please and
to treat small businesses as though they were puppets, that can
lead to all types of interference and all types of corruption. We
have seen that before.
It is not as though I stand in this place to speak about these
things as something theoretical. They are very practical. On a
day to day basis we stand in the House to put forward statements,
to ask questions and to try to find out about some of the
spurious activities that have gone on with regard to loans.
Friends of the government have been able to benefit from loan
arrangements to the tune of millions of dollars.
An hon. member: Name one.
Mr. Rob Anders: The Blood Bank Corporation. The hon
member asked me to name one. I would only be too happy to talk
about these types of things and how insidious they can be. It is
not the only example.
Just in the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency one can count a
number of problems where the Liberals promised to create jobs and
did not do the job in a number of these cases just because of
political interference. People overrode guidelines that were set
for the granting of money or for providing a loan and the
Liberals closed their eyes because they were political friends.
They covered them up despite the fact they knew it would not
work and that they knew they did not have a commitment from the
Chinese government for $300 million worth of business for the
storage of blood. They went ahead and gave out over $2 million
of federal taxpayer money. The Government of Newfoundland helped
out with another $500,000. They used that to finance from
private people $6.3 million. Now everybody is holding the bag
for about $10 million.
With a million here and a million there, pretty soon we are
talking real money. That is the problem when we allow tinkering
behind the scenes by bureaucrats. They go ahead and they put
taxpayers dollars at risk.
I look around and see the pages in the House. They are the ones
who will have to pay taxes because of what the government has
done. They are the ones who will have to pay for the mistakes.
They are the ones who will be left holding the bag on some of
these bad loans and these defaults.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I bring to your attention again, as I have numerous times
this afternoon, the importance of staying focused on the
amendments on regulation change. I would hope that we would stay
focused on them, because I am at the point where I think my
privileges as a member of parliament have been broken. I believe
that if there is a ruling concerning—
The Speaker: The hon. member intervenes again.
The first time I thought the member was going to come around and
he did a little bit. I know the hon. member for Calgary West
will focus his last three minutes or so on the regulations.
1755
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, let me read it verbatim for
members across the way so they can make sure they get the full
benefit of it. The amendment was brought forward by the member
for Saskatchewan—Humboldt, a Reform colleague of mine. I want
to focus the debate for them because I was talking about
political interference. I will read it as it stands: “This
amendment is brought forward in order to make the bill's
regulatory process more open”.
That is what the Reform Party is trying to do. We are trying to
make the regulatory process more open. I hope the member across
the way has his ears open. We are trying to make it more open
and make it more accountable.
That is speaking about as directly as I can to Motions Nos. 9
and 10. By tabling regulations in parliament and having the
House of Commons or a committee subsequently pass them, we want
to make sure an effective check is placed on ministers or
departmental officials in terms of a bill to arbitrarily
implement changes in the legislation. That is as straightforward
as it gets. I am reading it straight up.
There is a widespread problem where departmental officials and
ministers will bring through the back door via regulations what
they would not or will not spell out in legislation. We are
opposed to this practice and are attempting to remedy the
problem. That is about as direct as I can be in terms of the
problems we are facing and why we brought forward Motions Nos. 9
and 10.
The problem is that we have too many examples in this place of
where the Liberals have said “Trust us”. They were to put the
legislation forward and not cross all the t's and dot all
the i's. They said “Don't worry. Some capable technocrat
or bureaucrat will know what is best for you”. They will tinker
with it and and make whatever changes they feel best.
Shame on them. Fool me once and shame on the Liberals. Fool me
twice and what we have is a government that has broken trust too
many times. We put our faith in the government and it went ahead
and raised our taxes and brought in more regulation. It made it
more difficult to do business and to generate jobs. The Liberals
say they believe in creating jobs, jobs, jobs, but we see the
record of political interference, bad loan policies and defaults.
I am sorry I cannot put my faith in them on this one.
I want to see it printed in black and white. I want to be able
to debate it in the House as we are doing now. Members across
the way would be content to sit down, not debate and allow it to
pass. It is evidence, point in fact, because they brought
forward closure legislation that they do not want the legislation
looked at with any great degree of scrutiny or a microscope
brought to it. They want it shovelled through so they can leave
for Christmas, not worry about it any more and pass it off to the
bureaucrats.
That is what they would prefer to do. They do not like the
business of governing. It would be a lot easier to set up third
party arm's length relationships so that when something happens
the minister cannot be blamed. It will be some nameless,
faceless bureaucrat they can fire and blame the problem on. That
is not good enough. They are the stewards of taxpayers money.
They are the ones who vote for the increase in taxes.
If they do that, the onus is on them. They have a
responsibility as Liberal legislators to make sure we debate
these issues and that they are not being decided by some
bureaucrat behind closed doors. They should be brought out for
scrutiny so that we have a chance to debate the decisions. They
should be accountable for them without arm's length relationships
or firing somebody in the bureaucracy or in the ministry.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to speak to Group No. 5.
Group No. 5 contains two motions, Motions Nos. 9 and 10. Both
these motions are presented by the hon. member for
Saskatchewan—Humboldt. I appreciate his vision, the way he
thinks, in terms of his amendments to the Small Business Loans
Act.
1800
Motion No. 9 reads:
That Bill C-53, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 22 on
page 7 with the following:
“subject to subsections (2), (3) and (3.1), on the
recommenda-”
What this means is that two sections in the regulations under
paragraph 1 shall be made on the recommendation of the Minister
of Finance. Whereas under subsection (3) of the bill, the
minister shall call for a copy of the regulations proposed to be
made under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of
parliament before it is made and the House shall refer the
proposed regulations to the appropriate committee of each House.
This is a housekeeping amendment that I am delighted to put in
order.
Motion No. 10 reads:
That bill C-53, in clause 14, be amended
by adding after line 19 on page 9 the following:
“(3.1) No regulation made under subsection (1) shall come into
force unless and until it is affirmed by a resolution of both
Houses of Parliament introduced and passed in accordance with the
rules of those Houses”.
Let me give our rationale for this amendment. This amendment is
brought forward in order make the bill's regulatory process more
open and accountable. What Canadians want from this government
is accountability in Bill C-53 which deals with the Small
Business Loans Act. We need the process to be more open,
transparent and credible.
By tabling regulations in parliament and having the House or a
committee subsequently pass them, an effective check is placed on
the departmental officials' ability to arbitrarily implement
changes in legislation. That is important.
The Liberals passed the following amendment at a clause by
clause committee consideration:
(3) The Minister shall cause a copy of each regulation proposed
to be made under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of
Parliament before it is made.
This is wholly inadequate. Reform's amendment at clause by
clause stipulated that the regulation itself, not a draft of the
proposed regulations, be put before the committee. Also,
Reform's amendment placed a 15 day timeframe on the committee
reporting the regulations back to the House. There is no similar
requirement in the Liberal amendment. That is why this amendment
becomes important.
There is a widespread problem where departmental officials and
the minister's officials will bring regulations through the back
door what they would not or will not spell out in the
legislation. We do not want to fool anyone here. We want the
legislation to be transparent, open and accountable. We do not
want a back door open to introduce these regulations. Reform is
opposed to this practice, and this motion attempts to remedy
that.
The Liberals voted against our motion and passed their watered
down version. That is why we are trying to move this one again
at report stage.
The Minister of Industry tabled with the committee, on three
days short notice, the parliamentary draft of regulations for
Bill C-53. It consisted of 25 separate sections dealing with
changes in the approval or application process. Not one of them
dealt with the most contentious issues like expanding the
parameters to include pilot projects for volunteers and capital
leasing.
It is very important to discuss these issues in detail but
unfortunately the government has put time allocation on this so
that we cannot debate and argue those issues.
1805
While every regulation made by the government stands permanently
referred to the committee for the scrutiny of regulations, that
committee does not have the authority to revoke the regulations.
The hon. member knows very well. It merely has the power to
recommend a disallowance. It cannot revoke. It can just
disallow.
In the absence of a statutory disallowance procedure, abuse of
the regulatory process by officials and ministers has taken place
in the past. There is the recent example of aboriginal-only
fisheries. Beyond that, the scrutiny of regulations committee
has a very narrow band in which it can recommend action on any
regulations. That becomes the place where Canadians cannot raise
their argument, where Canadians cannot discuss the advantages and
disadvantages. We do not get the opportunity to debate. That is
the point I am trying to make here.
In many cases there is an unfair onus to prove through legal
precedent that the regulation is ultra vires of the Constitution.
In such cases this is impossible to do because the regulation has
never before been implemented. It cannot have been challenged
before a court because it has not been tabled before nor has it
been implemented.
Like an iceberg, legislation like Bill C-53 provides only 10% of
the equation. Only 10% of the equation is provided by the House.
The other 90% comes from the back door via regulations from the
minister after the legislation is passed in parliament. What
good is this debate?
What good is this debate if we only have 10% of the agenda
before us while 90% or some significant amount is added through
the regulations? That is what we are trying to stop. That is
why we want the system to be transparent and accountable right
here in the House where we are debating the bill. Having
regulations reviewed by parliament ensures a modicum of
accountability rather than just a rubber stamp of approval by the
minister. We cannot have that shoved through the opposition or
through the members and we cannot have that pass through this
House.
Bringing regulations before parliament ensures the publication
process and review of regulations is more open to the public.
Witnesses can add their concerns or bring about improvements.
They can do so in more of a public forum. As it is now the
publication period merely allows for the opportunity to comment.
Comments are reviewed by officials within the department. In
many cases they are the same people who drafted those
regulations. So where is the justification? As such they must
be seen to be in a conflict of interest position.
With respect to changing the wording of the regulations, the
prime example is the Canadian food and restaurant association. It
has serious problems with the regulations that were given to
committee members only last week. The regulatory process is
largely unacceptable to Canadians. Putting it before committee
would to some extent allow for more public input by stakeholders.
I will be supporting the motions put forward by the hon. member
for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 9 ensures the
minister can only make regulations after first tabling in the
House as provided in the new clause 14(3). The intent of this
amendment is contained in the existing clause. Therefore this
amendment is redundant.
1810
Motion No. 10 would mean that a resolution of both Houses of
parliament would be required before a regulation could be made.
The proposed amendment is contrary to the established process for
making regulations. Requiring a resolution of both Houses of
parliament before proceeding to making a regulation is opposite
to the principle of delegated authority.
Furthermore, it appears to contradict clause 14(1). This
would amendment would impose significant limitations on the
ability of the government to respond when regulatory changes are
required for the effective administration of the program or when
regulations must be adapted to respond to program abuse.
Subsection 3 already requires that the proposed regulatory
changes be laid before each House of parliament, giving
parliament and the standing committee notice of all proposed
regulatory changes. These items were discussed very thoroughly
in the committee meetings. As far as I am concerned it did the
committee well in making this recommendation for the minister.
I submit the ongoing delay by the Reform Party and its
continuous attacking of small business or the tying up of this
bill so as to not make things happen is the debate that we have
carried on this afternoon. There have not been any valid points
brought forward. It is only an attempt to delay this small
business financing act.
The intent to stop the bill in any which way, including the
front door and the back door, is not going to work with this
government. I propose that both these amendments be defeated.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier, the
questions on Motions Nos. 9 and 10 are deemed put and a recorded
division deemed requested and deferred.
The House will now proceed to the debate on Motion No. 12 in
Group No. 6. Also pursuant to order made earlier, Motion No. 12
is deemed moved.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-53, in Clause 16, be amended
(a) by replacing line 38 on page 10 with the following:
“liable to a fine of not less than $500,000 or to”
(b) by replacing lines 42 and 43 on page 10 with the following:
“summary conviction and liable to a fine of not less than $50,000
or to imprisonment for”
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I care
deeply about Bill C-53.
Once again for the folks at home so they know what is happening,
Bill C-53, the small business financing act, is what we are
debating. Motion No. 12 has been put forward by a Reform
colleague of mine, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. He wants
to make sure there is proper accountability with regard to this.
Lo and behold, the Reform Party is once again talking about
accountability and is trying to amend a government bill to make
it a better bill and to make the world a better place.
As it does with most motions put forward by the opposition, the
government has grouped them according to how similar they are.
Reform Motion No. 12 is in Group No. 6.
We want to see changes. Members across the way like to see
change. That is what I am going to talk about. They want to see
changes.
We want to see a minimum sentence as opposed to a maximum
sentence of six months which an individual can receive for making
a false application for fraudulent claim in relation to the act.
The motion also established that fines can also be issued in a
minimum as opposed to a maximum. In severe circumstances the
minimum length of incarceration, if warranted, would be six
months. This is taxpayer money. Serious theft thereof should
carry something more than a slap on the wrist or a fine.
Let me boil down what the Reform Party is trying to do. The
government talks about a maximum sentence if someone makes a
false—
1815
The Speaker: I was just getting into this bill myself,
but it is 6.15 p.m. and pursuant to order made earlier the
division on Motion No. 12 is deemed requested and deferred.
Also, all remaining motions are deemed moved.
[Translation]
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-53, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 9 on
page 11 with the following:
Mr. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ.) moved:
That Bill C-53, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 12
and 13 on page 11 with the following:
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-53, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 15
to 19 on page 11 with the following:
“months after March 31, 2001 and every two years after that,
cause to be made a comprehensive audit and review, reporting on
the provisions and operation of this Act during the preceding two
years.”
Mr. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ.) moved:
That Bill C-53, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 16
to 19 on page 11 with the following:
“years after that, cause to be made a comprehensive review and
report of the provisions and operation of this Act during the
preceding five years, specifying in the report any macro-economic
effects and any effects on employment.”
[English]
The Speaker: All the questions necessary to dispose of
the report stage of Bill C-53 are deemed put and the recorded
divisions are deemed requested and deferred.
Call in the members.
1835
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I believe that you will find consent
that the House proceed first with the deferred recorded divisions
on the supply motion of the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie
followed by all questions necessary to dispose of report stage of
Bill C-53.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of
the House to proceed in that fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH CARE
The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the motion;
and of the amendment.
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
1845
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 121
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sekora
| Serré
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 134
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the previous vote to the motion
now before the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 266]
The Speaker: Therefore I declare the motion defeated.
* * *
[English]
CANADA SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-53, an act to increase
the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion,
modernization and improvement of small businesses, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: We will now proceed to Bill C-53 at report
stage.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay with the
exception of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
– 78
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 176
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
opposed to the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote no on
this motion.
1850
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting against the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Manning
| Mark
| Mayfield
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 43
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Sekora
| Serré
| Solomon
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 211
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motions
Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 12.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 268]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 12
defeated. The next question is on Motion No. 4. A vote on this
motion also applies to Motion No. 5.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the Motion No. 4, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 254
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 carried and I
therefore declare Motion No. 5 carried. The next question is on
Motion No. 11.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
be voting against the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting against the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Laliberte
| Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 61
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Sekora
|
Serré
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 193
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 11 defeated. The next
question is on Motion No. 9. A vote on this motion also applies
to Motion No. 10.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion
No. 9.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 270]
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 9 defeated. Therefore
Motion No. 10 is defeated. The next question is on Motion No. 8.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Reform Party members present vote no to
this motion.
1855
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting against the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne – 44
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 210
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 defeated.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 13.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 103
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Solomon
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 150
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 13 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 14.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members
support this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party support this
motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 121
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sekora
| Serré
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 132
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 14 defeated.
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 15. An affirmative vote on Motion
No. 15 obviates the necessity of the question being put on
Motion No.16, and a negative vote on Motion No. 15 requires a
question being put on Motion No. 16.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed
in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting against the motion.
1900
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 87
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sekora
| Serré
| Solomon
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood
– 166
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent of the House to
proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members
present vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
be voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members this evening
will vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
– 78
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Solberg
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 175
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16 lost.
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (for the Minister of Industry) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent
that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be
voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Solomon
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 210
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Manning
| Mark
| Mayfield
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 43
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1905
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to follow up on a question I put to the government
earlier in November.
I asked the Deputy Prime Minister if the government was planning
to redefine the way poverty is measured in Canada. I have to say
that the response I received was very pathetic. Rather than
address the very serious question about changing the low income
cutoff for the definition of how we measure poverty in Canada,
the government fell back on its usual line which was to say that
its commitment to eradicate poverty was nothing more than the
child tax benefit.
Every single time members of the opposition have raised in the
House the issue about the growth in child poverty and the growth
in poverty in Canada, we have had the same response from the
government, that $850 million has been committed to the child tax
benefit. If any member of the government took the time to examine
the statistics, the facts and the record about what really has
happened with the child tax benefit, they would know that the
reality is that the poorest of children received less benefit
from the child tax benefit in 1997 than they did in 1984.
The only families whose support has increased are the working
poor with incomes roughly between $10,000 or $25,000. I point
this out because it shows the hypocrisy of the government
program. It purports to be concerned about child poverty but the
child tax benefit falls far, far short of helping the poorest
Canadians, the poorest children. They are worse off than they
were in 1984.
In debating this issue briefly tonight, we should recognize that
tomorrow is the anniversary of the unanimous resolution in the
House of Commons in 1989 to eradicate child poverty by the year
2000. The sad reality is that in Canada not only have we not
made any progress but the situation has deteriorated.
To make matters worse, there are suggestions that the government
is looking to change how it defines poverty. It reminds me of a
statement made by a social policy consultant, Mr. Shillington,
who said to beware of those who would address child poverty by
discussing its definition rather than its root causes.
The question is still before us. We have not yet had an answer.
Is the Liberal government planning behind closed doors to look at
a redefinition of how we measure poverty in Canada?
The reason for bringing this up is that at the finance committee
on October 14, the Liberal member for Mississauga South asked the
finance minister “Do you believe the government should redefine
or define in the first instance true poverty in Canada, true
poverty where we are talking about food, clothing and shelter?”
The response from the finance minister in part was “I think it
would be quite helpful in fact to have a definition of poverty
that is not a relative definition of poverty”.
That sends out huge warning signs that the government is looking
at redefining the way it measures poverty. It really begs the
question—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that the
time has run out.
1910
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the idea
that instead of acting to address poverty the Government of
Canada is simply trying to define poverty away is a grave
misunderstanding of what the government stands for.
Rather, the government has consistently demonstrated its concern
and commitment to low income Canadians and especially the needs
of children and youth. For instance, the government, in
partnership with provincial and territorial governments, has
taken action in the area of child poverty and has made children a
priority through the national child benefit. The benefit will
help low income parents to improve their circumstances.
By the year 2000 a total of $1.7 billion per year of new money
will be directed to low income families. This is over and above
the $5.1 billion the government spends on families with children
year after year.
The member opposite has made clear that this $1.7 billion on top
of the $5.1 billion does not impress her. Perhaps this is
because she arrived in this place at a time when the government
had begun to reverse the fiscal situation that we all faced when
we first came here in 1993. Had she been here at that time she
might realize that any new money was pretty miraculous,
considering we had been through years of doing nothing but
cutting. We are pretty proud of the fact, and maybe we do
overstate it, that the first new money we spent was on families
with children who are in poverty.
The government is concerned with the measurement of poverty as
well but not in the way she implied in her question. The fact is
that among experts there is no consensus around the existing
measures of poverty. Some think existing measures are too high
and some think they are not high enough.
Statistics Canada has stated that its low income cutoff, a
measure used by many—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry but I must
interrupt the parliamentary secretary.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, illegal immigration is becoming a big problem in Canada.
A recent report given to the federal government has indicated
that as many as 16,000 illegal immigrants are entering Canada
every year with the help of smugglers. Whether they are entering
the country by boat, on land or through the air, the number of
illegal immigrants passing the borders and coming into the
country is costing the Canadian taxpayer an enormous amount of
money.
Whether it be in the processing of false immigration claims or
in the fighting of organized crime in which a large number of
illegal immigrants are involved, the money being spent in
relation to this problem continues to grow.
The trafficking of illegal immigrants is becoming a profitable
business and furthermore an international business. Smugglers
have set up syndicates for these types of operations in countries
around the world.
This demonstrates how vast the problem really is and how much of
a global dilemma it is becoming. Not only should we deal with
the problem here in Canada but the issue should also be dealt
with internationally.
The costs that the federal and provincial governments have to
cover also include over $400 million a year for the handling and
processing of false refugee claimants. Moreover, it has been
estimated that each claimant costs the government $50,000 in
social benefits.
The study that I mentioned earlier indicates that between 30%
and 60% of the claimants that approach the Canadian government
lack proper documents. In addition, experts estimate that most
of the people without documentation are linked to smugglers.
Some people can be expected to pay up to $50,000 to be
transported into countries such as Canada, although the price
does depend on the destination and complexity of the
circumstances surrounding the trip. However, since most recently
apprehended smugglers have received fairly lenient sentences, the
majority of them claim that the risk is worthwhile.
These newly arrived people often enter our country with
substantial debt due to the enormous price they had to pay to be
transported across the border. Most really could not afford the
high costs but often found it necessary to leave their homes
anyway and head for another country. Imagining they would be
able to repay it once they had found employment at their
destination, they often arrive and have trouble finding a job,
which becomes problematic. Many of them then become involved in
low paying jobs or other things and some in fact become involved
in criminal activity, which also becomes a problem. This
obviously contributes to the rise in crime in Canada.
The organized crime problem in Canada is a multibillion dollar
burden on society. This study given to the federal government
maintains that the illegal immigration problem that we are
encountering is doing nothing but adding to the already
tremendous amount of money that is coming out the country's
pockets.
Illegal immigrants are adding to Canada's costs of operation,
both in fighting crime and in processing false immigration
claims. Something needs to be done.
1915
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General once
again what he proposes be done to suppress this problem. We need
to do something about this on a national level and then bring it
to the attention of an international forum. How can we as
Canadians rectify this problem?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
first, I want to thank the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington
for his very pertinent question.
The fact is that the federal government has made the prevention
and interdiction of illegal immigrants trafficking one of its
priorities, precisely for the reasons mentioned by the hon.
member. Indeed, according to the report to which my colleague
made reference, it is estimated that, every year, up to 16,000
people enter Canada with the help of smugglers.
Based on that report, this illegal activity may generate up to
$400 million in illicit profits. In light of this, I can
certainly understand the hon. member's concern.
To curb such activity, Canada has made the smuggling of aliens a
criminal offence entrenched in our national legislation and
carrying stiff penalties.
Also, Canadian officials from a number of federal departments
are co-operating with their counterparts in other UN countries on
a convention on transnational organized crime. One potential
related protocol would deal with the smuggling of aliens.
Canadian officials are actively involved in various
international initiatives, particularly those of the G-8 Lyon
group on organized crime, and conducting major international
consultations on the asylum policies in Europe.
At home, officials from the RCMP and the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration continue to co-operate across the
country and through our missions abroad to put an end to these
activities.
We will continue to work together with our partners in order to
fight this criminal activity and any other form of organized
crime.
I can only repeat how much I share my hon. colleague's concern
and that, as he indicated, both national and international
solutions must be sought. This is a priority. Fighting organized
crime is the solicitor general's top priority.
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to pursue
some questions I raised in the House on June 2, 1998.
My question pertains specifically to the issue of Meme breast
implants and more broadly about the state of affairs in the
health protection branch. The answers to both of my questions
were incomplete and certainly not pertinent to the serious
situation which I posed to this Chamber.
I raised specifically the concerns about the criminal
investigation launched last June into the breast implant issue
and asked why the government had taken so long to pursue this
very serious issue after it had been raised nine years previously
by a former colleague of mine, Joy Langan, from British Columbia.
I further asked the minister about the government's ability to
assess and ensure the safety of current breast implant products
on the market, along with my colleague, the Leader of the New
Democratic Party. In both instances we found that the answers
were very superficial and did not deal with the gravity of the
situation.
It is absolutely clear that we are dealing with the two-pronged
situation of women who suffered the consequences of inadequate
protection from the government many years ago with respect to the
breast implant product, and of the concerns we have today with
respect to products now on the market. We have very serious
worries about whether this government is actually ensuring the
safety of those products.
Some of the experts in the field have actually said that present
day saline filled breast implants are the same design over which
a plastic surgeon sued the manufacturer in the mid-1980s. All
such devices have the same leaky valves that cannot hold water.
They grow algae and fungi like a dirty aquarium.
We would like to hear specifically what steps this government is
taking to assess products on the market to ensure that they are
safe beyond any reasonable doubt.
We also raised more broadly the issue of the role of the health
protection branch because we are not just dealing with the
question of a criminal investigation into breast implants, but
also a criminal investigation into the safety of our blood
supply. We are dealing with serious sworn testimony from
scientists about gag orders, about intimidation, about threats,
about pressure to approve a bovine growth hormone when they do
not believe it is safe.
1920
We are dealing with a pattern of inconsistency and secrecy
throughout the department in a number of areas. We are dealing
with a situation where the drug approval process is largely paid
for by the pharmaceutical industry. This all adds up to a very
grave situation that requires the government to take immediate
and prompt action.
That is why we have called for a complete investigation into the
health protection branch on an urgent basis. We have raised this
suggestion on numerous occasions since last spring. We will
continue our efforts to implore the Minister of Health to take
these concerns seriously and get to the bottom of what many would
call a culture of deception in the health protection branch.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to
thank the member opposite for her question.
[Translation]
I recognize that certain allegations have been made against the
health protection branch of the department of my colleague, the
Minister of Health.
[English]
The Ministry of Health is taking a number of measures to restore
trust and morale among staff and credibility with the public. I
repeat, credibility with the public. This includes the
establishment of expert advisory committees to guide scientific
decision making and resolve scientific disputes.
[Translation]
Over the longer term, the Minister of Health will examine the
function of public health protection in the context of an
integrated federal role. He will then have to consider three
important issues.
[English]
First, we need a process for decision making that delineates
each step in the development of risk management strategies.
Second, we need to expand the traditional communications
function to have a broader public affairs orientation.
Finally, we need to address fundamental human resources and
organizational culture issues, such as the need for scientific
staff to understand the larger context in which their work takes
place.
[Translation]
The Minister of Health is looking at the best possible standards
of service to protect public health and safety, which is—I
repeat—an objective that we share.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.21 p.m.)