The House met at 11 a.m.
The other period provided for the consideration of Private
Members' Business will run from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., after
which the House will proceed to the adjournment motion, pursuant
to Standing Order 38(8).
It being 11.07 a.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
The House resumed from October 20 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (using or
operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an
offence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
We have already heard government members speak in opposition to
this legislation. That is most unfortunate, but not really
surprising. Once again this government sings the tune that it is
in favour of safer streets and more secure communities, but when
it gets down to the short strokes it typically fails to dance the
dance and continues to maintain the status quo. Government
members are quick to cite support from the Canadian Association
of Chiefs of Police when they happen to be on the same page, but
they invariably ignore these same chiefs when additional
protections are sought. As mentioned by the member for Wild
Rose, the chiefs themselves initially proposed this change to our
law.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice claims
that Canadians are already well served by common law principles
of sentencing and current legislation.
Going back to my initial example, yes, there is an offence for
stealing a motor vehicle and, yes, there is an offence for
robbing a bank and, yes, a judge considers both the theft and the
robbery at sentencing. However, we all know that multiple
convictions virtually always draw concurrent sentences.
Bill C-219 impresses upon those judges that they are to proceed
as always by imposing an appropriate sentence, but that they are
then to add another year to the total. As part of their function
they are to consider the wishes and instructions of parliament
which, if it supports this bill, will serve notice to both
potential offenders and the courts that the representatives of
the people are seriously concerned with the theft of motor
vehicles to commit other offences and we have decided to
pronounce additional condemnation.
I will point out some of the justification for this proposal.
According to Statistics Canada, some 178,580 vehicles were stolen
in 1996. The rate of vehicle theft has been increasing for eight
consecutive years, nearly doubling since 1988. In 1995-96 the
cost of stolen vehicles and their components amounted to $600
million. That is $600 million a year for vehicle theft.
Both the solicitor general and the justice minister have
received strong messages to introduce policy to reduce auto
theft. The problem is not just with auto as in car theft; there
has been a large increase in the number of trucks stolen in
recent years given the tremendous increase in popularity of
minivans and sport utility vehicles.
These statistics reveal the nature of the problem of auto theft
in Canada. Of course not all stolen vehicles are subsequently
involved in other crime. This legislation addresses the problem
of the more professional criminal, those who steal a vehicle and
then continue on to other criminal activities. Surely these
individuals deserve extra attention.
One thing I have learned here is this government's resistance to
change. It is most often quite content with the status quo. It
only moves on crises. Another is its apparent policy of not
permitting any individual member of this place to succeed in
bringing forth change. As a member of the committee on justice
and human rights, I continue to see this government through
ministers and parliamentary secretaries being unwilling to
support private member initiatives, especially those of the
opposition. We can only hope that members of the government
backbench will see the wisdom of Bill C-219.
Opposition to the bill appears to be based solely on the
reliance on present laws to properly address the problem. If the
present laws are doing the job, then why do we have this epidemic
of motor vehicle theft? Why do we have a proliferation of
anti-theft devices for vehicles? Why are manufacturers
installing satellite tracking systems in many new vehicles? Why,
when we walk on virtually any urban street in Canada, do we see a
variety of locking bars on steering wheels or little red lights
flickering on the dashboard indicating that an alarm system is
armed?
The same holds true for vehicles parked on residential driveways
and even private garages. Why, when we unwittingly brush against
a car in a crowded parking lot, do we run the risk of setting off
a chorus of sirens, whistles and klaxons? Obviously the present
laws and the present judicial discretion concerning sentencing
are not working.
I agree with the Progressive Conservative House leader who said
that it would toughen the criminal sanctions for those
individuals who use a stolen vehicle to assist in the commission
of their criminal act.
In many instances the government has gone out of its way to
protect the rights of criminals. It has been much slower to
protect the security of the public. We all recognize the tax
burden on citizens. We may not be so clear as to how, through
increases in crime, citizens are expending an ever increasing
proportion of steadily shrinking disposable income on protection
devices.
I have already mentioned anti-threat devices on motor vehicles.
Home security alarms are just another example of costs to
citizens which can be equated to taxes because the expenditures
are brought about by the government's failure to provide
sufficient protection for properties.
The member for Wild Rose through his private member's bill is at
least proposing a method to attempt to protect Canadians from not
only motor vehicle theft, but in some cases serious injury or
even death. He is merely asking for a consecutive sentence for
those professional criminals who steal a vehicle in order to
commit another crime. Surely this is a laudable and long overdue
initiative. Surely its passage will cause some criminals to have
second thoughts about stealing a vehicle to use in other crimes.
Surely the sentence imposed through this proposal will act as a
deterrent to others.
As I speak of this legislation I cannot help but compare it to
another private member's bill which is presently before the
justice committee. I refer to Bill C-251, which seeks to impose
consecutive sentencing on those convicted of multiple murders or
sexual assaults. We know that the vast majority of Canadians are
in support of this initiative. I would seriously believe they
would also be in support of consecutive sentencing for those who
steal a motor vehicle in order to commit another crime. It only
makes sense.
As the member for Wild Rose is fond of saying “We need more
common sense in this place”. We need to impress upon those who
consider making a career of crime that we intend to deal most
seriously with their multiple offences.
Here are some numbers from my home city of Surrey, British
Columbia. Corporal Greg Roche of the Surrey RCMP auto theft
division provided me with statistics for January 1 to October 31
of this year. During that period 3,161 cars were stolen, 823
trucks, 75 motorcycles, and 62 other vehicles such as all terrain
vehicles. That is a total of 4,121 stolen vehicles. If we
exclude the motorcycles and others, we still have 3,984 cars and
trucks in 309 days, or an average of nearly 13 vehicles each day.
That is about one stolen vehicle for every 80 residents of
Surrey.
About two years ago I was playing in a hockey tournament. My
wife and I left the arena around midnight, about a half hour
before my daughter left with a friend. Turning a corner, we saw
a blaze of flashing emergency lights about five blocks ahead. The
road was cordoned off two blocks from the scene but we could see
a horrendous car wreck. My heart leaped into my throat because
this was the route my daughter would have taken home. After an
anxious few minutes spent taking a detour, we turned on to our
street and saw her friend's car in our driveway.
The next morning I learned that police had called off a pursuit
and parked their vehicles at the side of the road intending to
stop a stolen vehicle headed their way. The thief sped past them
with his lights out, laughing and flipping them the finger. He
blew through a red light and T-boned a small car which was
catapulted across the intersection and through a fence. A middle
aged woman on her way home from a church meeting died on impact.
That was two blocks from my home and could just as easily have
been my daughter and her friend. They had just pulled into the
driveway when they heard the impact. The offender, in his early
twenties, was well known to police for a long history of auto
thefts and other crimes.
I encourage all members to support Bill C-219 and address just
one facet of a problem that is epidemic and, in cases such as I
have just described, tragic.
The hon. member who is proposing this amendment suggests a new
and indictable offence of using a stolen motor vehicle in the
commission, attempted commission or flight following commission
of an offence. Everyone who commits this indictable offence
would be liable to imprisonment of a term of one year. The
proposal also provides that the sentence imposed for this offence
be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed in
respect of a different offence.
The proposal does not, as the sponsor of the bill would have us
believe, create a minimum jail sentence of one year when a stolen
vehicle is used during the commission of a crime. The Criminal
Code is very clear in stating that “no punishment is a minimum
punishment unless it is declared to be a minimum punishment”.
This is subsection 718.3(2). All that the proposal does is
create a new indictable offence punishable by a maximum of one
year.
The hon. member sponsoring the bill raises the issue of
increased car thefts. He pointed out that 80% of the cars stolen
are stolen for purposes of joy riding. I would like to point out
the following.
There are already common law provisions under the Criminal Code
with respect to theft, including theft of a motor vehicle, and
to the related sentences.
Under section 334 of the Criminal Code, theft over $5,000 is an
indictable offence carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Theft not exceeding $5,000 is considered an indictable offence
with a maximum sentence of two years, or an offence punishable
on summary conviction.
These provisions reflect parliament's recognition that theft of
property is a serious offence. In addition, any court which
imposes a sentence upon an individual convicted of any criminal
offence is already obliged to take into account the circumstances
surrounding the offence.
For example, the fact that a stolen vehicle was used in the
commission of an offence will invariably be considered as an
aggravating factor in sentencing. The conduct of utilizing a
stolen vehicle in the commission or attempted commission of the
offence will usually result in a harsher sentence.
The government supports the principle that those who use stolen
motor vehicles in the commission, attempted commission or flight
following commission of an offence ought to be punished.
Moreover, in any case where the use of a stolen motor vehicle in
a criminal offence endangers the lives or safety of others, the
offender should be exposed to harsher penalties.
However our current system, revamped in 1996 through Bill C-41,
the sentences reform act, already provides the necessary
flexibility in effectively tailored sentences to circumstances
such as the foregoing.
It is perplexing to me that the issue of consecutive sentences
continues to be raised in the House by certain members including
the member responsible for the bill being debated today. The
government has already addressed the issue of consecutive
sentences in its package of amendments to the sentencing
provisions of the Criminal Code which came into force in
September 1996.
Subsection 718.3(4) of the Criminal Code currently provides
judicial discretion to impose consecutive sentences, that is
sentences served one after another, where appropriate, for
example where the offender is already subject to a sentence of
imprisonment or where the offender is convicted of more than one
offence before the same court and several periods of
incarceration are required.
However, this paragraph is subject to paragraph 718.2(c) of the
Criminal Code, which provides that “where consecutive sentences
are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or
harsh”. This is the sentencing principle known as the totality
principle.
It has also been held that a second crime committed while in
flight from a first crime should be subject to a consecutive
sentence.
Further, jurisprudence has stated that where there are a number
of different offences committed within a short period of time the
offences should be grouped in categories and concurrent sentences
imposed in respect of the offence in the same category but
consecutive sentences for those imposed in respect of other
categories, again bearing in mind that the total term should not
be excessive. This is consistent with the sentencing process.
As all levels of courts have recognized, including the Supreme
Court of Canada, the sentencing process is an individualized one.
The court exercises discretion based on the particular facts of
the case before it. The court tailors a sentence appropriate to
the individual circumstances of the offences and the offender,
after having taken into account such things as the aggravating
and mitigating factors, the gravity of the offence, the degree of
responsibility of the offender, and what sentences others have
received for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
In addition, parliament has enacted provisions which address the
purpose, principles and objectives of sentencing which serve to
guide and structure the court's exercise of its discretion. In
particular, courts are instructed that the fundamental purpose of
sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention
initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a
just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that
include as their objectives the deterrents and denunciation of
unlawful conduct. Courts have all the required tools to address
this situation at the present time.
It should also be noted that while the problem of motor vehicle
theft is international in scope, the recent international crime
victimization survey conducted in 1996 revealed that Canada's
rate of vehicle theft ranked as one of the lowest among
industrialized countries. In 1995, 18 out of every 1,000
Canadian vehicle owners experienced a motor vehicle theft
compared with a rate of 33 per 1,000 owners in England.
In addition, a number of non-statutory measures have been
developed to prevent motor vehicle theft in Canada. These have
been quoted as examples of reasons for needing more legislation
but I think they are more appropriately alternatives to
legislation.
Many police departments across the country have set up
anti-theft programs involving visible stickers on car windows
which signal to the police to stop the car when it is being
driven between midnight and 6 a.m. and to check the driver's
identification.
In addition, car parts are marked and there are measures against
the exporting of stolen vehicles.
These crime prevention programs designed to reduce car theft,
together with existing criminal code provisions, provide a
comprehensive scheme for addressing the use of stolen motor
vehicles to commit crimes.
What is more concerning is the constant occurrence during
Private Members' Business of members proposing legislation based
on the assumption that the criminal justice system is not working
and that it is at a state where Canadians should be tremendously
concerned about their public safety. Granted it may be because
of demographic reasons, but for whatever reason Canadian society
is becoming one that is less and less violent.
It does not serve the public interest well. Not only this
member but members from all parties bring forward private
members' bills based on the assumption that the criminal justice
system is not working. That is a very misleading position for
members to bring to the House. More study should be done as to
the actual facts and statistics. Inasmuch as that may not be as
politically expedient as the contrary, the public interest would
be much better served.
The bill seeks essentially to do two things, as has already been
commented upon by the previous speaker from the government. It
makes it an offence to use a stolen car in the commission of
another offence. It provides for consecutive sentencing of a
person for a maximum period of one year should the individual who
has stolen the car be convicted.
It is an interesting piece of legislation. The hon. member for
Wild Rose was well intentioned when he prepared and submitted the
bill to the House. It says a number of things. It speaks to a
concern that has been addressed by the member for Wild Rose and
other members in the House about crime and how we deal with
crime. As the hon. member prior to me indicated, it makes a
provision for a maximum sentence of one year if a vehicle is used
in the commission of an offence or while fleeing an offence.
The hon. member who spoke prior to me is correct, at least in my
experience, when he says that if a vehicle used in the commission
of an offence is a stolen vehicle it is an aggravating factor in
sentencing. It does not detract from the private member's bill
that has been introduced in the House by the member for Wild
Rose. It is a reality. It needs to be said that in the
commission of an offence, whether that offence is break and
enter, robbery or whatever, if the offender has used a stolen
vehicle it comes to the attention of the judge.
It comes to the attention of the judge in a number of ways.
First, the prosecutor will bring it to the attention of the
judge. Second, and in my experience of some years as a criminal
lawyer, in most cases the individual will also be charged with
theft over a certain amount in addition to the offence for which
he or she has been convicted, as referred to by the hon. member.
That in and of itself is another criminal offence.
There is also a specific offence under section 335 of the
Criminal Code which says that subject to subsection 1.1 every one
who without the consent of the owner takes a motor vehicle—and
it goes on to define that—or is an occupant of a motor vehicle
that is taken without the consent of the owner is guilty of an
offence punishable on summary conviction.
Sometimes it is helpful for people watching or listening to the
debate, or those reading Hansard, to have an example
because the Criminal Code is such a complicated document. I
practised criminal law for some 14 years. It is a comprehensive
and complicated piece of legislation.
Let us take the example of an individual who commits a break and
enter with a stolen vehicle, not into a dwelling house but into a
place of business. That offender would be charged under section
348 of the Criminal Code and would be subject, because it is not
a dwelling house, under an indictable offence, to a term not
exceeding 10 years.
If the member for Wild Rose has his way and his bill becomes
law, the use of the stolen vehicle would add another year to that
sentence. I do not think it would make a huge difference when
one looks at the other sections of the code, which make it an
offence to steal a vehicle in any event—
I have no great problem with that. I do not think that is
necessarily a bad thing. I think it would bring home how wrong
it is to use a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an
offence. It would add that one year penalty. I would submit
that in most cases there would be an additional period of time in
any event.
Therefore I have no problem with the bill. It seems to me that
it is simply codifying what happens in common law, except—and
this is one area that I think is worthy of some discussion and
some thought—it makes it a mandatory consecutive sentence, as
opposed to providing the judge with the discretion to make it
concurrent. Even at that I have no great problem with the bill.
However, I do have a problem with some of the motivation. I
only say this because it is an ongoing debate as to whether or
not increased penalties prevent crime. I appreciate where the
hon. member is coming from when he says that it will teach a
lesson to those who decide to steal a car in order to commit a
crime. For those very few offenders who do in a premeditated and
calculated way determine that they are going to steal a vehicle
to commit an offence it may in fact be a deterrent. However, the
vast majority of individuals who come before the court because of
the commission of a criminal offence rarely plan it. In fact,
they say that is why most of them get caught. It is a spur of
the moment, poorly thought out action.
It is a criminal action, nonetheless. It is a serious action,
nonetheless. But the very real argument that there would be
general deterrence or specific deterrence by saying “Listen,
buddy, when you decide you are going to steal that car to commit
an offence, you had better think twice because you are going to
end up serving consecutive time for the commission of the
offence”, that thought process does not happen. Nine times out
of ten, I would venture to guess, the vast majority of stolen
vehicles are stolen on impulse and they are stolen to commit
another crime that happens on impulse. The reality is that
offenders do not sit down to calculate how much time they might
serve for the commission of an offence.
They know they are committing an offence which is why it is
wrong. They ought to be punished for it. But if members of the
House think they are going to be able affect the thought process
of those who commit offences, it simply is not going to happen.
Rehabilitation is an aspect of sentencing that is rarely
addressed by these kinds of bills. Rehabilitation is what
happens to the offender after the commission of the offence.
Hopefully it teaches them not to commit that offence by
addressing the root causes of the offence. Rarely in the debates
on these kinds of bills are the issues of rehabilitation
addressed.
There was another bill mentioned by hon. members in this debate
that had to do with consecutive sentencing. I have read the
speeches on that bill given by the mover. It is a different
bill, so I will not address it too long. However, nowhere in his
comments in the House of Commons does the mover of that bill talk
about rehabilitation. Until we address that problem, simply
thinking that we can scare those who would offend by increasing
sentences is simply not going to solve the problem. That being
said, for the victim whose car is stolen, if they are seeking
some kind of retribution, I suppose the one year sentence makes
sense.
For the most part, the one year sentence, whether it be six
months, eight months or a year, will be calculated by the judge
in determining the sentence if a motor vehicle is used.
It is a worthwhile point of discussion. It is an interesting
bill. It is motivated because the hon. member has heard from his
constituents and chiefs of police who support it. As a lobby
group, the chiefs of police come from a particular point of view,
as do other lobby groups which try to effect bills.
Hon. members say that chiefs of police come from a lobby group
that protects society. They do. The John Howard Society is a
group that wants to protect society in a different way. The key
for parliamentarians is not to be dictated to by either lobby
group, but to find the balance that reflects the will of
Canadians.
I thank the hon. member for introducing the bill. It has given
us some thoughtful discussion.
As a former police officer, I have to say that I can see a great
deal of merit in this bill. I have had experience dealing with
young offenders who are intent on breaking the law, stealing
motor vehicles, taunting the police and recklessly driving
without being chased just to get the attention of the police.
In the early part of my career I saw a number of minor motor
vehicle thefts increase to up to a thousand a month in the city
of Calgary alone. That was experienced in every city across this
country. There was no deterrent sentencing. The young offender
would laugh at the thought of even being caught in a stolen motor
vehicle. They would deliberately commit some infraction and look
for the police so they could taunt them into chasing them. That
is a very harsh way of dealing with the freedoms of this country
and the young offenders are not being treated accordingly by the
courts to deter such criminal activity. There needs to be a
deterrent. Bill C-219 is a step in the right direction.
Approximately 80% of the vehicles are recovered. Eighty per
cent of vehicles are used for joy riding or crime and then they
are dumped. In other words, they are recovered, but there is
still a cost to the insurance company.
The other 20% are often used for things other than crime. They
are often sent overseas. They are dismantled for parts. Or they
become part of some other country's economy. It is unbelievable
the number of stolen vehicles that leave this country to become
part of another country's economy. All we have to do is go to
either one of the coasts where there is a port and look at the
container traffic. In those containers there may be two or three
stolen vehicles. It is something that the police cannot get a
handle on. They know it is happening in a substantial way, but
they cannot get a handle on it because it requires extra
resources.
I think anyone caught in a stolen vehicle, let alone committing
another criminal offence, should have another year added to their
sentence.
The member who spoke just before me mentioned sentencing for a
break and enter. If a person was caught in a stolen vehicle and
had just broken into a shop, that would certainly bring a
sentence of 10 years. I do not know of anyone who received 10
years for breaking into a shop. I do not even know of anyone who
got 10 years for breaking into a house, let alone breaking into a
shop.
The judges already have the latitude to hit an offender with a
substantial sentence, but they do not take that opportunity. It
is like politicians. They have to be forced to do something.
Most of the time they are forced to do something after their
constituents get fed up with the way things have been going. In
my respectful submission, this also applies to judges. They say
they have to go back to case law where it tells them that they
have to do this or do that.
Where on earth does case law come in when a person is charged
with half a dozen car thefts and a few cases of break and enter?
The court then decides it is not going to sentence the person for
the six cases of break and enter or the six auto thefts, but that
it will apply global sentencing which may amount to what they
would get if they had stolen one car and broken into one shop.
That is what is happening in our courts.
Provisions for minimum sentencing must be brought into law. If
an offender is responsible for car theft, then he should get a
minimum of one year.
In that regard, I believe this bill is suitable.
I remember a recent jailbreak from the Drumheller penitentiary
where five inmates went on the lam. One inmate was responsible
for killing a police officer. Another one was charged and
convicted of manslaughter. Two others had been charged with
robbery and the last one had been charged with break and enter.
They stole a car to get away from the prison. They drove it as
far as Cochrane, which is about 100 miles outside of Drumheller,
dumped it and stole another car. They then drove the second
stolen car to Coquitlam in British Columbia where they decided to
commit one armed robbery and one robbery.
They stole another car which they drove throughout southern
British Columbia and then committed another armed robbery in the
central part of British Columbia. Here are five inmates on the
lam. What happens to them?
They should receive a one year sentence for every car they
stole, not some global sentencing that throws it all together
into one, which amounts to a few months more in prison. That is
not what should happen, but that is what is happening in our
courts and that is the way the authorities have handled it. I
think it is time for change.
We have to put a screeching halt to what is going on right now
by introducing minimum sentencing in our legislation that will
change the minds of judges who think they have so much discretion
or that they have to do what their predecessors have done, with
maybe only one other ruling, and put an end to this whole aspect
of global concurrent sentencing.
I believe the meeting in 1996 which involved the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police would welcome such a bill. They
would now feel that they are finally getting some support from
this House when they stand to speak. The police are charged with
a very serious responsibility which is to protect society.
This is not the John Howard Society.
The John Howard Society plays a role but not for the rights of
prisoners. Prisoners rights have gone far beyond what they
should have gone. The chiefs of police have been shuffled off to
the side. They are coming out and saying more and more loudly
that they have a problem on our streets and they want some help.
It is only the politicians that can actually correct this
problem. They can bring in laws which will be much more
demanding and place the responsibility on the shoulders of those
who commit crime.
I urge members of the House to consider the merits of Bill
C-219. I am confident that if they do so they will see the bill
is a step in the right direction.
Although my party and the Reform Party do not agree on the
remedies in the justice system, we agree that there are many
problems in our justice system. We agree that the Liberal
government is not always there for Canadians to strengthen the
Criminal Code and to toughen provisions when needed.
As mentioned by previous speakers, the bill would amend section
334 of the Criminal Code. The purpose of the amendment is to
classify those found guilty of operating or using a motor vehicle
which a person has stolen or knows to have been stolen while
committing an indictable offence, during flight, or committing or
attempting to commit an indictable offence.
The sentence for such an offence would be a term of imprisonment
for one year. It would also require that the sentence be served
consecutive to any other punishment if it arises out of the same
set or series of events that contributed to the conviction of the
first offence. All that is to say in plain language that there
would be a greater emphasis placed on an offence committed when
using a stolen vehicle.
Those who state there are already existing Criminal Code
provisions which effectively address this problem are incorrect.
The existing provisions may reference the problem it enforced,
but the reality is that we need to put greater weight in the
Criminal Code to deter those who use stolen vehicles to break the
law.
I commend the hon. member's effort in this regard. I am
supportive of the bill, as are all members of the Progressive
Conservative caucus. It is a positive measure because it
addresses two key areas in which there is a need for improvement
to our Criminal Code. It would toughen criminal sanctions for
individuals who have stolen vehicles to assist in the commission
of their criminal acts.
This would be a welcome change because it punishes criminals
additionally for the additional step they have taken, namely
having stolen a vehicle to commit another offence. The use of a
stolen vehicle is as much a crime as any other criminal act and
it can be punished separately.
Another area of the intended amendment proposed ensures that the
sentence imposed on the criminal, namely the driver, would be
served consecutively. It is very much a truth in sentencing
provision. For example, if someone is found guilty of an offence
under this proposed provision the sentence would be cumulative.
It would be served consecutively as opposed to concurrently. This
would send a strong message to thousands of Canadians who lose
their vehicles to theft or someone who would commit a robbery and
forcefully take their vehicles. It would bring about greater
accountability. It would certainly send that message to the
criminal element.
Crimes involving personal property such as stolen vehicles are
particularly offensive to the victims. People, for obvious
reasons, attach a great deal of importance to their vehicle as a
mode of transportation. When that vehicle is stolen and often
damaged or never recovered, the person is generally
inconvenienced. There is also that psychological feeling of
invasion which people experience when their property is taken or
damaged. It is similar to when a person's home is invaded.
We in the Progressive Conservative caucus feel that other
amendments are needed to the Criminal Code to deal with crimes
involving personal property. Last month my colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough introduced Motion No. 515 which
called for an amendment to the Criminal Code to include the
offence of home invasions.
Progressive Conservatives also believe in a rigorous application
of the principle of truth in sentencing. If someone commits a
crime, he or she should be punished for that crime. That is why
our caucus also supports the efforts of the member for
Mississauga East in obtaining passage into law of Bill C-251. The
purpose of the hon. member's bill is to amend the code to put
greater emphasis on an existing offence. I believe this is
positive. I would therefore hope that there is support for this
bill which is votable.
We need to remember, however, that no matter how well
intentioned legislation is it will go nowhere without the ability
to implement and enforce it. I would therefore like to outline
some concerns with respect to the government's persistent
underfunding of law enforcement.
The justice minister and the solicitor general often state that
public safety is a priority with the government. Instead of
talking, the government could do a lot to demonstrate its
commitment to public safety by supporting legislation such as the
initiatives brought forward by the member for Wild Rose, the
member for Mississauga East and the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Government should pay greater attention to what our police
community is saying. Quite bluntly, police officers are getting
the shaft from the Liberal government. According to the
information revealed by the government's own organized crime
summit in April, the national police service needs an additional
$200 million over the next four years or it will functionally
expire. That will have an impact on every part of the country.
We have already seen a situation evolve where large detachments
of the RCMP are underfunded. Even worse, the force's overall
budget for the fiscal year is $10 million short to date and the
RCMP cadet program has been frozen for the rest of the year.
Sadly the government has for many months displayed a callous and
reckless attitude in its approach toward fighting crime. This is
a time when the Liberal government seems oblivious to the
negative consequences of the government's disbanding of the ports
police, as we saw in Halifax and Vancouver. We are also seeing
an increasing amount of drug smuggling and illegal contraband
material coming into Canada through out ports. Yet this decision
was made and followed through against the wishes of many in the
community who knew what the ramifications could be.
The solicitor general and the Liberal government decided to cut
$74.1 million from the RCMP's organized crime budget for this
fiscal year, according to the government's own estimate
documents. That is not leadership in providing resources to our
law enforcement community. That is a 13% cut in one fiscal year
of overall dollars dedicated by the RCMP to fight organized
crime.
The RCMP is not the only police force that feels the effects.
Municipal and provincial police forces inevitably are forced to
pick up the slack. More download. Many of these forces are
already burdened by the abandonment of ports police and are
struggling to fill the void left by the negative decisions of the
government. The Liberal government should stop downloading its
financial responsibilities to support young offenders programs
and services on the backs of the provinces.
When the Young Offenders Act came into effect in 1984 the
federal government guaranteed that it would assume 50% of the
costs. Today the federal government only picks up 30% of that
tax with the provinces and territories assuming the remaining
70%. Is it any wonder the Minister of Justice cannot get
provinces onside to replace the Young Offenders Act?
While I support Bill C-219 I hope government members find the
will to vote in favour of the bill. I reiterate the call for the
government to stop its destructive policies with respect to our
frontline police officers. Talk is cheap. The law enforcement
community needs action.
While many members opposite might evaluate the bill on a variety
of criteria, I evaluate the bill on its merits rather than on its
politics. I do not propose to rant about everything that is
wrong in the criminal justice system or everything that appears
to be wrong in the criminal justice system. I say at the outset
that the bill has nothing to do with RCMP budgets, young
offenders legislation or a number of other items that are
continually raised.
I would like to direct the attention of the hon. members to the
Bill C-219 which states:
The second section indicates that it will be a mandatory
consecutive sentence. In and of itself it appears to be a good
initiative. Were it to be taken in isolation, I would say it is
a good initiative which deserves a lot of merit. That is on the
presumption that the Criminal Code is silent about the issues
addressed in the bill: the issues of auto theft, using a stolen
vehicle in the commission of a crime, et cetera. My suggestion
is that the Criminal Code is far from silent on these issues.
I direct the attention of hon. members to subsection 322(1) of
the Criminal Code, entitled the theft section:
That is the overall global section attributable to the
particular issue the hon. member raises. The more specific
section is offences resembling theft and addresses the issue of
motor vehicles:
Then there is a subsection which I will not read to hon.
members.
I caution hon. members that when one is in a criminal court
dealing with issues such as this one, this is the kind of dry
legalese that is dealt with by judges on each and every day. The
judges have to make decisions as to particular sections of the
offence, the most relevant of which is whether the individual
took the motor vehicle with intent. I adopt the view of the
member opposite, the justice critic, who said something to the
effect that some offences were in large measure without intent
whatsoever, that in fact the individuals are more pathetic than
anything else.
The final section is with respect to how a judge arrives at a
sentence. This deals with subsection (2) of the proposed bill.
It is dealt with in section 718 of the Criminal Code:
1200
If the Criminal Code were silent on this matter, then the hon.
member opposite would have a good point. But the Criminal Code
is not silent. The Criminal Code is in and of itself a perfectly
adequate piece of legislation to deal with the offences being
complained about. This is not to minimize or to suggest that the
offences and concerns raised by the hon. member are not important
concerns, nor is it to trivialize them or to consider them
frivolous. On the contrary, these issues are of unique and
considerable importance to Canadians and their justice system.
The manner by which the member attempts to accomplish his
perceived goal is possibly naive. If anything it is
counterproductive. If he expects this bill will reduce the
incidence of auto crime I would suggest he is quite naive. A lot
of auto crime or so-called joy riding is impulse crime. It is
crime done with very little forethought by foolish people. If
the hon. member thinks this bill will reduce the incidence of
foolish people in our society, I would suggest that he explain
himself a little more on that point.
The member needs to think again if he thinks consecutive
sentencing is the be all and end all to all of our sentencing
woes in Canada. The understanding among crown prosecutors,
defence counsel and judges is that for any particular kind of
offence there is a bit of a sentencing envelope. Within that
sentencing envelope one will receive his or her sentence. That
sentencing envelope is somewhat carefully crafted, with section
718 in mind, as the individual either pleads guilty or is found
guilty before a judge.
When the judge hears the representations with respect to the
sentencing, he or she takes into consideration all of the
principles in section 718. There is the need to denounce the
unlawful conduct, the need to create a safe society, the need to
deter this kind of offence. Those are the kinds of principles
that are taken into consideration within the sentencing envelope.
If the hon. member wishes to add a year, which is what a
consecutive sentence is, I would suggest that on the other side
something will get discounted because the offence will not stand
in and of itself. The offence is contemplated to stand with
other offences. The consequence will be that the actual offence
may get discounted while the judge takes into consideration his
obligation to impose a consecutive sentence. That is ultimately
the flaw of the bill in its sentencing principle if
intellectually you can get over the point itself.
While the hon. member addresses an issue that is of concern to
Canadian society and to all of us, he does not do it through this
bill. It removes all discretion from judges. The bill is not
necessary. It is counterproductive and ultimately I would
suggest it is quite naive.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
naive, I think not.
I would like to speak on behalf of victims. I have been a
victim of vehicle theft, as have other members I am sure. I will
relate my story and its outcome to show one of my difficulties in
trying to understand how our legal system works.
It is noon. My company vehicle, filled with stock and
equipment, is stolen.
Not just the stock and equipment, but the vehicle to go with it.
The police are called. After five hours and no action, I went
out looking for the vehicle myself. Where did I find it? It
drove right by me, right in front of my office. I found the
vehicle myself. With a cell phone and modern communications I
had the police there within minutes.
1205
The point of this story is not that the vehicle or the stock and
material were gone but it is about the person who did it. When he
was captured and collared by the police he said “Whoa, three
months, I need a rest, and I will be out of there”.
He stole a vehicle with some $10,000 worth of test equipment and
expensive gear inside it and he was out running around peddling
it. By the time I caught him, half of the equipment was gone.
Besides doing that, he ran from the police, rammed a police car
and two other vehicles and this individual is going to be out in
three months. Why? Because we have a legal system that packages
everything together.
I really think this is a perfect example for the bill from the
member for Wild Rose. It is absolutely spot on. Give him one
year—
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I must interrupt the hon. member. The time
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has
now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order
of precedence on the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That, in accordance with subsections 49(1) and 49(2) of the Act
respecting the status and use of the official languages of
Canada, Chapter O-3.01 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985,
this House approves the appointment of Dr. Dyane Adam as
Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada for a term of
seven years.
He said: First of all, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House and all
Canadians, I would like to convey to Dr. Victor Goldbloom, the
present Commissioner of Official Languages, our gratitude for
his many years of devoted service.
The job of Commissioner of Official Languages is an extremely
important one. Parliament created this position in order to
protect and promote one of Canada's distinguishing
characteristics, its two official languages. The Commissioner
of Official Languages is a special ombudsman reporting directly
to the Parliament of Canada.
The commissioner's mandate consists in protecting and promoting
the language rights of individuals and groups in Canada, and in
monitoring the language performance of federal institutions and
other bodies covered by the Official Languages Act.
The Commissioner investigates complaints and makes
recommendations in order to ensure that Canadians' right to
communicate with the institutions of the Government of Canada in
either official language is respected.
It is also the commissioner's responsibility to inform Canadians
about the Official Languages Act and his role within the
Government of Canada, with a view to encouraging it to ensure
that both of our official languages are respected, protected and
promoted.
[English]
The role of the commissioner is clearly focused on people. The
commissioner meets regularly with Canadians of all ages and
conditions in every province, working with them to enhance
respect for our two official languages.
The commissioner also meets with officials from the various
orders of government and individuals from the private, community
and academic sectors.
1210
The commissioner also plays an important role in assisting
official language minority communities in developing and
enhancing their vitality and obtaining the rights guaranteed them
by the Constitution and by the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Dr. Dyane Adam clearly has the skills and the experience needed
to perform the duties of this position well. She has played a
vital role in the area of official languages for many years.
She is familiar with the situation of official languages right
across the country.
Dr. Adam was involved in founding a number of provincial and
regional organizations and participated in a number of
francophone and women's projects across Canada. Need I mention
that she will, on her appointment, be the first women to occupy
this prestigious position.
Dr. Adam helped found the Réseau de chercheures féministes de
l'Ontario français and is a member of a number of organizations
including the Regroupement des universités de la francophonie
hors Québec. For three and a half years, she chaired the
advisory committee on francophone affairs of the Ontario
Ministry of Education and Training.
I am sure all members will agree with me that Dr. Adam has an
impressive track record and is the ideal candidate with her vast
knowledge and passionate interest in promoting the protecting
the language rights of all Canadians.
This appointment takes effect in August 1999. Dr. Goldbloom has
already agreed to assume an acting capacity, the details of
which will be arranged in the next few days.
I encourage all members to support the motion to appoint Dr.
Dyane Adam to the position of Commissioner of Official Languages
for Canada.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to this motion for a number of reasons.
I had the pleasure to attend the official languages committee
last week to which Mme Adam presented herself and made her
qualifications open to the committee. I am really quite
impressed. Over the number of years I have been interviewing
people at all levels, professionals in particular, Dyane Adam was
particularly well suited for the interview and the job. I was
quite impressed with the way she handled herself through the
interview. Indeed she was calm, cool and collected, which she
may have to be in her new job.
My compliments go across the way. It is very unusual to hear
that from me, however my colleagues on the other side have been
open enough and secure enough in this day and age to put officers
of the House of Commons, to put jobs and people before a
committee where they can be interviewed. Originally when we
talked about this process concerning the privacy commissioner and
the information commissioner we said there was really nothing to
fear but fear itself. We have gone through these interviews now
and we have in fact found that the selection process works in a
normal way.
In the case of Mme Adam, I think that had she not worked out in
the interview, she would have known it and we would have known it
and possibly we would have parted ways at that point. But the
contrary did happen and she did rather well indeed.
1215
The government does have the support of this party to have her
appointed to the post of official languages commissioner.
While not new, the idea in the House of Commons where we talk
about skills, abilities and qualifications as a first criterion
for selecting people for jobs rather than who they know and what
they did for the party and that sort of thing is the way to go.
We do tend to get the best people for the jobs. Someday in the
not too distant future we may see that same process for people
who are on parole boards or on other commissions. I do not see
that as unrealistic. Perhaps my colleagues are now getting the
drift that the process we have established is quite a normal
process. It happens in business every day.
My compliments to Dyane Adam on this job if she is appointed
with the consent of the House. My compliments to my colleagues
in the selection process. Although it is a majority government,
my compliments to the Liberal government. We know it did not
have to do this. It has gone through this process and it is here
to stay. That speaks well of everybody.
Ms. Adam's resume is quite impressive. I know the government
House leader has spoken on some things in it. I want to add a
couple of things about her education. She has a Ph.D. in
clinical psychology, a masters in clinical psychology, a
professional baccalaureate specializing in psychology and a
bachelors degree with concentration in psychology, in and of
itself enough to make most companies in the country wish they had
somebody with those kinds of qualifications. A few members in
the House could probably use a bit of psychology assistance from
time to time. Perhaps we will call on her for things other than
languages.
Some of her appointments include principal of Glendon College at
York University, ministry of education and training, and
Laurentian University. She had a private practice in psychology
in Toronto, Sudbury and Cornwall. She was at the Cornwall
general hospital and it goes on.
I do think the House of Commons has selected the best person for
the job given the skills, abilities and qualifications. My
compliments to everybody who was involved in the process.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that the Bloc Quebecois supports the government's
motion to appoint Dr. Dyane Adam as Commissioner of Official
Languages.
In accepting this nomination, Dr. Adam will establish two
precedents, becoming the first woman to hold this office and the
first person from outside Quebec to be appointed Commissioner of
Official Languages.
However, Dr. Adam knows both Quebec and Canada. Born in Ontario,
she worked in various Quebec regions before returning to her
home province, where she has applied her talents and competence
to serving the francophone community with intelligence and
sensitivity.
The next official languages commissioner knows that the Canadian
Francophonie has many voices. At the Ontario consultation
committee for francophone feminists, Dr. Adam unequivocally
claimed the right of Franco-Ontarians to speak with many voices.
In a paper presented at the seminar entitled “Visibles et
partenaires”, Dr. Adam wrote:
This consultation committee is a forum that adheres as closely
as possible to a feminist vision of society, where the
principles of justice, equity and respect for the diversity of
experience of all Franco-Ontarian women prevail.
Dr. Adam also distinguished herself by her vision and her
involvement in the Franco-Ontarian distance education network.
1220
This network, which has included Ontario's bilingual
universities since 1994, is a consortium whose purpose is to
provide education services in French, at the university level.
Dr. Adam also worked in the areas of health and communications,
always striving to better serve her fellow French speaking
Ontarians.
The Bloc Quebecois is confident that this woman will recognize
that there are two minorities in Canada, namely the francophone
communities outside Quebec and the anglophone community in
Quebec. These two minorities live in very different contexts and
must be treated in a way that promotes their full development
and growth.
In several texts that she has written, including the one on the
challenges of post-secondary education in Ontario, Dr. Adam
clearly identified the features of the Franco-Ontarian community:
small percentage of the overall population, assimilation rate of
40%, scarce human and financial resources, isolation of
francophone populations.
We could of course add more, but I am convinced that Dr. Adam,
who is a former advisor with the Office of Franco-Ontarian
Affairs, is well aware of the differences that exist between,
for example, Ontario's francophone communities and Quebec's
anglophone community.
The Bloc Quebecois supports Dr. Adam's appointment as official
languages commissioner, because we believe her experience is a
guarantee that she will recognize the fundamental differences
between minority communities in Quebec and in Canada, and that
these differences will be reflected in her studies and
positions.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes good luck to Dr. Adam in her new
responsibilities and offers her its co-operation for future
endeavours.
We also take this opportunity to thank Dr. Goldbloom, for the
work he has done over the past seven years.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise to take part in this debate on the appointment of the
new Commissioner of Official Languages. The NDP supports
appointment.
Dyane Adam will be the first woman to hold this position, and
the first francophone outside Quebec. This Franco-Ontarian woman
has worked in the fields of health and education. She knows the
importance for minority communities, the francophone communities
outside Quebec and the anglophone community within Quebec, of
having health care and education services provided in their own
language.
The role of the Commissioner of Official Languages is very
important for linguistic minorities. According to the Official
Languages Act, the role of the commissioner is to:
—to take all actions and measures within the authority of the
Commissioner with a view to ensuring recognition of the status
of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit
and intent of this Act in the administration of the affairs of
federal institutions, including any of their activities relating
to the advancement of English and French in Canadian society.
The commissioner investigates either on his own initiative or in
response to complaints received and submits reports and
recommendations according to the act.
As an Acadian, I am concerned about the rights of language
minorities. We have come a long way since the passing of the
Official Languages Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Unfortunately, there is a long way to go yet. On
Prince Edward Island, parents have to fight before the courts to
get a French school.
The federal government programs supporting the Official
Languages Act are paramount to the minority language
communities. However, since 1993, the Liberals have cut the
budgets of these programs by 23%. The progress made may well be
wiped out if the government goes with the status quo and does
not provide more funding to the official languages support
programs.
This summer, the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du
Nouveau-Brunswick had to operate without its director general
because of cuts imposed by the Liberal government.
The cuts, privatization, devolution and partnerships with the
private sector encouraged by the Liberal government eliminate
certain rights of francophones outside Quebec.
We need a Commissioner of Official Languages who will continue
the work started by her predecessor in this area, Victor
Goldbloom.
[English]
The NDP supports Dyane Adam.
1225
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have an opportunity to speak to the appointment of Dr. Dyane
Adam as the new Commissioner of Official Languages. On behalf
of the Progressive Conservative Party, it gives me great
pleasure to support Dr. Adam's appointment.
Dr. Adam's curriculum vitae, as well as her presentation to the
Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, were quite
impressive.
Her experience and knowledge of the aspirations of our minority
language communities will certainly be helpful to these people
and I expect her to be a strong voice in the promotion of our
two official languages in regions where one or the other of
these languages is in the minority.
Madam Speaker, again, I support Dr. Adam's appointment and
extend to her my best wishes.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures
Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, be read
the third time and passed.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity
to speak at third reading of Bill C-35.
As has been stated quite often in the House, this legislation is
straightforward and responds directly to the recommendations
contained in the 1996 parliamentary review. It updates an act
that has been around since 1984 and proposes consequential
amendments to a related statute.
Briefly, Bill C-35 improves the operation of Canada's trade
remedy system with respect to anti-dumping and countervailing
duties under the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal Act.
It also clarifies certain provisions in both acts through
various technical amendments. SIMA is an important component of
Canada's trade legislation. It implements Canada's rights and
obligations under the WTO agreements in the area of trade
remedies.
Under these international rules, special duties can be imposed
when imports that are dumped or subsidized are found to cause
injury to a domestic industry. First and foremost, this law is
intended to protect Canadian manufacturers and agriculture
producers whose operations are negatively affected by the goods
that are unfairly priced or subsidized.
However, it must also be understood that in today's global
environment market openness is critical to attracting investment
and maintaining the competitiveness of Canadian companies. These
Canadian companies often have to rely on imported inputs to meet
the needs of their customers. These companies may, in some
cases, be negatively affected by the imposition of special duties
on imports.
Given this situation, SIMA must be careful to strike a balance
between two often conflicting interests, those of industry
seeking trade remedy action and those of consumers and other
manufacturers who may be negatively affected by the imposition of
anti-dumping or countervailing duties on imported goods.
1230
This question of balance was key to what was addressed in the
1996 parliamentary subcommittees' report that reviewed SIMA. The
subcommittees heard from a broad range of stakeholders on their
experience with the SIMA system and concluded that the law
continued to protect Canadian producers from injury caused by
dumped and subsidized imports, while at the same time limiting
collateral damage to consumers and downstream users.
They went on to identify several areas where the legislation
could be made more efficient and more responsive to Canada's
various economic interests.
The government, as hon. members will recall, supported virtually
all of the subcommittees' recommendations and it is the
implementation of these recommendations that we have before us
today in Bill C-35.
As indicated earlier, the bill also contains several amendments
of a technical or housekeeping nature aimed at clarifying
existing provisions in the law.
The main themes of the subcommittees' report reflected in this
bill include: the rationalization of the SIMA process in order
to improve efficiency; ensuring access to the SIMA system by
small and medium size enterprises; clarification of the public
interest provisions; and the enhancement of transparency and
procedural fairness.
I want to spend a few moments on the public interest provisions.
At the reporting stage, the issue of allowing the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal to recommend a lesser duty as a
result of a public interest inquiry was raised by the Bloc and
the NDP. They both opposed providing for it, and we recall that
the Bloc proposed an amendment to the bill which would have
amounted to leaving the public interest provision as it is now.
Essentially, the government responded by saying, as I said just
a minute ago, that the bill implements the parliamentary
subcommittees' recommendation in respect to the public interest
and underscores the delicate balance that the bill was attempting
to strike between divergent interests in the trade remedy area.
Essentially, the statement that I would make with respect to the
public interest is that the lesser duty issue would only come up
when it has been determined that there is a public interest
issue. When recommended, a lesser duty aims to provide a level
of protection sufficient to eliminate the injury caused by the
dumped or subsidized imports, which is really the main purpose of
SIMA, while ensuring that users and downstream producers are not
unduly penalized by the measure.
In my mind, when I was listening to the debate at report stage,
I asked the question: How can one oppose this? Those opposed to
the lesser duty provision are suggesting that the interests of
consumers and downstream producers are irrelevant. As we stated
earlier, and I will state again, the government clearly disagrees
with that.
In fine tuning the existing law, the investigative functions of
Revenue Canada and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal will
also better reflect the respective areas of expertise. By
bringing Revenue Canada's treatment of confidential information
more in line with the tribunal's practice respecting the
disclosure of such information, procedural fairness and
transparency will be enhanced.
Further, the tribunal will benefit more fully from expert
evidence by allowing expert witnesses to play a more effective
role in its inquiries. New penalties will deter the unauthorized
disclosure or misuse of confidential information in the SIMA
investigations.
Bill C-35 also clarifies the conditions under which the tribunal
can consider issues of broader public interest and the types of
measures that it can recommend in a public interest report.
In the committee deliberations on this bill hon. members heard
from industry stakeholders on both sides of this particular
issue. The stakeholders gave their support to the passage of
this bill and there was agreement that Bill C-35 faithfully
reflects the recommendations contained in the parliamentary
report. This support is a credit to members of the House who
worked together on the review and this legislation and in fact
identified improvements that were acceptable to all parties.
1235
In conclusion, I think members recognize that Bill C-35
fine-tunes SIMA to ensure that it continues to reflect Canadian
economic realities. It also ensures that SIMA will remain a
strong trade instrument that truly protects Canadian producers
who have been injured by dumped or subsidized imports, while
allowing an opportunity for other producers and consumers to have
their interests considered. I urge my colleagues to support
speedy passage of this legislation.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is my pleasure to rise today to speak at third reading of Bill
C-35, a bill which amends the Special Import Measures Act and the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.
This bill has been a long time in the making. Two and a half
years ago a special subcommittee was struck to conduct a
mandatory review of the SIMA legislation. I was a part of that
subcommittee, as well as a former member of this House, Mr. Herb
Grubel.
We agreed with the main components of the report, but we also
issued a dissenting opinion. The reason for it will be outlined
as I walk through this process today.
Just before the House recessed for Christmas two years ago the
subcommittee brought down its report which made a list of
recommendations, most of which are included in the bill today. I
am not sure why the bill was delayed so long, but I welcome its
appearance and I think it will help to clear up an area that
needs to have more clarity.
The Reform Party supports this bill, although we have raised
some minor concerns with it. We hope that, despite having our
amendments struck down in committee, the changes to the SIMA
legislation will strike the right balance in protecting producers
and manufacturers without unduly hurting consumers, importers and
downstream producers. To that end, I certainly want to talk
about the public interest component of SIMA, an area that we
tried to strengthen in committee with an amendment that was not
allowed. Be that as it may, we are in general support of the
bill.
I want to take a moment to explain what this bill is all about.
Under World Trade Organization rules all countries are permitted
to impose duties on imported goods if those goods are being
dumped into that country or if their production is being
subsidized at home.
SIMA is the framework legislation which allows Canadian
companies to request that anti-dumping and countervail duties be
imposed against imported products which are found to be sold at
too low a price or imported goods whose production is subsidized.
The steps that need to take place to arrive at these duties are
clearly laid out in the bill. First, a Canadian company must
file a complaint with Revenue Canada. Once Revenue Canada is
satisfied that the complaint is properly documented, it initiates
an investigation. The department then sends investigators to
countries against which complaints have been filed and these
investigators look into the books of those companies to ascertain
whether there is sufficient evidence to establish whether or not
there has been dumping or subsidization.
It is the job of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to
conduct inquiries into whether dumped or subsidized goods are
actually causing injury to Canadian producers.
In the past, the CITT did not begin its job until Revenue Canada
had determined that dumping had occurred. This caused delays and
allowed preliminary duties to be collected before the CITT ruled
that injury to Canadian companies had actually taken place. That
process has been changed to the better. The new legislation
under SIMA changes that. In future, the CITT will begin its work
immediately and I fully support that process. I think it will
help to speed things along.
I said earlier that I was concerned about the public interest
component. After all, even though products are being dumped into
Canada, there are times when I believe, in the public interest,
that should be allowed to happen. The basic concern I have with
this legislation is that the interest of the public is not taken
into account soon enough in the process.
A good example of this is in the recent baby food case. Earlier
this year Heinz, an American company with a subsidiary in Canada,
charged Gerber, another American company, with dumping. Heinz
took its case before Revenue Canada and the CITT and won its case
against Gerber.
Gerber had a 60% duty slapped on it which effectively forced it
out of the Canadian market. That is one thing, but it left Heinz
with a monopoly on baby food in Canada.
1240
In the meantime we have parents of babies in Canada who do not
have time to prepare their own baby food and as result are left
with only one brand of baby food. My office received information
that some babies could only be fed Gerber products because they
were allergic to Heinz baby food products. With Gerber pushed
out of the market, the parents of those babies found that their
interests had been overlooked. This is only one example of how
dumping duties hurt consumers.
If we create monopoly situations or lessen competition, that is
a problem. I want to make sure that this public interest
component is taken into account and reviewed down the road.
There are also instances where dumping duties have hurt
downstream producers and importers. It is not just exports that
create jobs in Canada. Imports create jobs as well. Carpet
distributors and importers in Canada have long complained that
the entire dumping procedure has hurt their business.
Because carpet distributors have so many types of carpets coming
into the country, with different weights, fibres and finishes,
they are always unsure at the border what the dumping duty will
be. Therefore, these distributors find it difficult to bid on
large contracts. It is bad enough having to deal with exchange
rate uncertainties and problems in Canada in terms of being
competitive, but when duty fluctuates by 10% or more profits can
often turn to losses in no time.
Downstream manufacturers are also hurt when the cost of imported
inputs suddenly rise because of dumping duties. I have quite an
active and aggressive company in my riding that imports a lot of
components for the finished product they manufacture. Those
components come from the United States. They are a big part of
the total package, something like 65% or 70% of the end product.
This company imports those products. Dumping duties often hurt
companies such as that.
I was given assurances by the drafters of the bill during
briefings that there was enough flexibility built into the bill
to consider the public interest in a timely fashion. But I
believe this component should be examined again in a few years'
time to ensure it is working properly. It must balance the
interests of those companies that require protection with those
that will ultimately pay the price.
In an ideal world, which everyone knows we do not have, dumping
duties would not be necessary. I would like to see the U.S.
trade remedy law and this particular legislation rescinded down
the road. Canada's provinces do not have dumping duties against
each other's products and, ideally, Canada and the United States
should not have either because we have become very much an
integrated market on many commodities.
We have sectors such as steel, beef and the automobile sector
that essentially conduct cross-border trade via train and truck
every day. We are not talking about a typical example of dumping
with 50 million metric tonnes of dumped steel arriving at a
Vancouver port from an Asian country.
The trade between Canada and the United States is regular trade
between a supplier and a business that requires that product on a
daily basis. So it is very hard to see how dumping duties do
anything to satisfy that. On the other hand, the United States
continues to keep its trade remedy law, including dumping, and it
uses it very aggressively. As long as it does that, we have to
keep that protection.
It is interesting that the first country in the world to ever
use dumping was Canada. We introduced the measure 80 or 90 years
ago. Now it is coming back to bite us. Eventually I would like
to see it phased out.
At the next round of World Trade Organization talks I would like
to see a better definition of dumping and a better subsidies code
to make sure we can all play with the same rule book.
I recognize that a duty free world is quite a long ways away,
but I would suggest that a duty free world between Canada and the
United States is not that far away. We should be working to see
if something can be done in the integrated industries, as I said
earlier, to make dumping and countervail duties unnecessary.
The Reform Party supports this legislation which has been a long
time in the making. We trust it will prove to strike the right
balance that we are seeking to protect manufacturers and also to
provide openness for our consumers and our downstream producers
and importers.
We support this legislation and would like to see it move along
fairly quickly.
1245
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, like the
two previous speakers, I am pleased to rise today in this House
to speak to Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import
Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.
As we Bloc Quebecois members indicated in previous speeches, we
support this bill. However, since we had some reservations about
certain aspects of this bill, at report stage, we introduced a
number of motions in amendment to try to improve it. But they
were defeated.
These motions result from a study of the Special Import Measures
Act done by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade and by the finance committee. I would like
to briefly outline these motions, which reflect the issues on
which we differed.
Our Motion No. 1 read as follows:
That Bill C-35, in clause 15, be amended by adding after line 21
on page 10 the following:
“(3.1) In determining whether the complaint is properly
documented, the Deputy Minister shall not take into account
representations received from parties other than the
complainant.”
A number of witnesses voiced concern during committee
proceedings. The Canadian Steel Producers Association was one of
these witnesses with concerns about certain provisions of the
act.
The Bloc Quebecois shares the concerns of these witnesses, which
were asking that Revenue Canada ignore the unsolicited
presentations by parties other than the complainant before the
start of an investigation.
Such an approach would have Revenue Canada take into account
only information coming from the complainant, without having to
consider unsolicited comments from outsiders.
This approach, which was rejected, seemed reasonable to us since
it would apply only before an investigation was opened.
Unfortunately, the government does not seem to care any more
about our requests than about those of an industry as essential
to the economy of Quebec and Canada as the steel industry.
Therefore, it rejected this amendment, which will not be
included in the bill.
Motion No. 2 read as follows:
We considered that Bill C-35 should not contain provision for the
minimum duty. We think it is premature to include the concept
of a minimum duty in the Special Import Measures Act.
We think the government should stop approving policies that
reduce the protection afforded Quebec and Canadian businesses
when our main trading partners are not doing the same thing.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade recommended in its report—not one of the ones that was
leaked—inclusion of the concept of a minimum duty in section 45
of the legislation on public interest.
However, clause 27 of the bill incorporates the concept of a
minimum duty by amending section 45 of the existing legislation.
Thus, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal may, on its own
initiative, or on request, initiate a public interest inquiry if
it is of the opinion that the imposition of an anti-dumping or
countervailing duty, or the imposition of such a duty in the
full amount provided for by any of those sections, in respect of
the goods, would not or might not be in the public interest.
As a result of a public interest inquiry, if the tribunal is of
the opinion that the imposition of a duty might not be in the
public interest, the tribunal shall without delay do two things.
First, it shall report to the Minister of Finance that it is of
that opinion and provide that minister with a statement of the
facts and, second, it shall cause notice of the report to be
published in the Canada Gazette, which many people read every
day without fail, as we all know.
In addition, in that same report, the tribunal shall specify
either a level of reduction in the anti-dumping or countervailing
duty provided for, or a price or prices that are adequate to
eliminate injury, retardation or the threat of injury to the
domestic industry. It is through this last measure that the
concept of minimum duty is introduced.
Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 concern the notion of “material harm”.
In our opinion, the definition of material harm was also
problematical.
The Bloc Quebecois called for insertion of a definition for the
expression “material harm” into the Special Import Measures Act.
This, coupled with the criteria suggested in the current
regulations, would clarify this important concept for everyone.
1250
In Motion No. 4, we proposed, and I quote:
That Bill C-35, in clause 44, be amended by adding after line 46
on page 33 the following:
“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm”
means harm that is more than negligible and that is not
immaterial or trifling.”
We also proposed to make reference to “material harm” in several
other provisions, including in clause 44, line 46 on page 33,
which would read as follows:
“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm” has
the meaning given to that expression by the regulations.”
We also asked that the notion of “material harm” be applied to
clause 51, through the following amendment:
This is very technical, but so is the bill, and this is why we
had to conduct a thorough review.
So, had these amendments and improvements been included, the
legislation would leave no uncertainty for Quebec and Canadian
businesses.
These motions are very important, because the bill is supposed
to improve the Canadian system of special trade measures so that
it can better reflect the new economic context and the changes
in the rules of international trade, and leave no room for
confusion.
Another Bloc Quebecois proposal ignored in this bill concerns
the future or retroactive method of imposing duties. We wanted
Revenue Canada to continue using the future method. However, we
would, in cases where prices or costs are likely to fluctuate
significantly, like to have Revenue Canada authorized to use the
retroactive duty imposition method.
This method would be used only exceptionally and only when
Revenue Canada considered it necessary.
This is why we tabled Motion No. 7 in this House.
I will read a passage from this motion:
In this regard, we referred to the prospective and retroactive
methods.
This bill is very important as it governs the imposition of
antidumping and countervailing duties on dumped or subsidized
goods where this dumping or subsidizing has or may have an
injurious effect on producers in Quebec and Canada, while at the
same time making changes to the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal.
We need only think of our farmers on the Prairies, who are
facing very definite problems with farmers in the northern
United States, to realize how the border aspect of subsidies and
dumping duties are a part of our daily lives.
The interventions of Bloc Quebecois members during this study
have already led to a few important changes and substantial
improvements. We suggested, for example, concrete measures
allowing small and medium size producers in Quebec and Canada to
have fair, equitable and easier access to the redress procedures
provided by the current legislation.
We also proposed improvements to the way the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal operates. The Bloc Quebecois also
proposed that the cumulative effect be taken into consideration
by the tribunal when assessing damages.
Furthermore, the amendment of section 76 of the Special Import
Measures Act, requiring the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal to assess the cumulative injurious effects of dumping
or subsidizing in the context of interim reviews was
consolidated as the result of our interventions.
We agree with the intent of this bill, which marks the
government's first effort to clarify things. Quebeckers and
Canadians, as well as the Bloc Quebecois, have long been calling
for less bureaucracy and more efficiency. The government must
give producers in Quebec and Canada the tools they need to
compete in the global economy.
Dumping and subsidies are tools criticized, but often used, by
industrialized countries.
This legislation and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Act are necessary, in fact essential tools to counter dumping
and subsidies.
It is important that these laws be designed in such a way as to
appropriately meet the needs they were intended to address.
These amendments should hopefully improve the Canadian trade
remedy system so that it will better take into account the new
economic context and the evolution of international trade rules.
1255
Unlike our colleagues across the way, who suddenly changed their
tune after they took office five years ago, we in the Bloc
Quebecois have always been in favour of free trade. We can
therefore only applaud any steps taken to help ensure businesses
in Quebec and Canada are full participants in this era of
globalization, in a well-structured context based on appropriate
legislation.
Overall, the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-35,
which is to clarify the role of the Canadian international trade
tribunal and to improve the Special Imports Measures Act. The
review conducted by the subcommittees helped identify the
improvements that should be made to these acts.
Bill C-35 will implement the recommendations included in the
December 1996 report on the Special Import Measures Act which,
as I said, was not leaked, and which the Bloc Quebecois greatly
helped improve and fine-tune.
This review has identified a number of improvements which should
be made to these acts, but more needs to be done, including the
changes put forward by the Bloc Quebecois and by officials from
various industries.
So, in spite of some concerns, we are rather pleased with the
bill and we will support it, as we did at the previous stages.
However, as we said before, we feel that rapid developments in
international trade emphasize the need to review these two laws
on a regular basis in the future.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus to
speak to Bill C-35, an act to amend to the Special Import
Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.
Along with the Bloc Quebecois we oppose the bill, but we want to
make clear that opposition in no way detracts from our overall
support for SIMA and the work of the CTT.
The Special Import Measures Act remains one of the very few
mechanisms we have in Canada to protect Canadian industry and
jobs in the ongoing trade disputes we have with the United States
in particular. Because we live in an increasingly liberalized
global trading environment, we support the bill in so far as it
clarifies, streamlines and improves the Special Import Measures
Act.
However, we oppose Bill C-35 in its totality because we honestly
feel that what is before us has not strengthened the legislation
sufficiently, in particular with respect to trade with the United
States of America.
In some ways the bill may actually weaken SIMA as a protection
against unfair trade. As has been expressed by others, the main
concern is the anti-dumping legislation. It must be as strong on
the north side of the 49th parallel as it is south of the 49th
parallel. In other words, our system must be as advantageous to
Canadian producers as the U.S. system is to its producers. We
can afford to do no less in the protection of our country, our
traders and our exporters. I do not think the boy scout image
will carry us very far in negotiations with the U.S.
The trade wars between our two countries have continued unabated
despite the free trade agreement and the North American Free
Trade Agreement. A few weeks ago and even last weekend we saw
the spectacle of the U.S. violating international agreements,
making it difficult for our processors and producers of grain and
livestock to transport goods into the United States. The first
blockade was with the encouragement of elected U.S. legislators,
but that was not true with the resumption of the blockade we saw
this weekend.
Bill C-35 may very well weaken SIMA and place our producers and
shippers at a further disadvantage to their U.S. counterparts.
The key concern would be implementing the World Trade
Organization's definition of a lesser duty provision. The
concept of lesser duty as I understand it allows anti-dumping
duties to be set lower than the injury faced by domestic
producers. There is a genuine concern that it will put Canadian
producers at a further disadvantage.
1300
Another aspect of it is the concept of material injury. We feel
that too is inadequate. The U.S. employs a broad definition to
provide greater scope for corrective measures. For example,
pasta that was dumped on both sides was found to cause injury in
the United States but not found to cause injury in Canada. The
broader definition of the material injury has been pointed out as
the reason for the different interpretations on either side of
the border.
During the report stage of the bill, we supported the Bloc
because we wanted to clarify material injury and ensure that it
was as tough north of the border as the U.S. definition. We
regret sincerely that that was defeated at the report stage.
We also supported an amendment which would have enabled Revenue
Canada to use retrospective duty assessment in cases when there
would be significant fluctuation in prices or costs. Once again
we see that the United States uses the retrospective method in
all cases which of course provides greater security for its
domestic producers. We regret sincerely that this amendment was
also defeated at report stage.
We regret profoundly that Bill C-35 was not used to strengthen
the Special Import Measures Act. Does the government not
recognize the inherent dangers our producers face? When our
protective system is weaker than that of our trading partners, we
disadvantage our exporters, particularly with respect to the
United States, and make ourselves a target for countries looking
to dump into North America. We expose ourselves to abuse from
foreign exporters by our actions.
We see a pattern that emerges time and again in Canadian trade
law and in Canadian trade policies. Whenever there is some
liberalization to be done or some weakening of a nation state's
ability to protect itself, Canada always seems to be the first to
want to jump in with both feet. We are always eager to play the
game, so eager that we often leave ourselves vulnerable to other
nations, in particular to our powerful neighbour to the south.
It seems we just cannot get enough of this tickle me Elmo
approach by other countries and then we are first to hail any new
agreement as some kind of testimony to our free trading spirit.
I say with respect that the United States seems to have
absolutely no respect for any agreement into which it enters. The
United States is the last country to amend its laws in such a way
as to conform to whatever other nations may be doing in order to
liberalize trade. The U.S. has not adopted this lesser duty
provision, but no, we will be the eager ones again. We will be
out there leading with our chins.
This certainly gives an opportunity in the context of Bill C-35
to say that we are not only opposed to the bill, but we are
opposed to the entire approach that the government opposite has
pursued with respect to trade.
The Liberal government has become totally uncritical about free
trade in recent years. The Liberals have become evangelists for
the very notions they deplored when they sat on this side of the
House. After campaigning against the free trade agreement in
1988 and in the years following, after being elected in October
1993, the Liberal government promptly signed NAFTA. Since then it
has become the cheerleader for additional free trade agreements
around the world, whether it is signing on to the Canada-Chile
free trade agreement, APEC, the free trade agreement with the
Americas, the FTAA, the multilateral agreement on investment or
the World Trade Organization.
The ongoing crisis faced by Canadian farmers shows the danger of
sticking our neck out as far as we do for the sake of this or any
free trade deal. The Liberal government went way beyond our WTO
commitments to reduce farm support after the Uruguay round in
1993, way beyond what the United States has done, and way beyond
what the European Union has done.
1305
Many Canadians have a right to feel utterly betrayed. The
result is a disaster for our farmers. We are now belatedly
trying to rectify the damage that has been done.
The most recent deal the Liberals have chased after is the
multilateral agreement on investment. Fortunately other
governments had better sense. This fall various governments in
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
rejected the MAI and the NAFTA model. When they looked closely
at NAFTA as the blueprint for the MAI, they wondered why Canada
ever agreed to signing a deal like NAFTA. They wondered why
anyone would be so keen to replicate NAFTA on a global scale.
Our caucus has been critical of this unthinking pursuit of free
trade from the beginning. We are not against fair trade. We are
not against trade agreements that incorporate into them real,
meaningful and enforceable protection for workers, for labour
standards, for environmental regulations and for the continuing
ability of governments to act in the public interest. It is
because we believe in fair trade and the role of effective
regulation that we support SIMA. That is why we see the need for
strong and effective mechanisms to protect Canadian producers and
ensure a level playing field with the United States.
In conclusion, we believe that Bill C-35 does not ensure this,
so we do not support the bill. We oppose it because we believe
that overall we are facing a weaker SIMA, one that will put us at
a disadvantage especially with respect to the United States.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
will make a couple of comments first then ask the member a couple
of questions about Bill C-35.
When we look at this bill we see a bill that tries to address
the anti-dumping problem in the world where heavily subsidized
foreign companies dump products into Canada and try to drive our
businesses out of business. We see the bill as a move in the
right direction. I do not claim that it is a perfect bill, but
at least it does make that provision possible.
I would like the member to detail a bit what he would rather see
in this bill. More importantly, because this comes before us in
the form of a bill, we have a chance to debate an idea or a
conclusion, in this case an act of parliament, that will commit
Canadians to an international agreement for years to come. That
does not happen all that often.
All too often people on behalf of the government wander off to
different UN conferences, conventions, groups and backdoor
meetings of all sorts. Often they sign on to deals and there is
no corresponding legislation in the House of Commons. We live
with whatever those folks negotiate behind closed doors.
The MAI is a good case in point. People were very nervous about
the potential of the MAI. Although I must admit that Canada does
need an agreement on international investment, it is a matter of
how it is negotiated.
I would ask the member to comment on the approval process he
would like to see on international agreements like this one. At
least we have a bill that we can debate, talk about and amend. It
is healthy for the House of Commons to deal with those issues in
that way. There are countries, for example, Australia and the
United States, and other countries both inside and outside the
Commonwealth which have a much better approval process for
ratifying international agreements. It involves either
committees of a house or a vote of some sort before the treaties
come into effect.
I would like the member to comment on two things. How would he
like to see this bill specifically amended to strengthen it?
More importantly, what type of approval process would he like to
see this House adopt for the adoption of international treaties?
1310
Mr. Dick Proctor: Madam Speaker, the member asked what we
in this caucus would rather see in the bill as it affects
anti-dumping.
I tried to indicate in my remarks that we wanted to see similar
provisions to what the United States has on its side of the
border including the retrospective look at legislation so that we
can remedy changes when they come up.
With regard to the approval process, I indicated that we
supported SIMA and the CITT. I recognize and appreciate that
parliament needs to figure out ways for members of this House
regardless on which side they sit to work co-operatively to
assist Canadians who we are here to represent.
I do not have a specific approval process that I would be
advancing here today. However, I concur with the hon. member's
remarks that we need some help in that direction and we could
probably look to some of the countries he referred to. Australia
is a good example.
We certainly need to draw opposition members into the operation
more than we do now.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will leave aside the rather large philosophical
question as to the way in which this House and we as members go
about ratifying and approving international treaties. This
clearly is something of interest to a lot of members. It comes
up in the foreign affairs and international trade committee from
time to time, and it may be something we should be looking at.
I am a little surprised at the tone of opposition the member
expressed and particularly his suggestion that we should be
adopting mirror legislation vis-à-vis the United States.
The member will recall that the committee held extensive
hearings on this bill. We often heard recommendations from
various parties, particularly the steel industry and others,
saying that we should adopt mirror legislation vis-à-vis the
United States. However, it was pointed out by a lot of people who
came before the committee that this would also hurt the Canadian
automotive industry which imports a lot of parts that are then
used in exports.
I would suggest to the member that I am not so sure we would
want to go down the track of imitating what the United States
does.
What we are trying to tell everybody in the United States and
the world is that their ideas are crazy, do not make sense and
are contrary to the international agreements we are subscribing
to. Why would we want to do what they do just to prove that we
agree that what they are doing is crazy? I do not understand
where the member is coming from on this.
I think I understood that his party is in favour of the general
thrust of the legislation and that maybe we can work on it
together. However, the recommendations in this legislation have
all-party support of the committee which recommended most of the
changes. The legislation itself brings Canada into conformity
with our international agreements and at the same time protects
our producers and our consumers in a proper balanced way.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks
about the United States being crazy. I agree with him but it is
driving our producers nuts in the process. This is in the
context that the United States is our major trading partner.
Around $20 million worth of trade, an inordinate amount of money,
crosses the border every day. I think the feeling around here
from Canadian producers and exporters is that we are being hosed
more often than not.
1315
It may very well be that the United States is out of step with
the rest of the world. We are so close in proximity to the
United States and our trade with that country is so important
that we cannot afford, as I suggested in my remarks, to be
leading with our chins when negotiating with the United States. I
fear that the legislation before us today will force that upon
us.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to rise on this occasion. I would like first to tell a very
short story and then ask a question.
In 1993 I remember the NDP running ads talking about how free
trade would kill jobs and devastate the Canadian economy, that it
would be a colossal failure and that the whole nation would weep
in the wake of the signing of a free trade agreement. I am glad
to hear the member's party has changed its position on free
trade. I remember as well the commercials that were run in the
1993 election campaign were actually made in the United States.
It was rather ironic since they were running ads that were
negative to free trade.
Is the member aware of other flip-flops the Liberal Party has
made with regard to issues like free trade since they won
election in 1993?
Mr. Dick Proctor: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I set that
out fairly clearly. When the Liberals were in opposition they
were very firmly opposed to free trade. The previous leader
referred to it as the fight of his life back in 1988.
However they embraced free trade altogether, 100%, following the
election in 1993. They continue to go down that road with the
agreements I referred to: the agreement with Chile, the
agreement with the Americas, the WTO, their push on the
multilateral agreement on investment, et cetera.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to speak to Bill C-35. The Progressive Conservative
Party is in favour of this bill.
Unfortunately, Bill C-35 is not perfect, coming as it does from
the government opposite, which is not perfect. Let us hope that
the future will bring perfect legislation from a perfect
government of the right colour.
We are in favour of Bill C-35, about which much has been said.
I would like to come back to the purpose of this bill. We
already had the 1984 Special Import Measures Act, which was
aimed at exercising some control over what was coming into this
country by setting rules to protect our industry. Following a
most welcome change in government that Canadians and Quebeckers
had been waiting for, negotiations were initiated to open up
channels for trade around the world and with the United States
in particular. Free trade agreements were signed, leading to
various international trade negotiations.
After a free trade agreement is negotiated, it continues to
evolve. In implementing the legislation, it becomes evident that
changes have to be made to the laws of the various countries
involved. Bill C-35 contains a number of changes, especially
with respect to antidumping measures. This is the main purpose
of Bill C-35.
There has been much mention of the United States. Free trade
agreements have fortunately addressed most of the potential
problems with that country. Since 1984, the Special Import
Measures Act has been amended with each successive international
treaty. Free trade is therefore a partial solution to some of
our import problems.
Much was said about the United States and the very tough
measures imposed by that country. One thing needs to be
understood. Like Canada, the United States has a trade deficit.
When a country has a trade deficit, it reacts by making its
legislation more protectionist.
1320
This is what happened in the United States in a few particular
sectors, agriculture being one that has been debated in the last
few weeks and months.
It is a very human reaction, particularly on the eve of an
election, when barriers go up. With its free trade agreements
and exports, however, Canada has been able to reassure
Quebeckers and Canadians. The latest figures show, without a
shadow of a doubt, that, had we not had free trade boosting
exports to the United States, among other countries, Canada
would be in a recession.
We export 1.8 per cent of our GDP.
If we reduced our exports, we would go into a recession and all
Quebeckers and Canadians would lose.
Naturally, some things still need to be changed. Bill C-35
introduces some worthwhile amendments, but it is not perfect.
The Bloc Quebecois suggested some very interesting amendments
that would have seen duties apply even further back in the case
of dumping. We hope that it will not take the government two
and a half years to amend the Special Import Measures Act.
Bill C-35 also introduces a change with respect to the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal Act. It will be made much more
stringent.
We are going to send a very clear signal to those who want to
dump their products onto this country, directly or by devious
means, that Canada, under its international agreements, is ready
to face the music.
We have examples from 80 years back, but the practice of dumping
has existed since the time of the empires. At that point—as a
history buff like you, Mr. Speaker, would know in spite of your
young age—what they dumped was rum or furs or wood, depending
on what the empire wanted to do with the recalcitrants in
certain parts of its great kingdom.
As countries were established, various laws and agreements came
into being, often within large groups such as the Commonwealth
where there was some control over the movement of merchandise.
Bill C-35 is a step in the right direction. But, naturally, it
is not perfect.
However, we are giving it some teeth. Oftentimes on the
international scene, when the government tried to show its
teeth, people realized it had no dentures. Bill C-35 gives it
enough teeth to better control the measures that could harm
Canadian producers.
Even though we are delighted, we think it took far too long: two
and a half years. Whether it is the crisis we are facing now in
agriculture or the pasta crisis because of dumping by Italy,
which has made it difficult for Italian products to move through
the Canadian market, or any natural resource produced and sold
in the country, there are difficulties.
I will not go further, for time is slipping by. I also know
that all parliamentarians, with the exception of members of one
particular party, have agreed to support Bill C-35.
Once again, we might say that the Liberal government has
recognized its past mistake of failing to support the previous
government on free trade, and we hope that the red of the
government in office becomes a little less evident, that is, a
little more blue.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not often that I stand in the House in agreement
or even partial agreement with something brought forward by the
government. I can say that with regard Bill C-35.
We do not have to look too far to see what is actually going on
today with trade. It is in the news. At the border there has
been stoppage of some of our produce from entering the States.
1325
Bill C-35, if it were to be implemented, might play a small part
in addressing some of the concerns. Dumping is basically when
other countries sell their product in our country at less than it
costs them to produce it. We have to pay attention to exactly
what is going on. Otherwise our financial picture will look
bleaker than it is now. I do not think the country could stand
that for one moment.
Bill C-35 respecting the Special Import Measures Act governs the
procedures under which anti-dumping and countervailing duties are
imposed. Under WTO rules all countries are permitted to impose
penalties on imported goods if the goods are being dumped into
their countries or if their production is being subsidized at
home.
That also brings forward the definition of dumping or
subsidizing. What exactly is subsidizing? We should be looking
at this subject more carefully than we do. Subsidization can
take many forms. I am and always will be basically a free
trader. More important, I would like to say I am a fair trader. I
do not have a doubt that Canadian workers, farmers and
manufacturers can compete in any field against any country if we
have fair trade.
Fair trade does not necessarily fall into the same guise,
unfortunately with the government, as does free trade. Fair
trade means that we require a level playing field for our
producers to compete. When we have to face higher taxes than in
other countries, it is no longer fair trade. When we have to pay
more for our electricity and for our heat than other countries
do, it is no longer fair trade. When we have to pay more for
shipping costs than other countries do, it is no longer fair
trade. When we have to pay our own people to collect taxes such
as the GST and other countries do not have to do so, it is no
longer fair trade. However it may be so-called free trade. If
we were to look into those areas we would find that Canadian
producers could definitely compete by anyone's standard in the
world. I have no doubt about that.
I admit that is getting a bit off topic from Bill C-35, but the
government should take heed of this when talking about imports
and exports. The first basic concern should be for the producers
in Canada and trying to give them a fair chance to compete in the
global economy, if that is where we want them to go. It is only
reasonable to ask that.
As long ago as 1904 Canada developed the world's first
anti-dumping legislation. Over the years since then Canada has
evolved into one of the world's leading trading nations. Canada's
trade legislation has been changed many times, including changes
to the Special Import Measures Act or SIMA that were needed to
implement the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay
round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or GATT.
We have been here before. We have gone through the hoops. We
know we have serious problems and keep on having serious
problems. It was only on Friday that I asked the minister about
what was happening at the border. His answer to me was basically
“Don't worry. Be happy. We have drawn up an agreement and
nothing will happen”. It did happen because these agreements
were not implemented when they should have been.
As I said, I am basically in support of Bill C-35. The
government could be doing a lot more to help our companies and
producers but it refuses to look at it. I sincerely hope it will
give as much attention to that area as it has to Bill C-35. It
has taken the government two years to get the legislation before
the House.
In conclusion, basically the government has our support.
1330
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to tell a story to the House about a small company
in my constituency. It is called Bed-Roc Industries, a medium
size company. It had to fight against an American competitor that
used to dump tiles in B.C. and Alberta. It was selling specific
tiles at a price which was undercutting Bed-Roc's price, selling
at a very low price to outbid Bed-Roc.
It fought against the American company. It went through the
International Trade Tribunal. After many years of battle it won
the case and was compensated for the injuries it suffered.
Small and medium size businesses suffer because the bigger
companies dump some of their products in our market and it is
difficult for the smaller companies to survive. Very few
companies go to the tribunal and go through the lengthy process
to save the jobs they create in this country.
Under this Bill C-35 I am wondering if we are looking at the
long term implications of the amendments. How will the changes to
be implemented affect business in the agriculture sector?
The Deputy Speaker: The difficulty is we have passed
questions and comments and we are on debate. Perhaps there would
be consent to allow the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap to
resume the floor to answer this question. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not
catch the question. I thought that time had passed and I got on
with something else.
I hope it will address the member's concerns. If not, I am sure
we will be back before the House screaming and hollering, there
is no doubt about that.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT
(Bill C-59. On the Order: Government Orders)
November 30, 1998—Second reading and reference to Standing
Committee on Finance of Bill C-59, an act to amend the Insurance
Companies Act.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been discussion among the parties. I believe that you
would find unanimous consent to order, without debate, that Bill
C-59 be forthwith referred to the Standing Committee on Finance
pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
CORRUPTION OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS ACT
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been discussions with the parties. I believe you
would find consent for the following:
That Bill S-21, an act respecting the corruption of foreign
officials and the implementation of the convention on combating
bribery of foreign public officials in international business
transactions and to make related amendments to other acts, be now
read the first time and ordered for immediate consideration at
the second reading stage.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
1335
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Lib.) moved that Bill S-21, an act respecting the corruption
of foreign public officials and the implementation of the
convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in
international business transactions and to make related
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to
speak to a matter of concern to all of us, the subject of Bill
S-21, the bribery and corruption of foreign public officials in
international business.
This bill when enacted will allow Canada to ratify the
convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in
international business transactions. This convention was
negotiated by the members of the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
The 29 member OECD, which includes Canada, the United States,
most European countries, Japan and South Korea, is the major
economic policy forum for the world's most advanced
industrialized democracies.
It is an accepted fact that corruption distorts international
trade and competition. It impedes economic development. In
developing countries in particular corruption distorts public
policy. It leads governments to make decisions that are not in
the public interest but are in the interest of those who benefit
from the bribes.
Corruption also has the effect of lowering the quality of goods
and services provided by the private sector in the course of
meeting its contracts. If substantial bribes are being offered
the money comes either by shortchanging the countries with which
one has a contract or by undermining the quality of the goods and
services being provided.
Furthermore it has an insidious effect of threatening the rule
of law, democracy and human rights. It undermines the
development of competent political and democratic institutions.
Where they are in the course of development, it blocks that
development. Stability and security are essential preconditions
for economic growth. Prosperity, sustainable development and
employment engender greater security and stability.
The successful promotion of Canadian values abroad can be
assisted by increased economic partnerships between Canada and
other countries.
The issue of the corruption of foreign public officials is not
new and continues to be a major problem affecting international
trade and investment. The problem has been the focus of
attention within the OECD, the Organization of American States
and the Council of Europe.
To implement the OECD convention would enhance Canada's
reputation as a world leader in fighting corruption. It would
honour the commitments Canada has made at the OECD, at the Denver
and Birmingham summits of the G-8 and at the United Nations. And
it would continue to ensure if not enhance Canada's standing at
the OECD.
1340
Some have questioned whether what we are doing is enough. My
response is that this is a dramatic and significant first step in
the right direction.
I will highlight the key elements in this legislation. The
essence of the convention is the requirement that each state
party criminalize the bribery of foreign public officials in
international business transaction and take measures to establish
the liability of legal persons for the bribery of a foreign
public official. This provision appears in section 3 and is the
centrepiece of the proposed act. It prohibits the bribery of a
foreign public official in the course of business whether
directly or indirectly. It calls for significant penalties. The
offence would be punishable on indictment and carries a maximum
penalty of five years imprisonment.
This legislation will use the definition of person found in the
Criminal Code that includes Her Majesty and public bodies, bodies
corporate, societies, companies and inhabitants of counties,
parishes, municipalities or other districts in relation to the
acts and things they are capable of doing and owning
respectively.
Therefore for the purpose of the offences under this proposed
act, potential accused are not limited to natural persons.
Corporations also fall within the scope of these offences. The
bill describes facilitation payments that would be exempted from
the ambit of the offence. It would not be an offence if the
advantage were lawful in the foreign official's country or public
international organization. Reasonable expenses incurred in good
faith and directly related to the promotion, demonstration or
explanation of products and services or to the execution or
performance of a contract with the foreign state could also be
argued as a defence.
The bill would amend section 67.5 of the Income Tax Act to add
this new offence to the list of Criminal Code offences referenced
in that section in an effort to deny the deductibility of bribes
paid to foreign public officials.
The convention requires the parties to provide that the bribe
and proceeds of the bribery of a foreign public official be
subject to seizure and confiscation. It requires the parties to
consider the imposition of additional civil or administrative
sanctions. For this reason the bill proposes to create two
additional criminal offences, the offence of possession of
property or proceeds obtained or derived from the bribery of
foreign public officials or from laundering that property or
those proceeds, and the offence of laundering the property or
proceeds obtained or derived from the bribery of foreign public
officials.
The bill incorporates the proceeds of crime provisions of the
Criminal Code for use on prosecutions of the new offences. The
new offence of bribery of foreign public officials is an
enterprise crime offence to permit the search, seizure and
detention of these proceeds of crime and is a predicate offence
for the offence of laundering of the proceeds of crime. The
convention has provisions dealing with mutual legal assistance
and extradition with which Canada can comply. If possible under
their legal systems, each party must also provide legal
assistance in criminal and civil matters.
It is important to note the Canadian business community is
behind this initiative. It considers the OECD convention as the
most significant achievement to date in the international
campaign against bribery and corruption. This convention is seen
as an opportunity to create a level playing field on which
Canadian companies can compete on the basis of quality, price and
service. This was said loudly and clearly by members of
Transparency International when they appeared before the Senate
last week.
1345
When he appeared before the Senate, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs quoted Donald Johnston, a former Canadian Minister of
Justice and current Secretary General of the OECD, who said in a
recent article that “Integrity in commercial transactions is
essential in making the global market work and to ensure that the
public supports it. A logical consequence of globalization is
that honesty has to be enforced at the global, not just national,
level”.
With the passage of this legislation Canada has the opportunity
to be the fifth country to ratify the OECD convention and to
bring it into force, thus ushering in a new era of international
accountability. I ask all hon. members to consider that the war
on corruption is well underway. There is now no looking back.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to speak to this bill today.
Before I start talking about the corruption bill, I would like
to make a couple of points before the House. The first one is
that this bill came into our hands late on Friday and depending
on what happened in the Senate determined whether it was actually
going to show up today or not.
This is an important bill to businesses and to the international
community and, as usual, we are ramming it through the last week
of parliament. There has been very little planning on this bill.
It was signed in December of 1997. We have waited or stalled or
put it off and now all of a sudden this bill is so vitally
important that we have it before us today.
This is government management. This is the way it handles
things. This is the way it takes care of business. Of course we
have seen a lot of this. We have seen it in the case of the
Somalia report. Murders were committed. There was a cover-up.
A commission was set up. It held hearings for months, which
extended into years, and finally the cabinet waffled it away and
suspended any action on it. A few little guys took the fall and
then we moved on.
Right now there is the APEC inquiry. It is the same sort of
thing, mismanagement of the issues. Among the APEC protesters
was a very well known teacher from my community who is a student
at UBC. He has told me all about what happened. He was
standing on the front line, around the pepper spray.
Again we have the government's mishandling of this sort of
situation, stalled investigations and stalled handling. I point
this out because this is how the government manages things, or
mismanages things. It waits until it has a crisis. Someone in
the OECD said this thing has to be signed and it should have been
done yesterday. All of a sudden, here it is in the House and we
are expected to ram the thing through with little time to look at
it.
The second part of this motion, to which I object strenuously, is
the fact that it is coming straight from the unelected,
unaccountable Senate. We have a body proposing that this
legislation is good for Canadians and good for our businesses.
However, it is coming out of a place that has absolutely no
credibility, a place that totally lacks legitimacy.
Obviously there are solutions. For instance, Alberta has
recently held Senate elections. Mr. Brown receive 331,000 votes.
Mr. Morton received more than 261,000 votes. And yet this
government, in its wisdom, will not even acknowledge that this
happened.
The government is proposing a bill on corruption and, literally,
on credibility when it has made so many inappropriate actions and
has such a lack of ability to deal with any kind of an issue.
1350
Our concerns are obvious. We would like to have the opportunity
to call witnesses. We would like to have the opportunity to look
at the various problems and the good points of this bill. We
would like to have the opportunity to become informed on this
issue. However, it was handed to us on Friday afternoon and we
were told that on Monday we were going to deal with it and ram it
through the House.
The OECD is made of up of a group of 29 of the most
industrialized countries. It is one of the most important think
tanks in the free world. Obviously combating bribery in business
transactions and what that would do for the international trade
scene is something that all of us care about. However, we have
desperately handicapped ourselves because of the lack of
management.
While the whole bill is very credible, and while we support the
principle of it, we have to raise some very great concerns.
Above everything, when we look at this we see how naive the
government has been in dealing with this.
I cannot help but think of our most recent look at the nuclear
situation in our foreign affairs committee. Would it not be
great if we had no nuclear weapons? Obviously it would be great
to not have nuclear weapons. But what is the reality of the
situation? The government seems to have a great deal of problem
dealing with reality. It likes to live in a glass house. It
likes to think that everything is going along so nicely, so
friendly and so well organized. What is the real situation?
The OECD says, above other things, that Canada has a big
problem. Our dollar is too low. Our debt is much too high. We
have a $600 billion debt which is dragging us down every time we
try to get ahead. Will that ever be dealt with?
An hon. member: There is $50 billion in interest.
Mr. Bob Mills: There is close to $50 billion in interest.
Think of what we could do with $50 billion if we had it. Look at
the $12 billion spent on health care by the federal government.
Look at the $14 billion spent on education. Look at the $22
billion spent on pensions. Close to $50 billion is spent on
interest payments. That is the kind of mismanagement that the
OECD talks about.
It also talks about the level of taxes in this country. It
talks about how we have some of the highest corporate and
personal tax rates of the 29 OECD countries. That also is
mismanagement by the government not responding to what the OECD
has been telling it for so many years.
When we talk about being naive we also look at things like
getting our UN seat. Are we going to say that we did not try to
influence some of the foreign embassies in getting that seat? Are
we going to deny that that is part of an Olympic bid? Are we
going to say that we are so perfect that we will never, ever try
to coerce someone into supporting us in a position? That is not
true. That is not how the real world works. That is not how
this government operates.
While it would like to stand in this place and talk about how
wonderful it is, what a great manager it is and how good a job it
does, when we look at it we do not have to go very far below the
surface to see the level of mismanagement and how it handles the
way the House operates. The whole process of presenting this
bill is a perfect example of that sort of mismanagement.
1355
We can talk about corruption in many different ways and I will
try to explore some of them. Obviously, we oppose corruption.
We are, after all, one of the countries in the world that has a
great role to play in setting an example.
We can see how corruption can undermine the very workings of
various governments. It can destroy developing democracies. It
can literally cause countries in transition to go backward. We
can talk about countries such as Sudan and others which are in
transition and have moved back and forth.
Corruption distorts public confidence in the whole process. I
would even say that public confidence has been held up to
question because of the mismanagement of this government. It
leads to the misallocation of valuable resources.
When there is corruption, there are resources going off to the
wrong place to do the wrong thing, ultimately to the detriment of
the people of that country.
Again, I would come back to Canada and look at the allocation of
resources. I would ask, are these being allocated according to
what is best for the people of Canada?
It hurts the private sector. It distorts the operation of the
markets. It deprives ordinary citizens of receiving the benefits
of the flow of wealth. Whenever there is corruption within the
system that obviously can happen. Above all else, it hurts the
poor people of the world. From this government's standpoint, we
often hear about their concerns and about human rights abuses
around the world. We see very limited action in that regard, but
we certainly hear the words being spoken from the other side.
We need transparency in international reporting and in
international business deals. We could look at the way NGOs
operate and go a long way in increasing our transparency. We
could also look at CIDA.
The Speaker: The hon. member has 28 minutes remaining. I
know he is just getting into the body of his speech, however, he
will have the floor after question period.
It being almost 2 p.m. we will proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
PROFESSOR MOHAMED ELMASRY
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Professor Mohamed Elmasry
of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the
University of Waterloo who was inducted as a fellow in the
prestigious Royal Society of Canada in Ottawa on November 20,
1998.
Professor Elmasry was invited to join this elite group due to
his invention, development and his help in the industry
introduction of several new technologies influencing the growth
of microelectronics in Canada and abroad.
His research has resulted in five distinct generations of
integrated circuit designs, and his revolutionary work on
low-energy logic circuits some 20 years ago is now finding wide
application in portable telecommunications.
Professor Elmasry has done pioneering work in artificial neural
network chip design, self-learning chips, speech recognition
systems, vocoders and echo cancellation. He holds nine patents
and is the author or co-author of 12 books and more than 250
scientific publications.
I congratulate Professor Elmasry on his new fellowship and wish
him well in the future.
* * *
INQUIRIES
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the resignation of Gerald Morin puts into question every
previous ruling by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. On
October 7, 1996, I filed a complaint with the commission
concerning RCMP negligence in dealing with farmers' complaints
against the Canadian Wheat Board. The response confirmed,
without a doubt, the warning that my effort on behalf of farmers
would be torpedoed.
The inaction of two former Liberal solicitor generals on these
complaints plus the government's relentless prosecution of
farmers even after it lost the Sawatzky case and appeal, proves
something is badly wrong in our justice system.
1400
The government's willingness to jeopardize all Canadian exports
to the U.S. to avoid an independent audit of the wheat board
demands an immediate judicial inquiry.
Pepper sprayed students, imprisoned farmers and confiscated
property. What next?
* * *
OPERA ONTARIO
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I draw the attention of the House to the Hamilton based Opera
Ontario, Canada's fourth largest opera company. In recognition
of the significance of its achievements, Opera Ontario has been
awarded for the second time in three years one of the six $25,000
lieutenant governor's awards.
I have had the supreme pleasure to see a number of the company's
productions and I can without hesitation attest to the quality of
its work.
The success and recognition given to such organizations as Opera
Ontario show that there is a living, breathing arts community in
Hamilton that is as sophisticated and dedicated to quality as any
other in Canada.
I say congratulations to Hamilton's Opera Ontario. I look
forward to seeing the company build on the success it has already
achieved. I am convinced that it will continue to be a vibrant
and growing contribution to life in Hamilton and surrounding
communities in southwestern Ontario.
* * *
NATURAL DISASTERS
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Armenians around the world will take time today to
recognize the 10th anniversary of the tragic earthquake on
December 7, 1988. On that sorrowful day over 25,000 lives were
lost and hundreds of thousands of Armenians were left homeless
and injured.
This year Armenians will reflect on the crippling effect of
nature's fury and share with the victims of Hurricane Mitch and
natural disasters everywhere the common bonds of human suffering,
human courage and human resolve to overcome and persevere.
I urge my fellow members of parliament to join Canadian
Armenians in mourning the victims of the 1988 earthquake and to
continue the effort to provide relief to the victims of natural
disasters everywhere.
* * *
[Translation]
MONIQUE SIOUI
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
“Pay equity is very much in the news these days. Monique fought
for equity, plain and simple”
Those were the words of Richard Kistabish, the husband of the
late Monique Sioui, who was awarded for the first time the
rights and freedoms award for the Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Wanaki,
the couple's daughter, accepted the award on behalf of her
mother, who died last year from an illness.
At the award ceremony, we were reminded that she was the
president of the Quebec native women's association in the
mid-1970s.
It was also pointed out that “Monique Sioui addressed acutely
sensitive issues such as native children being adopted by
non-natives and discrimination against native women under the
Indian Act”.
According to Richard Kistabish, Monique Sioui got involved to
bring about some changes: “She worked very hard at changing the
status of women. She also worked with neglected children. She
fought against discrimination by getting involved in the
community. She wanted to act as a bridge between the white and
native cultures.”
It is an honour for us all to say thank you to Monique Sioui.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL FRIENDSHIP CENTRES
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the first nations friendship centre at Vernon in my
riding will host an open house on December 10, national
friendship centre day.
Human Resources Development Canada has not included the
friendship centre movement in its new aboriginal human resource
strategy although half of Canada's aboriginals now live in
cities. This leaves friendship centres without any way to
address urban aboriginal employment and training. I toured the
Vernon centre where people can get services like training
referrals and help in preparing resumes.
I was impressed by the huge caseload these folks handle. For
example, family support and crisis intervention averages 47 cases
per month. Nationwide friendship centres also help develop
feasibility studies and business plans to promote long term
employment in such diverse ventures as catering and day care.
However the aboriginal urban initiative which the friendship
centres run is scheduled to lose its funding on March 31. I urge
my colleagues to support the national friendship centre movement.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, December 4, I was honoured to participate in a special
candlelight and roses commemoration for the victims of the
Montreal massacre. The hour of remembrance was held at the
Women's College site of the Sunnybrook and Women's College Health
Sciences Centre.
Our two guest speakers were Professor Wendy Cukier, President of
the Coalition for Gun Control, and former mayor of Toronto,
Barbara Hall. Professor Cukier spoke emphatically about the need
to recognize the significant role that rifles and shotguns play
in the high number of women assaulted and killed by their
intimate partners and the importance therefore of our new, strong
gun control legislation.
The need for prevention was echoed by Barbara Hall, chair of the
national strategy on community safety and crime prevention. Ms.
Hall stressed the need to use all available resources in order to
make our communities safe for women.
We must create an environment in which women feel safe. By doing
so, we will in turn have created safer communities for all of us
to live in.
1405
Friday's event was a reminder of the terrible consequences of
violence against women. Clearly we must focus on preventive
measures. We cannot allow such an event as the 1989 Montreal
massacre to be repeated. We cannot allow violence against women
to continue. We must never forget.
* * *
[Translation]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
in Montreal and across Canada, the tragedy that took place nine
years ago at l'École Polytechnique, in Montreal, was remembered.
December 6 is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on
Violence Against Women.
I would like to pay tribute to all the organizations that,
tirelessly and without recognition, provide assistance to abused
women and their families.
Each year, in my riding of Ahuntsic, the director of the Mélanie
Cabay foundation, Mireille Bélisle, who lost her daughter
Mélanie, holds a rally whose ultimate purpose is to eradicate
violence.
[English]
It is an event where individuals and community organizations
come together to show solidarity against all forms of violence in
our society.
I invite all members of the House to support the Secretary of
State for the Status of Women and Multiculturalism and her
territorial and provincial counterparts in their leadership in
the Iqaluit declaration and their commitment to end violence and
leave a safer world for our children.
* * *
MARIA MACH
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is someone among us who has a birthday today. She is 18
years old and she is from Aldergrove, British Columbia, in my
riding. What makes her so special is that she is one of our
parliamentary pages. Her name is Maria Mach.
Maria was born in Langley, British Columbia, and went to
Aldergrove Secondary School. She always had a grade A average
and received a $10,000 intern scholarship at the University of
Ottawa.
Maria has a deep interest in reading, music and plays the piano.
She enjoys skiing and ringette. She has been active in her
church and on student council at school. She has travelled to
Papua, New Guinea, Australia and Europe.
Maria's mother, MPs in the House and I wish to express the best
birthday ever for one of Canada's future leaders, Maria Mach.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE ALPHONSE PICHÉ
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today, a great poet is being buried at Trois-Rivières, Mr.
Alphonse Piché, who died on December 2.
A year after his birth in Chicoutimi in 1917, his family moved
to Trois-Rivières, where he remained for his entire life.
His poetry celebrated the great St. Lawrence, love and life, and
it transcends age, ill health and death. Mr. Piché was honoured
by numerous literary prizes, including the Governor General's
Literary Award, and an award bearing his name is given out
annually at the Salon du livre de Québec.
According to Alphonse Piché, the task of the poet is an
impossible and unending one, balancing imbalances, recording the
unspoken, translating the unspeakable, tackling the absolute.
To him, the greatness of man lay more in his attempts at
discovery than in his actual discoveries.
I would like to quote some of his own words in tribute to this
remarkable poet: “Sleep, my brother, there in the soil of
eternity, take your rest among the endless generations, safe in
the bosom of mystery, your mystery”.
* * *
REFORM PARTY
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is talk of attempts at a rapprochement between the Reform
Party and Mario Dumont's Parti de l'Action démocratique at a
meeting to be held this coming February.
It is obvious that the Reform Party is trying every possible way
to get closer to Quebec. Why not court the Parti Quebecois
while they are at it?
The Reform Party cannot understand that its views on the future
of Canada and of Quebec are of no interest to the people of
Quebec. The Reform Party quite simply does not understand
Quebec, which feels this union of the right to define the future
of our country is going nowhere.
The Reform Party is totally disconnected from reality as far as
Quebec is concerned.
It should face up to the fact that it is wasting its time by
trying to get Quebec onto its bandwagon.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many
Canadian farmers are facing their worst crisis since the dirty
thirties and they are pleading for our help. Last week about 400
letters from Saskatchewan farmers arrived stating they need
immediate assistance to allow them to plan their 1999 crops.
We have been trying since February to bring this emerging
disaster to the attention of the House and the minister. Now
finally the farm crisis is on the front page and it appears the
government is preparing to act.
1410
I was disappointed to hear the minister say last week that no
money will flow to farmers until after they have filed their tax
returns. By then we fear many of them will be forced off the
land.
We must have a detailed program outlined here before the House
rises this week to allow farmers to take this information to
their lending institutions.
Men and women on Canadian farms produce abundant and safe
quantities of food for us and the rest of the world, and all they
seek is to be able to make a decent living doing so.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is required to make known
his position with respect to WTO negotiations by April 1999.
With the deadline just months away, we can only conclude that
the federal government has come up empty. To date, there is no
sign of any serious consultation.
Recently Quebec agricultural producers, processors, and
distributors, as well as the UPA and MAPAQ, came up with an
initial proposal: with the OECD showing more flexibility, the
United States taking a tougher stance, and little give from
Asia, Japan and Europe, the UPA is calling for the status quo.
Canada has slashed its funding more than any other country, and
everyone admits that it is a pushover. If he hopes to defend
the farmers of Quebec and Canada, the minister has to get out of
Ottawa: it is urgent that he consult the agricultural sector
and take a firm stand based on what he hears.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Canadians
we spend less than 10% of our disposable income on food. Our
food costs are among the lowest in industrialized countries. Only
the Americans at 8% spend less while others pay up to 24%. The
efficiencies of our producers directly benefit consumers.
Today, because of complex international conditions of lost
markets, oversupply and foreign subsidies, Canadian farm families
are on the brink of financial disaster. This threat to the
viability of Canadian farmers is a threat to our supply of
healthy, affordable food. Imagine what we would pay for food
without our domestic supply.
Farmers meet the normal challenges of weather and cyclical price
fluctuations. However the current crisis is not normal, not of
their making and could not be foreseen.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food is working toward a
solution. I urge him to continue his efforts to develop a
national disaster program to meet these extraordinary needs. All
Canadians will benefit in the long term. All Canadians want and
need a healthy food supply.
* * *
BERNARD LORD
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
future premier of the province of New Brunswick is in Ottawa
today.
On October 21, Mr. Lord was elected to the New Brunswick
legislature by capturing the long time Liberal seat of Moncton
East and is now the leader of the opposition.
Mr. Lord is committed to offering New Brunswickers a new grass
roots approach to politics. His vision is one of a prosperous
province with better education and improved health care in each
region. He wants to build a better New Brunswick, a province
with a thriving economy.
At the dawn of a new millennium it is vital for New Brunswick to
have a leader at the service of the people. Mr. Lord will never
abandon our responsibility toward the youth, seniors and workers
of New Brunswick.
Over the past nine years the Liberals in the province have stood
by and watched a brain drain of over 9,000 young New Brunswickers
leaving the province. Doctors and nurses have left and the
dignity and freedom of seniors have been taken away.
New Brunswickers look forward to a brighter future under the
solid leadership of Mr. Bernard Lord. Today I salute the future
premier of the province New Brunswick, Bernard Lord.
* * *
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ONTARIO
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1992 the Boys and Girls Club of Ontario started a scholarship
program to help pay for the rising costs of post-secondary
education for its youth members, many of whom face financial
challenges. From an initial $4,800 and 6 awards, the program has
grown to over $37,000 and 49 awards being given out this year.
I congratulate Asha Moore, Charles Baker and Adrian Sutherland
from my riding of Scarborough East. All three have won a
scholarship involving the Scarborough East Boys and Girls Club.
Asha Moore is now in her second year of the social work program
at Ryerson. Charles is in his second year of computer
engineering at Ryerson, and Adrian Sutherland is presently
enrolled in recreation leadership at Centennial College.
I congratulate each and every one of these students for their
motivation, their enthusiasm and drive to succeed in life.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday I had the opportunity to participate once
again in a radio phone-in show in my riding. Guess which issue
garnered the most questions during the hour I spent with Dick
Sequins on CJDC in Dawson Creek. Was it APEC, taxes or health
care? No. It was gun control.
Despite the wishes of the Liberal government this issue will not
go away. Rural Canada will not forget how the government has
targeted legitimate firearm owners instead of going after those
who choose to misuse guns for criminal acts.
1415
Bill C-68 will not ensure public safety. It will not produce
safer streets. Gun owners in my riding continue to question the
stupidity of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to
register the firearms of peaceful law-abiding Canadians while the
RCMP drastically cuts back due to the lack of funds.
I can tell the Minister of Justice that Bill Farion, a
constituent from Fort Nelson, speaks for thousands when he said
in a recent letter that he has “no intention of co-operating
with this expensive boondoggle”.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
On Friday the chair of the public complaints panel investigating
the APEC affair resigned citing new interference from Ottawa.
Gerald Morin cited interference from the Liberal appointed
chairman of the commission, Shirley Heafey. He said her
tampering made the panel's work impossible.
What possible excuse does the solicitor general have now for not
replacing this panel with an independent judicial inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am taking the liberty of answering this question
because the question relates to something the Prime Minister
deals with, setting up judicial inquiries.
I want to say to the hon. member that the chair of the
commission according to press reports says that she is dealing
with the matter that has been the subject of press coverage.
Second of all, the whole issue of apprehension of bias on the
part of the commission is still before the courts. Surely we
should let the courts come to their decision which they are ready
to do as quickly as possible.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general has had two weeks to practise
being solicitor general. It is time to take the training wheels
off and answer my questions himself.
Ms. Heafey's interference was bad enough to make the panel
chairman quit. She tampered with the panel's independence. She
interfered with its decision making. She refused to deal with
charges that their phones were bugged.
Who directed the actions of this Liberal appointed chairman?
Who ordered this interference from Ottawa in the role of this
particular panel?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was no interference from Ottawa.
This is an independent body that deals with allegations against
the RCMP. I ask the opposition to let the public complaints
commission do its work.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the people who will not let the commission do its work
is the government itself. The former solicitor general
pre-judged the outcome of the panel. That is tampering with the
work of the panel. Now we have the chairman of the commission
interfering to the point where the chairman of the panel quit.
Is it not true that the only reason the solicitor general keeps
this panel alive is to keep the truth from coming out about the
role of the Prime Minister in this whole sorry affair?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the public complaints commission acts
under an act of parliament. It has a job to do and we must let
it do the job. Under the law, it has received a complaint, it
must deal with the complaint.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe the solicitor general should put the training wheels back
on.
The reality is that the public complaints commission can be
terminated under the following grounds: number one, the
investigation be better carried out under the authority of
another act of parliament, or further investigation is not
reasonably practical. This situation fulfils both of those
criteria.
When are we going to get an independent judicial inquiry from
this solicitor general?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has not given accurate information to
this House. I am not saying deliberately because he is not
quoting the law as far as I know. As far as I know there are no
grounds on that basis in the act setting up the commission to let
the activity he is asking for be carried out.
The government has no authority under the law to take any role
with respect to the workings of the commission. The hon. member
knows that. He should have told the House that instead of what
he alleged.
1420
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
section 45.36 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, RSC R-10
is the authority under which I say this person, Heafey, who was
appointed by the Liberals, has the ability to terminate this
boondoggle, which is all that it is. It is mortally wounded. Put
it in its grave. Give us an independent judicial inquiry.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member is quoting the act right, he is
saying the chair of the commission has the right to terminate a
hearing. The act does not say that the government has the
authority to direct the commission and that is the fact. I would
like to put this section on the record of the House and the House
will see that what I am saying is correct.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
weeks now, the Prime Minister has been telling us about the
independence of the APEC inquiry. He keeps telling us it has to
do its work.
We now know that the commission chair exerted unacceptable
pressure on the inquiry chair and that hearings are held up
indefinitely.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what is left of the
supposed inquiry and its supposed independence?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the public complaints commission is an
independent body. It has every right, and under the law it must
deal with allegations that are brought before it. That is what
it is going to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general is talking nonsense.
The Liberal caucus may be buying it, but no one else is. I
wonder he can keep a straight face.
Is it not true that the reason the government alone believes
that the inquiry has any credibility is because the more this
inquiry into the conduct of the Prime Minister and his entourage
is weakened, the less likely it is to get to the bottom of
things?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the public complaints commission acts
under an act of parliament, under an act of this place. It has a
job to do and it must do that job.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday,
APEC commission chairman Gérald Morin resigned and accused
Shirley Heafy, the chair of the RCMP public complaints
commission, of political interference. As we know, Mrs. Heafy's
appointment was a political one.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the allegations made
by former commissioner Morin about Mrs. Heafy just destroyed any
credibility this phoney commission may have had left?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to my information, Mr. Morin remains a member of the
commission. He gave up his position as chair of the panel
investigating the APEC incidents.
Mr. Morin was appointed in the same manner as Mrs. Heafy. Again,
the government has no right to interfere in the commission's
internal activities. The whole issue of the commission rests
with the courts.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, enough is
enough. A solicitor general has resigned, a CBC journalist was
suspended, the hearings were stopped, and now commissioner Morin
too has resigned.
What more does the Prime Minister need to convene a true
inquiry, an independent judicial inquiry that will finally shed
light on the role played by the Prime Minister and his office?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to my information, Mr. Morin is still a member of the
commission.
Second, if an inquiry is convened, the commission will be
appointed by the Prime Minister. Therefore, I wonder why the
hon. member thinks such a commission would be any more
independent than the public complaints commission, which was
established through an act of parliament and which operates at
arm's length from the government.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, now that
we know the RCMP public complaints commission chair has tried to
influence the panel's activities, the next question is how the
government has tried to influence the commission chair and in
fact this whole process.
Will the solicitor general now share with Canadians what is
really going on by tabling all correspondence, including
telephone contacts, e-mails, the works, between the government
and the commission and between the government and commission
lawyer Ed Ratushny?
1425
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated that the
government will co-operate fully with the public complaints
commission. Any material it wants is available to it.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, like
the Prime Minister, the public complaints commission chair,
Liberal appointee Shirley Heafey, wants the commission to do its
work. But the Prime Minister and his appointee know the
commission is fatally flawed, that it will not get to the truth
about the Prime Minister's involvement in the APEC fiasco.
How far is the government prepared to go to keep this three ring
circus going? When will the government get on with an
independent judicial inquiry and just get it over with?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the members of the commission, not just the chair,
are appointed by order in council, that is to say by the Prime
Minister. That is exactly what would happen if a judicial
inquiry were to be set up. That person would be appointed by the
Prime Minister. I would ask the hon. member to explain why she
wants the Prime Minister to be involved in one way to set up a
commission, and she does not want the commission to carry out its
work when it is appointed in exactly the same way under the law
passed by this parliament to work at arm's length from the
government and from parliament. Is that not the way the work
should be done?
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I can answer that. It is because a judge would be
independent.
The APEC commission has ground to a halt amidst further
controversy with the main players investigating each other and
exchanging allegations of bias and interference. The commission
panel has become a joke with more twists than a cheap detective
novel. While this makes for good drama, it is a terrible way to
uncover the truth. The current process lacks the credibility and
the mandate to thoroughly investigate what happened at APEC.
Will the new solicitor general show this House and Canadians
that he is not just a puppet of the Prime Minister and appoint an
independent judicial public inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should give the House the right facts as
the premise to his question. The solicitor general would not
appoint an inquiry. It would be appointed by the Prime Minister
under the Inquiries Act. That is obvious. The hon. member
should prepare himself before he asks these kinds of questions.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, is that not a trite answer. I can almost see the
solicitor general's lips moving from the ventriloquism of the
Deputy Prime Minister.
The Speaker: I want the hon. member to go directly to his
question.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my direct question to the
solicitor general is, will he give this House the assurance that
there has been no ongoing influence by him or his government over
the Liberals' friend Shirley Heafey who has been appointed and
over her decisions as chair of this commission?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes I can give that assurance.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the industry minister, high tax levels if anything
increase productivity. The industry minister thinks that high
taxes help Canadians. He is the second most senior economic
minister in the entire cabinet. Is the finance minister
increasing taxes on January 1 because he thinks it helps
Canadians? Is that why?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the hon. member read Saturday's paper. If
he had read today's paper he would have seen that the Minister of
Industry made it very clear he is in favour of lower taxes.
Having worked very closely with the industry minister over the
course of the last five years, I can say that he is an ardent
proponent of lowering the tax rate for Canadians.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think he was really speaking from the heart on Friday. He said
that high taxes are good for productivity.
This government likes to talk about lower taxes but at every
opportunity it implements tax hikes. Look at CPP. Look at EI.
Look at bracket creep. A billion dollars higher every year. Is
it not true that this government is doing exactly what the
industry minister was saying? It is raising taxes. Is it not
true that this is the way this government operates at every
opportunity, by hiking taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the industry minister was talking about ways in which
one increases productivity. That is why he brought in the
technology partnerships program.
That is why he has been a very strong supporter of increased
research and development across the wide range of science and
technology. That is why he has supported regional economic
development. He understands how important increased productivity
is to Canadians.
1430
Increased productivity will come from the kinds of things the
industry minister has talked about, not better buggy whipped
according to the Reform Party.
* * *
[Translation]
PREBUDGET CONSULTATIONS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government cut $6.3 billion in transfer payments to the
provinces, primarily in the health sector.
Yet, on Friday, in its report on prebudget consultations, the
Liberal majority found a way to criticize the provinces by
saying, and I quote: “By reducing the health services they
provided, the provinces challenged one of Canada's most
cherished national symbols”.
Can the Minister of Finance explain how his fellow party
members, who belong to a government that cut one third of its
transfer payments to the provinces, can have the nerve to say
that if the health care system is weakened, it is because of the
provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
I want to congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on
Finance, both opposition members and, most definitely,
government members, for a very good report.
The emphasis put on productivity and the need to increase the
wealth of all Canadians, including the poor and the middle
class, resulted in a very good report. I intend to give it very
serious consideration.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government has cut employment insurance and health, it wants to
lower taxes for the rich, and it is prepared to grant special
treatment to sports tycoons.
Given the actions and the direction taken by this government, is
it not the one responsible for increased poverty, for the
greater number of children living in poverty, in spite of the
economic growth of the past five years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
we look at the transfers made to the provinces by the Canadian
government, we notice, for example, an increase in equalization
payments. The last budget included a $7 billion increase in
transfers, over a three year period.
It also included programs designed to improve access to
knowledge, including the millennium scholarship fund and the
$3,000 paid to single parents. However, if we look at all the
areas in which the federal government invested to help Canadians
secure a better future, we can see that, in each case, the Bloc
Quebecois opposed the government's initiatives.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
family incomes are down. Economic growth is dropping. Brain
drain is speeding up. The unemployment rate is nearly twice as
high as it is in the United States.
What is the government's answer? According to the industry
minister it is higher taxes. He said “high tax levels increase
productivity”. Perhaps the finance minister could help me here.
If higher taxes lead to higher productivity, why does Canada not
have the most competitive economy in the world today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I really want to congratulate my colleague, the Minister
of Industry, and all my colleagues.
Perhaps the hon. member missed the announcement last Friday.
Four hundred and twenty-five thousand new jobs were created this
year alone. Last month the private sector, in the context of a
climate established by this government, created 103,000 new jobs,
75,000 of which were permanent. The vast majority went to young
Canadians.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the finance minister is boasting about his economic record while
the unemployment rate is twice as high as our major economic
competitor, family incomes have been dropping 15 years straight
and brain drain is accelerating.
He congratulates the industry minister for contradicting the
government's alleged fiscal policy, just like he congratulated
the Prime Minister this summer for saying that a low dollar
helped the Canadian economy.
Who really speaks for the government when it comes to economic
policy, the finance minister, the Prime Minister or the industry
minister? Does he agree that high taxes are good for
productivity?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already answered that question, as did the
industry minister this morning. He was talking about higher
productivity and lower taxes.
Let us look a the results of that. Last month job gains came in
eight of the ten provinces. This is the fifth straight month
that the unemployment rate has gone down. The unemployment rate
in Canada is now at its lowest level since 1990.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
PROFESSIONAL SPORT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
reports showing that the number of poor children in Canada
continues to rise, government members are pushing for sizable
tax breaks for professional sports teams and their
multimillionaire players.
With the House about to rise in a few days and recommendations
soon to be made to cabinet for the next budget, is the Minister
of Canadian Heritage ruling out tax breaks for professional
sports, yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government will carefully consider the 68
recommendations in the report on sport. Any decisions about tax
investments will be announced with the budget.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
House is about to rise. The minister must therefore give a
clear answer.
She must make recommendations to cabinet. Her Liberal
colleagues are lobbying hard for tax breaks for sports
millionaires. Will she or will she not be going ahead with
these indefensible recommendations that are to the advantage of
sports professionals?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member does not want to wait
for the entire report to be examined. I respect the work done
by both sides of the House and I want the report to be studied
in depth, with no options excluded.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have been calling on the agriculture minister for a long time now
to get tough with the Americans and Europeans on their high
unfair subsidies. But after what we saw this weekend, tough is
not exactly the word that comes to mind.
Liberal toughness meant allowing U.S. pork, wheat and grain into
Canada without inspection. What do we get in return? New and
bigger roadblocks.
Why does the government's idea of really getting tough always
mean caving in to American pressure?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well there
will be no products coming into Canada from any country without
inspection. We have the strongest and best food and agriculture
commodity inspection system in the world.
The agreement we reached on a number of issues with the United
States on Friday builds on that to increase, not deter, trade
between our two countries.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
American farmers are far more heavily subsidized than we are. The
U.S. produces far more wheat and pork than we do, but it is
Canada that always bends over backwards.
Canadian farmers are always taking it right between the pockets.
It is time the minister started getting really tough with high
agricultural subsidies in the U.S. and Europe.
When will the government stop buckling and start battling for
Canadian farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we in no way, shape or form buckled in
the agreement we reached with the United Stated on close to 20
issues on Friday. Previous to that a long series of negotiations
has the support of the government, the farm organizations in
Canada and the United States. If the hon. member does not wish
to believe me, speak to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture
which congratulated the government on the moves we made last
Friday to increase trade with the United States.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Secretary of State for Economic Development for the
Regions of Quebec.
This government seems to have a dubious propensity for helping
the rich stay in shape. In addition to the tax advantages
proposed for the sports millionaires, we learn that the Business
Development Bank of Canada spent over $221,000 on golf club
memberships for its executives.
When there are 1.5 million poor children and the government
continues to cut employment insurance and transfers to the
provinces, how can the minister justify one of his crown
corporations spending—
The Speaker: The hon. the parliamentary secretary.
1440
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure the member
understands that the business development bank is an arm's length
corporation. It operates on a fully commercial basis.
The business development bank brought in $1 billion in loans for
small and medium size business and operates at a profit of some
$50 million. In fact, it returned $6 million in dividends to the
taxpayers.
* * *
STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Revenue Canada announced last Thursday that it has
commenced an investigation of the dumping of foreign steel into
Canada.
Will the Minister of National Revenue now assure Algoma Steel,
all Canadian steel producers and Canadians living in cities like
Sault Ste. Marie which are dependent on the steel industry that
his department will complete this investigation without delay?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that my department
initiated anti-dumping investigations last week involving hot
roll steel sheet products from four countries.
The department will complete its investigation by early next
year and will impose duties if dumping is confirmed. If there
has been a large increase of harmful imports and the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal decides that retroactive application
of anti-dumping duties is justified, duties can be initiated on a
retroactive basis back to December 3.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of International Trade.
The continued blockade of our border by American farmers this
weekend shows pretty clearly this government's so-called trade
agreement was nothing more than a public relations exercise. It
is full of nice words like consult, exchange of information and
increased dialogue, but no action and no concrete agreement to
protect Canadian farmers.
When will the minister stop finding nice words and get tough
with the Americans with their subsidies?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if he does not trust our words here is
what the Canadian Federal of Agriculture said: “Congratulations
are in order for both the agriculture and trade minister for
Canada. The agreement marks a positive step forward in
Canada-U.S. agriculture trade relations and is good news for
Canadian producers”.
As of 1 o'clock this afternoon, the only blockade we can speak
of is a group of farmers on Montana's border. The other
blockades have ceased. This one, I am assured, will cease as of
4 o'clock. Trade was not severely restricted this weekend.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is rather interesting because two things simply have not
changed. The government's so-called deal with the Americans on
Friday did not change the fact that Americans blockaded our
border two days afterward. It did not change that we are still
subject to high subsidies by Europeans and Americans.
When will the minister get out from under his desk and
do something to help Canadian farmers?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder which side the trade
critic for the Reform Party of Canada is on.
What he is asking is that the blockade should have been bigger
and longer. If we look at what happened over the weekend, those
blockades were already set. I believe, as does the American side
of the equation, that this agreement led to those blockades being
much smaller.
In fact, the only protest left is the one in Montana. It started
in three states. I think the member should recognize that
progress was made, which is also for Canadian producers
themselves.
* * *
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
With the sting still burning from the UN attack on his
government's abysmal poverty record, today the minister must be
reeling from two more devastating reports.
The CCSD report blames the feds for the declining well-being of
Canadian children, and the National Council of Welfare takes the
hot air out of the much touted child tax benefit and condemns it
for ignoring the poorest of the poor.
If the minister can pull himself out of his chair to face the
music, will he commit today to invest the funds necessary to
ensure that no children go hungry in Canada?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said on
Friday, the government is always appreciative and respectful of
the research work done by outside agencies commenting on the
social policies of the country. We try to learn from those
reports.
As far as the charge about the national children's benefit not
helping the poorest of the poor, we have found out through our
statistics that there are many children in low income working
families who have fewer resources than those in welfare families.
1445
We are therefore trying to help low income working families have
access to at least the same resources as those on welfare and we
make no apologies for that.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
poor people cannot survive on Liberal lip service any longer.
The truth is that instead of reversing its dreadful attack on the
poor, this government is set on providing tax breaks to the
wealthy.
On Friday, the Liberal majority report of the finance committee
called for billions in tax cuts for upper income earners. Will
the minister promise today to stop catering to the wealthy? Will
he do the right thing and commit to a real strategy to fight
poverty in Canada, yes or no?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
knows very well that a report from a standing committee is one of
several advisories that is put forward to the finance minister.
The finance minister knows that it is a very high priority for
this government and many members on this side to keep the poorest
in Canada in mind. That is proven by the fact that we will have
$1.7 billion in the national child benefit by the year 2000.
We believe that the best social policy is a job and we are proud
of our record. There have been 103,000 jobs created in the last
month alone, with more than half—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will be going
before his cabinet colleagues again with a revised proposal for
farm income supports.
Maybe he could use a little ammunition. Since 1995 there have
been 1,053 farm bankruptcies. Ironically, that is the same year
that the Liberal government started cutting back on farm support
systems.
When the minister goes before his cabinet colleagues tomorrow,
is he confident that he is going to get a positive response from
his cabinet colleagues?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support
and encouragement to this government to do something for farmers.
We take this seriously and we will continue to take it
seriously. If we come forward with a program it will meet a
number of criteria that we know it has to meet. I said before
that it is my intention and hope to make an announcement before
Christmas. I go by that deadline and we will continue that way.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, if
this government and this minister took it seriously, two years
ago they could have been looking at support programs, not now
when it is a full-blown crisis. The criteria that the minister
talks about is money being put into the farmers' pockets.
Unfortunately cash will not flow until March 1999.
Is the minister prepared to change the criteria and put cash in
farmers' pockets this year so that the farmers can have an early
Christmas present and get back on the land this spring?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Conservative Party
too for its new-found interest. The member said that we should
have taken this seriously two years ago when we talked about an
agricultural program, a policy for our government. There is that
party over there that 18 months ago, before the election, wanted
to do away with the ministry of agriculture, increase
cost-recovery fees and reduce subsidies to agriculture.
What a pleasant turn of events from the Tory party.
* * *
[Translation]
1999 FRANCOPHONE SUMMIT
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
September 1999, Canada will host the eighth Francophone Summit
in Moncton, New Brunswick.
Could the Minister responsible for Francophonie give us an
overview of the preparations for the summit?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
in fact just back from Bucharest, where I presented the report
on preparations for the Moncton summit.
I can say that the infrastructure is in place and that
programming on the theme of youth is well underway. The
memorandum of understanding between Quebec and New Brunswick was
signed in May. Everything is running smoothly, and the
ministers responsible for Francophonie are very happy with the
progress to date.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week I reminded the minister of fisheries of the
north coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands and the designated
no-kill zone for coho salmon by fisheries scientists. Yet he
opened the sport fishery for his friends at Oak Bay Marine Group
which killed in the neighbourhood of 30,000 coho.
Does no-kill to this minister mean that only his friends and
campaign contributors can go fishing?
1450
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the program for coho recovery was very
successful in British Columbia last year. We have had
improvements in just about every area. The numbers are not as
good as we would have liked on the north coast with respect to
the upper Skeena River where, of course, there is interception by
Alaskan fishermen.
In addition, there are some problems in the upper Thompson which
remain, but overall it was outstandingly successful and the
measures taken dramatically improved the situation over what
would have been the case had we not taken those difficult
measures last year.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on any grounds against
men and women. Paradoxically, however, one class of citizens is
excluded, as section 67 provides that nothing in the act affects
any provision of the Indian Act.
As we celebrate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this
week, will the Indian affairs minister commit to make
representations to her colleague, the human resources
development minister, to get him to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act so that it will also protect the rights of aboriginal
people?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice already stated in this House that the entire
human rights legislation will soon be reviewed by the
government. We will indeed be looking at this aspect of the
legislation.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.
This summer the Business Development Bank spent $24,000 on golf
club membership fees for Jean Carle, the former director of
operations for the prime minister's office. The same Jean Carle
was teeing off on students this time last year at the APEC
conference.
I ask the minister who wants to be prime minister if he can
explain why his government spent $24,000 on Jean Carle's golf
fees when the unemployed cannot collect employment insurance,
when children are living in poverty, when farmers are going
bankrupt and when hospitals are closing?
How can he justify that when he wants to be prime minister of
the country?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as mentioned earlier in answer
to a previous question—and maybe the member was not
listening—the Business Development Bank is a very proactive
agency. It operates on a commercial basis. It does a good job
at being proactive and arranging partnerships with other
financial institutions.
General memberships involve—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary
still has time if he would like more time to answer.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I point out that general
memberships are a recognized business practice. The financial
institutions arrange for partnerships with other financial
institutions or with private enterprises. The Business
Development Bank has been very proactive in making—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
* * *
PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in a news report this morning the public works minister said that
the auditor general is completely wrong in saying that the Hill
renovations are way over budget.
In March 1997 the minister submitted a construction plan to
Treasury Board showing the cost of major renovations at over $750
million.
Does the minister want us to believe his March 1997 plan or his
September 1998 plan?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the member
should know that all parties sit on the board of internal
economy, which is chaired by the Speaker, and that board is
consulted on every expenditure concerning buildings on Parliament
Hill.
I did not say that the auditor general was wrong. I said that I
had to deal with reality and could only comment on figures and
projects that have been approved. The hon. member can use his
imagination and say everything that he says, but the auditor
general asked for a long term plan and that is what we are
working on. The auditor general asked for an advisory committee
and I announced that there will be an advisory committee.
* * *
1455
WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, western economic diversification boasts about creating
jobs and diversifying the economy in western Canada.
How does the Secretary of State for Western Economic
Diversification guarantee accountability and maximum return on
taxpayers' investment when it loans moneys to small and medium
sized businesses?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are two main points to be made. First, money
loaned in the past is being collected very successfully. There
is a loss of about 9.4% versus 3% for commercial lending and 20%
for venture capital firms.
But WD does not loan money directly to businesses any more. It
brings clients to the banks and they decide whether or not money
should be loaned.
I should add that WD now focuses on providing information,
business plan counselling and mentoring, particularly in the
rural areas, through our 1-800 service. We are there to help the
people locally.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I asked the fisheries minister a question and he did not
answer it, so I will ask him again. Why was the minister's
friend and largest campaign contributor allowed to kill 30,000
coho in a no-kill coho zone in the Queen Charlotte Islands last
summer?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for some time now has
repeated these remarks.
I should point out that there was a red zone around the
Charlottes. Two experimental fisheries were allowed. One was a
sports fishery and one was a commercial fishery.
The exploitation rate was so low, the death of the coho was so
far below 1%, that our scientists decided is was insignificant
from the point of maintaining stocks.
* * *
[Translation]
PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS RENOVATIONS
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his report,
the Auditor General of Canada expressed concern about the
skyrocketing cost of renovating the parliament buildings, which
currently stands at $1.4 billion.
Does the minister remember that, three years ago, disregarding
the opinion of the board of internal economy referred to earlier
and even that of the current minister, the hon. member for
Sudbury, who was in charge of this project at the time, ordered
that a Senate cafeteria be build? Does he admit that this is the
kind of decisions that resulted in a dramatic cost overrun?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, for clarity
concerning the figures, what the auditor general said was that,
if all the plans currently on the table were approved, we may be
looking at a total cost of $1.4 billion. We are not there yet.
The auditor general asked for a long term plan. In September, I
asked my officials to develop a long term plan. The auditor
general has been asking for one since 1992, and he asked for one
again in the report he released last week.
On Tuesday, I announced the creation—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the United
Nations committee made it clear on Friday that the Canadian
government does not take good care of the disadvantaged members
of its society. The UN committee recommends a reform of
employment insurance.
Will the minister finally carry out the employment insurance
reform the UN committee is calling for, as are the Canadians I
have met in my travels across the country to gather information
on employment insurance, or has his titled changed to Minister
of Human Resource Impoverishment?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report formally
reviewed Canada's performance from 1987 to 1994 and some
questions were asked of the delegation about performance
post-1994.
Here is what I would like to tell the House about the
performance post-1994: $1.7 billion a year in child tax credits;
tax relief for low and middle income families, taking 400,000
Canadians off the tax rolls; the youth employment strategy; the
aboriginal head start program; integration programs for the
disabled. Shall I go on?
1500
The Speaker: Order. I have notice of a question of
privilege from the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester. I
will hear that point of privilege and then I will hear a point of
order from the hon. member for Wild rose.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MEMBER FOR KENORA—RAINY RIVER
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today on a point of privilege arising from an incident
that occurred here in this chamber on December 3, just last
Thursday.
I rise based on citations 93 and 92 of Beauchesne's
Parliamentary Rules and Forms which say that any threat or
attempt to influence the actions of a member is a breach of
privilege, and that that action must relate to the member's
parliamentary duties. I assure the Speaker this action did
affect my parliamentary duties.
As I sat at my desk preparing questions about the New Brunswick
toll highway issue which I was intending to ask in question
period just a few moments later, I was confronted by the member
of parliament for Kenora—Rainy River. With no introduction, he
demanded to know what I “had against Doug Young”. When I asked
for clarification, he accused me of calling Doug Young a crook,
which I did not do. Then the member warned me to “back off”
because “Doug Young has a lot of friends and they have long
memories”. I do not know who these friends are. I do not know
if somebody else put the member up to this. The member was
obviously agitated at the time and therefore I did not argue with
the member. I just wanted the confrontation to end.
I proceeded to prepare my questions which actually referred to a
letter of Doug Young's. Then the member challenged me to take my
comments outside the House, which I assured him I already had.
When that did not work, he pointed over to the Liberal benches
and said “you better be careful because there are a lot of us
over here and we will not forget either”. He left, warning me
to remember what he had said.
At the very, very least, this is intimidation designed to
prevent me from asking effective questions on matters of concern
to my constituents. At worst it is a threat against me as a
member of parliament.
There is no place in this House for intimidation or threats. To
be intimidated and threatened makes it very difficult to remain
focused on the issues. I am sure that was the purpose of the
implied threat.
Mr. Speaker, if you find that I have a prima facie case of
privilege, I am prepared to move the following motion, “that the
matter of possible threats uttered by the member for
Kenora—Rainy River should”—
The Speaker: Order, please. I take this as a serious
circumstance, I want the hon. member to know. I am not going to
make a ruling on it today. I believe you named the member for
Kenora—Rainy River, is that correct? I would rather wait until
the member was here in the House. You have raised it at the
earliest possible moment. I would like to hear what the hon.
member for Kenora—Rainy River says, so I will hold this in
abeyance until the hon. member comes back to the House.
* * *
1505
POINTS OF ORDER
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order regarding the adjournment proceedings and
notice of question. It says that notice must be given no later
than one hour following question period which is fine.
There is one thing which disturbs me and I am not sure how we
should go about changing it or if we want to change it. Today for
the second time I have received notice that I will have the
opportunity to bring an issue forward at the late show, as we
call it, on March 3 which is approximately six months after it
was sent in.
This is the second time this has happened. I find that delay of
time a real hindrance to achieving what we are trying to achieve.
It is totally unacceptable. That is enough said but I would like
that corrected, if possible.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his
intervention. I will get more information for him. I think it
had to do with the list they have. We will look into it and will
get back to the member with an answer.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 14
petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I would like to request the unanimous consent of the House to
table the second report of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary
Friendship Group.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
asking for unanimous consent to table a report from a delegation.
Does the member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to table
in the House in both official languages the second report of the
Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group regarding its
delegation to Taiwan during the period August 8 to August 15.
The members had a variety of discussions on economic and
cultural exchange issues and will be making recommendations to
the appropriate ministers and to the government.
* * *
[Translation]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-63, an act
respecting Canadian citizenship.
She said: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to table Bill
C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
1510
[English]
Mr. David Pratt: Madam Speaker, I
hope that you find unanimous consent to put the following motion
to the House without debate.
The motion reads as follows: “That this House request that the
government convey to the governor of the state of Texas, the hon.
George W. Bush, and to parole authorities of this state, its very
serious concern about the violation of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations in the case of Mr. Stanley Faulder, a Canadian
citizen who is to be executed on December 10, 1998 at Huntsville
State Prison; and further, that the government convey this
House's respectful request that the execution be stayed pending a
judicial review of the case to ensure that due process has been
followed”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, today I have two petitions that I wish to table.
One petition is from residents of Vernon and Armstrong. The
petitioners are asking parliament to preserve and protect the
institution of marriage by enacting Bill C-225, to define by
statute that marriage can only be entered into between a single
male and a single female.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is also my pleasure to table a petition signed mostly
by people in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap. The petitioners
support Private Members' Bill C-304 from the member for
Yorkton—Melville to strengthen protection of private property
rights and specifically guarantee that everyone has the right to
enjoy their property, the right not to be deprived of it without
a fair hearing and just compensation, and the right to appeal to
the courts if their property rights have been infringed upon.
PAUL BERNARDO
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition
basically from the Lakehurst area calling on parliament to take
action that would assure that Paul Bernardo remains in prison for
the rest of his natural life, and that further action is
requested for the destruction of the video tapes, that human eyes
may never see them again.
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a large number of petitions again, 242 more pages
of petitions with 5,589 signatures of concerned citizens from
across the country. About half of these are from the province of
Quebec.
My constituents are asking me to keep a running total of these
repeal Bill C-68 petitions. This year I have introduced 1,751
pages with more than 40,910 signatures.
The petitioners request parliament to repeal the totally
ineffective Bill C-68, the Firearms Act. The petitioners want
the $50 million or $60 million a year being wasted on gun
registration redirected to real criminal justice priorities.
Organized criminals are terrorizing Canadian cities and biker and
street gangs quite literally are getting away with murder, while
Mounties are wasting their time and tax moneys registering
shotguns owned by duck hunters. It is truly appalling that the
government has forced the RCMP to cut essential police services
while wasting more than $200 million on gun registration.
I am pleased to submit these petitions.
1515
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
a petition signed by many Canadians who are asking parliament to
amend the Divorce Act to include the provision as supported in
Bill C-340 regarding the rights of the parents or grandparents of
spouses to access to or custody of their grandchildren.
[Translation]
ABOLITION OF SENATE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
12,000 people in my riding of Frontenac—Mégantic have asked me to
table this important petition on their behalf, calling for
abolition of the Canadian Senate.
They state that the Senate is an undemocratic institution that
costs the taxpayer $50 million annually, duplicates efforts to
protect minority rights and encroaches upon the role of members
of the House, and that our parliamentary institutions need
modernizing.
For these reasons, the people of Frontenac—Mégantic are calling
for abolition of the Senate.
[English]
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to
present the a petition signed by residents of London, Lucan and
Kitchener.
They urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT, noting it is
not used in Europe and most American States as it fouls emission
control devices in vehicles.
MARRIAGE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition, signed by residents in Wallaceburg
and Dresden, urges parliament to adapt the principles of Bill
C-225 to ensure that marriage is preserved and protected.
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first is from constituents of mine primarily in the
districts of Fox Valley and Prelate, Saskatchewan, with respect
to the MacKay task force recommendations.
The petitioners point out that the MacKay task force
recommendations, if implemented, would enable banks to retail
property and casualty insurance. They state that this would have
a very negative impact on Canada's independent insurance brokers
and would cause a loss of thousands of jobs.
Therefore they call upon parliament to totally reject the
recommendations of the MacKay task force report pertaining to the
entry of banks into the casualty and property insurance markets.
Furthermore they urge parliamentarians not to give in to the
pressure of the banks on this matter.
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition is from 248 petitioners located all
over Saskatchewan.
They point out that section 44 of the Constitution Act provides
a formula for amending the Constitution of Canada and that such
amendments may be made exclusively by parliament.
They go on to describe problems with governmental mismanagement
of our fiscal affairs and to list several points. They therefore
petition parliament to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, to
include provisions modelled after the taxpayer protection
amendment as proposed by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
CANDU REACTORS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to present four petitions on behalf of the
my constituents in Kitchener Centre.
The first petition is regarding the sale of Candu reactors. The
42 Canadians who signed the petition call upon parliament to
oppose the sale of these reactors to the state of Turkey.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition was prepared by Canadians of Serbian
descent.
They request that parliament take a proactive role in ensuring
equal rights for all citizens of Serbia, including Serbs within
the boundaries of international and Serbian laws.
MARRIAGE
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions regarding the institution of
marriage.
Both petitions call on parliament to enact Bill C-225.
THE SENATE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, today
I am honoured on behalf of citizens of Orleans, in the riding of
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to submit a petition to the House of
Commons in parliament assembled.
These citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the
following. Canadians deserve an accountable Senate and therefore,
the petitioners call upon parliament to request that the Prime
Minister accept the results of a Senate election.
1520
Once again I present this petition on behalf of constituents in
the city of Orleans and in the riding of
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the riding of the government House
leader.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
in this year of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United
Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights, I am pleased to
present a petition signed by a number of Canadians including from
my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the
House that human rights violations continue to occur 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 upon the government to continue
its efforts to speak out against countries that tolerate
violation of human rights and to do whatever is possible to bring
to justice those responsible for such abuses.
* * *
[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
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 11, 1998, I placed
Question No. 84 on the order paper asking how many violent crimes
had been investigated by the RCMP and how many involved the use
of registered and unregistered firearms. In accordance with
Standing Order 39 I asked for a written answer within 45 days.
My constituents have been waiting for 271 days. The
commissioner of the RCMP wrote me a letter on July 6 referring to
the answer he had given to Question No. 84. The RCMP gave its
response to the government 154 days ago. I raised this point 40
days ago and I was assured at that time that I would get the
answer immediately.
When will the government give my constituents and me the RCMP's
answer to this very important question?
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, we have answered well
over 70% of the questions. The member is right. He has asked
before. The response to his question is being finalized. I will
continue to work to obtain the answer for him.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, Question No. 132 was placed on the order paper on
September 31 and Question No. 138 on September 24 and I am still
waiting for answers. They are important answers because they
have to do with the issue of a veteran's family being denied
benefits.
I asked the Library of Parliament to do a study on order paper
questions in Great Britain where the majority of questions are
answered within a week. The situation we are facing, which my
colleague and I have just raised, is absolutely scandalous.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I note again Questions
Nos. 132 and 138. Some questions may well involve one
department, but other questions may literally involve every
department in government.
As I have mentioned, we have answered well over 70%. I will
continue on the member's behalf to work on Questions Nos. 132 and
138.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS BY MEMBER
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, just after question period the member for
Cumberland—Colchester suggested that I had made some remarks to
him that were intimidating. First of all, if it was intended to
be that way, Madam Speaker, I can assure you he would not be
sitting there today.
The whole objective of my comments of the other day were to make
it very clear to him that Mr. Young, the previous minister of
human resources, defence and transport, was a very honourable
member in this place in the last parliament. He is a very honest
individual for whom I have a lot of respect.
1525
I was trying to make it very clear to him that in the way he was
posing his question he was suggesting that Mr. Young had somehow
done something illegal, that he was crooked, and that it was not
something I cherished hearing from members on the opposite side
because it is not very honourable.
If my comments suggested in any way to him that I was being
intimidating and hurting his work, I want to take this
opportunity to apologize because that was not the intent.
The intent was to suggest to the House that when one poses
questions one should not pose the kinds of scenarios that he was
suggesting toward Mr. Young which would in any way jeopardize his
abilities to make a livelihood out there in the workplace now
that he is no longer a member of parliament. Those were the
reasons why I made those remarks.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, there was no misunderstanding of the comments made by
the member to me in that confrontation. There was no way to
interpret them other than as a threat. He tried to intimidate
me. He said that I had better remember that Doug Young has lots
of friends and they all have long memories. Just today he said
that if he meant it to be a threat I would not be here today.
I would like to put on the record what the member just said in
defence of the points he made to me. He said if I was
intimidating the member I would know it and I would not be here
today. That just happened now.
The Speaker: I do not want to get into a debate on
this issue. As I understand it, and I saw part of it from my
office only, what we have here is a member of parliament who
stood in his place today on a point of order and said that
another hon. member said certain words to him.
The hon. member is here in the House right now. As far as what
I could make out, the hon. member had said there was a
misunderstanding. I am to be corrected, but if there is a
misunderstanding the hon. member apologizes or withdraws. Is
that correct?
An hon. member: Yes.
The Speaker: If this is the case where we have one hon.
member making an accusation and another hon. member apologizing
in the House of Commons, then as far as I am concerned as a
matter of privilege this matter is closed.
An hon. member: On a point of order—
The Speaker: I will hear a point of order but not on this
matter. Is it on this matter?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I think I was part—
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Greg Thompson: If you can't get up on a point of
order, what is the sense of being here?
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to put in his
earpiece.
Mr. Greg Thompson: You didn't hear the whole
conversation, Mr. Speaker. That is the point I am trying to
make.
The Speaker: Order, please. I have ruled on the
particular point of privilege the member has raised. If this is
another point of order then I will listen to another point of
order. If it is on the same point of order I will not listen to
it.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is a point of order in the sense that the same
situation happened to me as another member of parliament. That
is the point I want to make.
Further to that, it was the same language and the same tone as
used by the member for Kenora—Rainy River to me as a member of
parliament based on a question that I had for the Minister of
Transport on the same individual, Mr. Doug Young. I think it is
out of character for the member to do that, but the same language
and the same inference was used.
The point I want to make is simply that in the apology he said
that if he were serious I would not be standing here today. In
other words, how do we know when he is serious and when he is
not?
1530
The Speaker: The hon. member is naming the member for
Kenora—Rainy River. I did not hear any of the other words in the
exchange in this whole thing.
In the House when there is one member accusing another and the
other member is apologizing, I would hope that would end the
situation. I would hope this type of thing would not happen. This
question of privilege is closed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CORRUPTION OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-21, an
act respecting the corruption of foreign public officials and the
implementation of the convention on combating bribery of foreign
public officials in international business transactions and to
make related amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, to
reiterate where I was coming from, the first major concern we
have is that the bill was put forward in December 1997. It is
now a year later and the bill is coming before us to be rushed
through on literally the last day of debate. That is the first
point.
The second is that this came via the Senate. We have to ask
ourselves why an unelected, unaccountable body such as the Senate
would bring forward a bill that is as important as has been
mentioned in the committee.
The government obviously should manage its affairs much better.
It should bring bills through the House of Commons and not
through the Senate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think you would find unanimous consent to proceed now
to committee of the whole to do the next stage of the bill
immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed to committee of the whole?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by
unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Ms.
Thibeault in the chair)
1535
Assistant Deputy Chairman: Order, please. House in committee of
the whole on Bill S-21, an act respecting the corruption of
foreign public officials and the implementation of the convention
on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international
business transactions and to make related amendments to other
acts.
(Clauses 2 to 13 inclusive agreed to)
(Clause 1 agreed)
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported and concurred in)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): When shall the bill
be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Jane Stewart (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
1540
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words about Bill S-21. The NDP
supports the bill. We see these provisions as a good thing for
Canada and for all OECD countries. Certainly the extension of
anti-corruption measures around the globe would be a good thing.
Members and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs will know the NDP has recently come
out of a fairly successful battle to prevent something from being
adopted at the OECD, namely the MAI. Here we are standing in
favour of something being adopted at the OECD. I wanted that to
be noted because it is not that we are against a rules based
global economy or rules for that matter. We are in favour of
rules, rules that prevent the wrong things from happening. In
this case when it comes to corruption and bribery, we feel the
imposition of rules to prevent corruption and bribery is a good
thing.
What we did not like about the MAI, that other thing being
perpetrated by the OECD, were the rules which were put forward to
protect investors and corporations at the expense of workers and
the environment and the ability of democratically elected
governments to act in the public interest.
There is a role for rules. There is a role for conventions.
There is a role for international law. That role is to prevent
undesirable things from happening, whether in this case the
existence and the spread of corruption and bribery or other
undesirable things like the exploitation of workers, the
exploitation of the environment, the setting up of corporate
profit strategies as somehow superior to the common good and to
the legislation which democratically elected governments might
want to pass from time to time in the public interest.
We see the very opposite of what we have here in this kind of
legislation, not a convention but nevertheless an international
agreement that Canada has entered into in respect of NAFTA and
that Canada wanted to enter into in respect to the MAI. We see
the interests of a corporation like Ethyl Corporation being held
up as more valuable than the ability of the Canadian government
to legislate environmentally or the health of Canadians insofar
as it is related to MMT and other environmental goals the
government might have from time to time and might want to
legislate in respect of.
Here we have finally the OECD, after having spent all this time
trying to do the wrong thing in terms of the MAI, doing something
right. Just so nobody thinks we think the OECD is always wrong,
we stand here today to say this bill we would like to support and
we have co-operated in the easy passage of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, like my
colleague from the NDP, I too am pleased to speak today on Bill
S-21.
This is an act respecting the corruption of foreign public
officials and the implementation of the convention on combating
bribery of foreign public officials in international business
transactions, and to make related amendments to other acts.
The Bloc Quebecois supports this bill because it addresses the
problem of corruption in international business transactions
involving governments and government projects.
It follows on the signature by Canada and 28 other countries of
the convention on combating bribery which was signed last
year.
This agreement required five of the ten greatest OECD
trading partners to ratify the convention by the end of 1998.
1545
Four have already either done so or stated their intention of
doing so by the end of December, the United States, Germany,
Japan and the United Kingdom. Canada's ratification, therefore,
would allow the convention to come into effect.
Here we are at five minutes to midnight, and the government is
just waking up, only a few days before the end of these
sittings, and asking us to turn our work topsy-turvy in order to
get this convention put through. Obviously, we support it, but
some questions could be asked about the process leading to its
adoption.
I will describe the convention. By signing it, the countries
commit to enact legislation which will make it illegal for
companies to bribe representatives of foreign governments.
They also promised to develop a mechanism for overseeing the
implementation of the law.
Under this convention, the parties must ensure that
intentionally offering or agreeing to give or offer an unfair
pecuniary or other advantage to a foreign public official to
obtain or retain a contract or any other unfair advantage in
international trade constitutes a criminal offence. The
convention also applies to kickbacks paid to persons holding
public office, that is lawmakers and officials of public
organizations. In addition, this convention deals with
facilitation payments and requires that the parties implement
rules to prevent misleading accounting practices and the use of
forgeries for the purpose of bribing or covering up bribery.
The purpose of this bill, whose main thrust is found in clause
3, is to implement this convention. From now on, all OECD
countries will be subject to the same rules. Bribery and
kickbacks will no longer be tolerated and will in fact be
considered criminal offences.
This convention will ensure that businesses in Quebec and Canada
have access to a more level playing field on which to compete
internationally. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois joins the
business community of Quebec and Canada in supporting this bill.
But perhaps we could go further.
There are now 28 member countries in the OECD. We all know that
we also trade extensively with developing countries, APEC
countries and other countries around the world.
So, as far as we in the Bloc Quebecois are concerned, this
convention negotiated with 28 OECD countries should be placed as
quickly as possible under the aegis of the WTO.
I must say I am bitterly disappointed with the Liberals'
attitude. The Conservatives have spoken of threats. Here we
have another example of the lack of respect of Liberal members
and an example of the way they perpetuate the bad reputation
politicians have in the community as a whole.
When members speak in this House in a debate that is not totally
conflictual and are continually being interrupted by sarcasm,
jokes or private conversations, they may well wonder what
happened to courtesy. Perhaps there is none in that party, it
is found only among the opposition. That would be one more
thing they do not have that the opposition does.
They have a whip that occasionally tightens the screws. Will
they understand? Perhaps the whip should move and sit there to
get them to understand common sense. When they are not busy
accusing or threatening the Conservatives, they are preventing
other members of this House from speaking by holding their
Christmas party in the House at 3.50 p.m. on a Monday. It is
rather disgraceful.
We might also ask ourselves, as the minister and the government
are acting in good faith and accelerating the passage and the
process of the convention on corruption, why this same
government does not take as much interest in other actions that
could be taken internationally, through national leadership, in
order to improve international trade, which is increasingly a
part of our activities.
My colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic has just tabled a fairly
thick petition calling for abolition of the Senate. But the
Senate, perhaps in a moment of brilliance, recently tabled a
report. In it, they ask the government to issue a code of
ethics for business, stronger and more restrictive than the
current voluntary code established by Canadian business.
1550
I myself asked the Minister for International Trade whether he
intended to implement the code of ethics recommended in the
Senate report. The minister told me that a simple “yes” or “no”
would not suffice with respect to such a recommendation and that
further study was required. We are all for that.
When we asked the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade and the Subcommittee on International Trade
to examine the idea of a code of ethics for Canadian businesses
so that Quebec and Canadian values would apply in other
countries, we were turned down by the Liberal government.
The committee is refusing to examine this proposal at the very
time that the Canadian government is prepared to rush through in
one day a code of ethics for businesses operating abroad.
The same Senate report says that any Canadian assistance—whether
through the Export Development Corporation, CIDA, or other
government agencies—to Canadian or Quebec based businesses for
the purpose of conducting trade abroad should be tied to
observance of minimal standards.
But no recommendation is made regarding the obvious need for a
code of ethics, to ensure Canadian businesses will not, in order
to save a few dollars or cents per hour, exploit women and
children by making them work in dreadful conditions, in
countries where working conditions are much worse than they are
here.
Also, the government helps businesses through subsidies,
financial assistance, or payments following the export of goods
or services. We are asking, and the Senate committee is
recommending, that such assistance be tied to compliance with
minimal standards on Canadian exports. But again, the government
has turned a deaf ear.
We are pleased that the Canadian government moved quickly to
implement the convention on combating bribery in international
business transactions, thus becoming the fifth OECD member to do
so. However, we must question the government about its true
intentions, as we wonder whether it is not making a small
concession to hide a more serious problem, that is the
absolutely dreadful working conditions imposed on children, men
and women in some parts of the world. The Canadian government
could not care less, because “we must not adversely affect our
companies' competitiveness”. In order to make money, increase
their sale figures and preserve their competitiveness, some
Canadian companies go to countries where human rights are not
respected.
The Senate made two very realistic recommendations: the
establishment of a code of ethics for businesses that is more
strict than the voluntary one, and a requirement to comply with
minimal standards to be eligible for government assistance
regarding international activities. But these two issues will
remained unanswered for a very long time, because while it looks
like the government is quick to take action, it is slower in
providing concrete help.
I will conclude on this point, and we will see the government in
action.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous
consent to return to tabling of documents under Routine
Proceedings so that we can table some documents that were
requested during question period on Friday.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Madam Speaker, since we are right in the
middle of the debate on Bill S-21, could we have more information
on the nature of the documents before we give our consent?
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to do
that. I do assure the member that we have sought unanimous
consent with the parties. These are documents that were
requested of the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the
record of understanding between the Government of Canada and the
United States regarding areas of agricultural trade.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to revert to Tabling of Documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the support of all members in this regard.
1555
On Friday the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board was asked to table
certain documents. The minister indicated that he would be happy
to present the documents concerning an agreement signed between
Canada and the United States. As I mentioned this agreement is a
record of understanding between the Government of Canada and the
United States of America regarding areas of agricultural trade. I
present the documents in both official languages.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CORRUPTION OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-21, an
act respecting the corruption of foreign public officials and the
implementation of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign
Public Officials in International Business Transactions, and to
make related amendments to other acts, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, people in
the media would tell us that if we repeat and repeat and repeat
we will get the message across better. Having spoken to second
reading today and having partially finished my second reading
speech after question period, I now have an opportunity to speak
at third reading.
I repeat that one of the biggest problems we have with this bill
is the fact that it was agreed to in December 1997, it showed up
here on Friday and now there is a great rush to move it through.
It shows a great deal of mismanagement, of not dealing with
issues that the government says are good for the country. It
does not allow us the opportunity to call witnesses. It does not
allow us the opportunity to look at all of the issues and to ask
questions.
Will this handicap us when it comes to dealing in the
international marketplace? What about those that are not part of
the OECD? Where will they be when it comes to competition?
There are so many questions we should ask.
We often find the government presents a rather naive view of the
world. For instance, in the nuclear study we found that the
government believed there would be no more wars and that we do
not need to protect ourselves.
Our second reason for having problems with this bill is the fact
that it came from the unelected, unaccountable Senate. No matter
where we go in the world it is difficult to try to explain the
Senate. We talk about democracy and democratization. One-quarter
of our government officials are not elected, but simply are
political hacks sent here to raise funds for the party and to
help organize the party. We have a great deal of difficulty
giving credibility to the material coming out of that body.
I will address the bill itself. The OECD has made a number of
recommendations to Canada. The most notable comment from the
OECD was clearly made when we visited with them in August. There
are three basic reasons Canada is having difficulty with its
economy.
We are losing our trained people. We have a low dollar. We have
8% unemployment and many other people who are not part of that
unemployment figure any more. We have a pension plan that is
going to fail. We have the highest taxes and so on. When we ask
what is wrong and why is Canada not working very well they do not
come to corruption right away but they come to three things,
three really clear things.
The first is that we have too much debt. Our debt to GDP ratio
is too high. No country with 79% of its GDP to debt ratio is
going to do very well in the international community. Obviously
they are telling the government to fix the debt problem. It took
us 30 years to get into this huge debt of $600 billion but we
have to find a way to get out of it. The big thing with this debt
is the interest payments. When we spend close to $50 billion a
year on interest payments it hurts our country. It hurts our
young people. It hurts our businesses. We have to know that.
1600
The second thing the OECD says is that taxes are too high.
Taxes are why there is unemployment. Taxes are why the best
trained people are being lost. Taxes are why businesses are
being lost and why people will not invest in the country. They
are causing the problem. Whether they are individual taxes or
corporate taxes, they are destroying the country and its ability
to compete in the 21st century.
Third, and probably most important of all, the country does not
have a plan. This country does not know where it is going. That
is because of 30 years of mismanagement by a couple of different
kinds of governments.
When we get this bill about corruption, we certainly know it is
important. Corruption does destroy countries. But that is not
the number one problem in Canada. The problems in Canada are the
huge debt, huge taxes and the lack of any kind of a plan.
Let us examine the different kinds of corruption and what
corruption does to a country and its economy. There are several
things we should look at. There cannot be good government if
corruption is allowed to go on. Democracy will be destroyed,
whether it is in a transition phase or whether it is well
developed. Democracy will be destroyed when corruption is
allowed to happen.
That is why many people here question democracy. Are we really
a democracy when we see cabinet ministers beat the back bench
into submission to vote the way of the party? Is that really
democracy? We see committees that are forced to come up with the
government position, even when members disagree. Is that really
democracy? Deals are made and deals are changed. Is that really
democracy?
We listen in question period to the government saying it is
going to examine the entire APEC matter. However, the chairman
is gone. They cannot look at the politicians. Is that really
democracy? We should not throw too many stones when we live in a
glass house.
There are lots of things that would allow us to really question
the kind of government that we have. I could go back to the
Somalia inquiry. What a terrible example that set for other
countries. We were condemned in countries like Belgium and other
European countries when they saw how we handled that inquiry. We
let it go on for a year and a half, not touching any of the guys
at the top. We just went after a few of the little people at the
bottom. We did not support our troops. We did not support the
Canadian way of life. I question again what the government is
doing.
We can distort public policy. We have the examples of the
Pearson airport deal and the helicopter deal. All of those
things are examples of manipulation by government for political
reasons, but out there in the public they raise a big question
mark.
Corruption also causes the misallocation of resources. How many
examples do people have out there of CIDA projects gone wrong?
Just last week our minister went down to Washington for lunch. He
agreed that Canadians will be one of the big guys up to the table
so he wrote a cheque for $92 million to the Palestinian effort to
help them build roads and complete an airport. We have already
given $120 million. The only country that has given more is the
U.S. Do we know where that money is going? Is it accountable?
Do we know how it is going to be spent?
Tell some of the Saskatchewan farmers who are trying to haul
their grain on some of those roads that in fact Palestine needs
roads more than the Saskatchewan farmer does.
The misappropriation of funds that goes on is part of
corruption. It is all there.
We could talk about the aboriginal issue. That is good one. We
just had a forensic audit of the Stoneys.
1605
Of course, many of our native people are saying “There is
corruption within our chiefs and councils. We, the grassroots,
are asking you to straighten this out, to fix it”. That is a
problem in Canada. Why are we not dealing with that problem?
Again, we can live in our glass house, throw stones and talk
about corruption internationally, but we should be looking at it
here.
We can also look at the poor of the world. We can see how
corruption affects them and hurts them. We have to keep asking
these questions.
That is what we are here for, to raise these questions.
Government members might not like to hear them. They would like
to live in a naive world, a wonderful world, a glossy world where
everything is just fine. Those rose-coloured glasses are
starting to get a little foggy. I think some members opposite
should start cleaning their glasses.
As far as transparency is concerned, there was a very
interesting study done by the UN. It was a corruption index.
They went from country to country and rated them from zero to
ten. Zero was the highest level of corruption and ten was a
clean bill of health where they could not find any corruption at
all.
It is pretty interesting. I will refer to a few of the
countries that are covered in this study.
Denmark finished first. It had a perfect score of 10. In other
words, no corruption could be found in that government. Canada,
interestingly enough, finished sixth, at a rate of 9.2. It was
not bad, but they did find some corruption within our system.
Britain was 11th, at 8.7. The United States was 17th, at 7.5.
Chile was 20th, at 6.8. Botswana was 23rd, at 6.1. Hungary was
33rd, at 5.0. Russia was 76th out of 85, at a rate of 2.4.
We can see in this corruption scale where some of these
countries are and then we can take a look at what that means.
Let us use a few examples. Let us talk about Russia.
Of course, Russia today is run largely by the Mafia. Obviously,
by the rate of 2.4, corruption is pretty rampant. It is pretty
difficult for the people even to get along. The businesses have
to pay protection money in order to stay open.
If someone in Russia wants to make a deal, they have to pass
money under the table. The GDP is destroyed. The only thing
that makes that country an international power, if you want, is
its nuclear weapons. Obviously, we need to control and stop that
sort of corruption.
Let us come back to Canada again. We are not at 10. Why not?
Is there any government corruption here?
If we listened to the finance minister today, we would have
heard him bragging about how he has created all of these jobs,
how taxes are actually good and that they really do not cost
jobs. We hear all kinds of innuendoes back and forth. One
minister says one thing, one says another. What are those people
out there who pay taxes thinking when they get this doublespeak
from their ministers?
What are the people to think? The area I am most familiar with
is the foreign affairs area. What are they to think when we send
an ambassador to Los Angeles to live in Beverly Hills in a $2.5
million mansion with servants? That person really has no
credentials to be our ambassador there. Her only credential is
that she had the biggest defeat in election history in Canada.
There she sits in her palace in Beverly Hills, paid for by the
taxpayer to promote Canada. Is that corruption? Did she know
too much about the Somalia inquiry? Was that a way to get her
out of the country?
1610
What about our ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Fowler? On
December 24 he received his appointment, but that was at the same
time as the Somalia inquiry was going on and he just happened to
have been deputy minister of DND for nine years. Why was he
hustled out of town? Why does he live in a fancy place in New
York with a high salary and why is he untouchable by any inquiry?
Why does that happen? Is that corruption?
Mary Clancy is in Boston. Gilles Bernier is in Haiti. Roger
Simmons is in Seattle. These are all appointments. Who are
these people? Are they the best people to represent Canadians?
No, actually they are defeated members of parliament. That is
their credential for being there.
Hon. Jane Stewart: What about Kim?
Mr. Bob Mills: What about Kim? Kim was certainly
defeated. She managed to do a real good job of being defeated,
and there she is off in Beverly Hills.
These appointments conjure up something in our minds.
We look at the Senate and we see a bunch of party hacks working
on campaigns, raising funds for the party. We ask ourselves,
what about corruption? What about democracy? Again we have
problems.
The Parliament Buildings were supposed to cost under half a
billion dollars. Now it is $1.4 billion. What do Canadians
think about that? In planet Ottawa maybe those things are fine,
but out on the street it is not so fine, it is not so happy. We
have to address these kinds of things.
We could talk about what people think about the social union.
People think that their health care is hurt, that their education
systems are not as good as they were and that the social policies
are not working. They have food banks, housing problems and all
kinds of other problems. They ask “What is government doing
about it?”
Government is cutting funding. Health care has been cut by $7
billion in the last five years. Again I come back to the fact
that there is no plan. The government does not know where it is
going. It has no master plan.
Does the government know what it is going to do in agriculture?
Certainly other places in the world are looking at it. Why would
agreements be signed when other places like the European Union or
the U.S. are giving grants to everybody? Why did we not
negotiate a better deal? What is wrong with the people who
allowed us get into a situation like that?
I will talk about the policing problem. In my area the police
showed up at a rotary meeting begging the Rotary Club to help
provide a motorcycle because motorcycles are more efficient at
catching speeders and people going through red lights. Why were
they at the Rotary Club? Because the government has cut their
funding. In the past month they were told not to use their
cellphones any more and to put two cars in the garage. They
could not use them because of funding cuts. Meanwhile we have
young offenders, break-ins and all kinds of other problems
happening.
What is happening to our system?
We can talk about the pension plan and the 73% increase in the
cost of the plan. Talk to a young person and ask them about
investment in the pension plan. If they are 20 or 25 years old
and they put 9.9% of their income in until they are 65, ask them
what kind of an investment that is.
I did a little survey last January. It was very interesting. I
think the House might be interested in this survey. It was to go
door to door in Chile, a country that has had a pension plan for
26 years. It is a private pension plan. They invest in their
own pension. They own the pension plan themselves.
I found an overwhelming pride among the low, middle and upper
class of income earners. There was a real pride in that pension
plan because it meant something.
1615
How about employment insurance? People certainly question that
the government is collecting $350 per person more than it can
use. It is also collecting $500 per business per worker. And we
are going to give back 15 cents per $100. Are we not just
wonderful?
People ask “What is happening down there? Is that place
corrupt?” Ask people what they think about Ottawa and they will
bring up these kinds of items. They will not necessarily talk
about the big international deals. They will talk about health
care, taxes, pensions, education, the systems that touch people.
That is what they care about.
While we agree in principle with this bill, the way it has been
brought in is disgraceful. The Liberals should be ashamed of
themselves for bringing it in this way. They should be ashamed
of bringing it in through the Senate. They should be ashamed for
not allowing the time that a bill like this one needs and for
simply running it through at this eleventh hour.
Basically as we look at it, we are against corruption. This is
a real motherhood issue. But there are questions businesses
would like to have answered.
In principle we can go along with this bill, but we certainly
have a lot of questions. And we certainly tell the government
that we do not like the method by which it brought in this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, Bill
S-21 is a step in the right direction, an international
agreement, introduced in the Senate, and much to our liking.
It is worthy of note that there is already an agreement to
ensure that there is a periodical report—an amendment in this
regard will be moved in the Senate—on the international
corruption situation. That report will be tabled in Parliament.
We will then be able to assess regularly what is going on, in
order to have greater credibility than the Reform member who,
when we were discussing the study, stated that there was no
corruption in Denmark, but there was in Canada.
Unfortunately, given the arguments raised by the Reform Party, I
will have to spend a few minutes on this. It is, if I may be
pardoned the expression, rather disgusting to see the Reform
Party pushing the parliamentary rules as far as they can. They
have given some 10, 12 or 15 examples, asking whether they were
cases of corruption. If that is what the parliamentary spirit
of the Reform member is all about, I have some questions.
Once again, the credibility of the Reform Party is at stake.
Looking at oneself in the mirror is one thing, but what the
Reform Party has tried to do, to say that Canada is a corrupt
country, which is pretty well what the hon. Reform member has
said, is quite another thing again. What is the point of all
this? Not to mention that the examples given were dubious at
best.
Let us take the example given by the Reform Party or follow the
same line of thought.
Does the fact that the leader of the official opposition turned
down Stornoway, the official residence, for several years and
then accepted it mean that there was corruption? That is the
sort of question I am asking: Was there corruption?
The Reform Party talks about nuclear arms in the papers, and
while it condemns the United States, it appears to be in the
pocket of the Americans. Is corruption involved? We have to be
very careful about this sort of thinking, there is a term for
it— “irrelevant”.
Bill S-21 is a step in the right direction. It is an
international agreement. The Reform Party is busting its
britches saying “It came from the Senate, it came from the
Senate”.
1620
They have no respect for the institution, and no election in
Alberta is going to change the rules. If they really want to
change it, there is a way to go about it, without discrediting
it. Discrediting parliament means discrediting those who sit
there. The Reform Party has already done that. It is not
serious, but care must be taken. I know the Speaker wants to
apply the standing orders to the letter. However, a speech like
that becomes less credible and could lead to accusations. They
do not go far enough, because they haven't got the balls—as we
say at home—to go further. They raise questions and propose
theories to discredit a number of people, but they are no better.
An aid to the Reform Party took pictures of the renovated gym
and bath. He did not look too good when members said “We use the
facilities and that is all right; there is nothing wrong with
that”. In the end, one has to be credible.
But seriously, and this excludes the Reform Party, Bill S-21 is
a step in the right direction in the sense that a convention was
signed. It may not cover every country in the world, but there
will finally be a legal framework dealing with the various forms
of corruption. While incomplete, Bill S-21 ensures that the
convention signed by Canada can become law here in Canada.
Another important point is that, for once, the House gets to
debate the convention, although too briefly.
While the government had been saying since January that it would
be introducing the bill, we did not have enough time. I am
really disappointed about that. With the Liberals, it takes
time. Eventually, though, they will realize that much more time
should be devoted to debating international agreements.
Still, as I said, I think this is a step in the right direction.
This bill, which we will be passing and which the Senate will
hopefully ratify soon afterwards, will ensure that the primary
condition, set out in the first operative provision of Bill S-21
will come into effect and be enforced in five countries.
I hope that the review will go further than the periodical
report and include non-government and non-profit organizations.
I think we should go much further than that. However, with Bill
S-21, Canada meets its international obligations. That is a step
in the right direction. The issue has been raised in the House
and we in the Progressive Conservative Party are going to push
to have it move forward.
As the Bloc Quebecois members have often pointed out, the next
step is human rights. In the interests of greater credibility,
much more will eventually have to be done with respect to
international trade as it affects human rights.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade has its work cut out for it. At some point, it would be a
good idea for us to give thought to what sort of policy Canada
could enforce that would incorporate a number of laws and
international agreements to which Canada is already a party.
So Bill S-21 is speeding through. There was, however, I believe,
agreement in this House that corruption should cease. But will
that happen? Probably not tomorrow, but at least people will
know that Canada, like four other countries, has a law, has
signed a convention, and that it could push for the signing of
these agreements, and perhaps even make it a kind of condition.
When Canada negotiates or renegotiates international agreements
or portions thereof, it must ensure that the other signatories
also enact anti-bribery legislation.
Bribery used to be a way of life. If people wanted a passport
in some countries, they had to bribe an official. They were
told this was the way things were done, and it was hard to deal
with that.
Now, fortunately, because of globalization of markets, among
other things, the situation has evolved and the laws and
regulations governing a country are now scrutinized closely by
all real and potential world trading partners.
This bill is therefore a good one. It comes to us from the
Senate, an institution that of course could do with some
improvement. However, that shows that there are things that can
be credibly accomplished within parliament, and this is our goal
in the Progressive Conservative Party. We enthusiastically
support Bill S-21 and assure the government and parliament, both
the House of Commons and the Senate, of our full co-operation.
1625
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 Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member
for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Employment Insurance; the
hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Agriculture; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment
Insurance.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank
the members who have participated in this debate. It has been to
a large extent a constructive debate this afternoon. I extend
appreciation for this very important breakthrough bill. This is a
first for Canada and by all parties showing co-operation, it puts
Canada in a position of leadership. Having said that, I would
like to comment on the words of some of the members.
I marvelled at the generosity of the Speaker when the member for
Red Deer was straying from the subject to such an extent. I
realize there is a great deal of latitude in this parliament and
there probably should be. I think he would have been ruled out
of order in the Ontario house, if I can remember from my former
incarnation. There were times when I did not know whether to
call him Dr. No or Chicken Little, but it was a very interesting
speech. Through it all and through all the raving and hair
pulling about the terrible condition of this country as he sees
it, there were a couple of questions which I think deserve
answers.
One was his concern that this bill went through the other place
first before it came to this House. I want to point out for the
record that in our present system of parliament, a bill may be
introduced either in the Senate or in the House of Commons. It is
essentially for procedural purposes and for no other reason other
than very often it makes for a more efficient process.
The hon. member for Red Deer was also concerned that this bill
appears to be coming in at the last minute, because the
commitment was made in December 1997. I will admit that
sometimes things seem to happen very slowly around this place. I
can share that point of view. The fact is that there was a
tremendous amount of consultation undertaken when this bill was
being considered. All the provinces and the territories were
consulted, as well as the private sector. The Canadian Chamber
of Commerce, the Canadian Council for International Business, the
Pacific Basin Economic Council and so on, all of these
organizations had to be taken into consideration.
Perhaps in hindsight, maybe the commitment to implement
something like this should have had a more extended period before
it was brought in. However, the bureaucracy operated as I think
bureaucracies operate, with the speed of light. It actually
brought this to an acceptable point here and allowed us to go
ahead with a universally acceptable debate today.
1630
The Bloc and my friend from the Conservative Party suggested
that we could have gone further. Indeed we could have gone
further, but I remind the House that we are acting in concert
with the OECD, those 29 highly industrialized countries; in
concert with the Organization of American States; and in concert
with the European Community.
All those organizations together, as this anti-corruption force
takes hold and as the net is cast, will cover almost all the
commerce which takes place around the world. Yes, there will be
some rogue countries, but the pressure will be on all countries
in the world to operate a progressively cleaner ship.
My friend from the Bloc was also mildly critical about human
rights and Canada's position on human rights. Canada is
encouraging every country to act positively on human rights. We
are helping China on the human rights issue and progress has been
made over the last years. We are doing that in every country
where we have what we call constructive engagement which
hopefully involves doing business but also allows countries to
see how Canada acts and how the Canadian system works.
I have had the honour of receiving delegations from countries
around the world that come here to study Canada, to study the
government process and to study what my hon. friend from Red Deer
considers to be very awkward, regressive democracy. He asks if
we do have a democracy. I remind him of the words of the late
Sir Winston Churchill who said “The democratic process in
government is the worst form of government except for every other
form of government”. As difficult as it is, our system of
democracy works.
I thank all hon. members for participating in this debate and
for agreeing that we should proceed together so that Canada is
truly seen as a leader.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the hon. member quote Winston
Churchill on democracy. He apparently agrees with Mr. Churchill.
If he really believes in that, why does the Liberal government
not try it some time? It would be wonderful if we could
introduce a bit of democracy into the House and into the country.
No one would applaud more than I would.
Mr. Julian Reed: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member
that in 25 minutes we will be practising the art of democracy.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Peace River.
1635
For the folks back home, late last Friday afternoon the
government decided that it had dawdled a little too long on a
piece of legislation and thought that it would bring it before
the House to try to get it passed as soon as possible. We all
smell a whiff of proroguing in the air, and that is the reason it
did that.
I will tell a few stories in the time I have today. First I
will start with a number of quotes and let everybody in the House
in on a little game. They can try to guess who I am quoting. The
first person said: “I on the other hand support Senate reform.
If it is done properly, a restructured and revitalized upper
chamber can give Albertans a voice in the governance of Canada.
If elected Liberal leader I pledge to work for a Senate that is
elected, that has legislative powers of its own and contains
strong representation from all regions of Canada”.
That was spoken at the Liberal leadership convention on June 23,
1990. I will drop a little hint. This person is currently the
Liberal leader of Canada.
I will go on in case people do not have the drift. The second
quote is: “The regions of Canada need to be more involved in
decision making and policy making at the national level. To meet
the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and the
Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate
that is elected, effective and equitable”. This was taken from
the Hansard of September 24, 1991. For those who do not
have a clue, the person I am quoting was once upon a time a
finance minister under Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Referring to the Senate, I go on: “The Liberal government in
two years will make it elected. As Prime Minister I can take
steps to make it happen”. This person was speaking to 400
delegates at the annual general meeting of the Alberta branch of
the federal Liberal Party. Once again it was the same
individual, the one we know so well to always say “ya know”.
I offer a fourth quote: “You want the triple E Senate and I
want one too”. This was given to the Toronto Star on
February 2, 1990.
I will not leave members in the dark and guessing. I will share
it with the folks back home. All four quotes were from our
current Prime Minister who continues to appoint people to the
Senate of Canada despite all these promises.
I will touch on several issues we are dealing with today in Bill
S-21 as it relates to Canada's international obligations under
the OECD convention on combating bribery of foreign public
officials in international business transactions. First I will
talk about the foreign component.
Until recently we had foreigners who helped serve the House. I
remember a gentleman down the way by the name of Andrew Thompson.
He was a foreigner, indeed, for he only spent one day in the
spring and one day in the fall in the chamber we call the other
place. As a result he only spent 2.6% of his time. What time is
that, some may ask. The sentence he served in the Senate which
was only 65 to 68 days a year. It was not a tough or arduous
sentence by a long stretch but he only served 2.6% of it. It
left him with 97.4% of his time down in Mexico, a luxury many
Canadians would like to enjoy.
I will touch on a few things in this regard. Our Prime
Minister, whom I quoted four times in terms of his commitment to
an elected Senate, wrote about Andrew Thompson in a letter: “The
absence from the sittings of the Senate and the record of
non-participation in the work of the caucus over many years are
totally unacceptable”. Our Prime Minister brought attention to
the fact of the non-participation and the absence of a senator
from the Liberal caucus. Even the Prime Minister agrees that we
had foreigners operating as legislators in our land.
1640
Since the Senate began keeping attendance sheets in June 1990,
Andrew Thompson attended 12 sittings out of a total of 459 in the
past two parliaments, a foreigner by any stretch of the
imagination. He was absent so often that, with the $519,550 he
collected for attending his 14 days in the Senate, this absentee
foreign senator earned $37,110 per day that he sat in that
chamber, a handsome salary for a one day sitting. Who in the
land earns over $37,000 a day for merely sitting down in a chair?
I cannot think of anyone, but Andy Thompson did. He is not the
only one.
I recently debated a senator who had to defend Andy's record, a
senator who has a 100% attendance record but is few and far
between. There are 17 senators who miss more days than they
actually attend. Can we imagine having a job and missing more
days that we actually attend? They are supposed to be docked
$120 for every day missed. However there is an honour system
that allows them to miss for illness or business. Some honour
system, indeed.
That addresses, as I said, the foreign aspects of Bill C-21,
foreign bribery, foreign corruption. Let us now talk more
specifically about just the word corruption, this bribery. I do
not have to look very far. I can look into the other place and
see Michel Cogger. What have we there?
Cogger, as of June 2 this year, was convicted of influence
peddling, indeed some form of bribery. He was convicted of
peddling his influence between 1986 and 1988 to businessman Guy
Montpetit for $212,000. He was said to have plied his influence
in Mr. Montpetit's bid to land government subsidies to set up a
computer chip foundry in Vaudreuil and for his assistance in the
computer translation project that benefited from $4 million from
the Saskatchewan government.
Fitting with the term of corruption, Cogger's defence was that
he did not have a corrupt state of mind, and there was some
debate over whether or not his state of mind was corrupt,
touching on the whole idea of corruption. He was convicted of an
indictable offence. He was convicted of a felony or certainly an
infamous crime.
Did the Senate actually go ahead and request his resignation?
No. Senators were too busy coming forward with Bill S-21, were
they not? That seemed to be a higher priority to our senators
than to go ahead and get a resignation from one of their
colleagues who was convicted of influence peddling. That
conviction has brought the Canadian Senate into further
disrepute. Senator Cogger should be the one who submits his
resignation. Otherwise he brings further disrepute over time to
that institution.
I had a debate this weekend in Montreal. I was debating one of
the senators from that other place. He was one of the senators
who has a 100% attendance record. My compliments go out to him
for he is few and far between in that place. I have heard from
some people that the whole point there is to kind of reward loyal
party followers. I was told something that I found interesting.
Even though Iona Campagnolo, whom I also met this weekend, is a
very loyal party worker for the Liberal Party and many would
suspect should be sitting in the Senate, she did not cosy up to
the right prime minister or to the right candidate. As everyone
knows, she was a floor worker for Paul Martin at the Liberal
leadership convention. As a result, even though she is very
competent and is a well respected Liberal MP, she was never
appointed to the Senate.
I would like to touch on my fifth point with regard to Bill S-21
as it relates to bribery of foreign public officials and the idea
that our Senate is full of bagmen, party fundraisers and people
who have vested political interests with various parties. I
could go on. I was going to refer to some of the things that have
gone on in the Senate and a list of some of the bills that
originated there, but I digress.
1645
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am happy to rise today to speak in the debate on Bill S-21, the
anti-corruption initiative that was taken at the OECD roughly a
year ago. The memorandum of understanding was signed December 17,
1997.
What I am concerned with in that regard is not the content of
the bill necessarily, although I certainly would like to have had
some time to call witnesses and hear what they had to say. My
concern is more that this was dropped on us on very short notice.
I cannot understand why that would be.
The government had almost a full year to introduce this as a
bill. It did not do it. It dropped the ball. It requires five
major economies of the OECD to sign this to bring it into effect
so that it does not all fall apart before the end of the year.
Four other countries, including the United States, found time to
bring it through their legislative process. I assume they are
pretty busy.
All of a sudden there is a panic these last few days. I know
our committee ended up with this bill, looking at it last Tuesday
afternoon. Liberals told us the reason it had to be started in
the Senate as opposed to the House of Commons was that they did
not think they could get it through in time, that they knew they
could rush it through the Senate and get it on to the floor for
debate.
The comments of the parliamentary secretary in that regard were
that it is a more efficient process to have it introduced there,
therefore the need to bring it through that process rather than
through the elected officials of the House of Commons.
It may be more efficient from some points of view but not more
efficient in terms of making a better bill. One reason it may be
more efficient there is that the people appointed to the Senate
do not have to go out and consult with constituents as we do.
I recall being on the foreign policy review, a review conducted
jointly by the House of Commons and the Senate. I found that
many of the senators involved were completely out of date on the
issues. It took them several months to get them up to date in
terms of what was happening in the country.
I suggest it was a good process for them because it gave them
the opportunity to find out what the current thinking across
Canada was. I see it is a problem because they do not get out
and regularly consult. They do not need to. They are appointed
until their 75th year.
I agree with the concept. I was on the subcommittee that
examined small and medium size enterprises. We had a very good
committee report. We heard a lot of things from businesses that
came to make presentations to our committee.
Among them were the reasons that kept them out of the export
business. They were not competitive outside Canada largely due
to factors like high taxes, a great deal of regulation that is
very difficult for small businesses to comply with, proportionate
costs to the small businesses doing that and things like
interprovincial trade barriers. They hurt their ability to get
into the export business.
Those in the business did identify that bribery in the whole
process of doing business outside Canada in some third world
countries made it very difficult to do business. I can quote
from the OECD document: “Considering that bribery is a
widespread phenomenon in international business transactions,
including trade and investment, which raises serious moral and
political concerns, it undermines good governance and economic
development. It distorts international competitive conditions”.
That is what they were telling us at committee. I suggest that,
to some extent, the OECD initiative came out of those SME
recommendations.
We agree with the concept that we should make it illegal for our
public servants and businessmen to bribe foreign officials. The
OECD plus a few other members have signed on to that convention
and therefore will be bound by it when they sign the legislation.
I welcome that. It means that all of us who belong to the OECD,
including Canada, including all our businesses, not just the
private sector but our crown corporations, have to adhere to that
as well.
1650
We know that selling nuclear reactors around the world in the
past got some Canadian officials into hot water in that area. We
see AECL having to be subsidized to build these nuclear reactors.
We have to subsidize the sale of them through export credit
through the Export Development Corporation and in the past we
have needed a finders fee, and in some cases I suggest it was
beyond that, to grease palms of member countries that were
considering buying this.
It certainly did lead to what has been identified at the OECD,
serious moral and political concerns. It undermines good
governance and economic development and distorts international
competitive conditions. I agree with that.
It is a move in the right direction and we should move forward
with it. Our party intends to support it and will be happy that
third reading takes place today.
What about the consultation process the parliamentary secretary
talked about in some detail? The subcommittee on international
trade and trade disputes was just about to start the process of
calling witnesses. We were denied that opportunity by a
government that could not manage its own affairs. It left this
until the last moment before dropping it on us and then expects
first, second and third reading to take place in one day. There
was no consultation.
The committee was to consider the hearings and invite witnesses
to tell us whether they thought it was a good deal or not. We
are not allowed to do that. We had to railroad it through the
Senate process in order to ram it through. What about the
consultation process? The parliamentary secretary told us there
was consultation with businesses this summer. Where were they?
Who were they? I guess we will find out in due course but it was
not available to us.
Has the government learned nothing from the whole MAI process,
that ordinary Canadians need to be consulted, not just its
friends and special organizations, not just the industry groups
but Canadians themselves? They want to be involved in something
of the magnitude of the MAI. Apparently the government does not
recognize that as an important process.
We went through some kind of facade of a consultation process
over the summer apparently when the House was not in session.
Parliamentary committees did not really count for much. We
wanted that process of having witnesses. We did not have that
opportunity.
There is a problem. Members over there have to get their house
in order and understand that they had a full year to introduce
the bill. Here we are in a last minute turmoil, a last minute
rush to go through today before the House rises for Christmas.
I still have some concerns with the act itself although it is a
start in the right direction. It makes it a criminal offence to
bribe foreign officials by any members who sign on, and Canada
will be signing on. That is the right thing to do but there is
still the matter of a facilitation fee.
My understanding is that even though the United States has
adopted a similar concept with its foreign corruption practices
act there still is the business of recognizing that a
facilitation fee is allowed.
It seems to me facilitation fees might become pretty large in
the next few years and then what of the countries that have not
signed on to this pact? Only 29 OECD countries have. I think
there are four or five others that will sign on as well, but
there are a lot of others out there competing for business around
the world. Are they not going to adhere to the same code as the
rest of us? Does this not need to go further, into the World
Trade Organization and try to incorporate it into the 135 member
countries that make up the World Trade Organization? It seems it
does. There is no further plan to do that in this legislation but
we are happy to make a start.
It is a step in the right direction. We will support all three
readings today in the House of Commons as a result of this
initiative.
1655
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
demand to know something from my hon. colleague on the subject of
some of these other things that have come from the other place,
Bill S-3, Bill S-4, Bill S-5, Bill S-9, Bill S-16. One of them
has to do with senators voting themselves a pay increase. One of
them is the Canada Shipping Act and how that relates to Canada
Steamship Line. One has to do with the Evidence Act, persons and
human rights. A young fellow in Ottawa, Michael O'Connor, is
assembling a class action law suit in terms of his not getting
fair value for his money with regard to the Senate.
Bill S-9 had to do with financial administration. The Senate
did something useful in its lifetime with the GST and saving us
$10 billion by blocking it and dropping it from 11% to 9% to 7%.
Bill S-16 implemented an agreement between Canada and the
socialist republic of Vietnam.
I wonder whether my hon. colleague could address some of the
other things that have happened and originated in the other place
and how they relate to Bill S-21, the whole idea of foreign
corruption.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, I have already
outlined the concern I had that this was introduced in the
Senate. As the parliamentary secretary said, it is a more
efficient process. It might be a more efficient process but it
lacks the legitimacy it needs. The reason is members there
technically have the right to introduce this legislation. But it
becomes a matter of legitimacy. I believe that institution has
discredited itself so badly with the Canadian public that it
really is a matter of how it is viewed, whether there is
legitimacy in legislation coming from that body. I suggest there
is not.
I believe the public does not believe there is any reason that
legislation needs to be introduced in the Senate. This is the
institution where the public has the chance to elect and not
re-elect members after a term of office. It has the ultimate say
as to whether members of parliament are in place as a result of
doing good work or bad work after a period of time. That does not
happen in the other place. There is an opportunity for the
Senate to become a legitimate body if it were elected and equal.
I would welcome that.
The United States Senate was not always elected either. It did
not happened until 1910. Oregon was the first state that made a
major initiative. It wanted to elect its senators. It was a very
strange request at the time. Others thought it would not work.
It took about five years and then the entire process led to an
elected senate in the United States. It has the legitimacy
needed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House resumed from December 3 consideration of Bill
C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
and to amend and repeal other Acts as a consequence, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5 p.m., pursuant to
order made Wednesday, December 2, 1998, the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage
of Bill C-43.
Call in the members.
1720
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on
this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 4, 5, 12 to 24, 27, 30,
31, 34 to 36, 39 to 54, 57 to 63, 66 to 70, 73 to 99, 104, 105
and 108 to 204.
1725
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Blaikie
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Hardy
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 49
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Solberg
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 202
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Brien
|
Collenette
| Folco
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Manley
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Pettigrew
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 4, 5, 12 to 24, 27, 30, 31, 34 to
36, 39 to 54, 57 to 63, 66 to 70, 73 to 99, 104, 105 and 108 to
204 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
1730
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following motions standing in the name of Mr. Perron, those
motions being Motions Nos. 2, 6, 9, 205, 25, 37, 55, 71, 28, 32,
64, 106, 100 and 102.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 299.]
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 6, 9,
205, 25, 37, 55, 71, 28, 32, 64, 106, 100 and 102 negatived.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would ask that my name be added on the government side
to the votes that are presently before the House.
Mr. Charlie Power: Would you record my name as well, Mr.
Speaker.
The Speaker: To the hon. member for Thornhill, did you
want your vote applied to the vote we just took as well as all
subsequent ones?
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, yes, thank you very much.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for St. John's West,
want his name applied to the ones we have taken and all
subsequent ones? Is that correct?
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, yes.
The Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois
members vote no.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members from our party vote yes
on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Davies
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Penson
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 82
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 169
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Brien
|
Collenette
| Folco
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Manley
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Pettigrew
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 defeated.
1735
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following motions that appear under the name of the hon. member
for Calgary Southeast, those being Motions Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 26,
38, 56, 72, 29 and 33.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 300.]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 26, 38,
56, 72, 29 and 33 defeated.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have my
vote recorded, as I have just arrived.
The Speaker: Your vote will be counted on the next
motion.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have my vote
also recorded, as I have just arrived as well.
The Speaker: Your vote will be recorded from here on in.
The next question is on Motion No. 206.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois
members vote no.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
this evening vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote no on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 206, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Davies
| Dockrill
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Nystrom
| Penson
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 66
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 187
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Brien
|
Collenette
| Folco
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Manley
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Pettigrew
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 206 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 65.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote
no. We can only go so far.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois
members vote no.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of
Christmas, NDP members will vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote no on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 65, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Blaikie
| Davies
| Dockrill
| Earle
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Hardy
| Laliberte
| Lill
|
Mancini
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Nystrom
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Solomon
|
Stoffer
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 19
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anders
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Guay
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 234
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Brien
|
Collenette
| Folco
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Manley
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Pettigrew
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 65 defeated. The next
question is on Motion No. 107.
1740
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following motions under the name of the hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle, those motions being Motions Nos. 107 and 101.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 302.]
The Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 107 and 101 defeated.
We skipped one motion. The question is on
Motion No. 103. My clerks tell me we did not do it. Therefore we
will do it.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, respectfully I think you
would find that you yourself ruled on Motion No. 101 in the
application of the votes on Motion No. 103.
The Speaker: Before I deal with your point of order, with
double respect, according to the information I have in front of
me it seems that Motions Nos. 101 and 103 do not coincide.
Mr. Bob Kilger: If the Speaker wants to call the question
on Motion No. 103, we are prepared to move accordingly.
The Speaker: We are dealing with Motion No. 103.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present still vote yes on this one.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois
members vote no.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members from our party vote no on
this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 103, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Davies
| Dockrill
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mancini
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Nystrom
| Penson
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 66
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guay
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 187
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Brien
|
Collenette
| Folco
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Manley
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Pettigrew
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 103 defeated. The next
question is on the motion for concurrence.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
1745
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House.
Liberal members will vote yes.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois
members will vote no.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting no on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McTeague
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 138
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 115
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Brien
|
Collenette
| Folco
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Manley
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Pettigrew
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
The House resumed from December 4 consideration of the motion in
relation to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-25, an act
to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Friday, December 4,
1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment
to Bill C-25.
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, the Reform Party members
present vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois
members will vote no.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party this evening vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting yes on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Davies
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| 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
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 222
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Lalonde
| Lebel
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis) – 31
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Brien
|
Collenette
| Folco
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Manley
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Pettigrew
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
RAILWAY SAFETY ACT
The House resumed from December 4 consideration of Bill C-58, an
act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential
amendment to another act, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Friday, December
4, 1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the motion at the report stage of Bill C-58.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House.
Liberal members will vote no.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois
members will vote in favour.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting yes on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Brison
| Cardin
| Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Fournier
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 68
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Solberg
| Speller
| 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)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 185
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Brien
|
Collenette
| Folco
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Manley
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Pettigrew
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
Hon. Diane Marleau (for Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
1750
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]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois
members will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP this
evening vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting yes on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Anders
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
| McTeague
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| 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
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 253
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Brien
|
Collenette
| Folco
| Gagnon
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Manley
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Pettigrew
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to see the clock as being 6.30 p.m.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, the
following is from the October 1988 report of the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs entitled
“Moving Forward: A Strategic Plan for Quality of Life
Improvements in the Canadian Forces”:
Members of the Canadian Forces must be fairly and equitably
compensated for the work they do and the risks they take. Members
and their families should never have to suffer the indignity of
substandard housing, nor should they be reduced to charity in
order to feed their families.
The lifestyle faced by military personnel often makes it well
nigh impossible to support a dual income lifestyle. Due to
compulsory posting of Canadian forces personnel, spouses must
often forego their own careers or any reasonable hope of having a
regular, well paying job.
Working alongside civilians and the RCMP, many armed forces
personnel working to counter the savaging effects of the great
ice storm of 1998 found themselves being paid less for the same
work and facing harsher living conditions than their non-military
co-workers.
The first recommendation in “Moving Forward” is:
That the base pay gap between non-commissioned members and their
public service equivalents be closed no later than April 1st
1999.
That is less than four months away.
I very much hope this government will not risk the health,
safety and even lives of Canadian forces personnel by taking
these funds from purchases which would otherwise be made to
guarantee the safety of military and civilian workers.
1755
When I asked my question in the House on November 4 of this
year, the minister chose not to answer the question. I hope the
government will produce the information requested in response to
my comments at this time.
Specifically, I would like to know, and I am quite sure
Canadians would want to know, what military hardware is currently
mothballed in warehouses and elsewhere throughout our land. There
must be big ticket items that are neither currently be used nor
intended for use. I know the government recently sold Chinook
helicopters to the Netherlands after paying to refit them at a
high cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
Let us see an inventory of unused hardware that might be sold to
other allied countries. I am concerned that the government may
be reluctant to provide this information so as not to be
embarrassed by the amount or value of the equipment purchased
that was never used or used for a short period of time before
becoming obsolete or incompatible with other equipment.
Are there CF-18s in storage in Bagotville and Cold Lake which
could be sold to NATO partners to generate revenues? What about
ADATs, air defence anti-tank systems? Are these mothballed in
storage somewhere outside Montreal and could revenues be
generated from their sale to NATO partners? What about any plans
to mothball frigates? Is there some way equipment can be turned
into revenue to deal with pay and living conditions for service
personnel?
Is part of the problem that the Canadian military has too many
top level brass for the number of lower ranking service
personnel? Is the balance between upper ranking officers and
lower ranking personnel on par with that of other NATO countries
or is there a real imbalance in Canada?
The government has the responsibility to ensure that both
civilian and military personnel are properly paid and housed. It
also has the obligation to minimize waste in the military. This
is a challenge I expect the government to meet.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to begin
with sincere thanks to the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs for their work on behalf of the
Canadian forces.
As hon. members are aware, enhancing the quality of life of
armed forces personnel and their families constitutes the number
one priority of those in charge of the department and of the
Canadian forces.
There is a broad range of questions to be addressed, in
particular pay raises for all levels of the military, employee
benefits, and housing allowances.
We strongly support the committee's efforts aimed at
improvements in these areas.
The department does, however, have to meet some sizeable
financial challenges if it is to make the desired changes. As
the minister has said, it would be very difficult to improve the
quality of life for Canadian forces personnel without raising
the defence budget.
We are convinced that it would be unproductive to dig into the
operating or training budgets to finance new quality of life
projects, because all these components are important to
operational efficiency. The committee supported this position
in our report.
The department and the Canadian forces will continue to manage
their resources in order to ensure a balance between these vital
areas, including managing materiel as economically as possible.
The size of the Canadian forces has been reduced over the last
decade, and consequently some materiel has been declared surplus
to present needs. Whenever possible, the department attempts to
dispose of surplus materiel, but this is a highly complex
process.
In some cases, when it is cost-effective, the department tries to
modernize its materiel in order to avoid costly total
replacements. This is the only way we will succeed in
optimizing operational efficiency and in fulfilling our
commitments to all Canadians, our allies and the—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry, but the time is
up.
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I raised a question on October 1 to the
Minister of Finance. I asked the minister to do the right thing
and cut EI premiums immediately. The minister answered by saying
that it is the government's intention to stay the course. He did
not once answer why he would not cut EI premiums.
I come from British Columbia. British Columbia is in the midst
of a recession. Most economists agree that one of the fastest
ways to escape a recession is to lower payroll taxes. One of the
ways to stimulate the economy and especially job creation is to
lower the taxation on jobs.
1800
Employers and employees are co-financing the employment
insurance fund. Employees are paying $2.70 for every $100 of
income and employers are paying $3.78 for every $100 in employee
income.
Finally, last week the finance minister announced that EI
premiums would be cut a measly 15 cents for every $100 of income.
Well, whoop-de-do. That is like comparing the government to a
schoolyard bully who robs a child of their lunch money and then
gives them back a few cents, hoping the child will not feel too
upset. The government should learn a lesson from this. No
matter how one views it, I think it is theft.
The current EI law is clear: premium rates should be no more
than needed to keep the fund in actuarial balance. The chief
actuary of the EI account stated recently that a $10 billion to
$15 billion accumulated surplus is more than enough. The latest
figures have the surplus at a whopping $19 billion.
If EI premiums were reduced by 33% next year, the fund would
still be balanced with sufficient reserve. Instead, the Minister
of Finance has other liberal ideas. One, he is using the surplus
to balance his books. Two, he is using the rest to pay for new
programs. The government over-collects for other purposes. It
is a tax on jobs and it is also against the rules.
Taxpayers paid into the fund and therefore the money belongs to
them. The EI premiums need to be put back into the pockets of
the payers. Instead of keeping the money in a political slush
fund, the minister needs to be a wise administrator.
I would like to challenge the government to show me a small
business owner in this country who believes that high payroll
taxes encourage growth or is the right thing to do at this point
in time.
In the November issue of Maclean's magazine one reader
sent in the following letter to the editor:
When the Employment Insurance fund was short, the government cut
off some recipients, lowered the benefits to others and increased
the premiums of all. When the EI fund swells from excess
contributions, and sacrifices of the unfortunate, the government
steals the money under a scheme to buy votes from the same people
they robbed. The media are pussyfooting around this profanity
just like they downplayed the (Heritage Minister's) flag caper,
the survival of the GST, the (P.M.'s) NAFTA boner, the (Health
Minister's) paper wars with gun-toting non-criminals and the
hepatitis C charity farce, the chopper flip, the Pearson airport
disgrace, another Quebec armoury with no arms to put in, and the
64-cent Canadian dollar. The big-mouthed watchdogs of public
good in the media all play dead for the Liberals.
The reason I am standing here today is because the Minister of
Finance did not answer my question. Perhaps he could have
answered my question with the statement he gave on October 17,
1994. He said then “We believe there is nothing more ludicrous
than a tax on hiring. But that is what payroll taxes are. They
have grown dramatically over time. They affect lower wage
earners much more than those at the high end”.
Perhaps the government can explain why it does not listen to the
auditor general who has commented that it would not be legal to
use the premiums or make payments from the account for other
purposes other than those stipulated in the Employment Insurance
Act.
The minister knows the law. His parliamentary secretary knows
the law. Why do they insist on breaking the law?
I will ask the question again. Perhaps the parliamentary
secretary will be able to delete the rhetoric from his speech and
tell Canadians why they cannot be given back the entire amount of
the over-collection. When will the premiums reflect the cost?
When will the government become fiscally responsible and live
within its means, for surely the lowly taxpayer must? Why can
the government not live within its means, just obey the rules and
have premiums reflect the true cost of the plan?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked me to
delete the rhetoric from my response. I do not have any rhetoric
at all.
When the hon. member first asked this question it concerned how
the EI premium rate was set. In his original question he stated
that every year the finance minister meets with the Employment
Insurance Commission in mid-November to set the employment rates.
As that statement indicates, it is very clearly false. The
Minister of Finance does not meet with the employment
commissioners, has no intention of meeting with them and has
never met with them.
I offer the hon. member a quick lesson on how the premium is
set. It is set by commissioners who are appointed after
consultation with their respective organizations which are
representative of workers and employers. There is the Deputy
Minister and Associate Deputy Minister of Human Resources
Development for the government.
It is only after the commission has set the rate that the
Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources
Development play a role. They jointly recommend the commission's
rate for governor in council approval. They do not meet with the
commissioners at any time to discuss the actual rate.
1805
When the hon. member talks about EI premium cuts, he knows very
clearly that since coming to office the government has continued
to reduce the employment insurance premiums and will continue to
do so each and every year. When we arrived the Tories had it
going up. We have it going down and we will continue to do that.
We will continue to do that in balance. We know that there are
Canadian priorities. The reduction of EI premiums is one of
those priorities and we will continue to maintain that downward
track. But we will also continue to ensure that there is
balance: a balanced budget, reduction in taxes and reinvestment
in health care.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
on October 28 I posed a question to the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food. As the House will recognize, that was more than a
month ago. I would have hoped that the issue I raised would have
been dealt with by this time and that we would have a policy and
a program in place that would in fact help the agricultural
producers in the country.
But I am very saddened to say that still the government is
waffling. It has not put anything concrete forward so that
farmers can take some solace in the fact that there is actually a
government that cares about agriculture in the country.
My question was quite simple. It stated that producers in the
country right now have incomes that are down 55%. This is a huge
industry, involving some $50 billion.
The United States at the time dealt with the issue by announcing
a $6 billion program the week before this question was posed. The
U.S. question was not “When will?” or “Will we put forward
support for our farmers?”, it was “How much?” The question of
how much was answered the day I posed the question. It was some
$6 billion.
It is difficult to say, but Canada is now the second lowest, if
not the lowest of the OECD with respect to support for its
agricultural producers. Our government seems to be fiddling
while farm incomes not only burn, but unfortunately farms are
being lost right now.
The reason I tabled this late show is because the minister came
back with some very facetious answers concerning the policy and
the platform of the Conservative Party in the last election
campaign. He talked about the amalgamation of the departments of
the environment, natural resources and agriculture.
I mention that because the parliamentary secretary some days
later, during an emergency debate that was instigated by the
Progressive Conservative Party, took 10 minutes of the House's
valuable time to spew nothing but political rhetoric. He did not
deal with this very important issue, but only with the political
position of his party.
I would like some answers from the parliamentary secretary with
respect to what is now happening with the proposed program that
is to come forward. Today in the House I asked if the program
will be announced before the House rises for the Christmas break
and if there will be criteria associated with that program which
will allow cash to flow to producers who require it before the
spring seeding which will begin in the new year.
In dealing with that I would say that we do have some experience
we can point to. The previous Progressive Conservative
government put into place the well respected and received NISA
program which is still in place for agricultural producers.
In 1991 we also put forward the GRIP program, the gross revenue
insurance program, which this government in its wisdom decided in
1995 to do away with. Why did it do that? It did it because
there was short term gain for some very long term pain. We are
recognizing that today. The pain is now only showing up at the
farm gates and farmyards.
If the government had any vision it would have maintained that
program or, at the very least, put in a program that would have
had the vision to see the problems that could present themselves.
The parliamentary secretary is going to get up now and probably
not answer any of those questions or any of these issues. If he
wants to talk about policy—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. member.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
1810
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, since the
member for Brandon—Souris mentioned the minister's remarks and
my own remarks that were made recently, I promise tonight, unless
provoked, not to raise the platform of the fifth party again. I
would like to leave that now and bring the member up to date on
what we are doing.
I am sure the member as a member of the committee knows what is
going on. The reason why we are taking a little longer is that
we know the pressure on producers and we have known it for some
time. Producers have told us that they did not want an ad hoc
program. Therefore, if we are not doing an ad hoc program, we do
not want to be sending out cheques to people for various amounts.
No one will know what we are doing or how we are doing it. We
will take our time. Time is running short, but we will take our
time to make sure we do it right for the short term and right for
the long term.
On November 26 the minister made a presentation to cabinet where
he had the opportunity to present the plan to his colleagues.
Obviously we cannot talk about the exact details of the plan
because it is still being discussed in cabinet. The minister put
forward his plan on how he wants to help Canadian producers
impacted by the current situation. There was a good discussion
on the issue and the government realizes the severity of the
situation.
November 26 was not a decision making day. There are a number
of important steps that have yet to be taken before a final
decision is made. It is still early to indicate what amount of
additional assistance is being contemplated. Assistance to
farmers is one of several important priority areas for investment
including knowledge and innovation, the alleviation of child
poverty, and health care. Therefore we are competing for—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the parliamentary secretary.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, on September 29, 1998, the Minister of Human
Resources Development said, in reply to my question, that the
employment insurance program was funded by employers and
workers.
We fully agree with that statement. In fact, the government
should not forget that it no longer contributes to the fund.
To give an idea of the situation, on December 2, 1998, the whole
$13 billion required to fund the employment insurance program
for the 1998-99 fiscal year, which began on April 1, 1998 and
will end in March 1999, had already been collected. This means
that, as of December 2, the money put into the fund is used by
the government for other purposes, such as paying off part of
the debt.
It is workers earning $39,000 or less, and the unemployed, who
made the greatest contribution to the fight against the deficit.
Now, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources
Development want to use that money to generate surpluses and pay
off the debt.
These ministers are forgetting that there are people who do not
pay employment insurance premiums.
They include all the ministers, members of parliament and
self-employed workers, who are not employees. These people are
not asked to do their part. Those who do the largest part to pay
this huge debt down are middle and low income earners. And that
is unacceptable to me.
Could someone on the government side explain how we ended up
with contribution rates being reduced by 15 cents, from $2.70 to
$2.55, which will result in bringing the 1998-99 surplus down by
only $260 million?
By cutting rates by only 15 cents, the finance minister did
nothing to improve his image as someone who is misappropriating
money from the EI fund to use it for other purposes.
Money continues to be diverted from its intended purpose.
On their pay stubs, employees see “employment insurance
contributions”. Therefore they expect these amounts to be paid
into their employment insurance plan and not to be used for any
other purpose. That is why the concept of misappropriation of
funds remains valid.
In light of the fact that the employment insurance program can
be self-financing with premiums of $2 per $100 of insurable
earnings, and that the current rate is $2.55 per $100, could the
government not spare another 40 cents per $100, or approximately
$3 billion, to correct the inequities in the system?
Because of these inequities, the number of claimants and the
amount and duration of benefits are dropping rapidly, with the
result that the federal government is being accused of
contributing to poverty through its failure to act.
1815
As a first step in the fight against poverty, should it not
restore its EI system to decent and acceptable levels so that,
on the one hand, employees feel that they are paying into a
system that provides sufficient benefits and that they are
getting their money's worth? On the other hand, since only four
out of ten unemployed workers draw benefits, could the federal
government not be required to put this $3 billion towards
improving the system so that the war on poverty can resume and
wealth can be shared more equally?
Is it not time to leave behind the federal government's cash-cow
concept of employment insurance and go back to a system that
provides adequate benefits and leaves employers and employees
feeling that they have got their money's worth?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
government is very concerned with the situation of unemployed
Canadians and wants to help them to make ends meet while they are
between jobs and then to get back into the workforce.
My colleague on the opposite side of the House starts off
tonight with his statement that there are $13 billion in the fund
and that is enough to finance 1998-99. He fails to mention that
the recently announced reduction in the premium rate of 15 cents
from $2.70 to $2.55 will save workers and employers $1.1 billion
a year.
He also fails to mention that the EI fund has been in deficit
seven out of the last ten years. During those years average
taxpayers in Canada paid out EI benefits through their taxes, in
other words from the general revenues. Average taxpayers in
Canada shared their ability to pay into the general revenue fund
through taxes with those who were less fortunate and found
themselves unemployed.
Now that the EI fund is in surplus, it sounds as if the member
opposite does not want that fund shared with other Canadian
taxpayers who may have priorities other than benefits to EI
recipients. That is why we took on the difficult task of
modernizing a 25 year old system which no longer met the needs of
today's work environment.
We believe that getting Canadians back to work is the only real
long term solution to high unemployment. That is why we shifted
the focus from reliance on benefits to active re-employment
measures, for example, the 31,000 jobs that have been created in
areas of high unemployment because of the transitional job fund.
Thousands of other Canadians are benefiting from the $2 billion
we reinvested in active employment measures. We believe that
helping people to help themselves is the key to their success.
The recent analysis of EI coverage clearly concludes that—
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Forgive me, but I must
interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.)