36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 118
CONTENTS
Wednesday, September 20, 2000
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| JOHN CONNOR
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHES
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| FAG BEARINGS LIMITED
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| THE LATE ANTHONY THEODORUS ROOSENMAALLEN
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| MAMMOGRAMS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1405
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| BOMBARDIER
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| GRAND & TOY
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1410
| HOUSING
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| THE LATE LOUIS QUILICO
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| WORLD ALZHEIMER'S DAY
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| FUEL TAXES
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| BUDGET SURPLUS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1425
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FUEL TAXES
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1440
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| IMPAIRED DRIVING
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
1445
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| BUDGETARY SURPLUS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1450
| FISHERIES
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| NORTHERN IRELAND
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1455
| IMPORTATION OF MOX
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1500
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Ministerial Announcements
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1505
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| The Deputy Speaker |
1510
| Tabling of Document
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-43. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| PETITIONS
|
| Fuel Taxes
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1515
| The Elderly
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Fuel Taxes
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1520
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Transferred for debate
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Transferred for debate
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-38. Second reading
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1525
1530
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1535
1540
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1545
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1550
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1555
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Document
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1600
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| The Deputy Speaker |
| FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-38. Second reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1605
1610
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1615
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1620
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1640
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1645
1650
1655
1700
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1705
1710
1715
1720
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-211. Second Reading
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1735
1740
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1745
1750
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1755
1800
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1805
1810
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1815
1820
1825
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| 1911 CENSUS RECORDS
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1830
1835
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1840
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1845
1850
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1855
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1900
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion
|
| 1911 CENSUS RECORDS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
1905
1910
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 118
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, September 20, 2000
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Peterborough.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in today's London Free Press and Sun
Media there is an accurate description of the contents of a
joint project between the RCMP and CSIS called sidewinder.
The contents of the report should raise very deep concerns with
all Canadians. I have been contacted by a Toronto police officer
who worked in the Asian crime unit for three years who said “The
Canadian public have absolutely no idea what is taking place in
our society insofar as the criminal activities of organized
groups is concerned”.
Having read the report, it shows a seamless connection between
the issue of organized crime and national security, with bridges
built to significant Canadian companies and political parties.
The Liberal government's inaction on these issues is deplorable.
It must immediately undertake a rationalization of information
sharing and jurisdiction between the armed forces, foreign
affairs, immigration, CSIS and the RCMP.
The threat to Canadians' personal and national security, as
illustrated by the contents of sidewinder, are far too profound
to Canada to continue to be ignored by the government.
* * *
JOHN CONNOR
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to pay tribute to John Connor, a
constituent in my riding of Simcoe North, for his work as a
volunteer with the Canadian Executive Services Organization. CESO
is a non-profit, volunteer based organization which brings
Canadian expertise to businesses, communities and organizations
in Canada and abroad.
As a volunteer with CESO international services, Mr. Connor
provided business advice to a Russian company involved in the
manufacture of electric switches for auto plants. He also
assisted the company in developing a business plan encompassing
marketing and professional development.
On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to congratulate Mr. Connor
for his commitment to share his time and expertise with emerging
economies like Russia.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHES
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
past September 14, Canada announced the creation of an
international commission mandated to promote intervention by the
international community in the event of humanitarian
catastrophes.
Canada is creating this commission in order to be able to play a
positive and constructive role in the resolution of conflicts
affecting human dignity.
Canada is not alone in this crusade. It has the support of the
Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, as well as
the leaders of a number of European countries.
Primarily, the new commission is to organize symposia and
debates throughout the world on humanitarian catastrophes and to
produce a report on its activities.
This is evidence of Canada's continuing lead role in
international policy.
* * *
[English]
FAG BEARINGS LIMITED
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to announce
that the FAG Bearings Limited of Stratford has recently opened a
$23 million, 12,000 square metre plant in Stratford, Ontario.
Production lines begin moving on August 18, 2000.
FAG Bearings currently employs 215 people in the manufacturing
of high quality aerospace bearings with another 10 to 15
employees to be added by the end of the year. Stratford now has
the most modern aerospace bearing plant in the world. This will
allow the strategically important Canadian division of FAG
Bearings to continue to increase its annual sales, which have
grown from $10 million in 1995 to $50 million in 1999, and on and
on.
This new plant facility is a perfect example of the growing
strength of Canada's economy, which has outpaced even the United
States over the past year. This is welcome news for the
expanding local economy of Stratford and the riding of
Perth—Middlesex, which maintains one of the lowest unemployment
rates in Canada.
* * *
THE LATE ANTHONY THEODORUS ROOSENMAALLEN
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the
untimely passing of Anthony Theodorus Roosenmaallen. He died on
12th Street in New Westminster, British Columbia in August of
this year when he bravely tried to intervene and come to the
rescue of victims who were being assaulted. He tried to keep the
peace in the community and, unfortunately, died as a result.
Born November 13, 1960 in Scarborough, Ontario, Tony is survived
by his son Morgan, age 13, his parents Anthony and Jose, and his
brothers and sister in Kingston. He was buried at Glen Abbey
Memorial Gardens in Kingston.
In New Westminster there was a street candlelight vigil in
Tony's memory, as this construction worker had many friends. Four
males aged 16 to 21 were charged from this tragedy. My community
was deeply offended. May the Minister of Justice change her ways
and take notice of what is needed to defend our communities.
Tony refused to ignore an injustice taking place. Why are the
Liberals ignoring taking responsibility for violent crimes?
* * *
MAMMOGRAMS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again I have concerns that the National Post's sensational
headlines have caused a huge distortion of serious facts.
The title of today's article in the National Post
suggested that mammograms are pointless. This could not be
farther from the truth. A new study on breast screening
procedures says that proper physical examinations can be a viable
alternative for women who do not have access to mammograms or who
fear radiation.
Dr. Cornelia Baines, deputy director of the study, explained
that if women can arrange to have a good clinical breast exam,
they will be looking after their breast health as well as if they
were getting a mammogram, but that mammography screening of women
who take no other steps to detect breast cancer does reduce the
number of deaths.
Canadian Cancer Society numbers say that 19,200 women will be
diagnosed with breast cancer in Canada this year alone; all the
more reason why Canadian women over 50 must still be encouraged
to have either a mammogram or an appointment for a proper
clinical examination by a trained professional every two years.
* * *
1405
HEALTH
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since Canada's new health care plan was
signed on September 13, I have received many calls from
constituents. Many of them say they are pleased that the federal
Liberal government has reached an historical agreement with the
first ministers.
The good news is that this health action plan will help sustain
and modernize Canada's publicly funded health care system.
Canadians in general are pleased that their federal Liberal
government is investing over $21 billion over five years through
the Canada health and social transfer.
Once again Canadians can feel proud of having one of the world's
best medicare systems, a cornerstone of Canada's unmatched
quality of life.
* * *
[Translation]
BOMBARDIER
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on August 11 Bombardier made an official announcement of the
construction of its new plant in the Montreal foreign trade zone
at Mirabel, which is in my riding.
This is excellent news, since it will create 1,700 jobs in the
Mirabel region, and investments of some $170 million. Assembly
operations for the CRJ900, Bombardier's new 90-seat aircraft, and
of the CRJ700, its 70-seat model, are expected to begin next
spring.
Bombardier's location in Mirabel's foreign trade zone is the
direct outcome of the recommendations of the Tardif Commission
on the development of Mirabel airport.
I must therefore thank the government of Quebec for its
involvement in this matter. It will be recalled that the
foreign trade zone was created in response to the flagrant lack
of action by the federal government.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is leadership on Miramichi Bay.
It is not with the federal government, Bob Rae or the fisheries
minister. It is with commercially licensed fishermen who have
been so patient these past few weeks. They are the heroes of
Burnt Church because they chose to exercise restraint, even
though their livelihood was being put at risk and even when
conservation was being thrown out the window.
These people watched as their fish stocks were poached. And
then watched our government reward the poachers, and still they
exercised restraint. They heard their fisheries minister tell
them he would end the illegal fishery and protect their stock.
And then they saw him do nothing.
These people chose to be responsible even when their minister
was not. They could teach him a thing or two. They recognize
that actions have consequences and the law must be obeyed. We
wish the minister had their wisdom.
The official opposition salutes the commercial fishermen, the
real leaders on Miramichi Bay who chose to exercise restraint.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the federal and provincial governments
reached an historic agreement.
Thanks to this agreement, the people of Canada will have quality
health care because of a considerable increase in health care
funding: $21.1 billion over the next five years.
Quebec is a winner with this agreement. Thanks to it, Quebec
will be able to count on having nearly $5 billion more in its
coffers between now and 2005-2006.
Our government's co-operation and its concern about reaching a
satisfactory agreement were recognized by the premier of Quebec.
This is a concrete result. The Liberal government is working
ceaselessly to improve the quality of life of Canadians from
coast to coast.
* * *
[English]
GRAND & TOY
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure you have been made aware of the unfortunate circumstances at
Grand & Toy.
The employer, or its American parent company, seems determined
to provoke a long and hostile labour dispute with its workers,
members of the United Steelworkers of America, by first locking
them out when they had agreed to continue working throughout
negotiations, and then using scabs, some of whom can only be
described as violent people who provoke and intimidate locked out
employees.
The federal government is a major client of Grand & Toy. I am
asking this federal government to cease purchasing goods and
services from Grand & Toy until a fair and responsible collective
agreement can be reached.
1410
Our continued business there will only prolong the lockout. I
hope the Liberals will wake up.
* * *
[Translation]
HOUSING
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, FRAPRU
continues its fight for those needing proper housing and reminds
us that, according to the latest statistics, 833,555 renters
spend half and more of their meager income on housing. This
figure represents a 43% increase since 1990.
During my recent visit to community organizations in 27 ridings,
I encountered over 400 bodies in the various regions of Quebec.
This point is clear: Quebecers do not accept the fact that one
person in five is not benefiting from the economic growth and
full citizenship.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to ignore an urgent need
such as the that of hundreds of women, men and children to find
housing?
The need is known, the funds are there. What is lacking is
political will to act. The federal government's reinvestment in
public housing and not just affordable housing is more than a
matter of choice, it is a matter of human dignity.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE LOUIS QUILICO
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
would like to pay tribute to a great Canadian opera singer, the
late Mr. Louis Quilico who passed away at the age of 75 last July
15 from a heart attack. Mr. Quilico was one of the most
celebrated baritones of his generation.
Born in Montreal of a Quebecois mother and an Italian father,
Mr. Quilico made his first foray into opera at the Opera Guild of
Montreal and spent 25 years at the Metropolitan Opera in New York
as well as other great stages of the world.
He is recognized for the exceptional quality of his performances
and the strength of his voice.
In addition, Mr. Quilico taught music at the University of
Toronto and the University of Montreal where he also taught Gino,
his son, who would later play in many operas with his father.
In 1974 Mr. Quilico was named Companion of the Order of Canada.
Last year he received a Governor General's award in the
performing arts.
Mr. Quilico contributed in an extraordinary way to Canadian
music and to opera as a whole. On behalf of the Government of
Canada, I would like to thank Mr. Quilico and offer my sincere
condolences to his loved ones.
* * *
WORLD ALZHEIMER'S DAY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow,
September 21, will mark World Alzheimer's Day.
Currently there are more than 316,000 who suffer from
Alzheimer's, but as our nation's population ages that statistic
is expected to grow.
Researchers predict that within 30 years there will be
three-quarters of a million people afflicted with this
devastating disease.
Alzheimer's is a progressive and irreversible dementia that is
neither a fair nor normal companion to the aging process. It
takes from its victims the loving memories and associations
formed through the course of a vibrant lifetime.
The scientific community continues to seek not only a cure, but
also preventive measures to eliminate the threat of this
heartbreaking disease.
We wish the researchers every success in their efforts and we
pray that all people across the country will support the families
and all those people who are out to try to cure this disease.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today Action Canada on Population and Development, in
collaboration with the United Nations Population Fund, launched
the United Nations' State of World Population report. That
report is entitled “Lives Together, Worlds Apart”.
The report draws to the attention of Canadians and the
international community the global problem of inequality between
women and men in societies around the world.
Ending gender discrimination is an urgent human rights and
development priority. Inequality between women and men limits
the potential of individuals, families, communities and nations
around the world.
I urge the Canadian government to work with its counterparts and
take action on its commitment to the International Conference on
Population and Development Program to end gender inequality.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
FUEL TAXES
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am kind of new around here, so I am
trying to get a handle on this government policy.
As I understand it now, when the government is in a position to
give money back to people, it says it cannot because it has to
consult. However, when it wants to take money away from people,
as it did when it reduced health care to the provinces by 33%,
and as it did when it raised the gas taxes in 1995, there is no
consultation.
Will the Prime Minister please abandon this self-interested
policy and state clearly that his government will in fact allow
consumers to have a reduction in their taxes at the pump?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have replied to this question. To have a meaningful
policy on that, the Minister of Finance is right to consult with
the provinces otherwise it will not work.
We have many options that we are looking into, but we have to go
back to the fact that the increase in the price of oil in Canada
has been caused by the tripling of the price of oil around the
world, including those who produce oil in Alberta.
By the way, I would like to tell the House of Commons that there
was no tax on gasoline in Alberta when the Leader of the
Opposition became a member of the assembly. He was the minister
of finance for three years and there was a 9 cents a litre tax in
Alberta.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): The Prime Minister is correct, Mr. Speaker. When
I was minister of finance we had the lowest tax on gasoline in
the country and lower taxes right across the board. We lowered
the debt at a time when oil prices were low and global commodity
prices were high. When the Prime Minister was the minister of
finance, taxes went up and debt when up.
I am asking the Minister of Finance this. While he is parlaying
at that palace in Prague next week and the people from P.E.I. to
Penticton and Princeton continue to have their pockets picked at
the pump, will he please, before he leaves, make the
recommendation to lower that price?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after imposing the tax, then at a time of rising fuel
taxes in Alberta, and public discussion on whether or not the
excise tax should be cut when it was at 9%, the minister said he
would consider it. In his budget, he specifically rejected it.
The question is, why is he recommending in opposition a course of
action that he refused to accept when he was in office?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my record as finance minister was to
continue to lower taxes at a rate unseen across the country, even
when prices were low.
[Translation]
If the Prime Minister is sincere when he says he thinks the
increase in the price of gasoline may increase the risk of a
recession, why will he not support the Alliance proposal to
reduce the price of gasoline by almost 5%, which would reduce
the risk of a recession?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this was a risk I mentioned while discussing this problem in
New York last week.
There is a danger in the western world that countries which are
very dependent on oil may find themselves in a much more
difficult situation than we have in Canada, because we have oil
in this country. Moreover, the level of taxation on gasoline in
Canada is three times lower than what it is in England, Germany
or France.
1420
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister tells us that he is waiting for
leadership. I guess leadership from the provinces when it comes
to cutting taxes. He is waiting for the provinces. He is
waiting for OPEC. He is waiting for the G-7. Maybe now he is
waiting for Christmas to cut taxes.
His 1995 excuse was that he was waiting to end the deficit when
he introduced a 1.5 cent increase in the tax on gas. Now that
the deficit is gone, why are we still paying that tax on gas?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has made it very clear that the impact of
any tax cut must be one that is significant and felt. That view
is also shared by provincial governments.
That is why we have said that if we were to act in that area we
would only do so in conjunction with the provinces. We are
prepared to show the leadership. No single level of government
can provide a large enough cut to make an impact. We do not want
to see this money lost at the pumps. We want to see it go into
the pockets of consumers, not into the pockets of oil companies.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The finance minister
wants to take leadership, but he actually wants the provinces to
lead him. I am not sure but I think that is followership.
Why does the finance minister not explain to Canadians why a 3.5
cent cut per litre at the pumps would not be real tax relief for
those who are hard pressed? Why does he continue to impose a tax
on tax, a double tax which his own caucus says is unfair and
should be removed? Why does he not listen to his own
backbenches on this issue?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is certainly right when he talks from
the leadership that has come from his caucus, the member from
Pickering and the others.
The government will act. One of the reasons we will act is that
we have been studying this issue. There has been leadership from
this caucus while that opposition sat silent.
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
year, the Minister of Finance made fun of the Bloc Quebecois
because we said that the surplus would be $11.5 billion. He said
it would be $3 billion. Today, we see that we were right.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that his strategy of hiding
the surpluses does not fool anybody and that it is just a
convenient way of avoiding debate and bolstering his image on
the eve of an election?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois seems to be having a little trouble
accepting the good news. A reduction of $12.3 billion is good
news. It will lower the debt.
This is $1 billion we will save on debt servicing. It is
$1 billion we will be able to use for health, education,
innovation and tax cuts. It is good news.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
was not news for us. We have known about it for a year. Even
the minister knew. Even he knew, I am certain.
However, what he is not saying is that half of the surplus has
come right out of workers' pockets as a result of the $6 billion
in EI cuts. This is a disgrace.
What does he have to say to all the workers who are
demonstrating today in Chicoutimi, on the North Shore, in
Charlevoix and in the Saguenay region? What does he have to say
to them when we know that he helped himself to $6 billion from
the EI fund and that this had a direct impact on families, which
are having trouble making both ends meet? What does he have to
say to them? These are perhaps not people he knows very well.
They are not people of his class.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what
we will say is that when we took power unemployment stood at
11.5% and it is now down to 7%.
We have created more than 2 million new jobs since we took power.
Real disposable income per capita is on the increase. So is
growth.
What we will say is that Canada is doing just fine, and
Quebecers know it.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance is telling us today that, a few months ago,
he miscalculated budget surpluses by 300% and that he had an
additional surplus of $9 billion last year, money that comes
from excess taxes paid by taxpayers.
Does the minister know that a family with two children starts
paying federal tax at $14,948 and that with these surpluses,
which the minister knew about, he could have alleviated, as
early as last year, the burden of low income families and all
those earning less than $30,000? Does the minister know that?
1425
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member should review his figures. Following our last
budget, a family with two children and an income of $30,000 will
not pay any net federal income tax.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all
the figures given here are from the minister's own department.
Does the minister realize that, because of his incompetence,
because of his crass electioneering strategy, about five million
taxpayers who should not have paid taxes last year did pay
taxes, namely those earning less than $30,000? Does the minister
realize that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again, thanks to our budget, there are now 900,000 Canadians who
have an income but do not pay any taxes. Four years from now,
there will be 1.5 million. All I can say to the hon. member is
that the department can provide him with the figures, but he
must know how to read them.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
As we now know, the government has a record surplus of
$12 billion, thanks to the tricky practices of the Minister of
Finance.
We have a record number of poor, a record number of homeless, a
record student debt load, and fewer people eligible for
employment insurance.
The Prime Minister promised to divide the surplus fifty-fifty.
Why has he gone back on his word?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member ought to be aware of certain things, for example
that we signed an agreement last week with the provinces to
devote more money to children in all provinces. Since we have
been in government, we have established tax credits for poor
families. We have put a great deal of money into improving the
social situation.
Here is the situation. We have a government that is working
very well, there is a great deal of optimism in Canada at the
present time, and revenue is coming in faster than expected,
fortunately, so we are using this surplus to pay down the debt.
This means that we will not have to deal with that problem
further down the road—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister always lowballs the surplus so that Canadians
will not have a clear picture of the truth. The truth is that
the government is giving into the bankers and the financial big
shots rather than helping the people who need it most.
The priorities of Canadians are the environment, education and
health. Why is the Prime Minister betraying the priorities of
Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly why three-quarters of our spending has
been on health care, education, the environment and innovation.
At the same time we have brought in massive tax cuts that will
benefit low and modest income Canadians. At the same time we are
reducing the debt so that the next generation of Canadians will
not have to bear the huge cost our generation has incurred. This
is a question of generational equity.
* * *
FUEL TAXES
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. His finance minister has
just confirmed that the government's position on fuel taxes is
that there will be no help from Ottawa unless the provinces
agree.
Why does the Prime Minister give the provinces a veto on cutting
Ottawa's taxes on fuel?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said in and outside the House that the government is
examining various options. The government will certainly take
action in that area.
I also said when I was looking at excise taxes, and according to
most provincial governments, that it would be far better to act
together if one is to have a price cut which will be of
sufficient size to take effect at the pump, be visible and not
end up in the pockets of oil companies.
1430
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
let me ask whoever is answering for the Prime Minister the
following two questions. First, has there been a proposal to the
provinces for a meeting on cutting fuel taxes? Second, does the
Prime Minister rule out removing the GST on home heating fuel?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has spoken very clearly on this
subject. I think we have to make sure that any move, if we were
to have a move, goes into the pockets of consumers and not of
industry.
I would like to quote a good friend of the leader of the
Conservative Party, Mr. Mike Harris, who said “We are not about
to cut taxes to give oil companies more money. I can tell you
that. We need a guarantee that the oil companies won't suck up
the difference with higher prices”.
I think that is why the Minister of Finance and the provincial
governments are careful. They do not want oil companies to pick
up the difference and not consumers.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the reported deal at Burnt Church is
not a deal. It is a capitulation. Illegal traps remain in the
water.
Yesterday the minister said “Mediation cannot be a shield for
unauthorized activity”. He said that he “would not jeopardize
conservation of the viability of the fishery by letting fishing
continue unabated”.
This deal allows fishing to continue unabated. It jeopardizes
conservation. It legitimizes illegal activity. When will the
minister get the illegal traps out of the water?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the
House that Mr. Rae has reported and sent out a press release
saying that he has a commitment from Burnt Church first nation to
substantially reduce the number of traps in the Miramichi Bay.
The intent is to ensure that we have conservation as a priority.
As I said in the House before, and I want to say it again, I will
carry out my mandate to make sure we protect the resource for all
Canadians and future generations, but we owe it to the
communities to bring the communities together to make sure that
we make every effort to resolve this situation in a peaceful way.
That is exactly—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Delta—South Richmond.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week the minister was quoted as
saying that there were two thousand traps in Miramichi Bay. At a
modest catch of 10 pounds of lobster per trap, per day, that is
20,000 pounds of lobster coming out of Miramichi Bay every day at
a time when the bay is closed for conservation purposes.
The minister continues to jeopardize conservation. He is
threatening the viability of the fishery. Why will he not get
the traps out of the water now?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not been
following what we have been doing. We have been taking
enforcement action. In fact we have taken 2,700 traps out of
Miramichi Bay, so there has been enforcement action.
We have always said from day one, unlike the hon. member, that
it is through co-operation and dialogue. That is our first
preference. That is why we were able to get 29 agreements with
first nations out of 34.
That is working well. We will continue to do it, but at the end
of the day I will take my mandate seriously. I will protect the
resource and make sure the rule of law is followed by all
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thousands of
seasonal workers in Charlevoix, the north shore, the lower St.
Lawrence and Gaspé, even in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, are
worried. Next February 15, they will all end up on welfare.
I am asking the Minister of Human Resources Development whether
she is going to propose transitional measures for these people
who qualified for employment insurance between July 9 and
September 17 and will receive only 21 weeks of benefits based on
525 hours.
1435
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I met with the hon. member and
constituents from his area just a few days ago on this very
issue.
He knows full well that we have agreed to phase in the changes
for employment insurance boundaries in his part of Quebec. As
well we have offered and are very anxious to start a community
group to look at expanding the employment opportunities in that
part of Quebec.
The workers want to work. The workers want new opportunities.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman if he would
join us in that undertaking to make sure that the workers get
what they really want.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Does the minister realize
that she has been given bad advice on this matter and has made a
very serious mistake, for which the seasonal workers must pay,
and does she realize that she needs to act promptly to remedy
this mistake, which is having negative effects for workers in
the regions?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have acted quickly. We are phasing in
the changes to the EI boundaries. We will be announcing a
committee working right in the community to look at opportunities
there. I, along with my colleague the Minister of National
Revenue, will be investing and supporting that undertaking.
The real question is if that party understands that the issue of
employment is about more than just employment insurance. It is
about finding new opportunities and work for the people in that
region.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister brags that 29 out of 34
bands in the maritimes have signed fishing agreements. He
suggests that if only Burnt Church would sign on that would end
the problem.
The reality is quite different. The Lennox Island Band
agreement was for 20,000 pounds in Malpeque Bay. DFO sources say
they have now fished more than double that and they are still
fishing. Why is the minister pretending to protect the lobster
resource with meaningless agreements?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take the
time to read the 29 agreements we have signed.
For the first time we are creating real opportunity, providing
not only access to the resource but providing vessels, providing
training and providing mentoring so that the aboriginal community
can truly be successful in the fishery as it participates more
and more in the commercial fishery.
We have taken enforcement action, as I said earlier. We
arrested and seized four vessels. We charged 16 people, so
enforcement action has been taken. We want to make sure that
every step is taken to try to resolve this issue in a peaceful
and co-operative manner. However, at the end of the day, we will
enforce the law and make sure we protect the resource for all
Canadians.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we cannot have two sets of rules. In
Malpeque Bay the minister is legitimizing illegal fishing by
calling it a deal.
Yesterday the minister said that he would not use deals as a
shield for unauthorized activities, but he is and he has. How
many other of the 29 deals are shams like the Malpeque Bay deal?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should meet and
talk to some of the chiefs who have signed deals and then he
would have a firsthand view.
They are very reluctant to go out to talk to the aboriginal
community because then they would see the good work that has been
done with the 29 deals which have been signed for this year that
are creating real opportunity for first nations.
This has been a big commitment by the federal government of $160
million, to make sure that we have a plan to deal with Marshall.
It is doing well. Unfortunately one or two bands are not
signing, but we are working on that. At the end of the day we
will make sure we will protect the resource for all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, a meeting was held between the deputy ministers of
justice of the government of Quebec and the Government of
Canada.
Quebec submitted specific proposals to the federal
government. The first was to amend the criminal code in order to
criminalize membership in a criminal group. The second was to
submit this amendment to the supreme court immediately for
validation in order to avoid lengthy appeal proceedings.
My question is as follows. Will the minister agree to act on
the proposal by Quebec as quickly as possible?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday,
federal officials had very constructive discussions with their
Quebec counterparts. There are a number of fronts on which we
will be working. One is looking at possible legislative change.
Indeed the government of Quebec has done some very good work in
that regard, and we will be working with them further.
We will be consulting with the other provinces and the
territories and with law enforcement authorities before we move
forward, but I can assure the hon. member we are taking this
matter very seriously and we will be moving forward very soon.
1440
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
the minister is sincere in her response, if she really intends
to act and has the political will to do so, she has the
government behind her on that.
Can she specify the timetable for adopting the amendments Quebec
has proposed?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe it was agreed
yesterday by federal officials and Quebec officials that it would
be important to consult with provincial and territorial
counterparts and that it would be important to have discussions
with law enforcement authorities. As soon as those discussions
are completed, we will be in a position to act. However, we will
not be rushed into passing a law that is not the very best that
we can make to protect all Canadians from organized crime.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, sidewinder was a joint RCMP and CSIS operation that
looked into the influence of organized crime and foreign
companies on Canadian companies and our security. I have had an
opportunity to read the report and it raises very serious
concerns about Canadians' personal safety, national security and
foreign influence in Canada. Why did the government shut down the
report?
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, the member
opposite has gone on repeatedly about this project. He knows
full well that the Security Intelligence Review Committee has
conducted a review. I am pleased to report to the House today
that review is now complete and has been submitted to the
solicitor general.
There are three points in that submission that I would like to
refer to all members of the House. The first is that there was
no political interference as alleged in the media. The second is
the draft report in fact was deeply flawed. The third is that no
evidence of any substantial nature was part of that draft report.
This is good news for all of us. It underscores—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, we have been after this
information for an extended period of time. What seemed to us to
be totally incredible is that this report, with all of the
findings that it had, even if we were to discount them to 50%,
are still very threatening and of concern to Canadians. It
raises the question of would the RCMP have actually said “This
report is terrible. Look at all the evidence we are uncovering.
We had better stop investigating”. What does the member mean
there was not any influence on this process?
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the member opposite
did not listen to my answer and does not get it. The answer is
quite simply that there was no political interference. CSIS, the
RCMP and all involved in this matter continue to work very hard
on it and will continue to do so based on the values of this
country and based on the values of all Canadians.
Instead of looking for the conspiracy theory, which the member
opposite always wants to do in trying to get the theory of the
grassy knoll and other things, he should bear down on the facts.
The facts today are evident and they are presented here in the
House.
* * *
[Translation]
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Justice made a commitment this summer to the
Quebec minister of transport to propose amendments to the
criminal code so that Quebec could use ignition interlock
systems to fight cases of repeat offenders under the influence
of alcohol.
Why has the minister not kept her promise, when Quebec obtained
a favourable opinion from lawyers in other provinces and this
system has already been shown to be effective?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed I have had the
opportunity to write to my colleague the minister of transport in
the province of Quebec indicating my willingness to pursue the
suggestions that the hon. minister has made. I have instructed
my deputy minister to take this up with his fellow deputy
ministers at their meeting in November.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food.
This summer, producers in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan have
faced severe drought conditions. As a result of that, many of
them have had to sell some or all of their breeding stock.
Can the minister tell the House what the government of Canada
can do to assist these producers who have been hit by the severe
weather in Alberta and Saskatchewan?
1445
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we know, in a country this size there
is great variability in weather. As the hon. member has said, in
some parts of southern Alberta and Saskatchewan this year there
has been a severe drought.
I am pleased to announce today that those farmers and ranchers
who see fit and have to sell over 15% and maybe all of their
breeding herds will now receive a one year tax deferral on income
from the sale of those animals. This is another program that is
in place to assist, along with the other safety net programs in
Canada, farmers in situations of financial stress.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, once again the government failed western Canadian grain
farmers. The grain transportation system is in a mess at the
moment. While harvest is under way, the grain handlers at the
seasonal port of Thunder Bay are threatening to strike.
Time and time again the government has said to just trust it,
that nothing will stand in the way of grain shipments and that
these will not be held hostage again.
The fact is Canadians do not trust the government's crisis
management solution. They want the minister to bring in some
dispute settlement mechanism that would bring the Canadian code
into the 21st century. When will the minister be prepared to do
that?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny and reject the assertion of the
hon. member that the grain transportation system is as he
describes it.
As hon. members know, Bill C-34 was passed by the House on
division. There was great co-operation by members. This is good
news for western farmers because $178 million has been put back
into the system. It is very premature for the hon. member to
start talking about problems that have not yet manifested
themselves.
I just read a note that talks about grain shipments having
increased so far this year. I think that good trend will
continue.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the minister has not noticed that the workers
have been without a contract since January and they are
frustrated. Of course, the grain companies are frustrated too.
The farmers have had it right up to their ears.
With low commodity prices threatening to put many grain farmers
completely out of business, I would think it is about time that
the minister changed the code so that there would be a dispute
settlement mechanism whereby these things could be nipped in the
bud before they became a crisis.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the
opposition across the way does not believe in the collective
bargaining process.
The collective bargaining process is in action. Let us hope
that it works well. If it does not work well, then we will have
to deal with it when that happens. We cannot be premature and
start dictating to somebody what they should and should not do.
The collective bargaining process is there. It has worked in the
past and I am confident it will work now.
* * *
BUDGETARY SURPLUS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance put all the surplus into paying down the
national debt, but he had a choice. He chose the bondholders of
Bay Street before paying down the human deficit in this country.
He chose the bondholders of Bay Street before putting more money
into health and education. He chose Bay Street before helping
the farmers and helping poor people in this country.
I want to know why the Minister of Finance chose his friends on
Bay Street instead of paying down the human deficit by putting
money into programs for people in this country.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me simply explain the balanced approach to the hon.
member.
He may well remember that in the budget we put $900 million more
into the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. At the year end we
put more money into western and eastern agriculture. In that same
budget we put $2.5 billion into transfers to the provinces for
health care. It is that surplus which will allow us to finance
the very large funding of $21 billion to $23 billion in transfers
to the provinces in the agreement signed by the Prime Minister
and the premiers two weeks ago.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question then goes to the right hon. Prime Minister.
This morning the Minister of Finance said he was advised by his
friends on Bay Street as to what to do with the surplus. Of
course, the surplus going to the debt would help his friends on
Bay Street and that is exactly what the minister did.
I ask the Prime Minister, is this not a conflict of interest? Is
it not a conflict of interest for the finance minister to give
the money to an institution that would help his friends? Should
the minister not resign because of that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not like the insinuation. I think that the
Minister of Finance has shown how honourable he is and how
objective he has been over the last six years.
I have to tell hon. members that he recited a long list of
agreements and payments that we are giving in the social field.
There is the health agreement.
We have invested a lot of money in the children's agenda since we
have been here. We have invested in research and development,
high technology for connecting all Canadians, the millennium
scholarship program and I could go on and on. I will always be
happy when we can pay the debt in Canada because we are paying
the mortgage that the previous generation put on the children of
today.
* * *
1450
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirm in this House
that if an agreement is reached in Burnt Church today, or
tomorrow—we hope it will be as soon as possible—that agreement
will provide that commercial fishing is subject to the same
season and the same rules for all fishers, so as to ensure that
the conservation of the lobster fishery is a priority?
[English]
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I said
earlier. As the hon. member knows, Mr. Rae is the mediator who
was trying to bring the communities together. He has reported
that Burnt Church first nation has agreed to substantially reduce
the number of traps in the water in Miramichi Bay. This is a
good step. We will watch to make sure that happens. It will
really be in the action and not the words. I have always said
that we want to make sure that all of the traps that are out
there are authorized and legal. Any that are not authorized are
illegal fishing and we will take steps to make sure that we deal
with unauthorized and illegal fishing.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rae
cannot guarantee a peaceful solution to the crisis in Burnt
Church. The House has a right to know if the minister has a plan
b and if so, what is it?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course the government always
has plans to deal with situations that do not work out. The hon.
member should know because I have gone to the fisheries
committee. I have laid out the direction in our response to
Marshall. Obviously he is not listening.
Let me quote for him a Progressive Conservative member who said “I
congratulate and support the federal fisheries minister in
accepting his responsibility and exercising his powers”. This
was said by John Crosbie, the former fisheries minister.
* * *
NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Peter Mandelson, the British secretary of state for
Northern Ireland, met with the Prime Minister, the Minister of
Finance and several parliamentary groups.
Could the parliamentary secretary explain to the House the
efforts that Canada has been making to the peace process in
Northern Ireland, including its efforts to reform policing in
that part of Ireland?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has encouraged
and participated in the peace process at all levels. Canada has
contributed $1 million to the international fund for Ireland.
Eminent Canadians have been actively involved in the peace
process. General John De Chastelain, for example, heads the
independent international commission on decommissioning.
Secretary of State Mandelson said yesterday of General De
Chastelain “John De Chastelain was head of the decommissioning
body for some years. He is a man who commands great trust in
Northern Ireland. He has immense authority and credibility”.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the WTO drug patent ruling is yet another example of the
government wasting valuable time and money on a senseless dispute
before the WTO. Canada's own negotiators involved with the TRIPS
agreement said in May that this was an open and shut case. Yet
the minister went ahead with an appeal that he knew would be lost
when his priority should have been to inform Canadian consumers
of the impact of the WTO decision. Why?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we received the answer from the WTO panel
and did not particularly like it. I was disappointed with the
decision. I am very relieved, however, that that particular
decision will not force Canada to change substantially the
overall balance of our present legislation.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF MOX
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Natural Resources keeps repeating that the
importation of MOX does not pose any risk.
Yet Dr. Gilles Grenier, who is an expert on emergency
situations relating to nuclear accidents, recently said that new
confidential data at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited basically
match the worse case scenarios described by those who oppose the
project.
In light of this new information, does the Minister of Natural
Resources still believe that there is no risk for the
population?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the gentleman to whom the hon. member refers made some
comments during the open public comment process. AECL took those
comments into account and responded to them during the process.
It is now in the hands of the Department of Transport as the
regulator to determine whether all of the circumstances are
sufficient to allow the transportation to occur. I have every
confidence that Transport Canada will discharge its
responsibilities in the public interest.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today, the
Minister of Finance announced an unexpected surplus of $12
billion.
Out of that $12 billion, $7.5 billion comes from the
employment insurance fund and from those who have lost their
jobs.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Since on May 9 the House of Commons unanimously supported
a review of the employment insurance program, will the minister
wait until the eve of an election to make changes to the
employment insurance program for the benefit of the Liberals, or
will she act immediately for the benefit of Canadian workers?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member talks about immediate action.
Let me describe to him the things that we are doing in his
community in the Acadian Peninsula. I was there with the
Minister of Labour and together we met with employees and
employers. There are very active community groups in that part
of New Brunswick where the unemployment levels have been
significantly high. We are getting real results.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, bad
news for the Prime Minister: thanks to his Minister of Finance,
the Prime Minister has broken yet another Liberal promise, the
one about the 50:50 ratio for the budget surplus. This is bad
news for the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Finance is hiding future surpluses from the
Prime Minister because he knows him so well. This is bad news
for the Prime Minister, but that is how things are between
them.
For the benefit of Canadians, could the Minister of Finance tell
the House today that he will use the anticipated surpluses to
hand over to the provinces the money agreed on in last week's
health agreement now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have a plan and we are following it. Fortunately, the economy
is exceptional and future generations will be the ones to
benefit because the debt will go down.
As for the money that will be given to provincial governments, I
signed an agreement with them last Monday, and all of them were
happy. Money is available starting this year for the purchase
of equipment and for other parts of the program.
As for the global transfers, they will begin next year. All of
the provincial governments were happy and they included
representatives of all parties. The member should perhaps
realize that, when there is an agreement—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam.
* * *
[English]
WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State
for Western Economic Diversification.
I heard a lot about the regional agencies and their role and
effectiveness in the Canadian economy. Does western
diversification have a valuable role to play in the western
economy?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the Government of Canada, my department has invested $2.3
billion in the western economy since its inception. With its
partners it has created the tools that have permitted the western
economies to diversify in a significant kind of way.
Last week I was in the western provinces, particularly in
British Columbia. I was told that one of the tools developed,
the Community Future Development Corporations, has produced 10%
of the new jobs in British Columbia over the last few years.
1500
The department also comes to the aid of communities in crisis
such as the west coast fisheries and the Red River flood.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: They really do not want to hear
the good news. We are proud of the record of the western
economic diversification.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (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 five
petitions.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to today's
announcement by the Minister of Finance. He made a highly
publicized statement outside the House concerning the state of
Canada's financial circumstances, in particular focusing on the
level of the surplus.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you, as a great defender of the
significance and the importance of the House, will know that we
raised this issue on a number of occasions. We regret that
unfortunately the House has not seen fit or the Chair has not
seen fit to take a vigorous attitude toward the practices that
diminish the House.
Yesterday we heard high praise from the government about the
importance of public business of Canadians being conducted in the
House of Commons, yet it has chosen to flout the House again. My
colleagues in this party condemn the continued marginalization by
the Liberal government in the House. We know that the House is
being diminished by the practice of announcements being made in
the press gallery as opposed to the floor of the House of
Commons.
In the words of your sister speaker in the British house of
commons in Westminster, I suggest that this would lend support to
this point of order.
1505
This statement was made on July 26 of this year from Betty
Boothroyd of Westminster and she stated,
Let us make a start by remembering that the function of
Parliament is to hold the Executive to account. That is the role
for which history has cast the Commons. It is the core task of
members—not merely to act as representatives of their
constituents, important though that certainly is. It is in
Parliament in the first instance that Ministers must explain and
justify their policies.
She goes on to say,
I have taken action to ensure that those who advise Ministers
should never overlook the primacy of Parliament. This is the
chief forum of the nation—today, tomorrow and, I hope for ever.
I would suggest that there is wisdom to be found in those words
and that sentiment expressed by the British speaker. I urge the
Chair to follow that lead of the parliamentary model in Great
Britain and remind the government of the supremacy of Parliament
and the importance of speaking to Canadians through its House,
this House and parliament.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it was interesting that the Speaker had commented about
the continual practice of the government making big announcements
outside of this place, ironically again in the Charles Lynch
Theatre today. There seems to be quite a bit of action down
there lately.
Earlier in parliament the Speaker brought forward his concern
that this not become a habit of the government to make
announcements outside of this place. He said words to the effect
early in this parliament that “I want to express my concern that
the government is continuously or habitually making important
legislative announcements outside of this place”. The
announcements of the magnitude that we saw again this morning,
which was basically an admission that the forecasting ability of
the finance minister was zilch, were made outside the place.
I would agree with the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough that it is time that the
ministers came before the House, made their presentations, told
the House first and then the rest of the world could follow.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker in the absence of our House leader who is
busy doing other duties at the moment, I want to add some
comments to the points that have already been raised by my hon.
colleagues.
We are all cognizant of the fact that Canadians are concerned
about the nature of business conducted in the House. It is in
the interest of all parliamentarians and the interest of Canada
and the parliamentary system to conduct, as much as possible, the
serious business of Canada in the House. Today when we watched
television and saw the Minister of Finance talk about the surplus
and the whole issue and policies surrounding the surplus, the
question that came to all of us was why was he not making this
now under ministers statements when there would be an opportunity
for others to respond and to start this discussion in terms of
how to deal with this surplus.
I appeal to not only you, Mr. Speaker, but to the government
members, and particularly to the Cabinet ministers, to use this
House and give it the due that it deserves. If we do not use it
seriously ourselves how can we expect Canadians to take it
seriously?
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has listened to the
arguments advanced by the hon. members on this point. I have to
say that when this particular chair occupant was in opposition I
raised the same point. I am familiar with the argument but I am
also familiar, unfortunately, with Speakers' rulings on this
point, so I have some bad news for the members who raised this
issue.
I cite the decision of Mr. Speaker Fraser on October 4, 1989 who
had raised before him a question of privilege by Mr. Ian Angus,
the then hon. member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan. He complained
about an important announcement made by the transportation
minister outside the House. He felt that the matter should have
been raised here in the House under statements by ministers
instead of at a press conference.
I quote Mr. Speaker Fraser:
The Speaker, of course, is not supposed to have any personal
memory of events in this place.
I agree of course.
But I do, and it has been customary from time to time over many
years for complaints to be laid before the Speaker with respect
to whether or not it was appropriate for the Government to make a
statement in the House, which of course, if that is done under
the rules enables both opposition critics to have equal time to
respond.
1510
In those days there were only three parties.
It has been argued by Members that sit on both sides of this
House on different occasions that that is the more appropriate
way to proceed. I must advise honourable Members and the public
who are listening that that is not a practice which is stipulated
in any rules of this House. Of course, as the Chair always says,
if the House wishes to change the rules then the Chair will
certainly abide by them. There are no rules to that effect as, I
say, and the honourable Member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan, in
raising this point, raises a complaint.
The Government has made a response which may or may not satisfy
honourable Members but it is not a point of privilege and it is
not a contempt of the House. I would suggest that honourable
members discuss with each other ways and means by which the
practice of making statements in the House can be followed as
often as possible.
I also refer the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the House leader of the official
opposition and the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys to the new book on House of Commons procedure,
page 379. I quote:
A Minister is under no obligation to make a statement in the
House. The decision of a Minister to make an announcement
outside of the House instead of making a statement in the House
during Routine Proceedings has been raised as a question of
privilege, but the Chair has consistently found there to be no
grounds to support a claim that any privilege has been breached.
With regret, I must state the rules as in the precedence and
advise hon. members accordingly. If members wish to change the
rules, the Chair naturally would abide by those rules and apply
them in the House.
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of
Oral Question Period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Solicitor General referred to a report that he had in hand that
was refuting my comments. It was the report given to the
Solicitor General by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
I recognize that the rules of the House would call for him to
have quoted specifically from that report in order for us to
order that report tabled. However I wonder if, in the goodwill
extended by the parliamentary secretary to myself in his
response, he would see fit to table that report immediately so
that we can have a look at it ourselves.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the parliamentary secretary
will note the observations of the hon. member and respond in due
course.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the fourth report of the
Canada-China Legislative Association regarding the visit by the
co-chairs to China in May 2000.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
During the time when you called for statements by ministers I
thought perhaps there would be one from the minister reporting to
us.
The Deputy Speaker: Apparently not. No one stood.
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-43, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Act Application Rules and certain
acts related to the Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
FUEL TAXES
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of
constituents who I am sure are concerned about the high cost of
fuels, particularly in terms of transportation fuels, but also
home heating fuels.
1515
They question the validity of keeping the 7% GST on the price of
fuel. They are concerned about the fact that the money raised by
the federal excise tax on fuel is not used for the development
and maintenance of highways.
They are concerned that this will result in an increase in
inflation. They are asking the Parliament of Canada to do
whatever it can to get the government to come to its senses on
this issue.
[Translation]
THE ELDERLY
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under
Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition signed by
1,261 people in my riding. They ask the government to have more
compassion for the elderly in Canada.
The petitioners ask parliament that the elderly, who are often
poor, be exempted from taxes, the GST, the costs of medication,
dental care, eye care, prostheses, therapeutic devices,
ambulance, and public transit.
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very honoured to present a petition from hundreds
of citizens of Winnipeg and Manitoba who are very concerned about
the state of health care in Canada today.
The petitioners call upon the federal government to increase its
share of health care funding to 25% immediately. Obviously they
remain concerned that the recent deal at the first ministers
level only brings the federal share up to 13%.
The petitioners also call upon the government to implement a
national home care program and a national program for
prescription drugs, two ideas which were promised by the
government and still not acted upon.
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a
petition on behalf of citizens in the Grand Bend-London-Kitchener
area who urge the government to eliminate the gas additive MMT as
it has negative impacts both on people's health and our ecosystem
at large.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I also have a
petition to present on health care with 400 names on it, not all
my constituents but people from throughout Saskatchewan.
They are very disappointed in the government's record on health
care. They want the government to raise its expenditure to 25%
of the total expenses immediately.
The petitioners also want the government to stop Alberta's
experiment with private sector clinics which are really
hospitals. They petition the government to do this immediately.
FUEL TAXES
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many
thousands of Canadians have come to me asking me to present a
petition which calls upon the government to do something to
prevent the terrible gouging in fuel costs.
Specifically they request immediate action to do away with the
charging of GST on home heating fuel. Most of the signatories
are from British Columbia, but I am sure that most Canadians
share their concern over this issue.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 71 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. Chuck Strahl:
Of all Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans for
dwellings on Indian reserves, how many of them are in default and
must be paid by the guarantor either by the band or the federal
government?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed by the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, and the Department
of Indian affairs and Northern Development, DIAND, as follows:
As of November 30, 1999, 24 loans are currently in arrears. All
of CMHC's activity on Indian reserves is based on a guarantee
from DIAND. CMHC does not pay any claims on these accounts. Once
CMHC is notified of an account in arrears, CMHC forwards this
information to DIAND.
Since January 1, 1987, as guarantor, DIAND has paid for 18 CMHC
loans for dwellings on Indian reserves that went in to default and
for which DIAND is recovering payments from the first nations.
With respect to loans taken by bands for which the band itself is
guarantor, records are kept by the bands themselves.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions for the Production
of Papers No. P-11 in the name of the hon. member for Surrey
Central and No. P-24 in the name of the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville?
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could deal with one first
and then the other. I call Notice of Motion No. P-11 in the name
of the hon. member for Surrey Central.
That a humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying
that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, correspondence
relating, prosecutions and issues related to extradition
concerning the bombing of Air-India 182 in 1985.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am informed as follows.
There has never been a prosecution or an extradition case related
to the Air India 182 bombing in 1985.
The investigation of criminal acts comes within the mandate of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and it is not the practice of
this House to require disclosure of matters under police
investigation.
I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
1520
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion No. P-24 pertaining to the
production of papers relating to the Air India bombing was
introduced in June 1998 and reintroduced as P-11 in the new
session.
It has taken a tremendously long time. The parliamentary
secretary first denied that there were documents. In the interim
the House was informed that the file had been referred to the
justice department. Now I am told that the document could not be
provided because of the ongoing RCMP investigation.
It shows there is a lack of political will on behalf of the
government to provide justice for 329 people. I request that
this matter be referred to the House, transferred for debate and
a free vote.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly Motion No. P-11 is
transferred for debate.
That an Order of the House do issue for copies all documents,
briefing notes, memos, minutes of meeting, consulting contracts
and reports concerning the total taxes paid (including but not
limited to: personal income tax, corporate income tax, sales
taxes, fuel taxes, user fees, property taxes, royalties.
Employment Insurance premiums, Canada Pension Plan premiums,
Workers Compensation premiums, etc) to the federal, provincial
and municipal governments by farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan,
Alberta and British Columbia.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency finds the motion unacceptable
for the reasons outlined as follows.
With reference to Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons
Procedure and Practice, chapter 10, “Responses to Orders for
the Production of Papers—Exemptions” at pages 402 and 403, the
documents as requested are:
Papers, the release of which might be detrimental to the future
conduct of federal-provincial relations or the relations of
provinces inter se (the release of papers received from provinces
to be subject to the consent of the originating province).
Second, I refer to item 7 which says:
Papers of a voluminous character or which would require an
inordinate cost or length of time to prepare.
Furthermore, the information as requested would likely be exempt
from disclosure as the confidentiality provisions of section 241
of the Income Tax Act preclude the customs and revenue agency
from disclosing any information concerning the income tax affairs
of an individual taxpayer.
I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the excuses that
the government has given with regard to this matter and I find
them totally unacceptable. I would like to have this motion
transferred for debate immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is transferred for debate.
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all Notices of
Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken
place among all parties and the member for Calgary Southeast
concerning the taking of the division of Motion No. 160 scheduled
at the conclusion of the second hour of private members' business
today. I believe there would be consent for the following motion:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on M-160, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion be deemed put, a recorded
division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, September 26,
2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
chief government whip to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, an
act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to
amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have been given the opportunity to rise before the House to
offer my support for Bill C-38, an act establishing the financial
consumer agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation
to financial institutions.
I believe the bill has been a long time coming. The PC Party of
Canada, like most people associated with the banking industry,
have been waiting for years for the government to enact such
legislation.
I must say it has been a long wait. We have had task forces
explore ways in which Canada could assist our banking industry.
There has been much consultation and various reports presented to
the government which have finally led to the drafting of this
important piece of legislation.
Bill C-38 is the culmination of a tremendous amount of effort by
many people. These individuals should be congratulated.
1525
The bill provides an overhaul of federal laws governing banks
and other financial institutions. Changes being proposed in the
legislation are expected to promote more efficiency and growth
within the banking industry. The bill will allow increased share
ownership for larger banks and provide financial institutions
with an opportunity to do more through holding companies while
also giving them a broader range of allowed investments. These
changes will help our financial institutions compete in an ever
changing global environment.
At present no single shareholder can own more than 10% of a
large bank. The bill will raise that limit to 20% yet still
prevent the control of a large bank by any single shareholder.
The legislation will allow financial institutions an opportunity
to create regulated, non-operating holding companies. These
changes could allow smaller institutions to come together and
compete with other larger institutions. Such competition could
only be beneficial to the Canadian consumer.
Financial institutions could expand their investments in the
fast growing e-commerce sector. Technology is quickly changing
the way consumers conduct their financial affairs. Therefore it
is imperative that our financial institutions be at the forefront
of this new evolution.
[Translation]
It is very important to recognize that about 220,000 Canadians
work in the banking industry in Canada. Even more impressive is
the fact that more than 500,000 people work in the Canadian
financial industry, a crucial industry in the Canadian economy.
[English]
Our financial services sector allows exports of nearly $50
billion worth of services each year. That represents 5% of
Canada's GDP.
Over the past number of years our financial institutions have
been under increasing pressure coming from our southern
neighbours. Changes to our federal laws governing banks and
other financial institutions are required if they are to compete
in the global economy. I know that our banking institutions in
West Nova can benefit from the changes being proposed in the
legislation.
If I might digress, with the ever rising, ever higher profits
that the banks are receiving, it is only appropriate that I
mention small banks being closed in rural Canada, more
specifically in my riding of West Nova. We have a small bank in
Freeport on the islands off Digby Network. That bank has been
there for years and years and is very important to the businesses
that operate in that area. Yet we are advised that it is being
closed.
Another bank in Caledonia in the riding of my colleague from
South Shore is being closed as well. That bank affects
individuals who do business in my nearby riding. In these times
it is very important that even though we have to look at changes
to how banks operate we still have to take into account how
important these small banks are to our regional economies and to
the areas they serve.
Over the past number of years our financial institutions have
been under increasing pressure from our southern neighbours. As
I said earlier, we have to enact changes that will permit our
Canadian banks to work in the global economy.
Another industry that will be affected, and I am sure the banks
in West Nova will appreciate this point, is the trucking industry
which is faced with high and ever increasing diesel costs. If
the price of diesel fuel is not soon reduced we will see our
banks experiencing defaults on loan payments and becoming used
truck industries. Their parking lots will be full of used trucks
that truckers will not be able to afford to put fuel in and to
make the payments on.
I am concerned that the cost of fuel will have a negative impact
on our local economy by increasing the cost of goods which will
in turn be another hard impact on consumers. I digress, but it
is important that we touch on these issues because they play a
very important role in our economy.
1530
Let me go back to exploring the substance of the legislation.
The bill will allow banks to set up a holding structure that
could separately regulate subsidiaries such as retail banks,
credit card companies and insurance firms.
Coming from the insurance industry prior to my political career,
I know how difficult and how bothered insurance companies are by
the potential for banks to market insurance. I am glad, and I am
hopeful that the committee will study that. The PC Party in no
way supports the sale of insurance by banks. For that matter, we
also do not support the leasing of cars. That is one of the
recommendations we will be continuing to push forward at
committee.
The aim of the bill is to allow banks to evolve to meet
competition and, at the same time, protect consumers. I would
argue, however, that due to the government's slow reaction to the
changes in the financial services sector, Canada has already
fallen behind our global competition.
One thing is clear. After years of uncertainty from the current
government, it has finally added some clarification and stability
to the banking industry. The PC Party will be supporting this
bill and we feel that this is the first step in the right
direction.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in the debate on this important bill. We have been
talking about this bill for more than seven years, and we are at
least two years late in dealing with legislation on financial
institutions.
First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the
hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, on his hard work in the
finance committee, his exceptional contribution, and the
amendments he has moved on the legislation of banks and
financial institutions.
World competition is increasingly fierce. The six major banks in
Canada are small, compared to their international competitors.
When we compare our big banks to the American or the Asian
banks, especially those in Japan, we find that what is needed is
a legislative environment conducive to increasing the ability of
our financial institutions to hold their own against
international competition as well as the competition that will
inevitably begin to appear within the markets of Quebec and of
Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the spirit of the proposed
legislation and several of its provisions. However, if the
amendments that we will put forward are rejected by the House,
we will vote against Bill C-38 for three reasons.
First, Bill C-38 grants many powers to the Minister of Finance
to determine all by himself what the future of the banks in
Quebec will be.
Second, Bill C-38 provides no guarantee that the minister will
take into consideration the specificity of Quebec's financial
system.
Third, there is no concrete measure in Bill C-38 to ensure
better access to financial services for the poor.
Under Bill C-38, which was introduced on June 13, 2000, the
Minister of Finance will have the power to decide on his own the
future of banks in Quebec. It is unacceptable for this
discretionary power to be as strong as the act itself, if not
stronger.
The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the fact that a single
shareholder could, with the approval of the Minister of Finance,
hold a 65% interest in the National Bank, the largest
Quebec-based bank.
1535
There is no need for the Minister of Finance to allow this kind
of excessive control to give the National Bank the flexibility
it needs to continue to prosper.
How can a shareholder holding 65% of the shares of a bank give
more flexibility than 65 shareholders each holding 1% of the
shares? We need legislative guarantees against any negative
impact these new ownership rules might have on employment of
professionals, consumer services, small businesses, decision
centres and the role of Montreal as an international financial
centre.
The stakes are just too high to rely on only one man, the
federal minister, especially since there are no legislative
guarantees in the bill. Bill C-38 does nothing more than list
some elements to consider that are under the sole control of the
Minister of Finance.
Worse still, Bill C-38 is full of phrases like “The Minister may
deem necessary” or “such and such a section of the Act will
cease to apply if the minister so decides”.
In other words, this bill can be made to say whatever Ottawa and
the Minister of Finance want, in terms of deciding on their own the
future of Quebec's banks. It is not obvious that the finance minister's
bill will bring about more healthy competition on the national
market. But competition is more important for our future
economic development than the creation of big banks to compete
on the world market.
Nonetheless the Minister of Finance has decided to make a law
for big banks, even if that means sacrificing Quebec banks like
the National Bank, which is the institution for small businesses
in Quebec.
As far as consumer protection is concerned, the Minister of
Finance remains vague and the bill is more wishful thinking than
real political action. The bill establishes the financial
consumer agency, which is intended to protect the consumer,
according to the minister.
The Bloc Quebecois is a staunch defender of consumer rights.
This is evidenced by the debate that we led regarding the
privacy legislation, Bill C-54, which became Bill C-6.
We remind the government that Quebec already has legislation dealing with
this issue, including the Consumer Protection Act, the Privacy
Act and acts relating to insurance, trusts, credit unions and
securities.
The establishment of a new agency is likely to create new
regulatory overlap with the measures already taken by Quebec in
an area which, after all, is a provincial jurisdiction.
The bill includes a provision called “low-fee retail deposit
account” which, according to the minister, seeks to ensure
access to financial services for low income people.
No one except the minister really knows what this “low-fee
retail deposit account” is. No one except the minister knows
who will be able to open such an account, and no one except the
minister knows whether this account will be accessible
everywhere. Why? Because all these issues will be dealt with
through regulations. For the time being we must be satisfied
with the minister's fine rhetoric, but this is not enough of a
guarantee to state that consumers will be better protected by
the new legislation.
A notice by the bank is the only thing provided in Bill C-38 in
the case of the closure of a bank branch or a reduction of
services available to consumers. With such an unrestrictive
provision, how can the Minister of Finance claim that there will
be increased access to financial services? The minister is the
only one convinced of that.
There are a number of problems with this bill and we intend to
propose amendments at report stage. It is not an easy task,
given the countless pages of the bill itself and of its
schedules, all 900 pages of it. We realize that the
discretionary power given to the Minister of Finance is much too
great for a single individual.
1540
It is like this Liberal government and its leader, the Prime
Minister, who appoints all the ministers, senators, the Governor
General of Canada, the lieutenant governors in all the
provinces, the justices on the supreme court, and government
officials, including those abroad.
Until recently, one man, the Prime Minister, had at his disposal
the personal files of 34 million individuals, dead or alive, in
Canada in the longitudinal file of Human Resources Development
Canada. He also has a file on most journalists, concocted by
the Canada Information Office, the official propaganda organ.
And now we have the Minister of Finance going a step further and
wanting to decide on his own, at his discretion, the future of
Quebec's major banks. This sort of thing would make certain
dictators drool.
Throughout the bill, whenever there are provisions concerning
banks, insurance companies, trusts, anything to do with the
financial sector, the minister always reserves the right to
determine, based on criteria known to him alone, whether or not
an operation is acceptable. He alone defines certain concepts
such as low-fee retail deposit accounts.
Generally speaking, we would have liked more clarity regarding
the decision making process and also more specifics regarding
certain concepts, such as the low-fee retail deposit accounts for
the poor.
We do not oppose increased consumer protection. However, we
do oppose provisions that duplicate and overlap those that are
already included in the Quebec consumer protection act.
Consumer protection is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
The Liberal government has a tendency to want to centralize
everything. It is systematic, disgusting and often insidious.
As I said, the bill is important. It was also important that it
be introduced in the House, but we oppose certain provisions and
if our amendments are not approved at report stage, we will vote
against this bill.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in this
business of the banks, one thing catches my attention. It is
not necessarily something that surprises me. There are many
things that unfortunately have stopped surprising me in the
House since 1993. But this caught my attention.
There are some big banks in Canada. There are a few, not
dozens, that are big. The National Bank, not to name names, is
one of these big banks.
But when it comes to a bill like the one before us, the minister
establishes two categories: the big banks which are bigger and
the big bank which is the smallest. It happens that the latter
is the National Bank.
It is not surprising that it is the smallest, because it
operates primarily in Quebec and Quebec represents only one
quarter of the Canadian population. It is therefore not
surprising that it is the smallest of the big banks, but it is
still a big bank.
One might wonder why the Minister of Finance establishes two
categories of big banks. This has repercussions because the big
banks in the privileged category will not be able to be easily
“sold” to foreign interests, while the other big bank, the
smaller one, will.
If Quebec were a country, it would not have considered passing
legislation that would have allowed its big bank to fall into
foreign hands.
1545
I can understand that Canada's Minister of Finance wants to
introduce legislation so that these big banks cannot fall into
foreign hands. But I wonder why he is prepared to sacrifice the
smallest of the big banks, which happens to be a Quebec bank,
and allow it to fall into foreign hands.
The legislation in its present form worries me. I am not the
only one it worries; many others are concerned. I repeat that
with this legislation, the young offenders legislation and other
legislation, I am tired of not yet having my own country. That
day cannot come soon enough for me.
The member for Drummond could perhaps give us her view of this
situation.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
information he just gave us to add to this debate.
I totally agree with him. One can wonder why this bill raises
from 10% to 20% the percentage of shares of large banks that can
be purchased by an individual.
The smallest bank, namely the National Bank, is based in Quebec.
It is still a big bank, but, as my colleague explained, it
operates in a smaller area since it is based in Quebec. An
individual could hold 65% of the shares, which means that there
is a greater risk of unfair competition.
A business person who holds a 65% interest in a bank like the
National Bank could deny a loan to another business person,
because this competitor could probably hurt his or her business.
That is why we are saying that it could lead to unfair
competition.
We cannot have one set of rules for the other big banks and
another one for Quebec-based banks. What was the minister
thinking when he decided to include this provision in the bill?
Was it just another way of putting Quebec in its place?
Our economy is booming. Things are going well, but Quebec should
not benefit from all that.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Come on.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: The federal government, this Liberal
government, has set itself the additional duty of centralizing
everything.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Things are fine in Quebec.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: I would point out to the Minister for
International Trade things are not as fine as all that. He need
only look at his former department, Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Things are fine in Quebec.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: If things are going well in Quebec, it is
because there are some Quebecers who have taken charge. His
government is, however, still trying through every means possible
to create problems for us and to centralize everything, because
it wants to have all the power. There is no way we will allow
that to happen.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Rivière des Mille-Îles is one of the most beautiful
rivers in Quebec and it is located in the Montreal region. I
must invite you to go down it by canoe in August. The downriver
excursion is a very popular event; this year more than 4,500
people took part. My riding is along the shores of this lovely
river.
Let us talk of something other than lovely rivers, even it is a
whole lot more interesting to talk of Rivière des Mille-Îles than
Bill C-38.
When I hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs boast
about how well things are going in Quebec, I realize he is not
being realistic. I tell myself he is not coming to see the
day-to-day situation.
1550
His riding is located in the heart of Montreal, so where is the
Minister for International Trade?
Yes, things are going well in Quebec. But if I were a federal
government member or minister, I would not brag, because
Quebecers are the ones who are doing all the work. Considering
all the money that has been taken from the social transfers to
the provinces since 1993, the minister should know that if we
have a balanced budget in Quebec, it is not thanks to Ottawa's
help. Heavens no.
Let us now deal with Bill C-38. It is true that I read it
quickly, but I spent enough time on it to come to a conclusion.
Upon reviewing this bill, I came to the conclusion that, in his
proposed bank reform, the Minister of Finance is assuming,
through Bill C-38, the right to be the only one to decide the
future of banks in Quebec. If this is indeed the case, then it
is truly worrisome.
If my interpretation of this bill is right, if the minister is
assuming this right, then it is really scary.
My colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, delivered a
brilliant speech, which shows that she came well prepared. Does
she share my impression that the Minister of Finance is assuming
the right to be the only one to decide the future of banks in
Quebec?
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely
right. This bill is very lengthy one that runs to 900 pages. It
is also very complicated.
Some of its provisions state that the minister, one person, has
the final say on certain operations. When we read the bill, we
notice that there are many provisions where the minister can
decide arbitrarily, on a whim, when it suits him. He decides to
accept or not. Nobody knows what his criteria are. We know
nothing. He does not say nothing. He is assuming the right to be
the only one to decide.
That is what the government did with Bill C-20. It has ignored
Quebecers and our institutions and wants to be the only one to
decide the future of Quebecers.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.
I am pleased as well to speak to Bill C-38 which involves
financial sector reform, a bill, as has been mentioned, that is
900 pages long and certainly deserves thorough scrutiny.
It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Finance today
during question period talking about generational debt. This is
a man, along with our Prime Minister, who was in the House in the
eighties and nineties when that huge debt was created and a large
part of it is due to compound interest.
He was talking about this generation and himself as someone who
was going to be a saviour. It was in fact our parents and the
men and the women who were in the war and lived through the
depression. They made sure their children went to school and got
an education. They made sure there would be pensions,
unemployment insurance benefits and housing programs. They made
sure that people would have homes and that they could afford the
gas and the heating fuel to keep their houses warm.
Here we have a government that has slashed and burned those
programs. It was not the social programs that caused the debt.
It was, as I said, compound interest that was paid to financial
institutions in the eighties and nineties that caused the debt to
spiral.
1555
I agree that we have a debt and that it needs to be paid, but we
also have a debt to the homeless and to the people who are on
emergency lists at hospitals. People are dying because they are
being turned away from emergency wards. Those debts are far more
important than the debt to private institutions such as banks.
We have a finance minister who has been visibly taking public
money and transferring it into private hands and we have no say.
The big announcement of an extra $12 billion goes right to the
banks. Nobody in the House has any say over how that money will
be treated, who it will go to or who it should go it. It is
completely out of our hands. That is reprehensible and
shocking when we have other debts besides financial debts.
These financial institutions are the most privileged, profitable
and wealthy institutions in Canada but they pay very little tax
compared to the profits they make. They put nothing back into
their communities. The bill will not require them to reinvest in
their communities. They will be able to pull out of communities
and end banking services at will without any recourse for the
communities involved.
The New Democratic Party, just on principle, does not support
the bill. There are things in it that are worth supporting but
not in comparison to what is not worth supporting. We do support
the expanded power to credit unions. We think it is important to
modernize financial institutions and make sure there is better
competition for insurance companies. The bill will provide more
power to the House of Commons in bank mergers.
It seems that this huge financial bill went through a screening
in a backroom committee where no elected official or average
Canadian could have a say. I do not know about most members of
parliament but I do not know any wealthy people. Most of the
people I know barely make it from month to month, paycheque to
paycheque and being able to buy shoes for their kids for the
start of school. Most of us do not have any access to the world
of privilege or wealth.
We in the NDP do not support the bill because it abandons the
wide ownership rules and it will lead to a concentration of power
into a few hands. We do not need more public money going into
private hands or more public power going into private hands. In
a democracy we want to keep power where it belongs, in the hands
of the people as much as possible.
The bill also gives far too much power to the finance minister.
Why would we want to do that when he already has enormous power?
Why would we want him to have that much power over the way we
exchange goods or the way we make decisions? In fact, very few
of us can get away from a world that depends on money. The
minister will have a final say on mergers, acquisitions,
regulations and ownership levels, and that is just not
acceptable.
There will be no accountability between a bank and its
community. As do some states in the United States, the bill will
not require banks to reinvest in the communities where they have
made their money. Banks make their money off our money. There
will be no guarantees of rural access to banking. We cannot stop
bank closures or provide no cost accounts. It reduces capital
requirements for small banks and there is no control on high risk
derivative products or off balance sheet liabilities.
In 1999 our Canadian banks made $9.1 billion in profits. That
kind of money seems unimaginable to the average Canadian when
they pay $2 billion in federal tax. The banks also got a 7%
reduction in corporate tax in the 1999 budget.
As I said, banks are privileged but they do need to be dealt
with fairly. The financial sector does have to be reformed but
it should not be reformed at the expense of the individual
Canadian who has a very hard time going to the bank. Small
businesses struggle when approaching banks for loans. They could
at least invest in our communities.
In closing, I want to say that we in the NDP oppose on
principle second reading of Bill C-38.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence. As you know, following
question period I raised the issue of a report that had been
referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General.
I indicated that my understanding of the practice and procedures
of the House was that because he did not refer specifically to
the report, I could only request that it be tabled.
1600
I have had an opportunity in the intervening period—and this is
the first opportunity I have had, which is why I beg the
indulgence of the House under this point of order—to review the
blues.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General said “I am
pleased to report to the House today that review is now
complete”, referring to the SIRC review, “and has been
submitted to the solicitor general”. This is important. He says
“There are three points in that submission that I would like to
refer to all members of the House”. He is referring to points
contained in the report. He continues, saying “The first is
that there was no political interference as alleged in the media.
The second is the draft report in fact indicated it was deeply
flawed. The third is that there is no evidence of any substantial
nature that was part of that draft report”.
In his response to my supplementary question, at the conclusion
of his response I refer you to the sentence where he stated “The
facts today are evident and they are presented here in the
House”.
I refer to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice,
page 518, chapter 13. I would like to read a portion of a
paragraph pertaining to tabling of documents and speeches.
As Speaker Glen noted in a 1941 ruling, “an honourable member is
not entitled to read from communications unless prepared to place
them on the Table of the House. The principle upon which this is
based is that where information is given to the House, the House
itself is entitled to the same information as the honourable
member who may quote the document.”
Mr. Speaker, my argument is simply this. I recognize that I
have not had an opportunity to call the parliamentary secretary's
office but I did want to be on the record as early as I possibly
could, at the earliest possible moment, and move from making a
request of the government but rather to state that the government
really must follow parliamentary practice where clearly the
solicitor general's parliamentary secretary kept referring to
these documents.
At the risk of being too repetitious, I am going to read this
again. He said “There are three points in that submission that
I would like to refer to all members of the House”. Then he
elucidates on those three points.
I note that there is a House official for the government in the
House today. I therefore request that he undertake to see that
this SIRC review which was submitted to the solicitor general,
which I have subsequently found out was submitted about a week
ago, is tabled forthwith.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I am not totally familiar with the
incident being raised by my hon. colleague from the Canadian
Alliance. However, I would expect and hope that in the usual
wisdom of the Chair the parliamentary secretary in question, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, would have an
opportunity before yourself in the Chamber to give the
appropriate explanation, and based upon and following a decision
by the Chair, certainly appropriate action might be taken.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair indicated when the
member for Kootenay—Columbia raised this issue earlier that that
is exactly what is anticipated, that the parliamentary secretary
would take the matter under advisement. I presume that either he
would table the document or come in with an argument as to why he
should not table it. That is still the position of the Chair.
I thank hon. members for their submissions and I look forward to
hearing from the parliamentary secretary in due course.
* * *
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, an
act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to
amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if it was
appropriate to have questions and comments on the debate of the
member for Yukon.
The Deputy Speaker: No one rose and that is why I am
moving now to resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre has the floor.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-38.
Not everything we do in the House is really of enormous gripping
interest to every Canadian. I know that comes as a surprise, but
this bill is being followed very closely by Canadians. Most
Canadians have a strong opinion on the state of the Canadian
banking sector and the financial institutions that Bill C-38
seeks to regulate.
In fact most Canadians feel very strongly about Canadian banks.
Most Canadians think that Canadian banks are greedy and bloated
institutions that are not really serving the best interests of
Canadians.
That is why they anxiously awaited this legislation.
1605
They waited patiently while the MacKay task force studied this
country's financial institutions in great detail for over two
years. That report was finally presented to the Minister of
Finance. He chose to implement many of the recommendations which
have now found themselves into Bill C-38.
Things that the MacKay task force dealt with covered many of the
concerns that Canadians have. Many Canadians came forward and
made representations to the task force. Even through their
members of parliament they have come forward to complain bitterly
about the inadequacies in the Canadian banking sector. They have
complained bitterly about the closing of local banks, whether
they are in the inner city of Winnipeg, which I represent, where
services are being arbitrarily shut down, or in rural Canada. We
heard the Tory member speak passionately about how frustrating it
is for the people in rural Nova Scotia who see their local
branches being shut down, things they came to expect from our
chartered banks.
We have to remember that the chartered banks enjoy a privileged
status. This is not any old business. This is not a Home
Hardware that can decide to build a new store in one place and
shut down another one somewhere else. That is completely its
business; it is a completely private institution. The chartered
banks are privileged in the sense that we guarantee them a
certain amount of business and a certain amount of profit. In
return they owe us a certain amount of service. That was the
deal. That was the tacit agreement between the Government of
Canada and the chartered banks. That is why they are chartered.
But they have broken their promise time and time again.
In an era of unprecedented record windfall profits, what do they
do? They shut down the local branches so that seniors and inner
city people in my riding at least do not have access. In the
inner city of Winnipeg over 20 branches from all of the five
chartered banks were shut down. Branches were shut down
arbitrarily.
The banks increased service fees. With record profits one might
think they might be able to lighten up on the service fees
perhaps. They have eliminated jobs. Every time a branch closes,
jobs are usually eliminated. They have installed ATMs rather than
personalized service, which many seniors are frustrated by, and
then they have the audacity to charge customers every time they
use the ATMs. The banks are saving a fortune in salaries by
putting in those machines and then they have the unmitigated gall
to charge a fee every time they are used.
These are real frustrations that Canadians have brought to the
attention of members of parliament. They had hoped they would
have been addressed in a document like this bill.
A number of shareholders are getting very active. Mr. Speaker, I
do not know if you have ever been to a shareholders meeting of a
major chartered bank, but I have. I crashed two of them last
year. I say I crashed them. I borrowed some proxy votes and I
visited them in the company of a wonderful man from Quebec, Mr.
Yves Michaud, who is a champion of shareholder rights and of
Canadians' rights in this regard. I think he is a Canadian hero
and should get the Order of Canada for what he does. He goes to
every one of those shareholder meetings of the chartered banks
and he moves motions and amendments to try to democratize the
corporate structure there and to force the banks to be more
accountable to the needs of Canadians. It is kind of fun.
There were 1,200 people in the room all looking at their shoes.
One would think it would be a democratic process where anybody
could stand and move a motion or an amendment. Only nine motions
were moved. All nine were moved by Mr. Michaud and seconded by
me. That was it for the whole program of the day, believe it or
not. In a room of 1,200 people one would think there would be
more interest in how the banks are run but they were all as quiet
as mice pretending nothing was wrong with their financial
institutions.
One of the motions we moved was to limit the executive salary of
the CEO to 20 times that of an ordinary teller. Frankly, that is
still a whack of dough. The average CEO in Japan makes 13 times
that of an average worker. The average CEO of a Canadian
chartered bank makes 220 times that of an average worker. It is
unbelievable. That motion failed. It did not succeed.
Another motion almost succeeded. We wanted gender parity on the
board of directors. The result of that vote was 49.6 to 50.4,
numbers we might recognize as they are exactly the same numbers
as in the last Quebec referendum by some happy coincidence. That
one failed just by a little.
1610
Another motion we moved was to limit the number of boards that a
director can sit on. George Cohon, the CEO of McDonald's, sits
on 54 boards of directors, including the chartered banks. They
meet 10 times a year. How can someone possibly attend some 550
board meetings and make intelligent rulings about how the
organizations should be run? I do not think it can be done. That
is why there is a paucity of ideas and accountability at the top
level of the banks. Those guys just sit on the boards and they
vote each other raises. I am sure of that.
We moved a motion to limit the number of boards of directors a
person is allowed to sit on to no more than 10. That one did not
succeed either.
It was an exciting exercise in trying to democratize the
corporations. As governments lose power and lose their ability
to manage the economy and the corporations take over more and
more, the only way we are going to have any democratic say is if
we democratize corporations. Frankly these corporations run above
and beyond the dictates of truly elected parliaments like this
one.
Most Canadians think that Canadian banks are not good corporate
citizens. They are disappointed in the performance of Canadian
banks. They do not give a hoot about mbanx. They want them to
pay mtaxes. That would be better than having mbanx. How about
some mtaxes from the Bank of Montreal?
One thing I will say is that John Cleghorn was a much better
sport than Matthew Barrett. Matthew Barrett was really nasty
about these amendments, especially the one about limiting his
salary. Cleghorn at least got a chuckle out of it.
Canadians think that chartered banks do nothing but take and
take and take and never give anything back in return. That is
the image. It is the old Snidely Whiplash image with the top hat
and handlebar moustache taking the mortgaged family farm at the
first sign of danger. That is the image.
The banks have a big job on their hands in terms of public
relations. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
trying to convince Canadians that they are of warm, fuzzy, caring
institutions that are fun to do business with. They are anything
but. It is almost as absurd to watch the Liberals trying to
paint themselves as the party of the centre left and the
champions of health care. It is almost that absurd and that big
of a stretch that Canadian banks flounder around trying to
pretend that they care.
Ask any small business in Canada how much the banks care in
terms of providing venture capital. They will not lend someone
money unless it can be proven it is not needed. Even when they
do, at the slightest hint of any trouble in the business, they
just demand the loan. They call the loan, pull it right out from
under it and another small business collapses.
We were hoping that Bill C-38 would have something like chapter
11 in the United States. I hate to look to the United States for
ideas; it bothers me. However the United States at least has
this sanctuary that a business can hide out in when the banks are
trying to blow down its house. Chapter 11 is an interim stage
before bankruptcy. The business calls its chapter 11 status and
the banks cannot touch it, at least temporarily. We would have
welcomed that.
A good example of how unbelievably and unabashedly greedy the
banks have become is student loans. One of the obligations that
was passed on to the banks in exchange for the exclusive
privilege to do all the credit card transactions and the billions
of dollars they get from that was to handle the student loans
program. They handled it for a couple of years and they were not
making enough money so they tried to dump it and get out of it.
Our party believes there should not be student loans because
there should be free tuition. Nobody should be paying tuition to
go to university, but that is another issue. If I were in charge
of a $12 billion surplus, the first thing I would declare would
be absolutely free tuition for every Canadian student. We can
afford it. It would cost $3 billion a year. It would be a great
idea. We would not be putting our students at the mercy of
ruthless, greedy and bloated bankers who take advantage of them.
I do not think that is in anybody's best interests.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre on his speech
and thank him for his kind words about Yves Michaud. Mr. Michaud
deserves to be praised because, in view of his age and his
career, he could very well be enjoying a peaceful retirement and
thinking only of his family and of himself.
1615
However, he prefers, since he does it so well, to take the side
of the small shareholders, the small investors, and vigorously
defend the often difficult cause of these people with those who
we might call “those financial monsters”, the banks and the
Canadian financial system, with increasing success. To my way of
thinking, it is very encouraging to see how the challenge Mr.
Michaud set for himself is evolving and to see his success.
It is a bit like the successes, in educational terms, the
sovereignists have enjoyed in Quebec since the 1960s by
explaining to the public the merits of the sovereignist proposal.
This is what Mr. Michaud is doing with respect to the banks by
racking up successes and a better understanding over the weeks,
months and years.
I think this, from the member for Winnipeg Centre, is very
flattering for Mr. Michaud, who certainly deserves it.
I would like to ask my colleague from Manitoba how he would
react if one of the major Canadian banks were located primarily
in Manitoba and doing a growing business, as is the case of the
National Bank in Quebec, and he learned, as we Quebecers did,
that the Minister of Finance has a particular plan in mind for
Quebec's National Bank, the bank for small and medium business,
by giving it distinct society status in the present instance, by
opening the door and pulling out all the stops to enable any
foreign company to acquire 65% of the shares of Quebec's National
Bank, instead of limiting foreign ownership of it to 20%.
How would my dear colleague react if this were a Manitoba bank?
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we would
react very negatively to any intrusion of that nature. The
possibility of losing our economic sovereignty is only one step
away from losing our sovereignty, period. I know the people of
Manitoba and Canadians generally do not want to see the takeover
of their institutions by foreign enterprise and foreign agencies.
The 10% rule was put there specifically to stop the Chase
Manhattan Bank from taking over the Toronto Dominion Bank in the
1960s. It was put there for the very specific reason of trying
to shield one of our Canadian institutions from an unfriendly
corporate raid by American interests.
I can honestly say to the member for Trois-Rivières that
we would react very negatively if we were faced with similar
circumstances as he outlined in the province of Quebec and the
Banque Nationale.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg
Centre on his speech. I could not have done better myself and I
really mean that.
I also want to share with him some information which came my way
this summer. It was really heart-rending to get calls from
farmers who were in danger of losing their land and of having
their mortgages pulled. It was very heart-rending and difficult
to deal with but not nearly as difficult as what they face.
Second, the hon. member mentioned the banks walking away from
the administration of student loans. I can tell him that just
recently the chartered bank which had been doing that work in
Saskatchewan gave notice that it will no longer do it because it
is not profitable enough.
My colleague mentioned that the banks have been given many
benefits. In some ways they are almost treated like an extension
of the crown. However, they have a corporate and social
responsibility on the other hand from which they often walk
away.
I want to ask my colleague about the Community Reinvestment Act.
The New Democratic Party had that in its 1997 platform because it
was very clear to us that many people who really needed loans, as
my colleague said, could not get them because the banks were not
prepared to lend to them.
Could he elucidate and give us a bit more detail on what I
believe to be the wisdom of that kind of legislation?
1620
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Community Reinvestment
Act is an American idea that works very well in large American
cities. Banks are obligated to reinvest a certain amount of
their profits into community enterprises or small businesses or
start-up businesses that otherwise might not have qualified for a
loan under a more traditional setting and certainly would not
have qualified for a loan in Canada.
Sometimes they are funding non-profits or giving bank loans to
groups that otherwise would not qualify. In some small way at
least the banks are repaying for the privilege they enjoy as a
chartered bank in this country. We are disappointed there is no
reference to it in Bill C-38.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to participate in this debate on an important piece
of legislation to reform the Canadian financial system.
When dealing with the Canadian financial system, we should be
aware that we are dealing with day to day operations, the savings
of Canadians, the economic activity that should exist in all
communities where there are institutions where we can make
transactions and deposit our savings. This kind of bill is a
matter of bread and butter and it concerns the economic activity.
In that sense we could perhaps take the government to task for
not doing enough publicity and raising public awareness of the
importance of this bill, which is the end result of a long
process. It is not easy to amend the Bank Act. Extensive
consultations are necessary. It seems to me more thought should
have been given to raising public awareness.
Something struck me when I read the bill. I would like to bring
a number of points to the attention of the House, starting with the
regulatory authority the bill is giving to the finance minister.
When we talk about regulatory power, just as when we talk about
the privatization of public agencies, we are talking about loss
of control, the loss of the right to have a say in these matters
for parliament, parliamentarians, the elected representatives
that we are, and therefore a loss of control for the people, the
Quebec people and the Canadian people, because things will be
done mostly through regulations. That is the bureaucracy.
I believe this is a threat to democracy about which we make
great claims. We are very good at telling people how to
administer themselves. Canada takes great pride in doing so. In
certain respects it may be right, but it seems to me it should
be more concerned than it is about ensuring that the elected
members of parliament do not lose their powers so systematically
and regularly.
You know as well as I do—and the matter is being debated in
university circles—that constitutional experts are increasingly
worried about the loss of power experienced in democracies by the
people and their representatives. It is indicative of a certain
form of disregard for the democratic system to which we owe our
presence here.
There is another point that strikes me: this reform is taking
place in a context fraught with contradictions—my colleague from
the NDP alluded to this earlier—and we are asked to stand by
somewhat passively. As consumers we are even more powerless and
victimized. I am referring to the decrease in banking services in
general, the decrease in the number of business hours and the
increase in service charges, which is a contradiction in view of
the decrease in services.
I am also referring to job loss. This is another contradiction
since banks are raking in huge profits, record profits that are
piling up year after year to the tune of several billions of
dollars; and the very same month, they have the nerve to announce
they are going to lay off dozens, hundreds, thousands of bank
employees as a result of a streamlining effort that might be
justified. This is a tragedy across the world.
1625
And this brings us to another characteristic of banks, which is
their symbolic value. People talk about neo-liberalism, with its
internal logic, the infernal logic of modern capitalism whereby
profits are never high enough and must always be boosted. It has
now reached the point where if the expected profits do not
materialize, it is the stock which takes the hit.
So there is a logic which is increasingly uncontrolled and which
seems uncontrollable whereby life, for those who work, must be
infernal, when one is subject to such pressure, always in the
name of the great diktat of money, profit and profit for profit's
sake.
One gets the feeling, in the development strategy of all the
banks, of the entire Canadian banking system, of an attempt at
rationalization which is far from being to the benefit of
consumers, which is far from being to the benefit of users, which
is far from being to the benefit of employees, and which is aimed
solely at profit, for example, perhaps going beyond what
shareholders are asking for.
Some interesting studies could be done of this because social
peace, quality of life, harmony and distribution of wealth are
concepts that so-called civilized societies such as ours hold
dear. Some surveys are perhaps in order. They would show that
the big anonymous managers of this world, with their red
suspenders, would perhaps do better to develop greater
sensitivity to people's real expectations, to get a better read
on the aspirations of the public in general.
There is one specific area that is somewhat related to this, and
to which my colleague has referred, something dear to the heart
of my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve: the community
aspect. There is one striking aspect, in particular in the
eastern part of Montreal: branch closures. It
seems that it could be demonstrated that the poorer the
population, the more bank branches are being closed, and thus the
fewer tangible, physical services are being provided.
The physical accessibility of services to the public is being
decreased, services to people who are already disadvantaged, who
may have difficulty getting around and may not be able to afford
to. Perhaps they have to take a bus or the metro to a bank that
is further away because their local one has been closed,
thumbing its nose at customers and their needs.
This is evidence of a management philosophy that must be
deplored, a philosophy that is totally egocentric. In a sector
that is totally pretentious, judging by its advertising boasting
about its services to customers, while closing hundreds and
hundreds of branches as is systematically happening with all the
banks, I believe there are grounds for criticism and for
wondering where things are headed, since once again this is all
happening within a context of huge profits.
There is one other very troubling aspect to this bill: the
discretionary power given to the minister to apply the
legislation. When one reads something along the lines of “the
minister may, if he deems necessary” and “if the minister so
decides”, these are discretionary powers that are always cause
for concern and always troubling. It should be made clearer.
The minister's powers should be better defined, so as to be in a
better position to criticize them, to assess the decisions made
and the quality of the management, by the Department of Finance
and its minister, of any issue.
This is a serious criticism, because discretionary power implies
arbitrary decisions. And that is much more serious. It is even
harder to protect oneself against arbitrary decisions.
Another aspect—and this refers to the question that I asked the
hon. member for Winnipeg Centre—concerns of course Quebec's
largest bank, which is granted special status. That bank is
ranked sixth or seventh in Canada, but it does business almost
exclusively in Quebec.
1630
Quebec's National Bank is a bank that does not operate on as
large a territory as the other major banks, but it is
nevertheless a big bank. Under the bill, a single shareholder
could buy its shares and hold a 65% interest in it, while the
limit is 20% for the other banks.
Hon. members will realize that, for us sovereignists, the
message is very clear. Some wonder what Quebec sovereignty is all
about; they wonder why we should have the status of a province
when we are subjected and dominated as a people, when, in spite
of his great competence, the Quebec minister of finance can only
make recommendations or suggestions to his federal counterpart,
who may or may not take them into account. This is what being
dominated is about. This is what not being a sovereign nation is
all about. By contrast, if Quebec were a sovereign state, it goes
without saying that Quebec's National Bank would not be at the
mercy of foreign investors as it is about to be.
Hon. members will realize that there is a constitutional area
and that the example I just provided is an illustration of
non-sovereignty. This is what it would mean, among other things,
for Quebecers who are listening to us.
There is another aspect to this issue in that the federal
government is interfering in the area of consumer protection,
something the Quebec government is already doing very effectively
with its own legislation. Once again, the federal government is
sticking its nose where it does not belong, which has become a
habit.
In my opinion, this attitude fits in with the social union
concept, with the new aggressive and determining role the federal
government will play in the lives of Canadians in the next
century. The federal government will be the real government, and
the provincial governments will be nothing more than large RCMs,
large regional county municipalities. That may be necessary for
the good management of Canada. It is the problem of Canadians.
But for Quebecers, it is a disaster.
If we stay in the federation, the Quebec government will lose
some of its powers, it will become a large regional government
and will have all of its legislation overruled, as it is already
systematically being done and as is being done today with this
bill.
The federal government is duplicating legislation that is
working well, as it did yesterday with regard to endangered
species, an area where Quebec has had its own legislation for
years. That legislation has been very effective. The federal
government has decided, without consultation, to legislate in the
same area, totally ignoring everything Quebec may have done.
Therefore we must realize that this raises serious
constitutional issues.
The subject of the Banque Nationale is a good opportunity to talk
about the Quebec model in the area of finance and venture
capital.
Quebecers, as you might know and as I have come to notice when I
was industry critic from 1993 to 1995, are the envy of many
Canadians because of the tools we have in the area of finance.
There is the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec, the
Caisse de dépôt et placement, the Société générale de financement
and the wonderful Mouvement Desjardins, despite all the critics
we can hear about it. Thank God it is there. If the Mouvement
Desjardins did not exist, Quebec sovereignty could well be
unthinkable. The Mouvement Desjardins is still a free
organization, depending on Quebec resources only and we must be
thankful about that. Then there is the CSN's Fonds de
développement.
Being interconnected, all these organizations offer us a galaxy
of stakeholders who can reduce the risks and who invest more and
more in some high risk and high technology areas. Thanks to them,
Quebec is amongst the best in the world in certain areas. I am
thinking for instance of biotechnology and aeronautics. It is
important to recognize it, what with Bombardier being the largest
manufacturing corporation in Canada.
Thus, when the federal government interferes in this sector, it
touches a very sensitive subject where Quebec, as in many other
areas, has nothing to learn from our Canadian friends.
1635
In closing, I too want to pay tribute to Mr. Yves Michaud, just
like my hon. colleague for Winnipeg Centre did earlier. Mr.
Michaud is a great Quebecer. A former member of the national
assembly, he was a career journalist. He represented Quebec in
Paris with great dignity. A cultured mind and a very eloquent
speaker, Mr. Michaud made us proud wherever he went. Today, he is
fighting a very important and extremely worthy battle to protect
small savers and consumers against a huge monster, the Canadian
financial system.
He has been scoring points. He has also been lecturing the
financial establishment, which is really not a bad thing to do.
Earlier, my colleague from the New Democratic Party compared the
compensation package of the bank directors to the wages of the
bank tellers. This is a very normal thing to do. When we compare
ourselves to other countries, we see how far things have gone
here.
We must give the credit to Mr. Michaud, despite some rather mean
news reports recently aired by the CBC. Sometimes, in Quebec, we
go for attack journalism. We had a good example then of the kind
of petty journalism that members are probably aware of.
Fortunately, Mr. Michaud used all of his fine qualities and
eloquence to set things straight.
This is all I had to say. Obviously for all these reasons,
unless it undergoes major changes, the Bloc Quebecois will be
voting against the bill as it is and will be bringing forward
amendments in due course.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Trois-Rivières for an excellent speech. I
can certainly be proud to associate myself with most of his
comments, but there is one thing I would like to hear him speak
further on.
The results from most surveys of small and medium size
businesses show that 45% of them say that if it were not for the
lack of venture capital they could expand their businesses and
create more jobs. In other words, the banks are not providing
the venture capital that Canadian businesses need to expand.
The hon. member spoke to us about the Desjardins and Caisses
populaires as being one institution that may fill those needs.
Labour leaders with vision, like the great Louis Laberge in the
province of Quebec, founded the solidarity fund in that province.
In our province we have what we call the Crocus Fund which is a
labour sponsored investment fund using union money to reinvest in
the community.
Could the hon. member tell the House a bit more about men with
vision like Louis Laberge who had the foresight to put in place
labour sponsored investment funds that I believe fill the need so
well for venture capital? Could the member explain that process
in his province a little bit more?
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
I hope I am not mistaken, but when I was the critic for
industry, it seems to me there was a clear difference between the
situation in Canada and in Quebec as far as venture capital is
concerned.
With the mechanisms we have set up in Quebec, we do not have any
problem with venture capital. We have enough risk capital to
finance most projects, something that would not happen in Canada.
The creation of the solidarity fund, for example, may have
widened the gap even more. Since the same kind of initiative has
not been taken in English-speaking Canada, differences have
become even more striking, because we already have Desjardins,
which is a powerful co-operative movement, whereas the credit
unions in Canada are far from being as important.
1640
The solidarity fund alone is as big as everything similar that
could be found in the rest of Canada.
The venture capital problem is not the same. I do not think it
is a real problem in Quebec, but, as the hon. member said, it is
apparently a problem in the rest of Canada for 45% of business
people.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I also thank the member for Trois-Rivières for his
incisive remarks.
There really are some similarities between places like
Saskatchewan, where I am from, and many of the areas in Quebec.
One similarity would be that there are many small towns in rural
areas where if a bank closed down there would be a serious
problem. Another similarity is that we share a strong credit
union movement and it is very good that we have credit unions.
The member talked about bank closures in small communities, of
which, as I have indicated, there are many in Quebec. Does he
see anything effective in this legislation that would stop bank
closures? We do not see it. I wonder if, from his reading of
the bill, there is anything in the bill that would prevent the
banks in any way or strongly hinder them from closing small
branches at will.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: No, Mr. Speaker. The reason this is one
of the focuses of our criticism is that the bill provides only
that the banks must give notice of a branch closure. In Quebec,
if you lay off more then 10 employees, you must give notice. So
there is nothing new under the sun.
In view of the need, the quasi essential role of the banks—we
need banking services in our civilized society—under a sort of
laissez-faire approach the banks manage this at their discretion.
The situation is all the more unpleasant because this takes
place in a context of huge profits, with staff being laid off all
at once and services cut. So, if we put that all together, we
come up with a rather unpleasant business.
We have a golden opportunity here to limit that, to make it more
civilized. The law is made to civilize things a bit, but the
government is missing the boat completely, because it says that
the bank will simply have to give notice to those concerned, no
doubt the Minister of Labour, in Quebec at least, when a branch
with more than 10 employees not transferred elsewhere by the
employer is involved.
So it is totally weak and rather hypocritical, because there is
a problem. There are hundreds and hundreds of persons who have
lost their jobs in the banking sector in Quebec, and the
government is doing nothing to establish constraints to make the
situation a little fairer.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak
to Bill C-38, which deals with the reform of the financial
system.
For the benefit of our listeners, that means the reform of the
whole banking network and the whole system of financial
institutions in Canada. A review of the act takes place every 10
years or so. I have been a member of parliament for seven years,
and the act is now being reviewed. This is probably the only time
it will be while I am a member of parliament.
This legislation is very important as it governs every financial
transaction, not only our small deposits at the bank, but also
any transfer of funds across Canada.
Moreover this is happening at a time when globalization is
changing all the mechanisms that govern how trade is conducted
between various countries around the world, which will have an
impact on the way financial services are structured.
Therefore, we must take a serious look at the whole thing and
see if indeed the reorganization under way is interesting,
satisfactory and good for the future of the financial system in
Canada and more specifically in Quebec.
When reading Bill C-38 one notices that it gives the Minister of
Finance total control over the future of Quebec banks. Moreover,
it does not give any guarantee the minister will take into
consideration the specific nature of Quebec's financial system.
1645
A case in point, to which we will get back later on, is the way
the bill deals with the possible acquisition of the National Bank
of Canada, the type of ownership that might apply to this bank
compared to other major banks in the rest of Canada.
It is the kind of double standard we in the Bloc Quebecois find
totally unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to the Quebec
government. The minister of finance of Quebec said so in a letter
to the Minister of Finance of Canada, dated June 7, 2000, clearly
stating that there are four main criteria to determine what
constitutes public interest, and these are not included in the
legislation. As far as I am concerned they should be.
The first criterion is the effect of change on present
activities in these banks, including the services available. It
must therefore be ensured that this bill has a proper
administrative framework and is not merely dependent on the good will
of the Minister of Finance.
The second effect is the effect the change will have on
employment, both at head office and in the branches, including
professional positions and those requiring specialized expertise.
In other words, we do not want to see a change that would make
banks into empty shells, which would for instance make the
National Bank a kind of foreign entity in Quebec. At the end of
the day, this would mean we would not longer have any control
over the bank itself. There would just be an empty shell, and all
the specialized jobs, all the jobs with particular, strategic
importance, might disappear, particularly from head office, and
end up elsewhere. Thus we would lose the control developed over
the years.
The minister of finance of Quebec also wishes to see taken into
account the effect of the change on the economy of Quebec and its
technological development.
The entire banking sector is one that is heavily impacted by
technological change, but it is also one with a domino effect on
business. When, for example, there is a decision to lend money to
businesses to enable them to conform to new technological
requirements, in order to be in a competitive position, the
lenders must be in place and prepared to take actions that
reflect the particular context of Quebec. To that end, we feel
it is important to follow up on the recommendation by the Quebec
minister of finance.
The last characteristic, the last condition set by the Quebec
minister of finance is the effect of change in the financial
sector of Quebec and the role of Montreal as a financial centre,
particularly as far as keeping final decision making centres in
Montreal.
I believe these are four important criteria which the federal
government must take into account and which are absent from this
bill at the present time.
As I said at the start, this is an important bill.
Changes will not be made overnight. Once passed, it will set the
framework for financial institutions in Canada for many years to
come. It seems important to me that Quebec's distinctiveness be
taken into account and treated along the lines of the interests
of Quebec as opposed to those of the Minister of Finance of
Canada, which are very different.
I would also like to emphasize another point made by the
minister of finance of Quebec, who wrote:
We think that the legislation should include mechanisms to
ensure that measures are enforced to safeguard against the
adverse effects of allowing an individual to hold more than 20%
of the voting shares of a bank in aforementioned areas.
So, through its finance minister, the Quebec government clearly
cautioned that major changes must be made to the legislation. The
Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill and will eventually vote
against it, if these amendments are not incorporated into the
bill per se.
As we know, bills have been put forward, including one by the
hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, dealing with community
reinvestment, inspired by a practice existing in the United
States, whereby banks are required to have some sort of social
mandate.
As the hon. member for Trois-Rivières was saying earlier, and
this is true as well in all the regions of Quebec and probably
all the regions of Canada, concentration in the banking system
today has the following consequence: if there were no credit
unions in several regions of Quebec, a local banking system would
simply no longer exist. This is because, in the past, banking
operations were based solely on economic and financial criteria,
without any concern for the social implications of these
operations.
I think we had an ideal opportunity to include in this bill some
major elements of the bill on community reinvestment introduced
by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
1650
I think we could have taken a page from the American experience
and applied it to the Canadian system. In a few years, we would
have realized that, instead of seeing our regions abandoned by
the banks, as we have seen in the last couple years, perhaps they
would have come back to this market in accordance with the
requirements of the act.
This bill is the result of major technical work. With this bill,
some cleaning up is being done, but there are still major points
that need to be corrected, and not enough is being done.
Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois considers that no concrete measures
have been taken to give the poor greater access to financial
services, as I was saying when I spoke about community
investment.
The Minister of Finance has chosen to unilaterally decide the
future of Quebec banks. Figures have come out lately and we have
seen what is being done with the surpluses in Canada. Last year,
the Minister of Finance announced a $3 billion surplus, which
will actually reach $12 billion. This was well known from the
beginning. But to avoid a debate on the way this surplus should
be used, the budget forecasts were fudged.
With this new law, the Minister of Finance will have even
greater powers, and I find this dangerous. For instance, the bill
is full of expressions like “the Minister may, if he deems it
necessary” or certain clauses could be applied “if the Minister
so decides”. In other words, this bill can be made to say
whatever the federal government and the Minister of Finance want,
in terms of deciding on their own the future of Quebec's banks,
among other things. This is unacceptable.
The main point is that, under the bill, in a bank like the
National Bank, a single shareholder could, with the approval of
the Minister of Finance, hold a 65% interest in the National
Bank, the largest Quebec-based bank.
The Minister of Finance does not need to allow this kind of
excessive control to give the National Bank the flexibility it
requires to continue to prosper.
Why would a situation where a shareholder owns 65% allow more
flexibility than one where a shareholder owns 1%?
In the future, this could prove to be very dangerous. The
Minister of Finance has not thought this through. Some
legislative guarantees are needed to prevent any negative impact
these new ownership rules might have on employment of
professionals, consumer services, small businesses, decision
making centres, and the role played by Montreal as an
international financial centre.
It is not obvious that this bill will bring about healthier
competition on the national market. But competition is more
important for our future economic development than the creation
of big banks to compete on the world market.
The Minister of Finance has decided to draft legislation
benefiting the major banks. However, if that means sacrificing
Quebec banks like the National Bank, which is the institution for
small businesses in Quebec, he is surely aware that if he does
not amend his law he will not have adequately met the needs of
Quebecers or their desire to have a financial system that works
for them, instead of the financial system.
Let us go back in time. Before 1960, Quebec had few experts who
could see and understand the importance of all that. Since 1960,
since people like Jacques Parizeau helped create the Caisse de
dépôt et placement du Québec, since Quebec acquired such
instruments as the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs, and the
Fonds d'actions de la CSN, many management tools have been
developed. We are now aware of the power of money.
We now know that we can get tools that would help us make the
best possible decisions in the interests of Quebec.
The bill before us is something we are quite familiar with.
There are in the House sovereignists who want Quebec to have at
its disposal the best possible tools to build its future. The day
Quebec becomes sovereign, we will inherit a lot of federal
statutes during the transition period and this will be one of the
most significant. We might as well pass good legislation that
is in the interests of Quebec and would allow Quebecers to get
down to business the day after the referendum is won, without
having to correct too many mistakes made under the federal
system.
1655
This is why we carry out our duties in the House. We will
criticize this bill and come up with some amendments so that we
end up with a bill that is much more acceptable for Quebec and
for the rest of Canada, one that would give us the tools we need.
I also want to take this opportunity, at second reading, to talk
about consumer protection. The Minister of Finance remains quite
vague on this issue. In my mind, what he says sounds more like
wishful thinking than a strong political will.
It would be in everyone's interests for us to consider this bill
in detail and bring forward appropriate amendments.
This bill establishes the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada,
the objective of which, according to the minister, is to protect
consumers.
The Bloc Quebecois has long been recognized as a champion of
people's rights. We have had important debates on these issues,
including on the Privacy Act, where was shown that the federal
government had passed legislation that would not meet its
objectives and that would have to be reviewed before long to
ensure proper management of personal information. We have seen
the results of such a piece of legislation.
Internal management of information networks within the
government is totally inadequate. I received at home some
information from the Department of Human Resources Development.
In its big brother database I am registered as working in the
processing industry in Ontario. A lot of the information sent to
me was false.
So I had to send it back to the government saying that the
information was false and had to be corrected. But that
information had been going around for years. It was used in
studies, and we did not even know what kind of information the
federal government had about us.
This same government that is unable to manage its information
properly brought in Bill C-56, which became Bill C-6 regarding
the protection of personal information, and it did not go nearly
as far as Quebec went in its own legislation in that area.
That is why we have our doubts about the finance minister's
desire to really protect consumers.
The financial consumer agency will create numerous regulatory
overlaps with measures already taken by Quebec in this area. In
any event, it is a sector which comes under the jurisdiction of
the provinces, of Quebec.
This same bill makes provision for a low-fee retail deposit
account, which the Minister of Finance says will ensure those
with low incomes accessibility to financial services.
No one knows exactly what this low-fee retail deposit account
is, except for the minister. We have not been able to get a good
definition of it. No one knows who would be entitled to such an
account, except for the minister, and no one knows whether this
account will be available everywhere, except for the minister. It
would be nice if we knew a bit more.
This bill gives the minister considerable discretionary power.
What is more, in a definition that is important for those with
low incomes, we do not know exactly how it will be managed. Since
the legislation is revised only once every ten years, it would
have been good to have this spelled out off the bat.
Why is this not known? Because everything will be defined by
regulation. For the moment, we must be satisfied with what the
minister has told us since we are unable to get at the meat of
it.
In conclusion, if the proposed legislation is to be acceptable
to Quebec, it will need to contain important legislative
guarantees not now present. The most flagrant example is what
will become of the National Bank if the present wording of the
bill is not changed. The minister is given far too much
discretion, considering the guarantees he has given us in the
past.
Quebec must not find itself at the mercy of Canada's finance
minister. I think that major amendments should be moved and
accepted by the Liberal majority, so that in the end we will have
legislation on reform of the financial system that meets a number
of conditions, both for Quebec and for Canada.
I suggest that members read what the president of the National
Bank had to say. He thought it could be a bit higher than
20%—say even more than 40% or something like 49%—but this all
has to be discussed.
1700
As far as the 65% is concerned, I think that control of anything
more than 50% of the National Bank, as provided for by this bill,
is a bad thing. The bill will have to be amended within two,
three or four years or it will put undue pressure on the finance
minister.
The current finance minister will certainly not be around until
the end of this century. Two, three, five or ten years from now,
we may have another finance minister. Other Canadian governments
will make other choices, and we might not necessarily be able to
trust the finance minister fully.
I believe the current minister has already shown us that, as far
as surplus management is concerned, we should not trust him. Nor
can we assume that his successors will be any better. It is
essential that Quebec's Banque Nationale be provided with
legislative protection.
This is an important bill, legislation that will not be reviewed
for several years. This bill proposes many significant changes.
There are constructive ideas on the table. The government of
Quebec gave us advice and warnings regarding the conditions
required.
I hope that the federal government will act responsibly, that it
will take the time to study these amendments, that it will agree
with our arguments and that it will make some changes so that
Canada's financial system will be well accepted by all sectors.
It is important to be able to trust our financial system and,
consequently, that this system reflect a consensus. We have not
reached that consensus yet. Such a consensus would enable us to
have the financial tools that would help us face globalization
and the challenges that lie ahead of us.
It is important that we give these tools to every family and
every person working in our regions.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-38, a bill on the reform of financial
institutions and banks.
This is a bill that has been talked about for a long time. Much
has been written, much uproar has ensued. It has triggered much
action and reaction, and one could say we are late in doing
something, because globalization and the inevitable competition
between major partners are among the challenges in the world
context which is about to become ours, if it is not already.
On a number of occasions, the Bloc Quebecois has intervened in
this regard. But here we are now faced with the bill as a fait
accompli, and the government seems to be a rush to get it
passed, so we are taking part in the debate.
I have not come with the bill in hand, since it is 900 pages
long. It is not something everyone will read, but it is a bill
that creates rights we find insufficient. We therefore wish to
put on the record that, if the corrections we will be proposing
at the report stage do not get through, we will be forced to
vote against the bill. I do, however, wish to state right off
that this bill contains a number of improvements with which we
agree.
We note, for example, that the Minister of Finance has
incorporated the recommendation made by Henri-Paul Rousseau that
the financial institutions, insurance companies and various
institutions be allowed to join together against foreign
competition. He has added this to his bill, and we acknowledge
that it was not in the original.
1705
Let us now look at what is wrong, totally wrong, with this bill.
First, I must say that, generally speaking, the powers given to
the minister in the bill are way too broad and pervasive.
Because of this discretionary power, there are still many
provisions whose meaning remain unclear, since the minister may,
on his own initiative, change what they appear to mean.
Generally speaking—and once again, the Bloc will propose
amendments—we would like more clarity regarding the processes and
also more specifics regarding certain concepts, such as the
low-fee retail deposit accounts for the poor.
This issue of discretionary power is very important to us,
especially since it will touch upon what is at the heart of our
opposition, that is the transformation of the ownership rules
for the National Bank, in Quebec.
Another aspect shocked us. The hon. members will understand
that, having been my party's critic on Bill C-54 concerning the
protection of personal information—which is, in fact, a
provincial jurisdiction—I am extremely sensitive to the fact that
this bill is again creating overlapping by directing how
consumers should be protected. It is not that we do not want
consumers to be protected when they deal with financial
institutions, but we know that they are better protected by
Quebec laws.
And there are many in this area. There are the Privacy Act, the
Act respecting Insurance, the Act respecting Trust Companies,
the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the Credit and Securities Act,
to name a few. There is also the privacy bill, which is
undergoing radical change in order to take into account the
impact of electronic commerce. This is a very interesting bill.
Why oppose a bill supposedly intended to protect consumers? For
an extraordinarily simple reason: because consumer protection
legislation has to be simple and easy to understand and to
enforce. It must be easy and simple for consumers to understand
what their rights are and how they can ensure they will be
upheld.
Quebec's privacy law is cited all over the world for its
clarity, for the ease with which the citizens can win their
case, and for its ongoing implementation in Quebec.
When a citizen has a problem and wonders “Under which act am I
protected? What are my rights? Are these rights provided under
the Credit and Securities Act or under the Privacy Act?”, there
is a problem. This grey area, which could even make it possible
to make a complaint under both acts, but also to miss deadlines
at one point or another, is not a good way to protect consumers.
The Bloc Quebecois will certainly follow this situation very
closely.
1710
I would be remiss if I did not talk about the whole issue of
community investment. As my colleagues said before me, the hon.
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has conducted a remarkable
campaign on the necessity for the banks to assume greater
responsibilities in depressed communities and in isolated areas
experiencing economic difficulties.
In fact, banks should systematically invest in communities,
because they do benefit from regulatory protection. They should
therefore agree to assume responsibility for the impacts of
their activities on consumers, constituencies, regions, the
environment and this, of course, in each of the provinces.
Our colleague argued that banks have an unfortunate tendency to
avoid depressed communities and to prefer economically healthy
areas. When they choose to stay in a depressed community because
there are profits to be made, there is generally no correlation
between the amounts of the deposits they take in and the amounts
they give out in loans and cash advances.
Our colleague's system is based on American legislation passed
in 1970, which completely changed the relationship between the
banks and the citizens namely by forcing representatives of the
citizens and of the banks to sit together and look at how they could
help improve the situation of the most disadvantaged in the
community.
We know that the first thing to do to help those persons is to
allow them to open a bank account. That is the very first step.
The bill provides for a low-fee deposit account.
However, since the application of this provision and its real
content are not known, we say that until we know we are
concerned, because I think everyone was made aware by the
campaign, and at that time, not just by our colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, by the need to ensure that everyone can
at least open a bank account.
All members know that this is far from being a sure thing and
that the reasons given or not given have to do with income,
length of employment, credit cards, which we can or cannot show,
to prove our solvency.
It is an issue we consider very important, and we think that
the bill would be vastly improved if it contained a provision
that would permit something similar to what is done in the
States—when the States has good things to offer, we should use
them—that would permit dialogue as is the case with other
businesses and other representatives of the public to ensure that
these financial players help the poor.
The ombudsman is a step in the right direction, but it is far
from enough. I note that up to now, the ombudsman has been
appointed by the banks. When I sat on the Standing Committee on
Industry, I heard the banks regularly defending their record on
loans to SMBs. I myself bore witness to the fact that the
ombudsman had good intentions, but lacked authority because he
was appointed by the banks.
The points causing the greatest difficulty are extremely
important for the Bloc Quebecois.
1715
Since the majority of Quebec members are from the Bloc
Quebecois, we can argue that we are talking on behalf of Quebec.
We can question the change this bill makes to the ownership rule
for the big banks. But where the ownership of the only big bank
in Quebec, the National Bank, is concerned, we cannot support the
change the Minister of Finance is proposing in this bill. We said
so loud and clear and we will come back to this issue.
For the benefit of our fellow citizens watching the debate I
would like to mention that up until now, the Bank Act provided
for the splitting of the shares by prohibiting any single
individual from owning more than 10% of the shares and having
control over the banking industry, which could have been risky
for businesses as well as for the economy and consumers.
Because of pressures exerted upon him and changes in the world
economy, the minister has decided that a single shareholder can
now own 20% as opposed to only 10% previously. You can rest
assured that we will discuss and question this decision. That
change affects the big Canadian banks only.
But why allow a single shareholder to own up to 65% of the
shares of the only big bank in Quebec, the National Bank? When we
think about all the risks this reform would involve, we do not
understand.
Looking at history, we can see that Quebec has experienced
serious problems over the years in exercising relative control
over its economy. One of the main reasons for that, at the
beginning of the century and before that, was the lack of
capital. The popular phrase then was “French Canadian” or
“controlled by French Canadians”.
According to historians, the collapse of Quebec-owned businesses
after World War I was due to the fact that, because of the change
and because of insufficient funding, all those businesses were
bought by British or American capital.
Many economists—and I am thinking of the École des hautes
études commerciales where so many economists and businessmen have
received their training—began to understand that Quebec needed
its own capital. Jacques Parizeau, distinguished professor at the
École des hautes études commerciales, is among those who were
taught by François-Albert Auger and others. So it is a good thing
that we now have the National Bank and the Caisse de dépôt et
placement, as well as the Fonds de solidarité and the Fonds
d'actions, which came later.
We know that venture capital is now available in Quebec. The
National Bank is one important element of this trilogy and we
will not let it become vulnerable to foreign control, which could
even lead to its dismantling. It could be taken over just to
create competition. I will add that one extremely important
characteristic of the National Bank is the fact that it caters to
the needs of small and medium size businesses.
1720
Of course other banks do get involved, but it is the small and
medium size businesses' bank. We know to what extent they are
part of the Quebec economy and its distinct nature. For this
reason, we must protect the National Bank against being owned by
one individual, which could result in a change in its original,
main vocation, and worse yet in its being taken over by foreign
interests.
We will fight tooth and nail to avoid this, and I believe Quebec
and Quebecers will be behind us to oppose others who might favour
interests other than those of the small and medium size
businesses and their ability to access capital and use it through
a bank such as the National Bank.
I could mention other elements of the legislation, but my
colleagues and I wanted to stress the essential. The members of
our party who sit on the Standing Committee on Finance will work
very hard, as usual, but I wanted to say that they will have the
strong support of all the members of the Bloc Quebecois and also,
we are convinced, of Quebecers.
I might add that the Quebec government, through Mr. Landry, was
very clear and suggested adding to the minister's discretionary
criteria four other criteria that would be more definite and that
would stress the link between the economic situation, employment
and services. It is surprising that these criteria are not
included in the basic criteria the finance minister is looking at
in his bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your attention. It is always a help
for us members of parliament, when we need to be convincing, to
be able to address not the Chair, but the Speaker himself, who
might even enjoy from time to time the fact that we are really
addressing our remarks to him.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I notice that every time I rise in the House, you
make an effort to remember the full name of my riding. I hope
everyone will remember. You do so in French and your French is
constantly improving.
After this bit of humour, I want to remind Quebecers who are
listening to us—it is suppertime and some people like to play
with the remote control—to make sure, before they eat their
dessert, that they know what we are debating here today.
The bill before us will allow the federal Minister of Finance to
decide the future of federally chartered banks in Quebec. What
does this mean? My colleague, the hon. member for Mercier,
explained it very well. The National Bank which, for most
Quebecers, is the bank for small and medium size businesses,
could come under foreign control.
This means that its head office could be moved. These things
could happen.
Those who are listening to us, in particular people in the Gaspe
Peninsula, always want their member of parliament to come back
home as often as possible, so as to keep informed of their
problems. If, some day, I were to retire from the House and
always stay away, how could I be aware of the needs of the
constituents whom I represent? I realize that it is not quite
the same thing for banks, but it is important to be close to
one's customers. I am sure my colleague can comment further.
How could I, as a legislator, as the representative of the
constituents of Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, give a
blank check—the expression is appropriate since we are talking
about an act amending the Bank Act—to the Minister of Finance,
when his bill is full of expressions such as “the Minister may,
if he deems it necessary”?
1725
He can do as he pleases, for Quebec and for the Gaspe. He can
decide to do the right thing, but in six months we might
suddenly have a different minister. Everyone is talking about
elections. What would happen if there were someone else in the
portfolio?
I do not want to ascribe bad intentions to the present minister,
although sorely tempted, but if we change ministers, then what?
If people want to make amendments, according to how they see
things, and knowing their way of operating and how the electoral
system works today, I would dearly love to see what
contributions will end up being made to the campaign expenses of
future ministers of finance. I will keep a list of them.
The banking system has influence. If we as legislators make the
decision immediately, and leave as little as possible to the
discretion of a Minister of Finance, which is I believe what the
banks and small and medium business want, then we will be have
some very clear rules to go by. I do not think that this bill
as it stands is clear.
I will leave my colleague from Mercier to comment on this
statement, but in my opinion it is not, at this time, worth the
paper it is printed on.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok has a way of putting
things.
I think that we are going to hear this description again. No,
we cannot give a blank cheque to the Minister of Finance when it
comes to the future of the National Bank.
I repeat, the National Bank is the only Quebec-based bank. It is
a mid-sized bank. It is smaller than the major Canadian banks.
But it is Quebecers' major bank and it is the bank that finances
small and medium size businesses.
I have been on the Standing Committee on Industry long enough to
know that these businesses have tremendous difficulty getting
financing from the other banks. The other banks prefer to make
loans to the rich. The Bible warned us about this. We see it
regularly.
So we must ensure that this bank remains in Quebec's hands, that
it is not controlled by one person. Such a person could be from
another country and could break it up and take it in a
completely different direction, but he could also be a big
industrialist who would want to change the rules of competition
so that he would not have to make loans to small and medium size
businesses that were not to his liking.
In no way can we agree to what this bill is proposing, for the
economic health of Quebec, for the ability to retain control
over the important part of the economy that these businesses
represent, and we know that they are much more important in the
economy in Quebec than anywhere else in North America.
Why does the minister not say that what is good for the National
Bank would be good for Canadian banks? Why have departmental
officials said that they are worried about control?
If they are worried about control of the major Canadian banks if
they increase the percentage of shares that may be held by one
individual from 10% to 20%, it only makes sense to be even more
worried about control if one person is allowed to hold 65% of
the shares in the National Bank.
It is clearly unacceptable. We cannot even consider this
proposal. It is ridiculous.
I say, like my colleague, that the Minister of Finance's
intentions may be good. I saw a press release that said he
wanted to help us. That kind of help we do not need. What we
want is a rule that will guarantee us that control will remain
in Quebec.
1730
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of private
members' business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ) moved that Bill C-211, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(travel expenses for a motor vehicle used by a forestry worker)
be read the second time and sent to committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the name of the bill is a bit
unprepossessing, but I would like to summarize its intent.
Basically, it serves to allow forestry workers like those who
work in my region—in the Basques, Saint-Jean-de-Dieu, Saint-Médard
regions and throughout the Gaspé—who, in earning their living,
have to go and work in Abitibi or on the North Shore and have to
provide their own equipment, such as a pick-up, skidders,
gasoline or a chain saw, to enjoy certain deductions.
The bill came out of a meeting with a forestry worker from
Saint-Jean-de-Dieu and a meeting with several forestry workers, who
work in this way.
The situation at the moment is that, with the partial deduction
the law currently provides, they cannot make enough profit to
make it worth their while working.
Right now, tax legislation discourages people from going to work
elsewhere, and yet this is the only sort of job available. They
would like a more appropriate tax deduction.
How can I say that the current legislation does not fully
satisfy them? First, I wrote to the Minister of National
Revenue on May 18, 1999 to ask for an interpretation of the law
that allegedly permitted an appropriate tax rebate, a large
enough tax credit to enable these people to get a tax deduction
for travel costs. The law as it stands contains no such
provision. The Minister of National Revenue confirmed this in
his response to my letter of May 18.
I received a reply three months later and I wrote to the
Minister of Finance on August 13, 1999, to tell him, since he is
responsible for this issue, that a change to the act was
absolutely necessary to allow these workers to have a decent
income, to continue to work. Indeed, our tax laws must be an
incentive to work, not a disincentive.
The Minister of Finance replied to me on September 30, 1999. Let
me read two paragraphs from his letter:
In your letter, you ask if it is possible to consider these
expenses as employment expenses, since there are some benefits
related to working on a specific site or in a remote area that
may be excluded from a worker's income, as long as they are
reasonable.
The letter then explains that this somewhat changes taxation
practices, but adds:
Even if the costs associated with transportation between a
person's residence and place of work are not generally
deductible, I submitted your concerns to the attention of my
staff.
1735
Today, I am very pleased that my bill can be debated in the
House. This allows me to provide the Department of Finance with
valid arguments to enable it to reach a conclusion.
On February 22, 2000, a few days before the budget, I asked the
minister whether his staff had finally done the studies and
reached a conclusion. Again, I got a reply from the Minister of
Finance, but only in June 2000. That reply is still positive.
The Minister of Finance says:
What constitutes a reasonable level of expenses for motor
vehicles is a complex issue that requires a thorough study.
That thorough study sure is taking a long time.
The review of this issue and of other components of the tax
system concerning motor vehicles is still going on. We will
inform you of the results as soon as it is completed.
They have been looking at this proposal for a year and a half.
I find it quite interesting that the Minister of finance has
told me twice that this proposal has some merit and that it is
worth exploring.
Indeed, on the basic principle that would give a tax deduction
to workers who have to travel long distances to go to work and
are forced to use their car, I think it is justifiable. This
would help reduce unemployment in regions like ours and would
promote economic activity.
When a forestry worker comes back to his family after two weeks
on the job, he has a pay cheque, he can support his family, he
can spend a little money to make sure that he has all the tools
that he needs to go back to work. There is some economic
activity there.
If the finance minister asks for detailed figures, he will find
out that it is much better to help these people who have to
drive far to go to work by giving them an appropriate tax
deduction than to close the door on them, to entice them to stay
at home, to push them into not going to work and becoming a
burden on society, thus adding to the unemployment rate in a
region that is already badly affected.
For all these good reasons, and because I think it would be
worthwhile for these workers to persevere in pushing for this
bill, I urge the government, the Liberal majority in this House,
to consider passing this bill.
Recently we voted on a bill aimed at lightening the tax burden
of mechanics, a bill introduced by the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, which was put to a
vote in this House as a private member's bill and has gone on to
the next stage. It has somewhat the same objective: to provide
a proper tax deduction for the tools all mechanics must supply
for their job.
This one deals with forestry workers, and in this case it is not
a box of tools but a truck and all the equipment required for
work in the bush. The two bills have the same underlying
principle. I would like to get the same open-minded attitude
from the Liberal majority and from all members of this House.
I am also taking advantage of the fact that we are in the
prebudget consultation phase.
A letter has come from the member heading the standing finance
committee indicating that there is a prebudget consultation
exercise to be carried out this year again, in order to ensure
that the people of Canada may receive the best possible services
from their government and the encouragement to accomplish things
and take their place within society.
This is a concrete example on which a quick decision could be
reached on behalf of people who are very hard-working, who do not
have easy lives, who do not get to go home every night, who
often have to do what we call down our way “two week runs”.
They work away from home and have to sleep in camps where
conditions are not always ideal, they have to put up with
difficult conditions. Sometimes they pretty well have to sleep
in their trucks.
I believe they deserve respect and deserve to be protected from
personal bankruptcy. When people buy a pickup truck that can
easily cost $25,000 if they want something decent, they do not
buy them for their cool looks but because they are needed for
getting to work. This is what they need to do their job
properly.
1740
I think our forestry workers deserve the recognition of the
House. There are all kinds of tax deductions. In the case of
businesses being allowed a deduction for season tickets for
hockey or other professional sports, the deduction can be
justified because it helps maintain jobs. A similar deduction
costing a lot less would allow forestry workers to earn a
living, to feel the dignity of being workers, to travel to their
place of work, not to make fabulous profits but to earn enough
income to keep on working. I think the government should
consider doing this for these workers.
It is not a very complicated bill. Basically, it requires only a
little sense of fairness on the part of those who would pass it.
If it needs a little polishing in committee, we will be
listening to see if some changes can be made, but it is obvious
that the current legislation does not allow these needs to be
met.
We made all the necessary representations to the appropriate
officials and we came up against the fact that, under the
current legislation, they cannot grant an adequate and
satisfactory tax deduction that really takes into account the
need for pick-up trucks and related material.
The legislators must take their responsibilities. Our forestry
workers deserve our attention.
Over the last few years, we saw that we wanted workers to have
jobs.
They would like to turn seasonal workers into machines and ship
them all over Canada to work. These workers are often willing to
drive 200, 300, 400 or 500 kilometres a week just to get to
their workplace.
I believe they deserve our attention and this tax benefit. It
would only be fair and respectful of the work they do. This
would also be an opportunity for rural communities to get enough
extra income.
It is all very well to say that rural communities must look to
new technologies, but the fact remains that primary natural
resources are one of the important components of the economy
both in Quebec and Canada. We must ensure proper management of
these components. Forest use must be maximized.
Forestry workers have developed an expertise in a given area. If
they are not allowed to go to work far from their home and to
make a decent living, their expertise will be lost altogether,
they will exit the labour market and will not find work in other
sectors, thus becoming a burden for society. This is
unacceptable.
Therefore I call on the members of this House to consider my
proposals. At the end of today's debate, I will have the
opportunity to rise again. I hope I will be able to say that I
have the agreement of everybody in the House in order to move
toward tangible results.
I hope we will be able to say to the finance minister “You have
studied the matter, you say that you have not yet completed your
review, but the stakeholders and the members of this House want
a practical solution, that is giving forestry workers in Canada
a proper tax rebate”. I believe forestry workers deserve nothing
less.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the number of private members'
bills that are coming forward are very creative, imaginative and
are keeping the Department of Finance, the Minister of Finance
and his parliamentary secretary very busy.
I hope I am not the bad cop today.
[Translation]
I have some sympathy for the member's bill. Before I was
elected in 1996, I worked for 20 years in the forestry sector.
The workers in this sector are very professional. They are
people with whom I have done a lot of work.
[English]
As I understand it, the intention of this private member's bill
is to amend the Income Tax Act to permit, in certain
circumstances, forestry workers to deduct for tax purposes motor
vehicle expenses related to travel between their residences and
places of work.
Deductible costs would include not only the day to day out of
pocket expenses required to operate the vehicle, such as
gasoline, repairs and maintenance costs, insurance and licence
fees, but also capital cost allowances. That is the depreciation
on the original cost of the vehicle and interest costs associated
with any loan taken out to acquire the vehicle.
1745
[Translation]
This bill raises a number of issues that need to be examined
carefully. In examining these issues, a number of policy
principles must be considered.
[English]
One of the most important tax policy considerations is that of
fairness. That is that the tax change be fair, not only to the
taxpayers directly affected by the change, but also to all other
Canadians.
A second important tax policy consideration is that of
simplicity. Can taxpayers understand and comply with the tax
change and can the proposed tax change be readily administered
and enforced by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency? Another
consideration is how the proposed tax change impacts on the
fiscal resources of the government.
This bill proposes to permit forestry workers to deduct
employment income motor vehicle expenses related to travel
between their residence and their place of work. Permitting such
a deduction would represent a major departure from a
well-established tax policy which has been in place for many
years. The cost of driving to and from one's place of employment
is considered to be personal driving. As such, costs associated
with personal driving are considered to be personal and therefore
not deductible.
Before I was first elected in 1996, I spent a number of years in
the forestry sector. Even with that predisposition I cannot
think of any rationale that would justify providing this benefit
to forestry workers but not to workers in other sectors. I agree
that forestry workers often have to work far from their home in
relatively remote locations whether it is doing silviculture
work, tree planting, thinning or spacing or whatever the case may
be. However, forestry workers are not unique in this regard.
Most employees have to commute to work and incur costs in doing
so. Some employees may have to travel relatively long distances,
like forestry workers, to remote work locations. However, it
would be difficult to justify providing a tax deduction solely
for forestry workers, as this private member's bill proposes, at
the exclusion of other individuals.
[Translation]
In fact, the issue that this bill raises relates to the much
broader issue of the deductibility of employment related
expenditures more generally.
Most workers incur costs connected, in one way or another, to
their employment. In addition to the cost of commuting to and
from their work location, in the past, taxpayers and their
representatives have sought tax relief for work related
expenditures such as personal computers; professional journals;
skills upgrading; business and construction safety clothing; and
home office expenses.
Providing tax relief to employees in all of these situations
would be a major shift in policy and would result in a
significant fiscal cost.
[English]
As I mentioned, a second issue that must be carefully considered
in examining this bill is that of simplicity. Can taxpayers
understand and comply with the tax change and can the proposed
tax change be readily administered and enforced by the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency?
We already have extensive provisions that permit the deduction
of automobile expenses from business and employment income in
certain circumstances and within certain limits. These rather
extensive provisions are intended to ensure that all taxpayers
are treated in a fair and consistent manner. However, taxpayers
often express concern about the complexity of these provisions.
This bill would only increase the number and length of the
provisions devoted to automobiles by providing a unique tax
benefit to forestry workers that other employees are not entitled
to. By confining this benefit to forestry workers, the bill requires
the crafting of a definition of forestry workers eligible for
this tax benefit. However, developing an appropriate definition
broad enough to include a variety of work situations yet narrow
enough to focus the benefit to those taxpayers for which it is
intended would be extremely difficult and could lead to increased
uncertainty for taxpayers and increased administrative and
enforcement concerns for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
1750
[Translation]
I agree that there is a need to reduce the tax burden of
Canadians. However, providing focused tax relief to employees in
specific sectors is not the way to go. Rather, as outlined by
the government in its last three budgets, it is better to provide
broad-based tax relief to all Canadians.
[English]
In the 2000 budget alone, the government proposed that federal
personal income taxes be reduced by an average of at least 15%
over the next five years. The proposed budget measures will
ultimately benefit each and every Canadian taxpayer by
retroactively restoring full indexation of the personal income
tax system effective January 1, 2000.
In addition, the budget proposes to: first, reduce the middle
income tax rate to 23% from 26%; second, increase the amount of
income that Canadians can earn tax free to $8,000; three, raise
the income amounts where middle and upper tax rates begin to
apply to at least $35,000 and $70,000 respectively; and finally,
eliminate the 5% deficit reduction surtax for people with incomes
up to $85,000 effective July 2000 and completely phase it out
over the following five years.
The budget also provided further support to Canadian families by
the expansion of the Canada child tax benefit by $2.5 billion a
year to more than $9 billion annually.
The personal income tax cuts proposed are even larger when
combined with actions taken in the budgets of 1997, 1998 and
1999. The combined effect is that federal personal income taxes
will be cut by an average of 22% over all, 26% for low and middle
income Canadians and 30% for families with children by the year
2004-05.
It is important to note that the personal tax cuts outlined in
the 2000 budget reflect the least, not the most, that the
government will do and we will accelerate those tax measures, I
am quite confident, in budget 2001.
I could not agree more that the forestry sector plays an
important role in the Canadian economy. I have met and worked
with many of these professionals. This sector contributes
significantly to our gross domestic product and the large volume
of exports contribute significantly to our balance of trade.
This industry provides work to many hard working Canadians.
However, for the reasons I mentioned, I hope the members here
would support the position I outlined. To create this
provision for forestry workers alone, to restrict it and not
allow it for other workers in other sectors and to create a
precedent with respect to the deductibility of travel expenses
from home to the workplace would create an unnecessary and costly
precedent. I urge members to vote against the bill.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Bloc member's private
member's bill, Bill C-211, on tax reductions for forestry
workers.
First, I want to say that I fully support the issue that all
workers in the country are crying out for tax deductions. There
is absolutely no question with respect to that. I want to talk a
bit about that.
Bill C-211 is specifically targeted at forestry workers who want
another tax deduction. I want to focus on the larger picture
which is the taxation levels in the country.
1755
Today we watched the Prime Minister. Ironically, he announced a
$12.3 billion surplus. To his credit, he did put it on the debt.
However, I have some concerns. Only months ago that he was
forecasting a $3 billion surplus. I question who is doing the
accounting for the government. We have a 400% increase in the
amount of the surplus and one has to question exactly how this
happened. Is it happening because there will be election weeks
or months away? We know we are within a six month election cycle
and all of a sudden we have a $12 billion surplus. We saw this
type of what I call bean counting in British Columbia where
months before an election there was great surpluses and months
after the election there were great deficits.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: That was the NDP.
Mr. Gary Lunn: That is exactly right, as the member
yelled across to me. That was the NDP but again, we are seeing
exactly the same scenario here.
We want to see how they arrive at these numbers. In the first
quarter of this year alone the surplus reported by the Department
of Finance was $11.4 billion. There is only one way that the
government gets money and we all know that is from our back
pockets. The government collects money from taxes. That is one
source of revenue. Clearly we have to look at what has been
going on.
The Canadian Alliance believes it is time for real tax cuts for
working Canadians. They need these tax cuts. There is all kinds
of evidence to substantiate this. We can look at the standard of
living of Canadians. It has been dropping dramatically over the
last 10 years. Today the worker's purchasing power is much less
than it was 10 years ago. There are all kinds of reports and
statistics to back that up.
We have to get taxes down. Since 1993, the Liberal government
has raised taxes over 60 times. It claims it has deducted taxes.
I challenge Liberals to to go to the working people in their
ridings and ask them to pull out their paycheques from today and
compare it to two years or four years ago. Working people have
less money to take home. There is only one reason for that. The
current government has raised and raised taxes. What are they
left with?
The Department of Finance reported a $12 billion surplus. The
government has put that on the debt but I am a little curious to
see what kind of numbers we will get after the election. Maybe
we can go back and look in Hansard when the government
comes back.
Again, to back this up, our standard of living has gone down.
Let me give a couple of quotes. This comes from the OECD: “One
of the most important determinants of the standard of living is
productivity which is a measure that attempts to capture the
efficiency and productive inputs and technical progress”.
Mr. Roy Cullen: This has to do with forestry workers.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, the member is yelling this
has to do with forestry workers. The issue here is taxation
levels. The private member's bill is specifically trying to
reduce the taxes of forestry workers. He has brought back a
private member's bill to bring in more tax deductions for the
workers in his riding. I fully support the need for tax
reductions.
I agree with the member across that it would not be fair to give
tax deductions to just the forestry sector. We cannot just
provide tax reductions to forestry workers, or as the government
would probably like it to members of parliament. In fact, we
need to bring in tax deductions for all Canadians.
Let me continue on. These are statistics from Canada. The OECD
went on to state: “While productivity growth appears to be
better in Canada than anticipated, there continues to be a wide
gap in the productivity level compared with the United States,
Canada's most important economic partner. This gap is reflected
in a substantially lower standard of living in Canada”.
If we go out and talk to the people in our ridings, they will
tell us that they are struggling, that there is no money for
extras and that there is less every month to pay the bills.
That is strictly because we have seen one increase after another
by the government. It is reaching into people's back pockets and
we have to change that.
1800
I am proud to say that the Canadian Alliance is committed to
reducing people's personal taxes with meaningful tax relief, not
punishing people who are successful. These are the people who
power the economic engine. We are saying that we want to provide
tax relief to all Canadians.
I have people in my riding who are earning less than $20,000 and
should not be paying any taxes. We would take them right off the
tax rolls, yet the government continues to tax them.
I struggled with whether I wanted to run for parliament back in
1997. One of the passions to which I was committed was that the
aspirations and dreams of my generation were being shattered
strictly through taxation.
We often hear of and talk about the brain drain. It is one of my
greatest frustrations. It is not the significant number of
people who are leaving Canada, but it is the very best, the very
brightest, the economic engine of the country in 15 or 20 years.
It is the entrepreneurs, the people who will create jobs in
Canada for other people. They are flocking to the states. Why?
It is because of the tax levels in this country. It is time for
meaningful tax relief which they will feel.
The $12 billion is not the Minister of Finance's, the Prime
Minister's or the government's money. It is taxpayer money. We
need a plan where we can give taxpayers real, meaningful tax
relief. We are committed to doing that.
It is a laudable goal by the member from the Bloc who brought
this issue forward. I too have worked in the forest industry. I
spent five years working at Crestbrook Forest Industries. I have
a lot of friends in the forest industry. It would be very easy
for me to stand here and say that we should provide tax relief
just to one sector, the forest sector which is huge in British
Columbia, but we have to look at reality. We cannot start
providing tax relief targeted specifically to one occupation or
one sector of society.
We need tax relief for all Canadians. We in the Canadian
Alliance are 100% committed to doing that. Jurisdictions all
over the globe such as Hong Kong and Ireland have brought in
meaningful tax relief, and what has happened? We have seen those
economies flourish.
What happens is that it attracts the best and the brightest.
Economies flourish and the wealth created by the private sector,
not by the government, allows us to have the social programs that
are dear to our hearts. We can put the money into health care.
Bill C-211 is asking for a tax deduction for one sector. It is
obviously not doable. It needs to extend to all Canadians. I am
very proud that the Canadian Alliance is committed to providing
meaningful tax relief to every Canadian. Their standard of
living would increase. It would allow our best and our brightest
young people to stay in the country. It would turn around the
tax increases we have seen year after year after year by this
government. I can count over 60 sneaky, hidden tax increases. We
can turn those around and start putting money back in the hands
of the taxpayer, not in the hands of the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-211, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act, relating to travel expenses for a motor vehicle used by a
forestry worker.
The bill introduced by the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is an
initiative that I also feel strongly about. The bill would allow
forestry workers, who have to travel long distances in a motor
vehicle between their place of residence and their workplace, to
benefit from a reasonable tax deduction, which, in this case, I
find adequate.
1805
In summary, Bill C-211 would allow a forestry worker, under
certain conditions, to deduct from his income the interest paid
on money borrowed to acquire the motor vehicle.
Also, a forestry worker would be able to deduct from his income
expenses related to the wear and tear of the motor vehicle. This
bill means a lot to forestry workers.
Currently, Revenue Canada considers the use of such a motor
vehicle as a use for personal reasons by forestry workers who
have to travel long distances to get to their workplace.
Consequently, these workers cannot claim travel expenses from
their residence to the logging area.
What this means is that Revenue Canada does not consider that
these workers need to travel to work.
If we look at forestry workers, and this is where I disagree
with my colleague from the Alliance, there is a major difference,
and that is what my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is trying
to point out with his bill.
Forestry workers do not work all year round, they are seasonal
workers. When spring comes around, they have to contract loans. I
think it is one of the only Canadian industries where people have
to buy their own tools, such as chain saws, that cost $850 plus
tax.
Each year, the forestry worker, the logger who goes off to the
logging area has to buy a new saw. That costs money. Unlike other
workers, he does not work all year round. The seasonal worker,
the logger has to survive on employment insurance for part of the
year, at least six months.
He has to make do with 50% of his income because of the cuts
Liberals made in 1996. EI benefits have been slashed by half.
These workers are punished left, right and center.
That is why I feel I have to support the bill introduced by my
colleague from the Bloc, because these workers deserve a break.
Each spring, these workers have to fork out a lot of money after
spending the winter on employment insurance, because they cannot
log all winter long. They end up with debts after spending the
winter on employment insurance.
That is why I am going to support this bill.
It is all well and good for the Canadian Alliance to say
that all Canadians must be treated equally, but in the meantime,
we must take into account the plight of our forestry workers.
According to Alliance members, Canadians should not have to pay
any taxes or everyone will want to move to the United States. I
will say one thing. I would rather live here, in Canada, the best
country in the world, than in the United States, where they have
a two tier health care system. They may pay less taxes, but going
to the hospital can easily cost $10,000. In my opinion, that is a
form of taxation.
In my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, the forest industry is
important. Nearly half the people are seasonal workers, either in
fisheries or forestry. These jobs are important for our region.
As I said, and I will repeat it because apparently before people
get it into their heads, it must repeated 28 times: in my riding,
the forestry worker who is lucky to work 15 or 20 weeks ends up
unemployed the rest of the year, because there are no jobs. He is
not a seasonal worker, but he works in a seasonal sector. He ends
up with half an income for the rest of the season and in the
spring, he must buy a chain saw even if he would appreciate
getting a little tax break then. With the little tax break that
he gets, which is a tax refund, he has to buy a chain saw in
order to go to work.
1810
The purpose of this bill is to help this industry and its
workers, because they are unique. We need those forestry workers.
People living in big cities, whether it is Montreal, Ottawa,
Toronto or Vancouver, are happy to get 2x4s from my region, from
Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup, the Gaspé Peninsula, northern
Ontario and northern British Columbia.
I am sure that the hon. member opposite remembers the visit we
made to loggers in the Prince George area. This is not an easy
job, because we cannot bring the forest into the city. Loggers
have to go into the forest, miles away from home; they have to
travel and leave their family behind for weeks. When they come
back on Friday night for the weekend, they are exhausted. They
are home Saturday, and on Sunday, they go back to the logging
camp. That is what loggers do.
I think that the government could recognize their work by giving
them some tax relief, such as the one proposed by my hon.
colleague in his private bill. I think this is the best thing to
do.
The Alliance members come from a region where there are many
loggers, but they are not prepared to give a break to a specific
group like this one.
However, they want to have a tax, what they call the flat tax,
to give a break to all the millionaires in this country and all
the people who make over $100,000 a year, giving them a tax cut,
so that they do not have to pay as much tax.
But they are not prepared to do anything in support of the
forestry workers, not prepared to treat them as special workers.
Yet these workers are special, because they are the ones who go
out in the woods to cut down our natural resources, which
provide the whole country with wood, with 2x4s, with paper and
what have you. The piece of paper I am holding starts in the
forest. The forestry workers are the ones who cut down the raw
material that it is made from.
The only thing they are asking for is recognition.
Very often people say “Oh, he's just a forestry worker, that's
all”. As if these workers were not part of society. That is
how they feel sometimes.
It is not enough that many of their jobs in the bush have been
lost to mechanization, now gas costs are making it extremely
expensive to get to their jobs.
In my opinion it would be just the honourable thing to do if
parliament were to say “Now we are finally paying attention to
our forestry workers”.
Most of the members of this House have such workers within their
ridings, or their fathers or brothers were forestry workers. I
think giving them a little hand up is nothing more than the fair
and honourable thing to do.
Before closing, I will just quickly repeat a few points. We
must keep in mind that the forestry workers cannot control wood
quotas. They are therefore forced to be seasonal workers. For
a large chunk of the year, six months I would say, they are
forced onto employment insurance, at 50% of what they were
earning.
I strongly recommend that the government members vote in favour
of Bill C-211 in order to give our forestry workers the
opportunity to purchase chainsaws and get to work providing our
country with a resource.
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
pleased to speak to Bill C-211. My colleague from the Bloc has
put forward a pretty interesting proposal. However, when we look
at the forest worker separated from a lot of others in the same
categories, I have some concerns.
1815
I look at the proposal that a low paid seasonal worker is asking
to reclaim some of his expenses through the income tax source.
The other interesting part is that he would be able to claim his
vehicle or the costs of his travel back and forth, including the
cost of the interest on his loan to purchase his vehicle. I
wonder if we are just talking about cars and trucks here. As the
hon. member knows, some people travel by Sea-Doo. Maybe they
should be able to claim them also.
Unfortunately a dual economy is developing. There are areas that
are flourishing. Employment rates are extremely high mainly
around our urban centres and people are doing very well. In many
of the rural regions people are trying to eke out a living.
Forestry workers, fishery workers and construction workers are
some of those groups.
Because of the way the present government has operated and
because of the CHST cutbacks over the last number of years, most
of the provinces have put the meagre income they have into health
care more than anything else. In most provinces, except for the
two or three more affluent ones, there is a lack of construction
work. Many construction workers who worked on our highways,
municipal projects and water and sewer projects now have to
travel all over the place to get enough hours of work just to
qualify for EI benefits during the long hard winters.
The hon. member who presented the bill has an issue. He is on
to something but he needs to broaden the base considerably.
There has been a lot of discussion tonight on the methods of
taxing people. Alliance members talked about their proposals,
the flat tax. Let me tell them that many seasonal workers
certainly would not benefit from the flat tax. They would just
be flattened a little bit more by the flat tax.
Some might say that the government's proposals are going to be
generous. Let me say to them that again, the rich will become
richer and the poor will become poorer. We are seeing this more
and more. When I use the word poorer, I am not talking about
poor in the sense of resources, but poor simply because they have
been downtrodden by the Liberal government over the last 10 years
to the point where they cannot gain from the development of the
great resources they have.
There is no greater example than my own province of Newfoundland
and Labrador. We are an extremely rich province with a
tremendous amount to offer, but because of the policies of the
government, we are not gaining at all from the development of our
resources. We see some employment in the urban centres, but the
employment levels in the rural centres are going down.
We see among our fishery workers what the hon. member sees among
his forestry workers. In order to gain meagre employment, they
have to travel miles and miles. Before, many of our communities
had large fish plants where the local fishermen came into their
own wharf. People in the area worked in the processing plant and
did very well.
Because of the depletion of our resources and in particular the
mismanagement by the government, there is absolutely no
scientific research involved in order to dictate how we should
handle our resource.
We see the decimation of the fishery. Fewer people are fishing.
1820
Fisher persons themselves have to travel further and further to
get to the wharf that they use and to the place where they now
must store their boat. Many of them have to go from the smaller
boats to the bigger boats to travel further afield to catch the
meagre resource. Fish plant workers who work practically next
door travel in excess of 100 miles a day in order to get enough
work to qualify for EI benefits.
I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. member is saying.
Construction workers day in and day out travel over 100 miles to
get to a place where they have a few weeks of work.
When we look at changing the tax structure, instead of looking
at across the board cuts that the members opposite say will
benefit everybody, perhaps we should look at adjustments within
the system that will benefit those who really need the tax
breaks.
When the federal government cuts taxes by 5%, 10% or whatever,
it brags about it. Everybody gets a break. But for the people in
Newfoundland who pay 69% of the federal rate in their personal
income taxes, it does not mean a thing. It means that the
provincial government is taking in fewer dollars. It means
absolutely nothing in the sense of attracting investment because
the playing field is not level. Again, the rich benefit more.
They can offer more incentives to people to invest. The poorer
provinces such as the Atlantic provinces in particular cannot
compete with the more lucrative ones because they cannot offer
the same tax incentives.
Across the board cuts and made in Ottawa solutions might be
looked upon as being equal, but they are certainly not fair for
many regions. Not only are rich, poor and some in between
regions developing, the same thing is happening in sectors within
our provinces.
People in the rural areas of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland in particular are finding it more and more
difficult to find employment. The expense of going to their job
and the expense of being involved in the workforce are getting so
great that people need some kind of a break.
I support in principle what the hon. member is proposing. I
hope we will use this as a catalyst to help other sectors, not
just the forestry workers. Their case might be unique in certain
areas of Quebec, but the fishery workers in Newfoundland are just
as unique. The construction workers in Atlantic Canada and
Quebec are just as unique. Perhaps it is time that we looked at
developing tax policies that benefit those who need help.
Members opposite brag about the $12 billion, $14 billion or $15
billion surplus. They should be on their knees thanking the
Tories for their initiatives. Back in the early nineties when
they brought in free trade, the members opposite said no, that it
would destroy the country. What happened after the election? The
Liberals went along with free trade and today they see the
benefits. Every night they should give thanks that Prime Minister
Mulroney had the fortitude to do what the Liberals did not have
the fortitude to do.
The other great income generator is the GST. Once again those
hon. members said that we could not have this terrible tax. What
happened? They had the terrible tax. We can go back to the
government of the hon. leader of our party which was defeated
when it increased the gas tax. When the members opposite came
into power, they doubled it right off the bat.
1825
The Liberals can brag about the surplus for two other reasons.
It is not only because of good Tory policies but they have also
shafted the people on health care and have held back billions of
dollars that should be going to the sick and the poor. People are
suffering because of seasonal employment. The government has cut
their legs out from under them with the EI benefits. This has
helped fill the government coffers and it is nothing to brag
about.
Maybe it is time for the government to change its mind and
support the hon. member's bill and help the people who really
need the help.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank the members who took part in this
debate.
Even those who did not support the idea, I felt, considered a
debate on tax incentives needed to get people to work relevant.
The forestry workers we are talking about here have to go
elsewhere to work, are forced to sleep elsewhere and need their
vehicles for their work. So they are not using them on a whim.
They need them to get to work.
The government already partially acknowledges this, because
there is a partial deduction for it. The problem is that the
present deduction is inadequate, because it does not take into
account the relevance of using this type of vehicle for these
purposes. In a little square box, in a department somewhere,
they defined this vehicle as being used for tourism or personal
uses, and this is not the case. This point needs to be changed.
I invite all members who said something special could not be
created for a given sector to debate my bill so that we may look
at similar situations and examine this issue in committee. I
invite them as well to not close their eyes to the facts. Under
the existing tax system, all sorts of specific deductions are
permitted for all sorts of people. We are among these people
who have a significant sum that is tax exempt so we can do our
job.
Some people get tax deductions to pay for season tickets to the
hockey games in big cities like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver,
and people in my region cannot benefit in any way from such
deductions. It is absolutely impossible to obtain a season
ticket and to benefit from it.
We have to weigh things carefully. The system is not balanced in
that regard. In this case, I think we have what is needed to
reach a practical solution.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this bill a
votable item and for us to vote on it after the vote on Motion
M-160, which is the next item and for which division will be
deferred.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House for my bill to be
declared a votable item so that members can take a stand and so
that we can examine it in committee and amend it, if necessary,
to do justice to forestry workers, not only those in my region
and in Quebec, but forestry workers all over Canada who need
their vehicle for their work.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
make the bill a votable item?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the consideration of
this motion within private members' business has now expired.
This item is dropped from the Order Paper.
* * *
[English]
1911 CENSUS RECORDS
The House resumed from April 10 consideration of the motion.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion
No. 160 on behalf of my colleague from Calgary.
1830
To many, this issue of sealing the 1911 census information
forever does not seem like a very important issue and think that
maybe the House should spend its time in other areas, but it does
raise a concern for a number of people and several of my
constituents who have contacted me.
A number of individuals in our society take great delight in
seeking information about their family history and look forward
to the time when this information will be available to them so
they can have a better understanding of their roots in Canada. It
was because of an individual who was very concerned in 1906 and
again in 1918 that this information could be used for purposes
that were not necessarily considered to be good purposes, that
they felt for privacy they needed to seal the records.
At that time it probably made sense but that was 85 years ago.
Many of the laws on our books have now become redundant. The
concern for privacy and respecting the privacy of an individual
is a good one and should be considered, but when this information
becomes of an age and is no longer current that need for privacy
disappears.
Most of the people who would have this information in the 1911
census would be 75 years or older. Many of them are probably not
even alive. The question of securing or protecting their privacy
becomes less of an issue, if an issue at all.
The intent of the motion is to make an allowance and to perhaps
put a timeframe on when this information would be made available,
but certainly not to have all the census information from the
1911 census lost forever. That certainly was the concern of some
of my constituents who contacted me on this issue. Their concern
was that that information, even if they had to wait another 20
years, should be available to the families for historical
purposes.
When other countries had to deal with this issue they set a year
beyond which the person probably would not be living, although
with today's technology it may be hard to put that to the number
of years. In Australia and France the census data is released
after 100 years. Denmark is saying that 65 years is adequate.
The United Kingdom is making efforts to release its data after
100 years.
The precedents are being set internationally that maybe 100
years would be an adequate period of time that any information on
an individual, if they lived beyond 100 years, which is very
unlikely, at least for most of us, could not be used and harm
that person.
With all due respect to an individual's privacy, there is a good
cause for Motion No. 160 and for the concern that historians and
people who are researching their family histories have, that we
set a timeframe, perhaps 100 years. This law is actually 88
years old. Maybe that is time enough and we should say that as
of the year 2000 this information will be made available.
Nevertheless, the indication is, from other countries that have
dealt with this issue, that 100 years is adequate. In one case
65 years was considered adequate. I think Canada would be
justified in putting the timeframe at 90 or 100 years, or
whatever, into this legislation and then to redraft it.
1835
We do have a number of statutes in our country that need to be
overhauled. I think this certainly is one that has to be looked
at and changed.
I think my hon. colleague is looking to all members of the House
to support this motion, which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they
have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.
I certainly, on his behalf, request that members of the House
support his motion.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address the motion raised by the member for Calgary
Southeast with respect to the release of the 1911 census records.
The transfer of census records to the National Archives for
public access is a fairly complex issue. The competing interests
at issue here are both legitimate and important.
I would like to assure my colleagues that the minister
responsible for Statistics Canada is well aware of both sides of
this debate. Although he recognizes the importance of historical
and genealogical research, the minister must also take into
account the privacy concerns of all Canadians.
In fact, my own private member's bill, Bill C-312, an act to
amend the National Archives of Canada Act and the Statistics Act,
is an attempt to resolve this issue with a fair and balanced
approach.
It is for that reason that the minister took immediate steps and
appointed an expert panel to examine the legal, privacy and
archival implications of providing access to historical census
records. The panel was asked to recommend an approach which
balances the need to protect personal privacy with the demand of
genealogists and historians for access to historical census
records.
The panel submitted its report to the minister on June 30, 2000.
The minister is now reviewing the recommendations made by the
panel and will be making the panel's report public in the near
future.
I am therefore encouraged by the minister's genuine interest and
commitment to find a balanced resolution. While he must
carefully consider all sides of this issue, any decision taken
must respond to the concerns and desires of Canadians to research
their personal and community roots. The minister is working
toward a resolution of the issue of public access to historical
census records.
Canada's census records up to and including the 1901 census are
available to the public through the National Archives.
Statistics Canada continues to hold all individual returns of
census questionnaires collected between 1906 and 1996. Up to
1991 these records are on microfilm and are available only to
individual respondents who need to confirm birth dates for
pension purposes, passports or any other related issues.
I believe that the members of the House understand the need for
access to census records while at the same time they are
sensitive to the privacy concerns of Canadians.
In the spirit of co-operation, I would like to propose an
amendment that would support the work of all those involved
reaching a workable solution to this issue. I therefore propose
to amend the motion and emphasize that the government should
consider taking the necessary steps to release the census
records.
I think the member for Calgary Southeast will agree that this
small change to his motion will allow an opportunity to look at
both sides of this issue. It also provides parliament with an
opportunity to vote in support of the motion.
1840
Therefore, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the word “take” after
the word “should” and by substituting therefor, the words
“consider taking”.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak today to Motion No. 60 put forward by the
member for Calgary Southeast. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they
have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.
I am actually a bit surprised at the brevity of the debate on
the motion before us tonight, and I am more than a bit surprised
that the person who actually proposed the motion has chosen not
to speak to it at this time. I understand that he may be here
for the five minute wrap up, but when one puts a private member's
bill forward, hopefully one would be a little more serious about
it than the five minute wrap up.
The motion addresses an issue that is very important to many
Canadians. Many of us understand it because we have been
contacted by constituents, historians and genealogists.
While I understand surveys have shown that this issue is not one
of which the general public is aware, there is certainly a vocal
outcry from many segments of Canadian society who understand the
implications of this motion and the problem it attempts to
resolve.
Let me outline what exactly it is that needs to be addressed and
what this motion we are debating here today contemplates.
Statistics Canada conducts a census every five years, polling
Canadians about such things as their name, address, marital
status, income, education and activities.
In the 2001 census, additional questions will be asked on
languages spoken at home and at work, birthplace of parents and
religion. This information is considered confidential and is not
made available to other government departments, including the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
The problem is that until 1906 census information collected by
Statistics Canada was kept confidential for 92 years, after which
time the information was provided to the National Archives of Canada
and available for public searches. This enabled family
descendants, historians, genealogists and any other interested
persons to access records from censuses that were collected at
least 92 years previously.
In 1906, however, changes were made to the Privacy Act which
stated that where other acts provide specific protection to
personal records, those acts must prevail. Since the Statistics
Act makes reference to the confidentiality of census information
supplied by the individual completing the census, legal opinion
indicates that any census following 1901 cannot be released to
anyone other than the specified individual in the census.
Moreover, no time limitation was ever stipulated.
Hon. members can see the bind in which the government finds
itself. What I find more surprising, though, is the real lack of
activity by the government to do anything about that bind because
there are certainly a couple of avenues that the government can
take.
To go back to the 1911 census, which would have been made public
in 2003 under the regulations in place prior to 1906, it is now
considered private and confidential in perpetuity. Only with a
change to legislation can this regulation be changed and access
provided to historians, genealogists and descendants of people
who filled out those original censuses.
1845
The motion we are addressing today proposes such a change. It
asks the government to take the necessary steps to amend the
regulations and allow the former practice of transferring census
information to the national archives following a period of 92
years. The federal government is aware of this problem as there
has been a concerted effort by genealogists to have this matter
brought to the attention of the public to facilitate the changes
that would allow continued access to these records.
Genealogists across the country like Muriel Davidson and
historical societies have been in contact with my office. There
is a huge file on this issue. The need for it is obvious. If the
government has a bill in waiting it should have put it out first.
This is something that we should no longer continue to ignore.
The government responded to efforts made by individuals,
historians and genealogists by establishing in November 1999 the
expert panel on access to historical census records chaired by
the president of Carleton University, Dr. Richard Van Loon. This
panel was mandated to examine the problem from the perspective of
both historians and the general populace, to review options and
to report its findings by May 2000. May has come and gone. The
panel subsequently requested an extension, expecting to report by
the early part of this summer. The early part of this summer has
come and gone.
Statistics Canada is now saying that the minister has the final
report to review and it will be released at his discretion. Those
of us who are interested in the findings of the expert panel will
have to wait until the minister chooses to release its
recommendations.
Certainly all of us would benefit from knowing the results of
the panel's interpretation of release of historical census
information, particularly given the important discussion tonight
on this matter.
As part of the review of this topic the panel was asked to
examine a couple of options regarding possible remedies to allow
access to census records. One option would see the 2001 census
and any future census transferred to the national archives after
an established period of 92 years. The second option would see a
similar change made retroactively to allow access to the 1911
census after 92 years. This second option entails breaking the
promise of confidentiality made by the government of the day to
the people who completed the censuses since 1906.
I understand a number of concerns with respect to this matter,
both from the perspective of privacy and confidentiality and the
need for historical access to information. As the past president
of the local New Ross Historical Society in Nova Scotia, I am
fully aware of the usefulness of census records when exploring
and tracing family ties and compiling historical snapshots of any
particular moment of time.
It is interesting, and I think important, to look at the history
of census taking in Canada. According to a publication by
Statistics Canada, Intendant Jean Talon ordered the first census
in 1666 in New France. The basis of the door to door enumeration
was to better prepare for the development of the colony. The
3,215 colonists in the areas of Montreal, Trois-Rivières,
Cap-de-la-Madeleine and Quebec participated. Until 1739 there
were 36 censuses conducted under French rule.
With British occupation censuses became more intermittent until
the British North America Act of 1867. That act established the
need for more regular, dependable data collection, which was
particularly important for regional population counts as the
British North America Act set out democratic representation based
on population, a system still in place today.
As a Nova Scotian I also found it interesting to note that it
was the 1767 census of Nova Scotia that introduced questions on
religion and origin.
The PC Party recognizes and supports the release of census
information to the general public. Not only does this
information assist historians and genealogists but also everyday
Canadians can find out information about Canada's past.
Sure, there are other options available for historical searches
but to cut off this important avenue would be to ignore the past,
and we all know that when we ignore the past we are unprepared
for the future.
A survey was conducted as part of the expert panel's review of
access to historical censuses.
1850
The survey found that Canadians agree with having access to past
census records particularly to enable families to trace their
backgrounds. When the questions emphasized the fact that
government would have to break its promise to keep the censuses
confidential from 1906 onward there was less support.
However, if we think about why census records are useful and
informative, it would be difficult to accept that although census
taking began in Canada in 1666 there would be a complete void for
a period of 92 years from 1911 to 2003. There would be no census
information available.
It makes sense to allow access to the historical censuses on the
contingency basis that only after 92 years have passed will
records be publicly available through the national archives.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I have been
contacted by a number of people concerned with the availability
of census records. I have talked to constituents about this
matter and publicly stated my support for initiatives to allow
access to historical census records. I continue to advocate the
position. The Progressive Conservative Party supports the motion
before us today.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I understand that the hon. member for South Shore who
just spoke referred to the absence of a certain member from the
House. I believe that was out of order.
The Deputy Speaker: No, I was listening very carefully.
The member for South Shore indicated that a certain hon. member
had not participated in the debate today, but he made no
reference to the presence or absence of the member. I was quite
attentive to the fact that this was the tone of the discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion. More
than a year ago, the president of the historical and
genealogical society of my area, Mrs. Ouellet, made some
representations to ensure that this information would be made
public.
I have asked myself some questions about the protection of
personal information.
I am particularly sensitive to this whole issue since the
Department of Human Resources Development accidentally sent me
some incorrect information about myself. I think there is a
distinction to be made between historical information collected
through the 1911 census and protected ever since then and the
privacy issue.
I believe the motion put forward will help us reach a greater
consensus in the House to let the government know how important
it is to make a decision as soon as possible and to take into
account all the various points of view.
From what I gather from the arguments I have heard in support of
this motion, it seems that the report submitted to the minister
was quite favourable. I hope this means that the government is
considering providing access to this information in an
appropriate way.
The Minister of Industry, who is responsible for this issue,
will have to complete his work quickly, because he has had this
report in hand for some time now. He can make it public at the
same time that he announces the government's position.
As for the House, it would be interesting to say to all those
history buffs, to all our historians, to all those who would
find it useful, such as genealogists, that, yes, they can use
the information collected via this census.
Some said that in other countries, the data remain unavailable
for 90 or 100 years. In the present case, it is close to 90
years. I believe we have all the arguments in favour of public
access to this information, so that it can be used for
historical purposes and so that this anomaly be corrected.
In the subsequent censuses, there were no provisions concerning
the period after which the information would be made available.
1855
I would be very happy if we could allow people in our historical
and genealogical societies to do their job so that they can
respond to requests made to them in that regard and if we could
settle this issue once and for all.
I have been was in favour of the motion from the start. This is
my personal position, and I will probably support the amendment
as well because I think it will create a larger consensus in the
House to send a clear message to the government. The time has
come for the government to act responsibly, make up its mind and
state its position.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate the amendment to what
is actually my motion. This motion seeks to have the government
release the results of the 1911 census and by implication every
census thereafter. I have spoken to the principle of the motion
in the first hour of debate and will not reiterate. Rather I
will address briefly the amendment brought before us by the hon.
member for Ottawa Centre.
I note with some dismay the remarks of my itinerate colleague
from South Shore who for some reason apparently supports the
motion but saw some reason to criticize its mover for not having
participated in the debate. I am here tonight to participate in
the debate. I was here during the first hour and I was here at
every stage in this debate. I think in private members' hour
that kind of apparently petty partisanship is uncalled for. I am
as partisan as anyone when it is called for, but certainly not
when we are discussing matters of this nature. I found that
regrettable.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre seeks to amend this motion by
changing the words “the government should take” to “the
government should consider taking”. I object strenuously.
Millions of Canadians have an interest in this matter although
they may not yet realize it. Certainly tens of thousands have a
very acute interest in the passage of the motion. Genealogists,
archivists, librarians, researchers and historians through many
personal and organized representations to their representatives
and to this place have asked for the government to release the
1911 archives for the census of that year.
It was principally as a result of those representations that I
brought forward the motion. I thought these archivists,
genealogists and so on had made a very reasonable case that the
release of these documents would be well within what would be
very conventional and would not violate privacy rights or
undertakings on the part of the government.
I brought a motion which would suggest that the government
should take this action. Let us be honest and frank about it.
This is how it works. Government members have been deluged with
mail on the issue like all other members from people concerned
about the issue asking for the release of these documents. It
has become a political concern for them.
I suspect that many of these members have received dozens of
letters and communications asking for their support of this
motion or action of this nature to be taken. It has become a
small but not insignificant political concern for them.
Undoubtedly many of these members intended to vote in favour of
my motion that the government should take this action and release
these census documents.
I am sure this is what happened. The Minister of Industry is
responsible for the oversight of Statistics Canada and the
archives. Undoubtedly his office realized that the motion could
be somewhat embarrassing for the government because he clearly
had no intention of taking decisive action on the matter.
Rather, the Minister of Industry appointed a committee to delay,
a panel of experts, which is a typical government procedure, to
study the issue into the ground probably at least until after the
election so that my hon. colleagues opposite could tell all the
genealogists and local historians in their ridings not to worry
in that the government was considering the matter and in the
fullness of time and at the earliest opportunity would release
the archived documents.
1900
No doubt they were planning to do that with the committee to
delay. This motion comes along and suddenly forces them, heaven
forbid, to actually confront the issue, especially because it has
been deemed votable.
The minister says that the government has to come up with
some way to water this thing down so that it is not obliged to
take any sort of action at all, but instead can continue to delay
the release of these census documents and denude this as a
political issue for the backbench government members. That is
exactly what has happened. Let us be grown-ups about this.
I strenuously object to the motion which would require that the
government consider taking action. The government can consider
taking action on anything, anytime. This amendment renders this
motion meaningless.
I want to clearly put on the record that this will not serve as
an adequate loincloth, if you will, for government members who
hope to go back to their ridings and tell their constituents
interested in access to this important historical information
that they voted in favour of this motion, that they voted in
favour of the release of these census documents. That is not
true.
This is an disingenuous motion designed to cloud the issue for
those with an interest in obtaining these records. It is a
somewhat underhanded effort on the part of the government to
prevent the House from actually reflecting the interests and
concerns of their constituents. It is a very simple matter, but
the government and the minister want to maintain a stranglehold
on this information. He does not want the House, its members or,
heaven forbid, his own members representing their constituents
deciding that this archival information should be released from
the 1911 census. He wants his department and his bureaucrats to
be able to make this decision. That is why this amendment has
come forward from a government member tonight.
I just say to my colleagues opposite and everyone else that this
completely dilutes the meaningfulness of the motion. I would ask
members to please vote against the amendment and support the
original motion which has stronger language and which creates at
least a strong sense of the House. Even if my motion passes
unamended, it will not force the government to take action. It
will merely give a strong sense of the will of the House. That
is what private members' motions are intended for. Let us use
that procedure properly. We get very few votable private
members' motions. Let us use this one to actually represent our
constituents in a non-partisan fashion. Instead of protecting the
minister's hide and his committee to delay, let us vote against
the amendment and support the original motion, as no doubt most
members would be inclined to do.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to move:
That any requested recorded divisions pertaining to the Business
of Supply of Thursday 21 September, 2000 be deferred to the end
of Government Orders, on Tuesday 26 September, 2000.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1911 CENSUS RECORDS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak to this
subject matter after the mover of the original motion. It does
not give me great pleasure that we now have an amendment which
basically guts the motion. However, it allows me to speak to
this subject again. I previously spoke to it on April 10 and it
would have nullified my ability to speak tonight if that
amendment had not occurred.
As explained by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, the mover
of the original motion, essentially what we have here is a
circumstance where it is obvious that the Minister of Industry,
who is responsible for the census data and the Statistics Canada
operations, does not want to release this information for his own
purposes.
1905
There is much fuzziness around the issue and it has been
exploited to the government's advantage because of that. We are
one of the jurisdictions in the western world without clear
statutory rules for when census information shall be released.
The most critical period of time in terms of mass emigration
particularly from Europe to Canada is the period 1910 to 1930.
That is very important historical information for us. It is also
very important information for the country to the south of us,
the United States.
Our set-up is diametrically different from the standpoint that
the U.S. is getting ready to release its 1930 census data next
year. It has a 70 year rule. The motion does not propose a 70
year rule. It proposes that the 1911 census data be released in
2003, which is 92 years. We can argue all day about what is an
appropriate length of time but we need clear statutory rules as
to when Canada will do that. The current situation is open to
political manipulation.
The minister asked Statistics Canada to produce a report on what
it thought about the whole situation. The Statistics Canada
report essentially stated that there was an everlasting promise
to keep the material secret. It has been able to make that
statement without any documentation.
A review of all the statutes, proclamations, the Canada
Gazette and newspaper clippings of the day would indicate
quite the contrary. The more one thinks about why Statistics
Canada would take such a position, the more one is led to the
conclusion that Statistics Canada is actually in a conflict of
interest situation on this matter.
Very pervasive, invasive questions have been asked recently by
Statistics Canada. There are members of the public, including
myself, who do not believe that the level of inquiry is
appropriate for census material. By using coercion, the threat
of penalty and other measures, we are told that we have to
respond to the questions.
That accumulated data becomes a saleable commodity by Statistics
Canada. It is in business with this data. It does not want to
threaten its ability to coerce the public into responding to
those questions. Therefore it has to hold out this guarantee, or
at least favour that end of the spectrum.
I do not believe we should be giving any plausible credibility
to its report. The motion is clear in stating that nationally we
have a vested interest in actually releasing our census data. We
will lose too much of our history if we do not do so. We will be
out of step with other parts of the western world. We will leave
an unsatisfactory circumstance to be cleaned up later.
1910
There is no better time than this year to clarify what the rules
of census data collection are because we are going into a census
year next year. Let us deal with more than the 1911 census. Let
us deal with the 1911 census and subsequent ones, as well as the
2001 census.
This motion deals with the most immediate priority, the 1911
census. I urge everyone to reject the amendment and to vote for
the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this
day, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed
put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until
Tuesday, September 26, 2000 at the expiry of the time provided
for Government Orders.
It being 7.12 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.)