36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 48
CONTENTS
Monday, February 14, 2000
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-205. Second Reading
|
1105
1110
1115
1120
1125
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1130
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1135
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1140
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1145
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1150
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1155
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Report stage
|
| Mr. Ted White |
1205
1210
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1215
1220
1225
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1230
1235
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1240
1245
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1250
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1255
1300
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1305
1310
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1315
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1320
1325
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1330
1335
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1340
1345
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1350
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CRAIG SWAYZE
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1400
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| GARTH LEGGE
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| HEART AND STROKE MONTH
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1405
| CANADIAN RANGERS
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| FATHER GEORGES-HENRI LÉVESQUE
|
| THE LATE CHARLES SCHULZ
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| CLAYOQUOT SOUND AND REDBERRY LAKE
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1410
| YUKON ACT
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1445
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1450
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| SUDAN
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1455
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1500
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1505
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1510
1515
1520
1525
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1530
1535
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1540
1625
(Division 670)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1630
| CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendments
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1635
1640
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1645
1650
1655
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1700
| PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1705
1710
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1715
1720
1725
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1730
1735
1740
1745
| Motion
|
1835
(Division 671)
| Motion negatived
|
| MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Report stage
|
1845
(Division 672)
| Motion No. 4 negatived
|
1850
(Division 673)
| Motion No. 5 negatived
|
1900
(Division 674)
| Motion No. 6 negatived
|
1905
(Division 675)
| Motion No. 7 negatived
|
1915
(Division 676)
| Motion No. 8 negatived
|
1920
(Division 677)
| Motion No. 10 negatived
|
1930
(Division 678)
| Motion No. 16 negatived
|
1935
(Division 679)
| Motion No. 33 negatived
|
1940
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Dress code
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
|
1950
(Division 680)
| Motion No. 34 negatived
|
1955
(Division 681)
| Motion No. 35 negatived
|
2005
(Division 682)
| Motion No. 36 negatived
|
2010
(Division 683)
| Motion No. 37 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Drug Approval
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
2015
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
2020
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 48
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 14, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) moved that
Bill C-205, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in
employment) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
1105
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to raise a
problem which has been been going on for far too long in Quebec
and in Canada, and which in my opinion is prejudicial to the
development of an essential sector of Canadian and Quebec
industry, namely automobile mechanics.
I will start off by asking my colleagues of all parties in the
House for their co-operation and support, because I believe that
this problem is vital to a category of workers who are literally
discriminated against when it comes to tax deductions.
I believe that this bill goes beyond party lines.
I do not think it has anything to do with the differences of
opinion there might be between the left and right in Canada,
between sovereignists and federalists. I believe this bill
should be an opportunity to rise above party lines. This bill
will be a votable item, as I remind hon. members. Each and
every one of my colleagues in this House will therefore be able
to vote according to his or her conscience. Based on the number
of letters I have received in my office since introducing Bill
C-205, I have great hopes of its being passed by the House.
The people affected by it are the men and women who work under
the hoods of our cars and other vehicles, covered with grease
and grime, day after day, in order to keep them in running order.
Each and every one of the 301 members of this House, myself
included, have to submit every four years to the test of
democracy, and when I say submit, I should probably be saying
pass the test of democracy to convince people to support us.
From time to time, we all visit car dealers for various meetings
or during election campaigns. I am convinced that all my
colleagues have had the same experience as I have. The owners of
the garage open their doors to us, they allow us to meet the
employees, either during the morning or the afternoon break, or
at lunch time, and we then have the opportunity to talk with
those men and women who tell us about the problems they are
facing.
Some of you might be wondering why the Bloc Quebecois transport
critic is introducing a bill. It is a private member's bill. I
was, and still am, of the opinion that it is a problem that
should be fixed by parliament.
We have to understand that it is actually very difficult for
these men and women to work in a ideal context because of the
high cost of the tools they need to do their job. We have to
understand that mechanics usually have to provide every tool, or
at least many of the tools that they need to do their work.
These tools, as members can imagine, are much more that the
simple screwdriver that people can buy for a dollar or two. They
are very expensive tools.
According to my information, a young mechanic or apprentice very
often has to lay out a sizeable amount of money. This bill
raises another problem with regard to the opportunity these
young people have to work and earn a decent living.
It often happens that a young mechanic who has just finished
school has to spend between $5,000 and as much as $30,000 or
$40,000 to buy the tools he needs for his job. Moreover, some of
these expenses are recurrent. Technological change makes some
tools obsolete quite rapidly, and new parts have to be bought.
Some tools are sometimes forgotten inside vehicles, or some of
them break and have to be replaced.
To sum up, a mechanic has to spend thousands of dollars on the
tools of his trade, but since he is a worker and not a business,
he cannot benefit from tax deductions.
I hope the national revenue and finance ministers will be
sensitive to this problem.
1110
However, a business that has to buy equipment can claim a
deduction for these costs and get depreciation. This is not
possible for an individual, except in certain cases.
Here are a few of these exceptions. We have the chain saw
operators, and forestry workers, for example. To a certain
extent, musicians and artists can also claim deductions for
their instruments and tools. But mechanics cannot.
I therefore believe that mechanics are being treated unfairly
and it is high time parliament did something about it. Today,
February 14, on Valentine's Day, we are exactly two weeks to the
day from the Minister of Finance's budget. We know the budget
will be brought down on February 28 because the Prime Minister
let it slip out about two weeks ago already. I wonder if the
Minister of Finance was pleased when his Prime Minister
accidentally revealed the date of the budget speech. So, the
budget will be brought down on February 28.
I call on the Minister of Finance, on his community spirit and
on his sense of justice and equity.
I would appreciate it if, in his budget—and I convinced that the
minister will be receptive and our speeches today are aimed at
making him aware of this issue—he took into account the
government's anticipated surplus of some $95 billion over the
next five years. The minister should take the opportunity
provided by his budget to grant tax deductions to mechanics.
I mentioned earlier that I received numerous letters of support
from members on both sides of the House. I also received letters
from some of my constituents who work as mechanics in a garage
and who are asking me to act. I would like to quote one such
letter written by Mario Labrecque and Gérald Corriveau. Both
work as mechanics in Beauport and they sent me this letter:
As constituents in your riding, we wish to inform you of the
discriminatory nature of a tax policy that has an impact on our
livelihood as automotive technicians.
A young apprentice who
begins his career as a automotive technician must, on average,
invest over $15,000 in tools and equipment. He must also invest
an average of $5,000 each year to keep up to date.
These two persons go on to say:
The problem is that we are not entitled to deduct the cost of
our tools, even though buying these tools is a condition of
employment for us.
The unfairness of this treatment is aggravated by the fact that
members of other professions, including chain saw operators and
musicians, are allowed to deduct the cost of their saw or of
their musical instrument. Moreover, the decision of the federal
Minister of Finance not to grant any tax relief to mechanics
regarding the purchasing of tools and equipment is a deterrent
for anyone who might interested in that trade. The result is
that the industry has a serious problem recruiting candidates
and there is currently a shortage of skilled manpower.
In the light of these remarks, I decided to introduce this bill,
which is intended to provide a deduction relating specifically
to, and I will explain the content of Bill C-205, the cost of
tool rentals, tool maintenance, related insurance and the full
price of tools costing less than $250.
This measure, I am sure, will ensure tax equity for people who
are well deserving of it. This parliament is aware of this
injustice and has been for a long time. On many occasions since
1992, members have drawn the fact to the government's attention.
There was the member for Lakeland, I recall, and even a Liberal
member, who introduced a similar bill when the party was in
opposition in the early 1990s.
1115
How have things changed since? Why has the Liberal Party not
remained true to itself? Nearly every party, each in turn, has
made the government aware of this inequity and nearly all have
reached the same conclusion: the solution is a tax deduction for
mechanics.
In its December 1997 prebudget report, the House Standing
Committee on Finance said:
The Committee believes that all Canadian employees should be
allowed to deduct from their income the cost of large mandatory
employment expenses. Special provisions in the Income Tax Act
already apply to artists, chainsaw operators and musicians.
To deny this tax treatment to apprentices and technicians in the
automotive industry is not only unfair, it also imposes an
impediment to employment, especially for the young who might
choose to work as apprentices. Revising the tax treatment of
such expenses would remove the impediment that exists under the
present tax rules.
I would point out that the majority of the members of the House
Standing Committee on Finance are government members. I would
hope the Liberal members of this House will indicate the route
the government should follow in the vote at second reading of my
bill.
Through the Parliamentary Secretary to the then Minister of
Finance, the government implied that it had great sympathy for
mechanics and the difficult situation they faced, but that it
could not take a piecemeal approach because other categories of
workers might be facing a similar problem and it was necessary
to bring in a legislative reform that would apply to all trades.
Despite its sympathy, in the budgets tabled since the 1997
report of the Standing Committee on Finance, the government has
still not introduced the tax deduction needed to resolve this
problem. Once again, I appeal to members, regardless of their
party, and particularly to the Liberal majority, to offer
automobile mechanics more than their sympathy.
Sympathy is certainly helpful. It is a comfort.
It is encouraging and supportive. But I am asking for more. I
am asking for a concrete policy, for this parliament to take a
democratic decision that will bring around the Minister of
Finance and influence the government. I am therefore calling
for more than sympathy.
I would like to tell the House what I think of the supposed
importance of not opening Pandora's box by creating a deduction
for mechanics and not for other trades that might also be
similarly penalized.
An injustice exists. We know what needs to be done to fix it.
Under no circumstances can we allow it to drag on because there
might be other similar cases. On the contrary, let us resolve
to take corrective action in the case of these other injustices
at a later time.
We will hear from other members.
Perhaps they will honestly decide to introduce other private
members' bills to correct other injustices, but the bill I have
introduced concerns a tax deduction for automobile mechanics.
I implore the members opposite not to play the game of doing
nothing until a comprehensive solution is found to the problems
of federal Canadian tax law.
1120
The federal government coffers are full. We expect a $95 billion
surplus over the next five years. The Minister of Finance has
money coming out his ears.
We have seen some of the decisions that have been taken,
including the one about giving some thought to providing tax
benefits to hockey teams owners when the average salary in the
National Hockey League is $1.2 million. Thanks to public opinion
and because ordinary citizens sent faxes, phoned the riding
offices and condemned this idea I would describe as stupid, that
of giving tax deductions to hockey millionaires, the government
thought about it for three days, then changed its mind.
As far as this bill is concerned, mechanics are not hockey
millionaires, they do not earn $1.2 million a year working in a
garage. These people are middle-class workers, who are struggling
and who have children in school. These young people need
clothing and they sometimes have to rent an apartment away from
home to pursue specialised studies in college or at university.
We are talking here about middle-class people.
If, as we often say in our speeches, we as parliamentarians are
sympathetic to the concerns of the ordinary people and the
middle class, this bill is a very good opportunity to show it
instead of simply expressing pious hopes, saying kind words, and
crowing over how nice and fine our actions are. When we vote on
this bill at second reading, we will see if the 301 members of
the House are showing solidarity with those who are unfairly
treated.
It is obvious that, when they finish school, many young people
do not have $15,000 to spend on a tool kit. What does that mean?
It means that, when they enter the work market, young people who
have already run into debt to get an education have to get
further into debt to equip themselves with a tool kit that may
cost between a minimum of $5,000 and $15,000.
Usually, these young people do not own any property or house,
which they could use as collateral for a bank loan. Often they
will need their parents to guarantee their loan. Not all parents
are able to stand surety for their children. Let us not forget
that parents who have spent a lot of money to support and help
their children sometimes are not able to stand security for a
bank loan. I hope that you are aware of the fact that, after
graduation, young people do not automatically have $5,000 or
$10,000 or $15,000 in their pockets to buy a tool kit.
Let us not forget that a tool kit is required to perform their
job. It is a job requirement. The garage owner will tell them “I
am willing to give you a job, but you must bring your own tools”.
I conclude by saying that my bill, contrary to similar bills
debated in this House since 1992, is a votable bill. I hope that
that is evidence of a sincere commitment to this issue on the
part of my colleagues. I thank the members of the committee for
having given me the opportunity to plead in front of them and
for having agreed to make the bill a votable item. This is good
news.
The Prime Minister regularly states that the members of his
party are free to vote according to their conscience on private
members' bills. There is no party line imposed by the
government. Each member is free to vote for or against the bill,
as he or she sees fit.
1125
During election campaigns, all the members of this House
probably had the opportunity to visit garages and dealerships
employing automotive technicians. Thus, several of my colleagues
are aware of the problem.
Those who vote against the bill will have explanations to give
to thousands of voters come the next election.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate
the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans for
this initiative and for his work on this very important subject.
[English]
This private member's bill proposes that the Income Tax Act be
amended to permit automobile mechanics to deduct the cost of
tools they are required to provide as a condition of employment.
The deduction encompasses maintenance, rental and insurance
costs, the full cost of tools under $250 and the capital cost of
tools over $250. This is a complex issue with many aspects that
need to be examined carefully.
In framing the issue, however, a number of tax policy principles
must be kept in mind. First, any tax policy change should be
fair. Second, changes should also be relatively simple to
administer and enforce for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
and easy to comply with for taxpayers. Third, any change should
be consistent with the government's overall fiscal situation.
[Translation]
Mechanics are not the only workers who have to incur
considerable expenses as a condition of employment. It would be
difficult to justify giving tax relief to mechanics and not to
other taxpayers, as proposed in the bill.
[English]
In fact, other groups are also seeking tax relief for work
related expenses. Other expenditures for which tax recognition
has been sought include personal computers purchased by
employees, reading material, professional journals and other
general costs associated with skills upgrading, business clothing
and construction safety clothing, home office expenses,
photographic equipment for staff photographers and tools for
employee trade persons.
Extending relief in all of these situations would be a major
shift in policy and would be fiscally very expensive. This is
all the more difficult in view of the many other priority areas
for tax reductions, given the overall level of personal income
taxation that Canadians face.
Moreover, one would need to ensure that any tax relief is
targeted only for items required as a condition of employment and
not for those purchased for personal use. This would be
difficult for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to administer
and enforce and for taxpayers to comply with as many items, such
as personal computers, provide a personal benefit even when they
are required for work.
[Translation]
The provisions that would have to be made to solve these
problems would necessarily be complex since they would have to
cover a wide variety of items which could be subject to tax
relief as well as the various situations where these articles
are used at work. To have an idea of the monumental task that
would represent, one just has to think of the numerous
provisions dealing with car expenses.
The provisions governing the deduction for equipment acquisition
expenses by employees would apply to hundreds of different items
and to a good number of occupations.
[English]
The private member's bill that is before the House today would
also provide tax relief to all mechanics, irrespective of the
size of their expenditures, instead of targeting relief to those
incurring extraordinary expenses relative to their income. For
mechanics with employment expenses comparable to those incurred
by other employees this would be unwarranted as tax relief for
normal employment expenses is provided through the basic personal
amount.
1130
Given the complexities associated with providing tax recognition
for specific employment expenses and the need to reduce the
overall level of personal taxation that Canadians face, the
government provided broad based tax relief in the last two
budgets and will continue to do so in future budgets.
I hope the hon. members present will agree with this approach
and not support the private member's bill before us today.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, Bill
C-205, in my view, is simply a matter of fairness.
As a physician and an amateur mechanic, I have two interests in
this. I would like to compare what happened in my office when I
became a young doctor setting up a practice. I also have a
profound interest in old cars so I have my own tools, for which I
have spent a lot of money. Because of my medical practice and my
love of cars, I would like to rebut some of the things the member
opposite has said.
When I set up my practice as a young doctor I had significant
expenses. I bought electrocardiograph equipment. I bought
surgical equipment. I set them up in my office. Every single
penny that I spent on those things was deductible as a practice
expense. It meant that the thousands of dollars that I had spent
setting up my medical practice as a country surgeon was not an
onerous burden for me personally.
I also said that I am a keen car enthusiast. I purchased a
significant number of mechanic tools, hobby tools and personal
interest tools. Those should in no way become deductible. How
about the young mechanic who just finishes school and sets
himself up in his mechanic practice? He generates a huge
expense. I have personal knowledge of some of the new equipment
because it is equipment I could not afford. There is a
significant expense in diagnostic equipment.
I bought those tools for my physician employment and I lost some
of them and some wore out. Sometimes new technology came along
and I had to replace them. Every single time that happened I got
a personal deduction in my practice expenses. What happens to
the young mechanic? If he loses a tool or has to upgrade his
tools, or new technology comes along and his tools become
obsolete, should he have credit for that? In my view, it is a
straight matter of fairness.
I listened to someone say that it would be difficult for the
department to figure out what was personal and what was bought
for employment. Obviously if I used a scalpel for hobby work
that would not be for the practice of medicine. If the
department had trouble with this, it would be very simple for it
to come to the mechanic's home or place of work and say “These
tools are personal”, if all that is needed is to establish that
they are in use for gainful employment and for making funds.
I also listened to the incredible comment that there are other
people calling for tax fairness in other areas. Those things
should be looked at on their merits. Should construction safety
equipment be brought under this regime? Should computer use be
brought under this regime? Only if they are used for a specific
generation of income.
This is one of those issues where I reflect back on the Liberals
when they were in opposition. One of their members put forward a
private member's bill just like this one. Who voted for it? The
Liberals did. Not so long ago my colleague from Lakeland brought
forward just such a bill in private members' business which was
supported by, guess who, Reformers.
Now we have a member of the Bloc. What is going on here in
terms of the partisan debate? If this had merit when Liberals
were sitting on this side of the House it has merit, plain and
simple. In my view, this is so meritorious that I cannot imagine
that the member would stand up here and argue against it with a
straight face. If mechanics have significant expense for their
tools, and they do, why not give them a deduction? It is a
straightforward deduction.
1135
I will leave this issue for a second and talk about two other
big problems with our tax system, one of which actually brought
me to parliament. The GST as it relates to medical practitioners
is handled very poorly. All other professionals who pay GST on
their rent, supplies and equipment can use it as a deduction, but
physicians and nurse practitioners cannot. That is wrong. The
GST should be zero rated for those individuals, which is
something I hope the government will also pay attention to.
They talk about fairness, and once again this is an issue of
fairness. If an accountant pays rent and pays GST on that rent,
he gets a deduction. If a physician pays rent, which every
physician in private practice in Canada does, he or she pays the
GST and does not get a deduction. I want the member across to
remember that.
I have another issue that relates to the GST. The GST is a big
issue with Canadian auctioneers who auction off goods, such as
art and antique vehicles. An individual who purchases such an
article has to pay GST on it but there is no way to get a
deduction. If the person resells that piece of property, then
GST is paid on it again. That is called a cascading of tax. For
used goods that are sold over and over at auctions there is a
cascading of GST, which is wrong. These are matters of straight
fairness.
I support the Bloc member on his initiative. I congratulate him
for bringing it forth again. It is votable. It will give us an
opportunity to see if the Liberal members will vote the same way
in government as they did in opposition.
For the mechanics, I admit that this is a little lighthearted.
For all those individuals who vote against the mechanics getting
a deduction for their tools, which is not that big of an amount,
maybe they should leave the spark plugs out of their vehicles so
they cannot come here to the House.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I also
support Bill C-205 which would amend the Income Tax Act so that
mechanics can deduct the cost of their tools.
It seems that bills similar to this have been brought forward by
different parties over the past years and, at different times,
supported by all the parties. We now have an opportunity to vote
on this. If we all vote at the same time to support it, it would
obviously pass. Historically we have seen support for this bill
and for the mechanics in question.
It is hardly fair to mechanics, who are self-employed or
employed by someone else, to have to provide their own tools.
That is the equalizing effect. Whether they are running their
own business or working for someone else, it is up to the
mechanics to buy their own tools, and those tools are expensive.
If there is one thing I know, having many family members in the
trades, they never dream of showing up to a job site without
their own tool kit. They also have to upgrade their tools and
update their knowledge. As machines become more sophisticated,
the tools become more sophisticated and more expensive.
On top of that, those living in the north may need industrial,
high quality tools which are not easily available and are more
expensive. This adds more expense to the cost of people getting
trades and going through their apprenticeships. Apprentices do
not make a lot of money because they must work for somebody else.
They should be able to deduct the cost of their tools.
Fairness, as it is being distributed right now, is certainly in
question. The Liberal member who stood up made outright excuses
for not supporting the bill. He said that it should be fair,
that it is complex, that it should be easy to comply with and
that it should be consistent with the fiscal situation. That is
just putting up roadblocks.
As it stands, mechanics are facing a situation that is blatantly
unfair. What is wrong with treating someone fairly? Is it that
it would encourage other people to expect to be treated fairly? I
do not think that is an adequate excuse for not supporting this
bill.
It is also not an excuse to say that it would make a lot of work
for the new Canada tax agency to treat Canadians fairly. Every
Canadian deserves the right to be treated fairly. When it comes
to the cost of doing business and carrying out one's trade or
profession, it should be treated equally. The question should
not be based on whether a person is in a trade or in a
profession, or that somehow trades do not rank equally with other
professions. We should never entertain that sort of thought.
Whether people are doctors, mechanics or carpenters, they should
be eligible to deduct the cost of their tools to do their
business in the country.
1140
Any move forward to a fairer tax system is a good position to
take. As a private member in the House, I will certainly support
the bill. I hope other Liberal members will see it as a cause to
support as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Madam Speaker, it
is with bitterness that I rise this morning on Bill C-205.
However, it is not because of Bill C-205 that I am so bitter, so
sad and so disappointed, it is because of the clarity bill,
which we will be considering clause by clause in a few hours.
Bill C-205 leads me to talk about Bill C-20. Bill C-20 shows
Quebecers, Canadians, the democratic world how low and arrogant
the Liberal government has become and shows that it does not
have the slightest respect for democracy.
Its behaviour is shameful for all of us, members of the House,
including you, Madam Speaker, who preside over the House.
I ask myself many questions: Where have they gone, the
democratic values of the leader of the Liberal Party, the very
little guy from Shawinigan? Where have they gone, the democratic
principles of the brilliant university professor, the lackey of
the very little guy from Shawinigan, the machiavellian member
for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville?
How should we interpret the silence of the President of the
Treasury Board, of the Minister of Finance, of the Minister of
Public Works, of all the Liberal backbenchers on this assault on
democracy? Are the advancement of the Liberal Party and the lust
for power more important than democracy?
I have not forgotten the Minister for International Trade, the
hon. member for Papineau—Saint-Denis; every member knows that he
makes himself scarce these days, since he is responsible for the
HRDC scandal. What a courageous man.
History will teach our children that the leaders of the Reform
Party and of the New Democratic Party and the deputy House
leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and all the members
voting for C-20 have dealt democracy a dirty blow.
I hope that members of this House will weigh the benefits of
Bill C-205, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in
employment), in terms of democracy and fairness.
I want to remind the House that mechanics generally have to
provide most of the tools of their trade. You surely know how
expensive these tools are.
Usually, a mechanic who is starting his career must invest at
least $5,000 in various tools and, depending on his further
training, this can reach over $40,000. The existing law is
discriminatory for automotive mechanics. Indeed, a business can
claim a capital cost allowance for the purchase of equipment,
but auto mechanics cannot.
1145
The act is unfair because it permits chainsaw operators,
musicians, artists and farmers to deduct the cost of their
instruments and tools, but it does not let auto mechanics do so.
The current act is dealing a serious blow to the profession of
auto mechanic. Due to very high costs of buying tools,
practically no young people are choosing this profession any
more, which causes a shortage of auto mechanics.
Bill-205, sponsored by my colleague, the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, will permit
mechanics to deduct the cost of providing tools for their
employment if they are required to do so by the terms of the
employment.
This deduction will encompass the following: rental,
maintenance and insurance costs, the full cost of tools under
$250, and such inflation-adjusted limit as is set by regulation,
and the capital cost allowance of tools over $250, set by
regulation.
I would like to draw the members' attention to the fact that the
Commons finance committee had recommended, in its December 1997
prebudget report:
The Committee believes that all Canadian employees should be
allowed to deduct from their income the cost of large mandatory
employment expenses. Special provisions in the Income Tax Act
already apply to artists, musicians, chainsaw operators and
farmers.
I ask all members to support this excellent amendment to the
Income Tax Act.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, at
the beginning of my discourse I would like to seek unanimous
consent to split my 10 minutes with the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have permission to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure
today that I rise to speak to Bill C-205. This legislation
addresses the very important issue of tax deductibility for the
tools of mechanics.
I have met and spoken with a number of people representing
mechanics across the country. As members of the House of Commons
finance committee we have heard some very sound representations
on behalf of these individuals. The fact is that many of them
have to invest between $15,000 and $40,000 initially as they
enter this industry. Every year their equipment needs
replacement and updating, which is an ongoing expense.
It is important to realize that the average income of mechanics
across Canada is about $29,000 per year. It is very difficult
for that industry to attract new people and to attract people
with the skills and desire to succeed as mechanics with this kind
of barrier to entry. It is having a deleterious impact on the
ability of the automobile industry to attract people to this
important area.
Initially I had some concerns that this would further complicate
an already too complicated tax code, but in many ways it
simplifies the tax system because it equalizes the treatment of
equipment necessary for one to do his or her job. We heard other
speakers this morning refer to the fact that other industries can
claim tax deductibility on the equipment necessary to complete
the job.
This would equalize it to ensure that our mechanics have the same
treatment.
1150
It has a broad base of support from several national
organizations. As well, in 1996 and 1997 the House of Commons
finance committee recommended that we move toward ensuring tax
deductibility of the equipment or tools necessary for mechanics
to do their jobs. This is just part of the tax reform we should
be seeing. It is a very small but important part for the
mechanics and the people they serve. It is a step in the right
direction.
I hope in the upcoming budget to see a significant level of tax
reform and tax reduction, no just tofu tax tinkering but some
real red meat tax reform that will help benefit Canadians and
provide them with a fairer, more progressive and innovative tax
system to create more of a culture of opportunity in Canada. This
would be a good place to start.
With that, I ask the member for Cumberland—Colchester to
provide us with some of his erudite views as a former member of
the Canadian automobile industry.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am certainly pleased to participate in this debate. As
the last member said, I was directly involved in the car business
for 18 years and probably another 5 years indirectly before that.
I worked with mechanics for years and years. I feel very close
to this proposal and totally support it. It is long past due and
I hope all members will support it in the end.
We have a lot of unemployment in my area. It has one of the
highest rates of unemployment in Canada. We have a group of
people that want to work and train but are unable to do so
because of the high cost of training and the high cost of getting
into the business.
We have two problems that we could resolve with the bill. It
would be a tremendous incentive for people to go into the
business. It would help people to get off unemployment. Any
cost that the government would incur in lost revenue would be
more than made up in unpaid employment insurance.
I have watched the car business completely change over the last
15 years. At one point people would come into the business if
they could fix a carburettor or a distributor, adjust points or
change them or the wires, and that sort of thing.
Carburettors are not in existence any more. It is all
electronic fuel injection. Distributors are not distributors
with points and rotors. They are electronic ignitions.
Transmissions, which used to be so simple to work on, are now
very complicated because they are electronic and interrelated
with onboard computers and everything else. Brakes used to be
the most simple thing. Almost anybody could change them. They
are no longer simple because they have sensors involved with the
ABS or anti-lock brake and traction lock systems.
Even the exhaust systems are different. Anybody used to be able
to change a muffler and a tailpipe. They cannot do it any more.
They need special tools and training because the exhaust is an
integral part of the pollution system in a car. As cars change
with new fuels, new standards and everything else, mechanics will
have to change. All the tools they have will be obsolete even
though they have spent $10,000 to $20,000 to purchase the tools
and were unable to write them off.
In all kinds of industries and professions people from musicians
to plumbers can write off the tools and equipment they use in
their businesses. It makes absolutely no sense that mechanics
cannot write off their tools. It is an absolute necessity.
Mechanics need these tools. They need to upgrade them almost
weekly. They cannot take them home. They are not a luxury. They
are an absolute necessity to earn their money. I applaud the
member for bringing forth the bill, and I totally support it.
In closing, I hope all members of parliament will support the
bill and vote in favour of it. It is a wrong that needs to be
righted. It has been wrong for a long time. I urge the minister
to act quickly to implement the proposal when the bill passes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what my colleague, the member
for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans, had to say
about his bill. He is to be congratulated for having taken this
initiative.
1155
In my opinion, and in the opinion of other members of the House,
the idea behind this bill compels us to look for the best way to
reduce the tax burden of our citizens. Everyone agrees that the
tax burden is too heavy. The question is: What is the best way
to reduce it?
[English]
As the parliamentary secretary said in his remarks, when one
examines the question of what is the best way to reduce the tax
burden on our citizens we always have to choose. I was a little
surprised by the remarks of the hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Usually one looks to him for some sort of knowledge in these
matters. He is on the finance committee and speaks regularly on
finance matters in the House. I would have thought that he and
other members of the House would recognize the wisdom of the
words of the parliamentary secretary when he pointed out, if I
can put it in a colloquial way, “You can't have your cake and
eat it too”.
We cannot reduce tax burdens sectorally in individual areas and
at the same time say we want broad based tax relief as well. The
consequence of a continued sectoral approach is one of tax
expenditure. This will be followed by demands and important
requests, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out reasonable
requests for those who are artists, for those who are working on
computers and for others to have reasonable deductions made for
them in the name of tax equity.
Equity is what we seek to achieve in the House, but it seems to
me that the real equity we are seeking to achieve at this time
when we are discussing taxes is equity in terms of a broad based
tax relief. That is what the government has been seeking to
achieve with tremendous difficulty since our first mandate in
1993 in bringing huge budget deficits under control and having
broad based tax relief.
We have managed to achieve a balanced budget. As a result in
1998 we were able to take 400,000 people off the tax rolls. That
seems to me most important. From 1998-99 we perhaps got 600,000
Canadians off the tax rolls with a total of $16.5 billion in tax
relief spoken to in the last budget, without thinking of what is
ahead in the next budget.
I have heard about the issue of the mechanics. I sympathize a
great deal with it and with other sectors that also have certain
tools for which they should have relief. I talked with a single
woman in my riding during the last election. She earned $21,000
a year. She had two children to raise in downtown Toronto. She
did not have any professional tools for which she could seek
relief. In my view she should not be on the tax rolls when we
look at the type of problems of a person like that living in our
downtown communities.
We have to look at broad based tax relief. We have to look at
moving the middle class, lifting its general levels and making it
available to all Canadians. This must be our first priority
before we turn to specific issues in specific sectors.
That is what the government has been doing. We have managed to
balance the budget. We have kept our obligations to increase our
social policies. We have used the tax system to help those in
need through the child tax benefit and we have been reducing the
deficit.
In my view this is what we have to do. We must keep all
priorities in view and not single out one group. In the future
we will see this done. We have heard that the minister intends
to have further measures designed to move more lower income
people off the tax rolls; to increase the tax brackets so that
the burden will not be so heavy on those who are in the middle
class; to gradually approach the surtax issue; and to deal with
the issue of capital gains, which addresses the question of
productivity.
[Translation]
I agree with the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, when he describes
the problems faced by mechanics. However, we need to strike a
balance. There must be some investments in garages if we want
mechanics to be employed. The idea is that we have to look for
the right balance in the system.
1200
[English]
Speaking for my constituents in Toronto Centre—Rosedale, I
think that they are looking for that balance. They want a system
which alleviates the burden on those less able to pay, yet
encourages entrepreneurship and creates a dynamic economy of
benefit to all citizens. I dare say that we have proven the
qualities of this approach by the government. We have gotten the
economy back on track.
Unemployment is at its lowest rate ever. That was not achieved
by looking at sectoral issues; it was achieved by having a broad
based and balanced approach for all Canadian citizens.
What do the people of my riding want? They want to see a
continuation of those policies, whether they be mechanics,
artists, theatre employees, lawyers or doctors, all of whom have
special needs in their professions, in their work, or in other
ways in which they carry on, benefit and create economic benefits
for the country. Ultimately what they want is a better system
for everyone. They want to bring the general tax level down in a
way that will benefit all of society. That is the present policy
of the government.
While I congratulate the member for bringing forward the bill
and while I recognize the merits of the comments of each of the
members from the opposition who have spoken to the bill and the
needs of mechanics, I believe in my heart that the mechanics and
all other citizens who might make an equal claim for this form of
personal tax relief directed to themselves would say that it is
better that the general tax burden come down, that we address it
in a way which guarantees a balanced economy such that all
participate, that we create a sense of entrepreneurship and
fairness in the system so that all sectors benefit and that we do
not concentrate on one specific area in a way which would, as the
parliamentary secretary wisely pointed out to us, create tax
inequities, because it would create a need for certain types of
supervision. It would create a sense where one person would say,
“Why are they able to deduct that? Why cannot I deduct my dress
which I bought for my work on television? Why cannot I deduct
this because I am an artist? Why cannot I deduct that?”
Let us concentrate on the main issue which is before us. Let us
concentrate on bringing down the general tax rolls, on bringing
down the burden for all Canadians. I am confident that is what
we will hear from the Minister of Finance when he speaks to the
budget in the House at the end of this month. We will hear that
balanced approach.
The business of the governing of the country requires focusing
on the debt, the general tax burden and the needs of the economy,
which must be dynamic, which must grow and benefit all for the
benefit of all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House resumed from December 7, 1999, consideration of Bill
C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of
Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections and making
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee, and of Group No. 2.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, we
are debating the amendments in Group No. 2 to Bill C-2, which
will revise the Canada Elections Act.
The Group No. 2 amendments include one from Reform which would
alter the completely illogical 50 candidate rule for parties to
have their name on the ballot down to 12 candidates. In other
words, a party that would have 12 candidates running in a general
election would be entitled to have its party name on the ballot.
That whole issue is the subject of a court challenge. The
communist party of Canada won its challenge to the previous
elections act. The court ruled that two members constitute a
party, but during the committee proceedings, in my discussions
with individuals from the small parties who appeared as
witnesses, they all agreed that 12 was a logical number that
represents what is recognized as a party in the House. They
agreed that 12 would be logical.
Unfortunately the minister refuses to accept that as a
satisfactory compromise. He is pursuing this ridiculous 50
candidate rule, which will be struck down again by the courts. I
just do not understand why he is doing it.
1205
There is a bigger issue in the bill which also has the potential
to be struck down by the courts because of a ruling in B.C.
during the last few days. Last Thursday the Pacific Press
announced the decision against the Attorney General of British
Columbia in the Supreme Court of British Columbia concerning the
British Columbia elections act. The British Columbia elections
act had a gag law in it, the same way that this elections act has
a gag law, to prevent third parties from spending money over a
certain limit during election campaigns.
I want to read some of the details of the ruling from the B.C.
court because that ruling really relates to this bill. I think
what is happening is that the minister's bill is imploding at the
moment, based on this court ruling, and he really should hoist it
right out of here and send it back to committee to have it
consider what came out of the B.C. supreme court.
Specifically the court criticizes the Libman decision upon which
the minister based his entire case for having the gag law built
into the elections act. The minister said that Libman had ruled
that it was reasonable to have spending limits on third parties.
However, let me read into the record what the British Columbia
court decided. It was pointed out in evidence to the court that
Professor Richard Johnston, who is a professor of political
science at the University of British Columbia, gave evidence that
there have only been three studies done in Canada on the effects
of third party advertising, two by himself and one by Tanguay and
Kay.
I am not going to go into the details of each of the studies,
but suffice it to say that Mr. Johnston's initial report of his
findings indicated:
In December 1990 Professor Johnston published a paper entitled
“The Volume and Impact of Third Party Advertising in the 1998
Election”. In that paper he posited that third party
advertising might have helped the Conservative recovery during
the 1988 federal election.
This was used as the basis for the Lortie commission report and
that was used as evidence before the supreme court judges in the
case of Libman.
Unfortunately for the Libman case, in 1992 Professor Johnston
and his colleagues published a book called Letting the People
Decide. As a result of additional study of the data from his
original study, his conclusion was that it is now his opinion
that third party advertising had no net effect on voter
intentions over the course of the 1988 federal election.
What that means is that the evidence presented to the Supreme
Court of Canada in the Libman case was badly flawed, and that was
confirmed by the judge in the Supreme Court of British Columbia,
the hon. Mr. Justice Brenner, when he said:
Earlier in these reasons I have traced the factual chronology
surrounding Professor Johnston's 1990 paper on the 1988 federal
election and his subsequent book, Letting the People
Decide. I have outlined how he reached different conclusions
with respect to the effect of third party advertising. I also
set out the manner in which Professor Johnston's initial paper
was relied upon by the Lortie Commission which was, in turn,
relied upon by the courts in Libman...
Accordingly, the conclusions of the Lortie Commission on this
issue can no longer be said to be based on empirical findings.
And of course Professor Johnston's later study in Letting the
People Decide was not available to the court in Libman.
The judge went on to say:
In addition, in Libman the pressing and substantial objective
relied on by the government was not challenged by the plaintiff.
Finally, the conclusions in Libman on the issue of pressing and
substantial objective are a product of the evidence or its lack
thereof in that case and cannot be dispositive of any evidentiary
issue in the case at bar. Accordingly, I conclude that Libman is
not dispositive of the issues in the case before me.
What that really means, to sort out the legalise, is that if
Bill C-2 passes in its present form it will be challenged in
court by the National Citizens' Coalition and by the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation. Both groups have said that they have more
than enough funding to take it all the way to the Supreme Court
of Canada.
The minister must know that he will lose based on the evidence.
There are now three high courts which have ruled that these gag
laws are unconstitutional and there is no basis for them.
1210
One of the other things which was struck down in the B.C. case
was any restriction on the publication of the results of polls.
During the committee hearings on Bill C-2 newspaper people
appeared before the committee and I asked them whether the
government had ever approached them to discuss or to try to reach
some sort of compromise on the publication of poll results during
an election campaign. They indicated that the government had
never approached them.
During that committee hearing—and the records of that committee
hearing show this is the case—I had a discussion and reached a
compromise where the polls could be printed right up until the
time of the election, but the methodology would have to be
printed along with them. That was agreed to. But the minister
refused to accept that compromise. As a result, I have to tell
him the bad news.
Because the Pacific Press continued with its case, the B.C.
supreme court concluded that there is no place whatsoever for any
restriction on polling. There are no restrictions on the
publication of the results and no restrictions or requirements
with respect to the publication of methodology.
This means that the whole thing has been thrown wide open and
there is no compromise. There is no methodology to be printed
and the newspapers are free to print polls right up until the
time of the election without indicating how they conducted those
polls or from where they got the results.
This is the mess to which the minister has brought us. There
are three separate court challenges of this bill. The 50
candidate rule is illogical and ridiculous. We could have had a
compromise reached with all of the parties concerned that would
have been 12; not the same as the court concluded at 2, but it
would have been logical and accepted by everybody.
The gag law provisions in the British Columbia Elections Act,
which are basically the same as the gag law provisions in this
bill, have been struck down. It is obvious that this bill has no
chance of remaining in place if it is challenged by the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation and the National Citizens' Coalition. All
of the polling restrictions have been struck down. If the
minister had sat down with the parties concerned and reached some
sort of compromise we would not be facing this situation today.
This is typical of the government. We see it time after time
after time in bills it brings before the House. It has no
consultation with the affected parties. It rams things down the
throats of the people of this country and it ends up in court,
having its restrictions cut down.
I would like to speak a little further on what the B.C. supreme
court said. It made the point that in order to override charter
rights—we are talking about freedom of expression, freedom of
speech in the sense of an election campaign—it is necessary that
there be more than a general hypothetical concern about a problem
when there is no evidence to demonstrate that it has existed in
the past or is likely to exist in the future.
The judge found, based on all of the expert evidence provided at
that court case, that there was no evidence whatsoever that third
party advertising was the least bit harmful to an election
campaign. In fact, the judge concluded that from the lesson of
the Charlottetown referendum it is exactly to the contrary, that
there is a strong argument in favour of third party advertising.
Quoting from the judgment of the hon. Judge Brenner concerning
the Charlottetown referendum, there are certain circumstances in
which the goal of fairness in elections would support an argument
for third party advertising. The Charlottetown referendum
provides an example. If in a future election campaign in British
Columbia all of the political parties were to agree on a
significant policy point, the lack of an effective third party
advertising campaign would be a detriment to the voters.
The ruling is 88 pages long. I wish I could read more of it
into the record. The minister must have seen it. He knows he is
going to lose this case. Why will he not withdraw the bill, send
it back to committee and let us have another look at it?
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise in this House and take part in the
debate on Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.
1215
[English]
Much of the content of this bill has been outlined by the
previous speaker who has followed this bill very closely at the
committee stage and here in the Chamber.
[Translation]
This bill was sent to the committee for review and my colleague,
the member for Chicoutimi, our whip, has worked very hard for
the Progressive-Conservative Party, the riding of Chicoutimi and
all of the country. This bill is very important, and our party
wants to improve it as much as possible.
[English]
Although I spoke to the bill at second reading, the member for
Chicoutimi is the individual who has followed it throughout the
committee stage. He has spoken to the bill in the House on
numerous occasions.
We were looking forward to working co-operatively in the
committee with the government. All opposition parties took an
active part in proposing changes to this piece of legislation.
Early on it was painfully obvious that the Liberal members of the
committee had been advised to bulldoze this through. This
exercise was meant to eliminate any real attempts to improve the
bill. From witnesses to clause by clause it was a race to the
finish line. It was expediency at the cost of efficiency and at
the cost of actually improving the bill.
The Conservative Party had three substantial and substantive
problems with the legislation from the very beginning. For the
record, none of them was even mildly addressed by the Liberal
dominated committee. There were problems stemming from elections
finance, publication of opinion polls and third party spending.
I will speak to those in some detail.
With respect to election and party finance, the Conservative
Party has definite reservations concerning the extent of the
changes to the reporting requirements for candidates and
political parties. At the very least there appears to be no
compelling reason why the changes could not simply come into
effect on a going forward basis only. Most parties obviously
will not have the resources of the governing party to spend on
new administrative tasks.
Our opinion is very similar with respect to the proposed
controls on the publication of opinion polls contained in the
bill. In the 1993 amendments there was no attempt to regulate
the publication of opinion polls beyond the brief blackout period
at the end of the election. Trying to achieve the right balance
in terms of the blackout of opinion polls was probably next to
impossible in light of the supreme court's decision in the
Southam case. Therefore we thought this matter should have been
dropped altogether. Instead, the bill goes much further and
attempts to regulate the reporting of opinion polls and their
results even outside the blackout period. It goes far too far and
cannot be supported for that reason alone.
On the issue of third party spending, we are opposed to part 17
of the bill almost in its entirety with respect to the regulation
of third party groups and the limitation on third party
advertising. We believe that the provisions are too broad,
unworkable, unnecessary and very possibly unconstitutional. I am
surprised that the government with its record of constitutional
constipation would even go down this road. We have seen
constantly from the government and particularly the justice
department, efforts to tie itself in knots in order to avoid any
sort of constitutional challenge.
Our key concern was the issue of advocacy. By no means is this
an issue of the rich maintaining access to the system. It is
quite possible that these new controls may affect smaller groups
in a much more detrimental fashion. There were no attempts to
regulate the general issue of advocacy in the 1993 amendments and
there still should not be. Such detailed regulation of interest
groups by Elections Canada is unwarranted.
Notably, it appears that the government itself would be able to
spend unlimited amounts of money on issue advertising during an
election giving a very much competitive and unfair advantage to
the governing party. As a result of this legislation there would
be no provision to address government or crown corporations
during an election. This is a definite loophole, one which I
fear the governing party would exploit to its own unfair
advantage.
Let it be known that the Progressive Conservative Party of
Canada continues to have other reservations about Bill C-2. The
bill's restriction, regulation and limitation on participation in
the democratic process by those other than political parties and
candidates is unwarranted, cumbersome and far too broad.
1220
The same is true of the restrictions controlling the reporting
of opinion polls. Similar restrictions have been tried and they
do not seem to work. For that reason they cannot be justified or
proven and they should be scrapped.
As previously stated, without significant amendments, the bill
is not an improvement over the current Canada Elections Act. Even
the government's modest stated goal of making election law easier
to read and understand is not met. Again far too often the
government comes back with legislation that is more cumbersome,
more lengthy, full of loopholes and more bureaucratic red tape
than the legislation it was seeking to replace.
The obvious example which comes to mind is the new youth
criminal justice act. Although the intent is very much the right
one and the direction is very much one which I think most
Canadians would embrace, the legislation is thick, cumbersome and
wordy. We should be attempting to streamline legislation.
An example which an old farmer gave to me back home is that when
we reshingle a house, we take the old shingles off. We do not
just put more shingles on top. We should be trying to strip down
some of the existing legislation, or at least have something in
place that says if we put a new bill in, we take another bill
out. This is not accomplished by the bill that is before us now.
Very fundamentally and importantly, the Conservative Party
believes that the entire process that was undertaken to revise
the elections act was flawed at the very premise. The government
should have tried to proceed by all party agreement. At the very
least it should have attempted and allowed for adequate time for
proper consultation on the provisions of the bill.
Instead, as we have seen time and time again, provisions were
rammed through at the convenience and the wishes of the governing
party to run roughshod over the opposition. Perhaps it was the
Prime Minister himself who was behind this legislation, or the
government House leader. The process to amend electoral
legislation should not have to be adhered to on a very strict
timetable based on the leadership rumblings of the governing
party.
It is hard to find the relevancy in having Bill C-2 dubbed as
priority legislation. There are so many other issues on the
agenda. So many dominant issues need attention and the Liberal
government persists in ramming this piece of legislation through
the House, further weakening democracy I would suggest by
demonstrating its ability to do so. It is not an attempt to
strengthen legislation as it would have us believe.
At a time when so many other issues are screaming for attention
the government once against puts its own personal political
agenda ahead of the needs of Canadians. Nobody will dispute that
Canada has one of the strongest democracies in the world, so it
begs the question, why are we doing this in such an undemocratic
fashion?
The crisis in health care, the HRDC boondoggle, high taxes;
these are all issues that need the attention not only of the
House but of Canadians generally. However, the government
continues to fall short in addressing the issues that matter most
to Canadians. Its priorities are obviously skewed and quite
different from those of the people on the street.
In fact, this legislation was rammed through committee at such
record speed that opposition parties had insufficient time to
study the bill, propose reasoned and specific amendments or
consult with individuals such as volunteers, poll captains and
those who are most involved at election time and those who will
be most affected by this new legislation. Nevertheless the
Conservative Party did submit amendments and we were successful
in having five of them pass. On balance, without significant
amendments, this bill is not an improvement over the existing
act.
In conclusion, the Conservative Party truly believes that any
changes to the elections act should have been done in a
reflective and thoughtful way. Input from all parties
represented in the House would have resulted in a much more
reasoned and much more effective final product.
In the end I suggest that the bill could have had the support of
all members of parliament. It could have unanimously passed and
we would have seen significant improvements perhaps in our
electoral process.
Changes to the election law should not reflect simply the
interests of the governing party. Obviously that was not the
case in the beginning and it should not be the case when this
bill is passed. For those reasons and others I have referred to
in my remarks, the Conservative Party will be opposing the
legislation.
1225
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of
members to the House of Commons, repealing other Acts relating
to elections and making consequential amendments to other Acts.
This bill was read for the first time on October 14, 1999. After
second reading, it was referred to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs. The bill is back in the House today
at report stage.
At this point in the parliamentary process, one concludes from
reading the report that the review by the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs was not very fruitful, since what
the government talked about initially was an in-depth reform. Let
us take a closer look at what has been accomplished and at some
of the reasons the Bloc Quebecois will not be voting in favour
of this bill.
The Leader of the Government in the House wants this bill passed
at third reading as quickly as possible, even if it means
imposing another gag order, something that has become the
trademark of this government.
The logic of the Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons must be clearly understood.
Once the bill has received royal assent, the chief electoral
officer will need at least six months to implement it. And,
since the Liberals think this bill favours them more than the
current legislation does, they would very much like to use it
for the next general elections. Accordingly, it must come into
force as soon as possible, thus allowing the Prime Minister to
call if need be early elections, which some might consider
premature.
The committee met about 15 times and heard over 30 witnesses, in
studying the proposed amendments to improve the bill and to
bring about an in-depth reform.
Despite all that, one has to conclude that the government may
have made a few cosmetic changes but has completely failed to
make the in-depth reform it had indicated it wanted.
The government missed a wonderful opportunity to give more
transparency to campaign funds by reviewing the rules governing
the financing of political parties by corporations, in order to
limit their contributions.
In 1998, the bank lobby contributed $815,000 to the federal
political parties and, out of this amount, $400,000 was given to
the Liberals. How can one think that, by adopting a $5,000 limit
on corporate contributions, the Bloc Quebecois has given up its
principles?
It would also have been essential to amend paragraph 428(2)
concerning trust funds belonging to registered parties. The
transparency here leaves much to be desired. I will remind
members of what Allan Taylor, the former president of the Royal
Bank of Canada, said during a speech on February 26, 1991, and I
quote:
The government also missed a wonderful opportunity to review the
process of appointing election officers. When what is involved
is implementation of the legislation on which the democratic
system of the country is based, the process must be above all
suspicion and there must be the greatest possible transparency.
Last October 28, when Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre
Kingsley appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, he said the following:
When I go out on the international scene I do not recommend that
the Canadian system be emulated where it comes to the
appointment of returning officers. I clearly indicate, as I do
in Canada, that the present system is an anachronism.
Mr. Kingsley feels it is imperative for the method of appointing
returning officers to be changed, so that they are appointed in
a competitive process in order to ensure their total
independence from the government and to give the appearance of
fairness and neutrality toward all party candidates involved.
As for Former Chief Electoral Officer for Quebec Pierre F. Côté,
when he appeared before that same committee on November 16,
1999, he said:
In a democratic system, not only must democracy be served, it
must also appear that democracy has been served.
1230
Finally, volume I of the report by the Royal Commission on
Electoral Reform and Party Financing, better known as the Lortie
Commission, in addressing the need for independence of election
officers reaches the same conclusion on page 483:
A cornerstone of public confidence in any democratic system of
representative government is an electoral process that is
administered efficiently and an electoral law that is enforced
impartially. Securing public trust requires that election
officials responsible for administration and enforcement be
independent of the government of the day and not subject to
partisan influence.
So, it would have been better for these persons to be chosen
following a competition establishing that they have the
necessary expertise to assume these functions instead of being
chosen because of their affiliation to the political party in
power.
The Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments to put an end to the
control that the governor in council has over the appointment of
these people, but the government rejected them. I am forced
therefore to acknowledge that Bill C-2 does not contribute to
promoting the democratization of the electoral process. On the
contrary, the governor in council retains unacceptable power
over the selection of election officers.
At report stage, we moved two amendments to clauses 13 and 14 so
that at least the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer,
the person responsible the application of the Elections Act,
would be done differently to reduce government control of over
this appointment.
The object is to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer is
appointed with the support of at least the majority of the
opposition members. So, we propose that the Chief Electoral
Officer be appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons
approved by the opposition parties and not simply by the party
in power.
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who was
one of the biggest organizers of the love-in in Montreal a few
days before the 1995 referendum, should know that love is a
two-way street and that actions speak louder than words.
Once again, the federal government had the opportunity to follow
the lead of Quebec, which has put in place a system of public
competitions for the appointment of the main electoral officers.
But no.
For the French Power, what matters is to badmouth Quebecers to
gain popularity across Canada. Quebec French Power in Ottawa
will never acknowledge what the Quebec government does right. It
would mean lose its legitimacy and becoming suspect in the rest
of Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois wants a democratic and transparent federal
elections act. It wants an act without any appearance of
conflict of interest. Once again I am very disappointed in the
government. What has become of the Liberals? Where are their
integrity, their honesty, their keen sense of democracy? Why
should we stay in a country whose government has only one goal:
to stay in power no matter what and at any cost?
Why should we not have our own country, a country promoting at
least four values that no longer prevail on Parliament Hill,
namely honour, transparency, democracy and, above all, respect
for the citizens?
Also the government missed a great opportunity to deal with the
issue of voters identification. When the bill was before the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Bloc
Quebecois asked for a voters identification process to be
included in the legislation. The main reason for such a process
being to prevent individuals from usurping someone else's voting
right. Once again, the government denied our request.
Give the devil his due.
The government made some changes to the transitional provisions
to give political parties more time before the new rules apply
in case the bill would come into force after June 30.
Clearly, when an amendment favours the Liberal Party, the
government House leader does not hesitate to act quickly. But
when we are talking about an amendment to foster transparency,
democracy and the respect of citizens, the government House
leader remains adamantly opposed to it. He finds all kinds of
excuses to turn down the changes we would like to see, putting
them off till hell freezes over or until the 12th of never.
Those are many more reasons why we should work hard to promote
Quebec's sovereignty.
1235
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have an opportunity to
participate in the debate on the report stage of Bill C-2. Some
very major changes have been made to the Canada Elections Act,
but this is the first major overhaul of the act since 1970. There
have been changes over the years based on various court decisions
and so on, but this is the first opportunity we have had to
modernize the Canada Elections Act.
Some very notable improvements have been made to the act, but I
do not have to list them because they are essentially well known
now by most members of the House. However there have been a
number of real missed opportunities.
At the top of the list of missed opportunities is one that
perplexes me as we hear the rhetoric from all political parties
about the value of today's young people, the need to involve more
young people in the election campaigns of the various political
parties, the need for young people to be more involved in the
electoral process, and the need for young people to be paying
more attention to the process of government and the process of
politics in Canada. Yet when the proposal comes forward to
involve young people, particularly at an age when there is
significant interest in becoming involved, the answer is no, a
blatant and clear no.
Let us think about this point. Other countries, and I will use
Brazil as an example, lowered the voting age from 18 to 16 a
number of years ago. The question was whether people of 16 and
17 years of age would be interested in politics and the electoral
process and whether they would join political parties and
campaigns.
The evidence in Brazil was very clear. Given the opportunity,
16 and 17 year olds participated in the electoral process in
greater numbers on a percentage basis than did their parents or
anyone else. When the offer went out to young people asking if
they were interested in politics and in joining in the electoral
process, the overwhelming response was a resounding yes. They
wanted to get involved. They were anxious and interested.
If young people in Brazil want to get involved and young people
in Nicaragua want to get involved, and I could list all sorts of
other countries, why not send out an opportunity for young people
in Canada to get involved?
The reality is that a proposal went out to lower the voting age
from 18 to 16 as part of this legislation. There was some debate
but overall people questioned whether 16 year olds had the
intelligence, the knowledge and the understanding of politics to
cast a serious ballot.
What a terrible comment to make against young people of the
country. I suspect it is the same argument that was made against
women years back in terms of whether they had the understanding
and the intelligence to participate in the electoral process. We
know now how embarrassing it is to even raise this as an issue.
It seems as absolutely stupid and silly as of course it is.
A few years ago the issue was with first nations people. Up
until 1960 we said that first nations people were not allowed to
vote. They could volunteer and die in World War I. They could
volunteer and die in World War II. They could volunteer and die
in Korea but they could not vote in this country. They fought
for democracy. They died for democracy. However, the minute
first nations people came home from those wars we said that they
could not vote, that they could not participate in democracy in
their own country. Let us imagine the signal that sent to first
nations peoples across the country.
I suspect we are sending a similar signal today. Young people
who want to participate are not allowed to when it comes to
voting. Yes, they can choose leaders of our political parties.
Yes, they can participate in campaigns. They can do anything
else they want in the political process but the one thing they
cannot do if they are aged 16 and 17 is vote. This is
disgraceful.
At the age of 16 a whole number of things occur in people's
lives. They can get a driver's licence and drive a truck or a
high powered vehicle on our highways. They can join the armed
forces and serve in Bosnia and other areas of combat.
They can get married and raise children. They can qualify for
employment insurance. They can be tried in adult court. However
they cannot vote in our country.
1240
If they are 16 or 17 and want to vote to choose the people who
will represent them and future generations they cannot
participate. The people who have the most to win or lose in an
election cannot participate. This is one of those ideal
opportunities for the House of Commons to acknowledge it, to send
out a welcoming hand to young people who want to participate and
to give them a chance.
I am not saying everyone has to do so. Perhaps the people who
are listening to this speech could reflect back on the election
campaigns of members of parliament and candidates that they
worked on. They went to local high schools to participate in
debates and discussions. In my experience the level of
discussion, participation, knowledge and understanding of those
young people was significantly greater than that of their
parents.
At the evening meetings—and God knows if they are a road show
or some sort of political theatre—very seldom is there
intelligent, sensible, meaningful debate like there is in high
schools. Young people are keen and knowledgeable. They are far
more knowledgeable than we were as young people. They have
access to information and knowledge. Their teachers are much
more open than ours were to discuss in classrooms the role of
government and politics.
Why not extend a welcoming and open hand to young people across
the country? However the government decided that this was not
appropriate. I have a heavy heart when I have to say that. I
thought the government would say yes.
We are entering the new millennium, the 21st century, a century
that represents changes of all sorts in terms of demographics,
the economy, society and the way we debate budgets in the House.
Everything is changing except this aspect of keeping young people
pushed down and not permitted to participate in federal
elections.
I am very disappointed that we were not able to accomplish it,
but I will not give up. One day we will look back and think how
stupid we were as a country for not allowing young people of 16
and 17 years of age to vote. One day we will do that but we are
not quite there yet. We will not give up the effort.
I have to mention another missed opportunity, the whole issue of
voting through proportional representation. Our voting system is
rather goofy. When a small number of Canadians choose the
government that acts in a sense as an elected dictator for five
years, is that the way the system should operate? No. I am not
saying this is the fault of the Liberals. Of course it is not.
It takes place in provincial jurisdictions and so on. It is our
collective way of the first past the post approach to electing
government. It is absolutely bizarre.
Let us look at intelligent countries around the world. We would
be hard pressed to find a country that has a system like ours.
Their systems are much more reflective of the population's wish
as to who should represent them. This place does not represent
what people said in the last election.
With all due respect, in the last election the majority of
Canadians did not say they wanted half the House plus a few more
filled with Liberals. That is the way it turned out but that is
not what the people said. We have should looked at some other
form of choosing members of parliament that actually reflected
what Canadians say when they cast a ballot. That was a missed
opportunity.
We made a number of amendments to the whole issue of campaign
reform which basically said that more access should be allowed to
smaller political parties to more accurately reflect what people
in our country are thinking about. We should ask for disclosure
on spending limits on party leadership elections. Let us face
it. If somebody buys the leadership of a political party, should
people not know about it as opposed to being elected in a fair
and open democratic process?
What about numbered companies? We have to do something about
numbered companies. When number company 12754 makes a huge
contribution to a political party, should we not know who is
behind the particular firm? Of course we should.
Let us get these numbered companies back on the transparency
pathway so we know that when somebody makes a political
contribution to a political party or an individual in our
country, we know who is actually making that contribution.
1245
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, the
Canada Elections Act.
This is very important legislation. In fact, there are probably
few pieces of legislation more important in a democracy than that
which establishes the rules for election of the people's
representatives to government.
With such an important piece of legislation it is significant
that the government decided to direct its passage through
parliament by way of the more unorthodox method of proceeding
directly to committee before second reading. The government
indicated that it wished the committee to thoroughly study this
legislation, to call witnesses, to hear concerns, propose
significant amendments and return it to the House in a more
complete and acceptable form. I suppose that sounded good, but
once again the government merely went through the motions.
The committee heard major concerns. Significant changes were
proposed. The committee did not listen. It returned the bill in
essentially the same format in which it was received. Once again
we are faced with legislation which leads us to believe it will
be subject to a charter challenge.
The committee heard from various individuals about the
unconstitutionality of third party spending limits in the bill.
Powerful groups have threatened court challenges. There has been
little, if any, attempt to work out the differences. Once again
the taxpayer will pay for these court challenges because the
government is not ready to do the necessary work to bring about
resolution and agreement.
Spending limits definitely favour the party in power. All other
parties are operating on unequal footing. We all know that the
amount of money spent on campaigns is not always a deciding
factor but we also know that it can play a significant role.
The committee heard a number of concerns over the publication
blackout period provisions in this legislation. The courts have
struck down previous similar legislation, but the government is
proceeding down the same path once again without even attempting
to come to a compromise with media representatives.
The Chief Elections Officer of Ontario has challenged the need
for blackout provisions. He has pointed out the difficulties in
enforcing them. Constitutional law experts have indicated that
our courts will again strike down these provisions. Once again
the taxpayers will pay for these court cases and really, for
what?
The committee heard a number of concerns over the 50 candidate
rule for registered party status. The courts have struck down
this 50 candidate rule as being too oppressive. The courts have
suggested that as little as two candidates should be sufficient
to be recognized as a party.
There was discussion of coming to a consensus and agreeing on a
more practical limit of 12 candidates to be recognized as a
registered political party. Instead of even considering
compromise and agreement, the minister seems intent on
maintaining the 50 candidate rule. Once again this is another
provision of this legislation that is subject to a court
challenge. Once again the taxpayer will be expected to pay for
the government's refusal to consult, to consider change and to
compromise.
The government seems intent on limiting the opportunity for new
parties to grow from small beginnings. The government is
perfectly content to maintain the status quo. The citizens of
Canada are being deprived of new political initiatives and new
choices. Just as with recent moves with the airline industry, it
seems to be all in favour of limiting competition.
Then there is the issue of political patronage appointments. In
something so crucial to a democracy of a country, one would
expect that the presiding government should have little
involvement in the selection of the personnel who run the
electoral organizations. In fact, Canada has often been asked to
assist third world countries to supervise and report on elections
to ensure that the presiding government operates in a free, fair
and open manner. Surely the presence of political appointees
within the very organization tasked with counting the votes and
reporting on the results should be independent of the presiding
power in office.
Even our Chief Electoral Officer testified that it is critical
that he be given the power to hire returning officers based on
merit. If he is given the responsibility to properly operate our
election process, he must be provided with personnel chosen by
him, supervised by him and paid by him. Political appointments
are not beholden to him.
They owe their allegiance to the governor in council, the Prime
Minister and the party in power who put them into their positions
and who decide on their remuneration. That is not right. One of
the interested parties to an election cannot have control over
the employees who control the counting of votes and the reporting
of results.
1250
Elections Canada has repeatedly asked the government to change
this process of political patronage. Elections Canada wants and
needs to hire its own personnel to properly oversee an election.
The government is intent on maintaining its system of political
patronage. This is certainly a sorry indictment against
democratic principles and the status of Canada on the world
stage.
The timing of elections is also a major advantage to the party
in power. At present there is only a maximum number of years
legislative bodies may operate without an election. Section 4 of
the charter of rights and freedoms states, “No House of Commons
and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five
years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a
general election of its members”.
Bill C-2 does not include an automatic date for Canadian
elections. The charter does not stop us from legislating an
election every five years or some other lesser time period. To
do so would place all political parties on an equal footing as
everyone would know the exact timing of an upcoming election.
Every party would have the same opportunity to plan for the
election, to generate war chests for election expenses and to
expend funds to advertise the benefits of party policy or the
detriments of government policy or opposition policy.
The committee that studied this bill heard about the advantage
of present government members being able to distribute a
householder just prior to the call of an election because of
inside information. We can probably all remember a government
which called a needless election at great expense to the taxpayer
just because the governing party had the power to do so.
Legislating the timing of an election to a specific period of
time would not solve all of our problems but it would level the
playing field and it would place greater controls on the
expenditure of public funds. It would also provide greater
definition to all parties in the House of Commons. Our employees
would know when an election is to be called and they would be
able to prepare their careers and their lives accordingly.
Members of parliament would know when their commitment to their
constituents would end or when it would need to be renewed
through a campaign. I imagine a number of companies and
individual citizens would also be better equipped to react to
parliamentary influences.
Bill C-2 was an opportunity to vastly improve our electoral
process. Once again the government has taken the easy way out.
It makes minor changes. It ignores or refuses to introduce long
overdue initiatives. The government protects itself by
maintaining the status quo or increasing the inequity of its
position compared to the competition. It ignores the
pronouncements of the courts and continues to place the public
purse at risk of considerable future legal proceedings.
Instead of providing leadership and progressive thinking, the
government has decided to stay the course and will only change
when it is forced to. This is unacceptable and it is
unfortunate. All that lies ahead is more litigation at great
expense to the Canadian taxpayer.
I hope my words cause some members to reconsider their position
on this important piece of legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise this morning in support of the Bloc Quebecois amendment,
which is also supported by at least one other party in the
House, to the effect that only voters can make contributions to
political parties. This is in keeping with the Quebec law on the
public funding of political parties.
Let me point out that in Quebec, until that act was adopted in
1977, many ordinary citizens felt that politics was rotten.
When René Lévesque, along with others, created the Parti
Quebecois, after the Mouvement souveraineté-association, he said
“We will fund our party strictly and exclusively with people's
contributions; we must avoid falling into the business
contributions trap, as it spells corruption”.
1255
René Lévesque knew what kind of pressure major corporations
could exert when the time came to implement government projects.
He had experienced such pressure at the time of taking political
stands and developing projects. In his mind, democracy was
incompatible with the misappropriation of funds generated by the
funding of political parties by corporations, because
corporations never give money with no strings attached.
Just like in The Godfather, it may be free at first, but an
order or a request invariably follows. It is these orders and
requests that result in policies not being designed for the
general public, but often for the rich and the most affluent.
The people of Canada and Quebec, especially with this crisis in
the administration of the Department of Human Resources
Development—in Quebec, funding for parties in Quebec has been
cleaned up—feel that politics is rotten and serves politicians
and that politicians and big business are as thick as thieves in
looking after their best interests.
Bill C-2 provided an opportunity for the government to say, even
though it can never be said definitively, that the political
process must be the prerogative of the public who become members
of a party or decide to fund a party, but that the important
decisions are made for purely interest considerations.
Interest may be seen in different ways, according to whether the
party is the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois or the Liberal Party, but
the public could at least have been assured that politics and
not interests are at issue.
This is a fundamental issue, especially these days. The public
will not support politics with their minds, their hearts or
their membership unless politicians are above all suspicion. It
may be said that that is far from the case and that the public's
cynicism simply encourages individuals to stick their hand in
the pot and take advantage of the situation.
I know that very many members are honest, but I also know that
the temptation can be great—the opportunity, tantalizing—elections
are expensive, and there are always good reasons for supporting
so-and-so's project over another's, a private project over some
other one, because that too can come into play.
Canada likes to say what it is and what it wants.
1300
The Economist, which is not a social democrat periodical,
contained a review for Europe of what constituted democratic
control of party funding. According to The Economist, whether
or not citizens exercised democratic control depended on whether
or not corporate funding was permitted.
As members will recall, there were scandals in France because
there was no legislation requiring grassroots funding.
Since 1995, the legislation has allowed only voters as
contributors.
We know that Germany was rocked by a scandal that damaged the
reputation of someone thought to be a great statesman, Helmut
Kohl, who worked to bring about the unification of Germany and
who was one of the key European architects of the Treaty of
Maastricht.
Despite his brilliant career, Helmut Kohl now finds himself
caught up in a political and financial scandal which is
destroying his reputation in a way that no one would have wished
on him or themselves, for that matter. Once again, at issue is
secret corporate party funding, and many Germans—and I discussed
this with members at the Council of Europe—are wondering whether
they should not be considering having parties funded by voters
alone.
When we look at the issue of corruption, because that is what it
is, we are automatically forced to the conclusion that there is
only one way: have all voters on the same footing, have all
citizens on the same footing when it comes to making decisions,
and have parties funded by citizens, by voters. That is
democracy. Otherwise, democracy takes a back seat to interests
over which there is no control. In such cases, the policies
introduced generally, if not always, do not reflect the wishes
of the majority of citizens.
If we want to liberate politics from what some like to call
vested interests, we must ensure that parliamentary democracy is
based on grassroots funding.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
debate today is continuing on the report stage motions of several
members and the government on the Canada Elections Act, Bill C-2.
I think I counted five interventions from the opposition benches
just prior to my rising. One might get the impression that the
act, which is currently before the House, is seriously flawed. It
will not be a surprise to anyone here if I take a different view.
The statute and the amendments in it are a substantial
improvement to the old statute. I just want to take a moment to
outline, technically but very lightly, the amendments we are
dealing with now in Group No. 2, at least for the record. I
realize opposition members often use the debate at report stage
to deal with broader issues in the statute.
Quite simply, there are two categories of amendments in Group
No. 2 that have been proposed by government members. The first
amendment deals with adding into approximately four sections of
the bill the term “generally accepted accounting principles”.
That term in the statute was originally proposed, I believe, by
members of the Bloc Quebecois as a standard that would be useful
in the statute. Members at the committee agreed and the term was
incorporated into the bill.
1305
Having had some time to read the bill following the committee
study, there are approximately four other sections that, for the
sake of consistency, would benefit by inclusion by reference to
that term, and so that covers off four small areas.
The second area involves amendments that would make the English
and French versions consistent. I do not have to go into detail,
but having adopted amendments at committee, one having to do with
inclusion of amounts in candidates' personal expenses, amounts
directed to child care or care for persons who are dependent
normally on the candidate, there were some arguable
inconsistencies between the French and English versions as they
were put together at the committee. Those amendments are offered
as well. I assume they were offered without objection. I have
not heard objection to them. They appear quite appropriate.
I have heard opposite references to the appointment process for
returning officers and a description of the fact that Canada is
often asked to act internationally to provide observers or advice
on how to run elections. That is true. Canada is well
respected, being one of the world's oldest democracies, in how to
run elections.
I have to point out that our system of appointing returning
officers has worked well. We are well respected with our system
now of appointing returning officers. People do not say “We
don't want you to help us out here because you appoint your
returning officers the way you do”.
It is our view that the appointment system works well and it is
very cost effective. No one, in proposing changes to the system,
has actually addressed the matter of the costs of implementing a
whole personnel and recruiting selection process. Perhaps we
should think about costs sometimes. We are supposed to around
here when we propose changes. If the system works I suggest that
we do not try to fix it.
I notice a certain inconsistency sometimes. In debate that will
happen. I may fall victim to it myself from time to time, but I
hope not. It seems that some opposition members are only too
quick to adopt the reasoning of the British Columbia courts in
dealing with third party spending limits and other elements of
the elections act in that province.
There is a certain sense that the B.C. courts are right on the
money here. They are quoted extensively, but I could not help
note that a few months ago the same parties were not so quick to
quote the B.C. courts in dealing with the criminal code child
pornography provisions. Sometimes the courts serve the
opposition parties' interest and sometimes they do not. I will
not get into a debate on the merits, but just because a lower
court ruling is made does not mean the House must respond in a
knee-jerk fashion.
At the end of the day, all members of the House will make their
decision and cast their vote on these amendments in the way they
feel will be in the best interest of the public.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I need some clarification from you. I have been listening
very carefully, as always, to my colleague, the parliamentary
secretary to the government House leader, who discussed the
amendments in Group No. 3. But if I am not mistaken, we are still
on Group No. 2. Correct me if I am wrong, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Indeed, we are still on
Group No. 2.
1310
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on the new Canada
elections act, Bill C-2.
I am greatly troubled by many of the provisions in the act. The
most telling one is the gag law. How can gag laws and polling
restrictions find a way into the laws of a democratic country
like our own?
One cannot help but notice that the recent Supreme Court of
British Columbia decision, which only came down on February 8,
struck down this very provision in the province of British
Columbia. If there is one reason to strike this whole bill down
this would the reason.
This issue hits very close to home with me. I was involved in
it in British Columbia where I witnessed, firsthand, third party
organizations that believed in educating voters by sending out
very balanced information. These organizations had literally
hundreds of thousands of supporters from across the province who
would send in money.
Troy Lanigan was the British Columbia director for the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation. The B.C. government, with its very
heavy-handed approach, threatened to take him to court and charge
him. It told him that he could be facing a long jail sentence.
This was a young man, working very hard on behalf of hundreds of
thousands of Canadians citizens who sent in money, who was trying
to educate the public on what he felt were the best options for
the province. I was with him when this was happening. It was
troubling for both him and his family. He felt passionately that
he was doing the right thing.
If there is one issue for striking this bill down, that would be
it.
Under this new elections act, third party spending would be
limited to $5,000. I believe that parliament, not the courts,
should write the laws for the country. Right now it seems that
the courts, not parliament, are the ones defending Canadian
citizens. Two decisions in Alberta have struck down gag laws.
Just last week the British Columbia court struck down the gag
laws. I would argue that it is wrong for governments to stop
small parties from running candidates and greatly limiting their
party spending during election campaigns.
It is no surprise that the government is trying to ram this bill
through parliament. We have witnessed this many times before.
The government is very content to just push this through
parliament.
The second issue, aside from the gag law, is the number of
candidates required to become a recognized party. The government
suggests the number should be 50 candidates even though the
standing committee recommended 12 candidates. A number of the
witness groups that came before the standing committee
recommended that it should be 12 candidates. My colleague, the
Reform member for Vancouver North put forward a private members'
bill recognizing that it should be 12 candidates. This came from
all parties across the House. Yet the government said that to be
a recognized party it requires 50 candidates. This is insulting
to the Canadian voter. We should be providing them with the
information just like in the gag law. To put a $5,000 limit, or,
for a national campaign, $150,000 limit for a third party, is
wrong.
Many organizations, such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
and the National Citizens' Coalition, have members from across
the country who raise money in order to inform and educate the
public so that they can make very educated decisions when they go
to the ballot box.
I do not always agree with what these third party groups say,
but it is insulting to the Canadian taxpayer that the government
wants to keep this stranglehold, this noose on what information
gets out there. It wants to control what is out there in the
public domain and what is in the media.
I would argue that is why the government is putting gag law
limits forward. It is completely unacceptable that this is the
direction in which it is going.
1315
The government has virtually ignored all the work of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It has
refused to consult with the public by holding meetings across the
country. It does not want to listen. It does not want input
from various organizations, only the select few it invites to
committee hearings in Ottawa to present their briefs. Surveys
across the country have shown that the Canadian people do not
want spending limits on third parties so that they can get their
message out there.
I notice my NDP colleague from Kamloops also supports this
position. He just rose in the House and said “Let them educate
the people”. There may be a group out there that does not agree
with my viewpoint, but we cannot insult Canadian voters by not
letting them make their informed choice. They will sort out what
they believe, who is putting credible arguments forward and who
is putting a balanced position forward.
I clearly remember the Canadian Taxpayers Federation listed all
the arguments. It firmly believes that we are overtaxed and if
we are to move forward we should be reducing the size of
government and reducing taxes. Not everybody would share that
view. I obviously share that belief. If it wants to spend the
money from its supporters who donate to these campaigns then it
should be able to. I might add that the people who donate to the
organizations that want to get this message out do not get the
same political tax credit as when they donate to a party. That
is another debate for another day. They do not get the same
benefits as those who donate to the Liberal Party. That is
wrong.
It is most disturbing to me that government had an opportunity
to fix up the elections bill, to do something positive with the
Canada Elections Act, and did not seize that opportunity. It is
a lost opportunity.
What we see is old line partisan party politics: control,
control, control. The Liberals want to keep their noose on a
dictatorship. They want to control the amounts of money and the
message that get out there. That is patently wrong. That is
what we need to change.
The chief electoral officer and the Canada Elections Act should
be removed from partisan politics, as well as the whole
appointment process and who the returning officers are. It
should not be appointments by the government. It should be an
all-party committee. The political nature of this needs to be
removed.
Is anybody on the government side paying serious attention? They
got a message from the Supreme Court of British Columbia on
February 8 in Pacific Press v the Attorney General of British
Columbia wherein the court completely struck down the gag law as
unconstitutional. I do not know how many times the government
needs to hear it. It has been struck down twice in Alberta and
again last week in British Columbia.
I hope the government takes notice of this and wants to bring
true accountability to the Canada Elections Act. Unfortunately
it has not this time. Again it is back to the old style, the
patronage stranglehold, controlling the message and the
dictatorship. That is wrong.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to participate in the debate on
Bill C-2 and in particular the amendments in Group No. 2
specifically referring to some of the major provisions of the
bill.
At the outset let me pick up where the Liberal member left off.
As the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River introduced his
comments he asked why we on the opposition benches were debating
the bill, was it not in effect a fairly perfect bill before the
House, and what was all the fuss about.
In fact he said: “If it isn't broke, don't fix it”, implying
that the bill was a pretty good collection of ideas which would
make a difference in terms of elections law in the country today.
1320
My question to that member and to all other members of the
Liberal government involves a couple of things. How do they know
it is not broken? Does the bill represent an indepth systemic
look at the situation in Canada today when it comes to elections
law and elections provisions? Why would they wait until it was
broken before they fixed it? Why would they not start looking
into the future to see whether there are obstacles, problems or
concerns that need to be addressed now?
I share a bit of Reform's concern with the fact that we had an
opportunity to address some very serious problems in our Canadian
political system. We had an opportunity to take a hard look at
elections law and to make some pretty fundamental and significant
changes. I share the concern of Reform and others when it is
said that we have missed that opportunity.
I certainly believe we have missed an opportunity in reassessing
how effective our elections act has been and where we need to go
in the future to achieve what I think is the raison d'être, the
underpinning, the root purpose of all of this work to create the
rules and regulations that would allow everyone to participate.
Our job and the role of government is to ensure a level playing
field. Our elections act and other complementary pieces of
legislation must work to ensure that everybody has the
opportunity, regardless of economic status, regardless of region
and regardless of sex, to participate in Canadian politics today.
We had an opportunity to do something meaningful and to look at
a piece of legislation that has not been changed substantially
since 1970. Over that period of time a lot has changed. We have
learned a lot more. We are faced with many new problems as
Canadians. We had a golden opportunity to make some important
changes to our political system, beginning with ensuring that the
laws determining elections financing and participation were up to
date, relevant and meaningful.
That is where I have any kind of similarity to the Reform Party.
We part company right after the notion that we had a great
opportunity which has been missed. We all agree that leadership
has again been lacking from the federal government. The
government has again been fixated on tinkering with the system,
on making small changes, on maintaining the status quo, and then
on getting it through the House as fast as possible.
There is no question that we all share concerns about the way
the government at every turn, with every bill, has tried to push
through legislation as quickly as possible, just at the time when
we need to be getting into indepth debate involving more
Canadians and having really important dialogue across the
country.
I part company with Reform, a party that wants to take us in the
direction of American style politics. Its position on the bill
and on the amendments is very much the same as its position on
health care: American style health care, American style
politics. Reformers are focusing on the gag law or the gag
order, as they would put it, as opposed to seeing it from the
point of view of the positive impact of restrictions on third
party advertising for all Canadians and as a mechanism for
ensuring participation by everyone in our political system today.
1325
We in this party believe that the bill does not go far enough
because it does not clearly set out a definite framework in terms
of ensuring equal participation by Canadians right across Canada.
We think this was an opportunity for the government to ask what
are the barriers and obstacles to Canadians participating. Are
the limits on election expenses significant enough? Are the
reporting mechanisms in terms of donations meaningful enough? Do
we have a fair enough system? Is it a level playing field? Are
we able to ensure that every group and individual feels they can
participate if they are so inclined?
Reformers, on the other hand, would like to take us further in
the other direction. From what I have heard in this debate and
being at committee at one occasion, they would like to lift the
rules and have a total free-for-all, an open door, a come as you
go kind of approach to politics in Canada today. Our position is
that we need rules, regulations, limits and a way to ensure that
every Canadian has a right to participate.
We can take a look around us at the makeup of the House. Is
that not enough to tell us we have a long way to go with our
Elections Act to ensure that kind of participation? Where is the
50% participation by women we thought we would see by the year
2000?
The House may remember the history accounts of when Agnes
MacPhail was first elected to the House in 1921. She had fought
long and hard for women to be involved in political life and said
“I can almost hear them coming”. She thought at that point in
1921 that a breakthrough had been made, that barriers had at
least in large measure been eliminated and that women would enter
politics in as equal numbers as men.
As we can see there was no stampede. What are we at today? Is
it overall 20% participation by women in the House today? In my
party we have at least raised that number up to 40%, but that
took hard work and deliberate affirmative action measures. That
is the kind of provision, the kind of effort and the kind of
action we need to see by the government as a whole when it comes
to the Elections Act.
Where is the emphasis in the bill to address the kind of
responsibilities that women face in society today and the
barriers that prevent them from participating equally in our
political arenas? Have we looked at reasonable limits on
expenses in a serious way in terms of the participation of women?
Have we looked at the extra cost it takes for women to get into
politics because they are juggling their work, their family,
their household and community responsibilities? Have we
addressed all the financial, attitudinal and structural barriers?
Here was an opportunity. We could have done it. We could have
made a difference. Goodness knows we need to. We are a long way
from the goal of equal representation in the House. We are a
long way in the Chamber from representing the whole diversity of
society today. If anything, this should be a lesson and a signal
to all of us that the bill is incomplete. It takes some
important steps. It addresses the need for restrictions on third
party advertising. We are happy with that. It looks at a 48
hour blackout of polling. It looks at some restrictions in terms
of financing, but it could have done a lot more.
My colleague from Kamloops mentioned in particular one issue
which we are dealing with right now, the disclosure of all donors
who register as numbered companies. Why do we not know who these
donors are? Why do we not try to find out? Why do we not make
sure we have a level playing field? I think that would be in the
best interest of Canadian society today.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to
third reading and report stage of Bill C-2, the government's
proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act.
I spoke in debate at second reading of the bill before the
Christmas break. At that time I said that my constituents and I
were not supporting the bill.
1330
Bill C-2 is a very important bill for our democracy. The
foundation of a strong democracy calls for our elections to be
democratic, free and fair, offering an equal opportunity to all
Canadians and all parties. This bill continues to maintain the
most objectionable provisions of the elections act which benefit
the ruling party, in this case the Liberal Party.
Canadians have asked for changes to the way we elect our federal
government representatives. With this bill we see clearly that
the Liberals have once again failed to respond to the wishes of
Canadians. What a great way to start the new millennium, along
with the billion dollar HRDC boondoggle.
The government has wasted an opportunity to modernize and
democratize the elections act. The amendments we are debating
today will not be adopted by the government. Specifically, they
have failed to deliver changes to a number of things; for
example, patronage appointments, party registration requirements,
campaign financing, third party spending issues, the
reimbursement of election expenses, voter identification and the
timing of elections and byelections.
Let us talk about third party spending limits. Even though the
hon. member for North Vancouver has done a marvellous job in
analyzing the elections bill, which is so important for
Canadians, let me go over it very quickly.
The bill seeks to limit third party spending to $150,000 during
a federal general election, of which no more than $3,000 may be
spent in any particular riding. We on this side of the House
believe that it is not the place of government to limit the right
of individual Canadians, or a group of Canadians, to spend their
own money in support of a cause or a candidate in a federal
election.
In B.C. we call this kind of manipulation a gag law. It is an
effort by government to prevent other, smaller political voices
from engaging heavily in an election campaign. The government is
ignoring recommendations made to modernize our elections act. In
B.C. the government tried to do this recently. It tried to
restrict third party advertising to $5,000. It knows it will not
form the next B.C. government so it is trying everything it can
to prepare to win the next election. It is toying with our B.C.
election rules, and that is what the Liberals are going to do in
Ottawa.
But the Liberals in Ottawa are even more cruel than the
bankrupt, some would say corrupt, NDP government of B.C. The
Liberals only want to allow $3,000 to be spent in any riding in
Canada by a fledgling third party. That amount of money would
not pay for a single advertisement on television. What a sham.
What all of this shows is that the Liberals are desperately
afraid of losing the next election. Can we imagine being so
afraid of our opponents that we try to tie their hands?
The B.C. supreme court ruled the limits to third party spending
invalid. The Liberals are challenging the hallmarks of our
democracy. For example, the ruling party, the Liberal Party, has
free broadcasting time based on its number of members of
parliament far and beyond what any other party is allowed. Have
the Liberals changed that situation with this bill? No.
Far from levelling the playing field, they are forcing a
spending limit to be put in place of $3,000 per riding. This
would give a huge advantage to the Liberals by restricting the
ability of any other person or group to counter government
propaganda during an election. Have the Liberals changed that
situation with this bill? No.
MPs from B.C. know what desperate governments do to legislation
affecting elections. We wanted to see the Liberals adopt
amendments to this bill. They refused to do so during the
committee stage. Now we give them the opportunity. This is the
opportunity to adopt amendments at this stage. We are holding
the flashlight for them, but they are closing their eyes. They
are not looking when we show them the light through the darkness.
That does not mean they will do the right thing.
1335
The Liberals are passing legislation that will immediately be
struck down by the courts. This is a waste of taxpayer money.
The Liberals have witnessed the B.C. NDP government's third
party election limits legislation struck down by the court, but
they will go ahead and pass the same legislation. The B.C.
supreme court found that there is no evidence to suggest that big
money alone wins elections. It said there was no evidence that
third party spending affects the election process.
Everyone knows during the referendum on the Charlottetown accord
that the yes side lost, even though it spent at least 10 times as
much as was spent by the no side.
During the 1993 election the PC Party spent significantly more
than any other party, yet had only two members elected to the
House.
Why will the government not adopt the amendments?
For example, with respect to the requirements for registered
party status, the elections act requires a political party to run
50 candidates in an election to remain on the ballot. The courts
in Ontario say that only two candidates are needed to form a
party. It is the voters, not the government, who should decide
whether a party and a candidate are worthy of their vote.
This is an attempt by the government to hinder the formation and
growth of new parties like the Reform Party or the Canadian
alliance. The government is actually trying to limit competition
on the ballot. This is so undemocratic that it is
anti-democratic. It is almost a dictatorship. The government
should be ashamed.
There are many other things which we could talk about. For
example, we put forward an amendment concerning voter
identification. A voter can now be asked to swear an oath to
confirm identity. That is ridiculous. We need to use photo ID.
If someone is evil enough to try to commit fraud in an election,
surely we can assume that the same person would have no problem
swearing an oath and lying to God or himself.
Another amendment concerns electronic voting. Electronic voting
could significantly cut the cost of running elections. In
Ontario electronic council elections can be run for one-sixth of
the normal cost.
Let us talk about reimbursement of a party's election expenses.
Taxpayers should not be expected to fund activities designed to
persuade the taxpayers themselves how to vote. There should not
be any reimbursement at all.
The candidate deposit of $1,000 should be much lower in the
interests of encouraging Canadians to participate, regardless of
their personal financial position.
There are many other areas where the bill can be criticized as
being undemocratic, including fixed dates for federal elections,
timing of byelections, government advertising or propaganda
before an election, and many others. Time prevents me from
commenting on these matters. My constituents know all about the
bill. We were fighting to have changes made to our elections act
when dealing with this bill, which was Bill C-83 in the first
session of this parliament, but the changes have not been made.
The bill is a manipulation by the power hungry government in
power.
It is shameful. When we send our representatives abroad to
monitor elections we preach democracy. We go to other countries
to monitor their elections to ensure that they are democratic,
fair and free. But what is happening right here in our own
country? This gag law, this elections act which the government
is forcing through the House, will create a situation where we
will have undemocratic elections. There will not be free and
fair elections in this country.
It is really pathetic. It is so undemocratic that it is almost
undemocratic enough to be a dictatorship. Canadians will not
support a political party that will force these types of changes
on our democratic process.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Madam Speaker, for
years the funding of political parties by corporations, which
would ask for control and favours from the government in
exchange, has been the Achilles heel of western governments.
1340
But contrary to Greek heroes, these democracies do not die—at
least none has died yet—from the low blows to this weak point in
their bodies. Each time, however, they are damaged and their
image is severely tarnished, which could eventually throw them
out of balance.
We recall the series of scandals that shook France five years
ago, when the public was at first astounded and then indignant
upon learning how just about every national party was bending
the law and accepting money from powerful corporations. The
French government hastened to pass an act of indemnity to calm
people down and save top political figures from legal
proceedings.
In recent weeks, France's top political figures have yielded
their place in the pillory of public opinion to the
once-respected, once-adulated Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl,
the father of a unified Germany, he whose party funding over a
number of years now appears to be just the tip of an iceberg on
the rough seas of German democracy, below whose waters lurks a
huge mass of dangerous liaisons between politics and business.
This lax attitude in the western world's legislation on party
funding, and worse yet the indulgence with which infractions are
tolerated are, in my opinion, what lies behind the dangerous
disrepute into which elected representatives today, in Canada as
elsewhere, have fallen. The end result of massive financing of
parties by lobbies is, of necessity—you scratch my back and I'll
scratch yours—nice little subsidies to generous donors, political
favours, patronage, hush money, all of which quite properly
scandalize public opinion.
The most recent—and most juicy—illustration of this is the
discredit currently being focussed on the Minister of Human
Resources Development. Do you realize this, fellow citizens?
We have just taken money from your pockets that will go to pay
back—with heavy interest—the money lobbies have paid to the party
that governs us, so that it may continue to reign over our
province, when two-thirds of the population have rejected it.
These dirty dealings are possible because of our electoral
legislation. In Canada, no one has to even put any effort into
getting around it. The Elections Act sets a limit on election
expenditures, but there is no such limit on what amount of
election funding can come from business.
When the government announced that it was going to freshen up
this legislation, when Bill C-2 came up on the floor of the
House, we were perhaps incurably naive to imagine that the
Liberals had decided to finally tackle a thorough cleaning of
the Augean stables of party financing.
It meant really not knowing these people and having
underestimated the man leading them, the incarnation of vote
winning gimmickry and political scheming.
However, our Prime Minister did not have to look far for a model
in this area. The Quebec elections act prohibits corporate
donations. In shutting off this tap, it put a stop to the
disgusting stench that rose from the trough of political favours
because of the conniving about contracts and grants.
Do you see in Quebec this sort of endless scandal, which, in
Ottawa, delights the columnists, but little by little,
dangerously, adds to the up to now silent—regrettably—disdain of
the public for its representatives?
The Bloc Quebecois has therefore moved an amendment to limit
election funding of the parties to voters and to a maximum of
$5,000 per contributor.
This is the third time we have tried to change the law in this
regard. On the first two occasions, the Liberals rejected our
amendments.
If it is accepted this time—we can always dream and God willing—if
such a miracle were to happen, it would put an end to the
resolution we voted on at our convention to enable our party, so
that it could fight as an equal, to accept corporate
donations—with a $5,000 limit—as our adversaries can.
In conclusion, if our amendment is rejected, Parliament Hill
will remain the centre for the distribution of the billions of
dollars this government has acquired improperly by rationing the
provinces, overtaxing the middle class and the ransoming of two
pension funds, by the barons of the system to their buddies,
who, never disappointed in their expectation of the favour being
returned, will finance their return to power.
1345
But as it is an ill wind that blows no good, we may hope that
the bill will help finally convince Quebecers that sovereignty
is the only route of escape from the cesspool the federal system
has become.
A few more bills like Bill C-2, a few more HRDC scandals and
those of us who hoped that Canadian federalism might yet rectify
itself, will in the end recognize and understand that there is
no hope for a rotten apple. We pitch them.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak
to Bill C-2, an act to amend the elections act.
As a young man I joined the Canadian armed forces. I was very
proud of our country's democracy and I still am today. But as we
look around the world we see that Canada still operates in some
areas where we can improve our democratic system. I think all
people in the House would agree that the way in which senators
are appointed should be changed. That is why Bill C-2 is very
important.
Webster's Dictionary defines democracy as “a form of government
in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised
directly by them or by their agents under a free electoral
system”.
Legislation that governs the way in which people elect their
representatives is a statement of how democratic a nation is. If
it is to meet these ideals of democracy, it must be as free and
unhindered of restrictions as possible. At the federal level in
Canada, the elections act governs the way Canadians elect members
to this House.
In the past, the elections act has been criticized for having a
number of restrictions that limit the ability of Canadians to
exercise democracy. The Liberal amendments have done nothing to
address these restrictions. In fact, they have strengthened them
with the intent of ensuring that the Liberals as a governing
party are re-elected.
I will test three aspects of the bill to show they do not meet
the definition of democracy. They are the debate over third
party spending limits, the blackout on poll results prior to
election day, and patronage appointments.
The first aspect I will test is the debate over third party
spending limits. Two separate court decisions in Alberta have
struck down the elections act spending limits on third parties as
unconstitutional and for good reason. Spending limits always work
in favour of the governing party which in this case is the
federal Liberal Party. It has a big advantage. The Liberals by
virtue of having the most MPs have the most free broadcasting
time. In their role as government they can use taxpayers'
dollars to advertise for re-election under the guise of
information from the government.
The Liberal Party's election spending limit is close to $30
million. The official opposition has a spending limit of closer
to $9 million. Third parties cannot spend more than $150,000 or
not more than $3,000 in any one riding.
I for one fail to see how spending limits enhance the freedom of
Canadians to elect representatives. The spending limits are
obviously biased toward the Liberal Party with its massive
spending advantage. Associations and private individuals can
barely get their message across given the $150,000 spending limit
in this bill. The whole idea behind Bill C-2 is to curtail
freedom of expression and the democratic process.
The second aspect I would like to test to show that it does not
meet the definition of democracy is the poll results publication
blackout period. In a recent court case, Thomson Newspapers v
the Crown, previous legislation preventing the publication of
poll results in the final 48 hours of an election campaign was
struck down and for good reason.
Canadians do not need a paternalistic government trying to black
out information from the voting public.
1350
Not to be foiled, this Liberal piece of legislation
re-establishes a poll blackout during the last 24 hours of an
election campaign. The Liberals believe that if the polls are
favourable for them on election day, voters will be more likely
to vote for an alternative party to send a message of protest. A
blackout on polls during the final 24 hours limits the
constitutional rights given to all Canadians while favouring the
governing party. It will certainly be challenged by the media in
another costly court case which of course again will be lost.
The Reform Party has suggested a compromise that would see an
end to poll blackouts. Blackouts would end if the media
disclosed their methodology, who paid for the poll, the number of
respondents and the question asked. The Liberals rejected this
sensible solution, even though it better informed the electorate,
because there is no advantage to the governing party.
The third aspect of the bill I would like to test that it does
not meet the definition of democracy is the continued use of
patronage appointment. There is not too much to examine because
the continued use of patronage appointment fails the test
straight off the mark. It is unacceptable in a democracy for the
Prime Minister to appoint Liberal Party loyalists to key
positions like a returning officer in every riding of the
country.
I know the parliamentary secretary stood in debate and said that
appointments were no problem. Even the Chief Electoral Officer
has asked that he be given the power to hire returning officers
based on merit alone.
It is ironic that when Elections Canada assists emerging nations
during their elections it recommends avoiding a patronage ridden
system like Canada's. The Chief Electoral Officer has gone as
far as to say that he would not recommend this elections act to a
third world nation or emerging democracy, calling the appointment
of returning officers in Canada an anachronism.
This patronage system must be abolished. Returning officers and
poll clerks should be selected on the basis of ability,
experience and impartiality and these positions should be
publicly advertised. By not eliminating patronage appointments
within the electoral process, the Liberal government is blatantly
trying to ensure it has the advantage in every riding.
To conclude, the Liberals had an opportunity to modernize our
electoral process by increasing the freedom of the electorate to
choose their representatives. This would have strengthened our
democratic process making Canada the envy of the world. Instead
the Liberals have reaffirmed the regressive aspects of our
elections act ensuring the governing party has all the advantage
while limiting the freedom of Canadians to elect their
representatives.
These regressive measures not only fail to meet the test of the
definition of democracy but have created the situation where our
own Chief Electoral Officer would not export our system to a
developing nation. Instead of vesting the power in the people,
the Liberal government is vesting it in itself.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to move the following amendments:
(a) substituting the following for the proposed substituted
text contained in paragraph (a) of the motion:
“(a) a statement, prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, of its assets and liabilities,”
(b) replacing paragraph (b) of the motion with the following:
“(b) by replacing line 40 on page 153 with the following:
“whether that statement presents fairly and in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles the”.
(a) substituting the following for the proposed substituted text
contained in paragraph (a) of the motion:
“(a) a statement, prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, of the fair market value of”
(b) replacing paragraph (b) of the motion with the following:
“(b) by replacing line 11 on page 160 with the following:
“whether the statement presents, in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, the fair”
(a) replacing the opening words of the motion with the
following:
“That Bill C-2, in Clause 430, be amended by replacing line 33
on page 178 with the following:”
(b) substituting the following for the proposed substituted text
contained in the motion:
“report presents fairly and in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles the information con-”
1355
These motions are signed by the minister.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point I would
like to take these amendments under consideration. When the bill
is brought back to the House, the Chair will have an answer as to
whether they are receivable.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I appreciate my hon. friend has introduced a set of amendments.
In light of the fact that this is a very crucial piece of
legislation, could I seek some explanation of what is going on at
this point. I do not understand the procedure.
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, members opposite will know
that the government has suggested approximately 13 technical
amendments. Most of the opposition parties have agreed to the
introduction of those technical amendments.
The amendments just read to the House were three of those
technical amendments contained within Group No. 2. Because we did
not yet have full agreement among all the parties in the House to
the introduction of all of the technical amendments, we thought
we should deal with the three in Group No. 2.
The Speaker: It is almost 2 p.m. I want to apprise
myself of what has gone on with this point of order. We will
come back to this later on if it is necessary.
As it is 2 p.m., we will now go to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CRAIG SWAYZE
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
may I pay tribute to a respected member of the St. Catharines
sports community and the world of rowing, Mr. Craig Swayze.
Mr. Swayze's rowing credentials were many. He was president of
the St. Catharines Rowing Club, the Canadian Henley Rowing
Corporation and Rowing Canada. He was regatta chairman for the
1970 World Rowing Championships, a Canadian Olympic Association
member and a special adviser to the 1999 World Rowing
Championships.
Craig Swayze passed away in St. Catharines on February 13. To
his wife Lois and family I extend my condolences. Craig Swayze
was more than a rowing icon. He was a wonderful husband, father
and grandfather.
1400
I am reminded of an interview Craig Swayze had with the St.
Catharines Standard in 1996 where he had worked as a
journalist for 40 years. He was being honoured by his rowing
peers for his tremendous support, commitment and promotional
expertise in rowing. In the interview, Mr. Swayze said “Winning
races and competing is important, but it's the people who make it
worthwhile”.
Craig Swayze was one of those people. He was a true friend. He
will be missed.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to draw to
the attention of the House a formal complaint I have made to the
Summerland detachment of the RCMP against the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
The minister promised several times in public last week that
members of parliament can acquire information regarding grants
and contributions in their riding from local Human Resources
Development offices. All my inquiries at the local offices have
been turned down, and I have four such offices in my riding.
The Liberal government has imposed a gag order and local HRDC
offices are not allowed to release any information on local
grants despite the minister's assurance.
The shovelgate scandal has exposed the questionable ethics of
this government once again. The minister promised to be open
with Canadians, yet refuses to release information to members
that was readily available only two weeks ago.
The Minister of Human Resources Development should not only be
ashamed, she should resign.
* * *
GARTH LEGGE
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in the House today to honour one of my constituents, Reverend
Garth Legge of Richmond Hill, on his being named a member of the
Order of Canada.
He was honoured at the investiture ceremony on February 9, along
with many other deserving Canadians. I would like to read his
citation:
A man of vision and action, he is an example to follow in
missionary work. He was a strong influence in the establishment
of Zambia's United Church. Later, as head of the United Church
of Canada's world outreach division, he championed justice and
autonomy for indigenous peoples in many parts of the word. He has
consistently promoted an approach in missions that is based on
respect, equality and partnership.
Congratulations to Reverend Legge on being named to the Order of
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the increase in the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel in Canada
does not reflect the gross price of a litre of gasoline before
taxes. Consumers are always the ones footing the bill. Canadian
oil corporations will have to make public across the country the
cost of gasoline before taxes, and this every day.
The refinery sector is operating strictly to generate profits
for major Canadian oil companies. Why do oil companies such as
Imperial Oil, Petro-Canada, Shell Canada and Ultramar not respect
consumers?
I would like to hear from the CEOs of the Canadian oil
companies, by fax, at (613) 996-0828, within a week.
* * *
HEART AND STROKE MONTH
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to inform the House and all Canadians that, this year again,
February is Heart and Stroke Month.
We are proud of the Canadian heart health initiative, a world
renown partnership in which Health Canada is co-operating with
the provincial departments of health and with the Heart and
Stroke Foundation of Canada.
[English]
More challenges remain to ensure that progress continues in the
reduction of the major risk factors: smoking, high blood
pressure, elevated blood cholesterol and diabetes. By investing
in heart health, we can enhance the quality of life for countless
Canadians.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, more and more Canadians are living with a disability as
a result of heart disease or stroke. For each death attributable
to a stroke, three victims require prolonged hospitalization as a
result of neurological damage. Heart failure is also becoming an
increasing problem, putting strain on our limited health care
resources. These statistics point to the importance of having a
low fat diet, exercising and limiting stress.
The Government of Canada needs to work with NGOs and
professional associations to focus on prevention, such as the
Hearth and Stroke Foundation's heart smart program for kids. It
should focus on developing a national cardiovascular surveillance
program, supporting research by the CIHR and putting resources
back into the trenches on the sharp edge of patient care.
Cardiovascular disease is a killer. Let's have a heart to save
a heart.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today representatives from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of
Canada and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society are meeting with
members of parliament and senators as part of their annual Heart
on the Hill day.
Their aim is to raise awareness of heart disease and stroke,
which is the number one killer of Canadians.
1405
Cardiovascular disease kills almost 80,000 Canadians every year
and accounts for almost $20 billion in direct and indirect health
costs.
As we begin the new millennium, the burden of heart and stroke
disease will continue to rise. This epidemic will become more
pronounced as the average age of our population increases. Of
particular concern are the growing number of Canadians who are
living in a state of disability as a result of heart disease,
especially congestive heart failure.
Heart and Stroke Month offers Canadians an excellent opportunity
to learn more about heart disease and stroke. By fostering
awareness we can increase preventive measures and hopefully save
lives.
* * *
CANADIAN RANGERS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for the past 50 years the Canadian Rangers have acted as guides
and advisors to the Canadian Forces as well as performing search
and rescue duties in northern remote and isolated communities
often in harsh weather conditions. The majority of Canadian
Rangers are aboriginal, often unilingual, who have served Canada
for more than 50 years.
Today at Rideau Hall 17 Canadian rangers received the first
presentation of the new ranger bar to the special service medal
which recognizes at least four years of honourable service. Many
others will also be receiving this special award. From my riding
of Nunavut, Peter Kuniliusee and Jimmy Tassugat from Clyde River
represented their colleagues.
I congratulate all Canadian Rangers for their outstanding
dedication and, on behalf of all Canadians, thank them for their
work and contribution to our great country. Mutna. Thank you.
* * *
[Translation]
FATHER GEORGES-HENRI LÉVESQUE
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
all of Quebec paid tribute to one of the architects of its quiet
revolution, Father Georges-Henri Lévesque, who died in January of
this year.
Le Devoir wrote that those who knew him considered him
instrumental in helping to free Quebec from the yoke that
weighed it down between 1940 and 1960.
He will best be remembered for founding Université Laval's
school of social work in 1938 and its faculty of social sciences
in 1943. But for some, of much greater importance than founding
these two institutions was his contribution to the social
debates of the day.
I take a particular interest in this because he led and
encouraged many debates from the Manoir Montmorency in Beauport,
in my riding. This centre, directed by Father Lévesque, was a
hub, where all the agents of change in Quebec society debated
ideas and received their training.
I can only hope that in my riding, as well as in the rest of
Quebec, Father Lévesque's memory will continue to inspire us to
continue along our path toward a society where all are equal and
there is no place for exclusion.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE CHARLES SCHULZ
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in one of life's unexplainable quirks of
fate, as millions of people around the world opened their
newspapers this weekend to read the last Peanuts comic
strip, they heard of the death of Charles Schulz.
As a baby boomer, I do not recall a world without Charlie Brown,
Lucy and Linus Van Pelt, Peppermint Patty, Snoopy and Woodstock.
For half a century, children and adults around the world have
faithfully followed Charlie Brown's determined efforts to kick
that football or fly that kite. We were enthralled by Snoopy's
air battles with the Red Baron or his persistent efforts to steal
Linus' security blanket.
While the world underwent great changes over the last 50 years,
Charles Schulz was always there to bring a smile to our faces.
Today the world is a little sadder with the loss of Charles
Schulz, but it will always be a better place because he has
provided us with his enduring gifts of Charlie Brown, Snoopy and
company.
* * *
CLAYOQUOT SOUND AND REDBERRY LAKE
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the communities of Clayoquot Sound in
British Columbia and Redberry Lake in Saskatchewan on their
recent designation as international biosphere reserves.
Biosphere reserves are areas of terrestrial or coastal
ecosystems which are internationally recognized within the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's Man
and Biosphere Program for promoting and demonstrating a balanced
relationship between people and nature.
This is an incredible honour for the communities involved and
the many partners that contributed to the success of these
nominations.
The declaration of Clayoquot Sound and Redberry Lake as
biosphere reserves is recognition of our substantial progress
toward a sustainable future for the regions, including their
biological, economic, social and cultural values.
1410
Canada has six other biosphere reserves: in Quebec, Alberta,
Ontario and Manitoba making the Clayoquot Sound and Redberry Lake
biosphere reserves the seventh and eighth such reserves in
Canada.
* * *
YUKON ACT
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Yukon
government leader Piers McDonald and opposition leader Pat Duncan
are in Ottawa in a co-operative effort to lobby to modernize the
Yukon Act.
The Yukon Act does not but needs to recognize the current system
of democratic government and give effect to the devolution of
power over land and resources to the elected legislature. This
transfer is critical to the future of the Yukon and must include
first nations and the federal government.
The Yukon needs the support of parliament to update the Yukon
Act for economic development and to create a fireweed fund, the
first labour sponsored fund in all of the north.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, arrogance is
increasingly becoming the trademark of the Prime Minister and
his government.
After weakening health care and education systems throughout
Canada by slashing provincial transfer payments, and ignoring
the legitimate requests from the premiers, after invading
provincial jurisdictions and adding to waste and duplication
with its $95 billion surplus, after using discretionary job
creation funds to reward its cronies, all the while denying
doing any such thing, and laughing off opposition and public
concerns, now, with Bill C-20, the Liberal government is
claiming the virtue of clarity and the right to be sole arbiter
of the future of the Quebec people.
The common thread in all this is arrogance. But so full of
arrogance is this government of clarity that the future it
offers Quebecers is sombre indeed.
Arrogance reigns supreme. I salute the master of arrogance.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
lately the official opposition and the media have focused their
attention and energies on the human resources department and its
minister.
The Ottawa Citizen reported that the minister was seen in
Niagara Falls on Friday having a fundraising breakfast. It
informed us that the minister misused the Challenger jet at a
great cost to Canadian taxpayers.
Let us be truthful with the people of Canada. The minister was
in Niagara Falls for round table discussions scheduled months ago
that had to do with the Business Education Council of Niagara.
This organization, well-known for the excellent work it carries
out throughout the peninsula, provides young Canadians with the
hands on training necessary to make the transition from school to
employment.
Fundraising indeed. Those who are seeking the truth and who
often use methods reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition should
be aware that it is wrong to embellish the truth and in doing so
to mislead Canadians.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, few Canadians are aware that more than 4,600 infants are
born each year with congenital heart defects. That means that
one in every one hundred children are born with these sometimes
life-threatening defects making it the number one birth defect in
Canada. Congenital heart defects affect more children than
cancer, kidney disease, diabetes and junior arthritis.
The number of adults living in Canada with congenital heart
defects is between 70,000 and 100,000. Of these adults, 12,000
are currently receiving follow-up care. Approximately 3,000
pediatric and 300 or more adult cardiac surgeries are performed
each year in Canada for congenital heart disease. These numbers
are expected to double by the year 2006.
I will soon be introducing in the House a private member's bill
to officially recognize February 14 as a day for hearts. This
bill will recognize and increase the awareness of congenital
heart defect.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
despite years of public education, heart disease and strokes
remain the leading killers of Canadians. The Heart and Stroke
Foundation and medical specialists like Dr. Vicky Bernstein and
Dr. Larry Barr of Vancouver are the unsung heroes in the battle
against heart disease.
However, they cannot do it alone. Canadians young and old need
to help minimize the risk of heart disease or stroke. We can
reduce the risk by living a healthy lifestyle, by exercising
daily and by not smoking.
1415
Allow me to thank all Canadians who continue to fight the battle
against heart disease and stroke. Their contributions will save
lives.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development says that
she was only briefed on her department's billion dollar
boondoggle on November 17. That is by no means certain.
Let us look at her first response to the scandal. On November
18 the minister hauled out her chequebook and signed off on six
more grants worth almost $1 million.
Why did the minister dole out another $1 million less than 24
hours after receiving a damning audit?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said on a number of occasions, we
are working on this issue. We are taking it very seriously and
taking a strong response to it.
The auditor general agrees that the approach we are taking is
the right one. We will fix this problem.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, here is how seriously the minister took the matter. Her
spending spree did not stop with the first 24 hours. In the two
weeks following the minister's official briefing on the billion
dollar boondoggle she signed grant cheques totalling over $3
million. The minister had an audit on her desk highlighting
gross mismanagement of public money in her department, but she
just kept doling out millions of tax dollars anyway.
Did the minister even stop signing cheques long enough to read
the audit?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed I read the audit. That is why we
have prepared a six point plan to implement across this country,
that we have worked on with outside experts who have given us
advice that we have included in the response.
We have taken this matter seriously. The response is a strong
one. We will fix this problem.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has a very strange idea of taking things
seriously.
What was the first thing she did when the audit hit her desk?
She shoved it aside because it was sitting on her chequebook.
Within 24 hours of receiving the audit she signed off on $1
million worth of grants. By December 3 the tally had reached
over $3 million.
Why was the minister so unconcerned about the mismanagement of
$1 billion that she just kept cutting cheques?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, let us understand
that the moneys we invest go to communities and individuals, and
they make a difference in the lives of those individuals and
those communities.
We know that on that side of the House they do not accept that
the federal government can have a role at the local level. But
on this side of the House we know how important these loans and
contributions are. That is why we are working hard to build a
stronger foundation for this program.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is interesting that the minister again has not answered a single
question that has been put to her today.
I would think that when somebody hits the panic button maybe she
would think that the boondoggle in her department has to come to
a halt, but this minister did not skip a beat. The boondoggle
continued. In fact, she cut cheques totalling $1 million the day
after she found out about the problems, with no thought about
trying to fix the system, no thought about freezing the spending,
no plan, no concern and no one held to account.
Why was it business as usual for this minister when that audit
sat on her desk damning her department?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we received the audit. We took it
seriously. We built, with the help of outside experts, Deloitte
& Touche, with the advisory committee to the Treasury Board
Secretariat and with the auditor general himself, over the course
of time, a strong management response that will deal with this
issue once and for all.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
us remember what the internal audit which sat on that desk
actually said. It said that 15% of the grants did not have an
application on file, 8 out of 10 did not have any financial
monitoring, and 87% showed no evidence of supervision.
What was the minister's response? I would have thought it would
have been a crisis, but she did not put an immediate freeze on
spending, she did not argue that enough was enough, she did not
say “Let us shut off the taps. Let us stop it now”. No, she
swept that audit off her desk, got out the chequebook and started
spending $1 million.
Why did she continue to spend money on these same grants when
that audit said there was a spending control problem in her
department?
1420
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at what we did. We reviewed
the audit. We identified, with the help of outside experts, a
six point plan—
Mr. Jim Abbott: A six point plan.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Thank you very much. I am glad you
are starting to read it. Even the auditor general says that it
will be effective in managing this problem.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois has made numerous requests, including to the
government House leader, to allow the legislative committee on
Bill C-20 to travel. I made the same request to the Prime
Minister yesterday.
Does the Prime Minister intend to ask or instruct his government
majority on the committee to let the committee travel to hear as
many testimonies and people as possible across Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
had the opportunity to reply to that question. I thank the hon.
member for having sent me a letter today.
My decision remains unchanged. This bill concerns all the
provinces of Canada. Since we want to move along with this
legislation because people do not want us to discuss it
endlessly, we do not want a committee that will have to travel
in all ten provinces of Canada, particularly since it is
relatively easy for people from Quebec to come to Ottawa.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
are a few contradictions here. We are told this bill concerns
all of Canada. This means that people would have to come to
Ottawa not only from Quebec but also from all over the country.
In addition, if it is important to travel across Canada to
consider the issue of fishery and to visit prisons, and if it is
important, as claimed by the government majority on the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs, to travel to the Caucasus to
define a Canadian policy, would it not also be important to
travel to Quebec and to the rest of Canada to define a policy
that appears to be rather important, according to the Prime
Minister himself?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when a constitutional change was made regarding denominational
schools, the Bloc Quebecois did not want to travel.
A decision has been made. Those who take an interest in this
issue know full well that the House expressed its opinion very
clearly last week, at second reading. Those who have something
to say can come to Ottawa to share their views. The committee
will gladly hear them.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will
continue along the same lines.
Parliamentary committees travel a lot as part of their
responsibilities. When, for example, the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs wanted to make recommendations on the WTO
Seattle round, it went to Quebec for four days. It travelled to
Montreal, Quebec City and Saint-Hyacinthe.
If a House committee can travel to take the pulse of Quebec on
an international issue, why is the legislative committee on Bill
C-20 deprived of the right to travel to Quebec and to Canada?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the committee is not deprived of
anything. It is sitting here in parliament and will be entitled
to hear witnesses.
In the letter I wrote to the House Leader of his party, we
indicated that we were open to a broadening of the usual narrow
definition of technical witnesses. We took steps to allow
witnesses to be heard. We were clear about this. Committee
meetings will also be televised.
The government is acting in a reasonable manner on this issue,
unlike the opposition.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, again
yesterday, in Montreal, there were groups saying that what would
be reasonable would be for the committee to be able to come to
Quebec to hear from them. There are also groups in Canada who
have said the same to the government.
Given the increasing number of groups in Quebec and in Canada
that are wanting to be heard, does the Prime Minister not feel
that it is the responsibility of this House to hear these
groups, and that this objective will be better met if the
committee travels to Quebec and to Canada to hear them?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way is
well aware, having attended a press conference in this
Parliament a few days ago with groups from pretty well all over
Quebec, which were demanding to be heard.
If they were able to come to Parliament to demand this, surely
they could come back to make presentations.
* * *
[English]
THE BUDGET
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
now two weeks away from the federal budget. Already the finance
minister is orchestrating the usual games, orchestrating the leak
to the upcoming budget.
1425
This is a deadly serious issue. Canadians are very concerned
about the future of health care.
No more games. My question is simple: Will the federal
government once again become a 50-50 partner in health care, and
if so, over what period of time?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there will be a budget. As everybody knows, last year
we put a lot of resources in health care, more than everybody
expected.
I had the occasion last week to read quotes from the Premier of
Saskatchewan and the Minister of Finance for British Columbia and
others congratulating the government on what we did last year in
the budget.
There will be another budget and it will be on Monday, February
28. Perhaps there will be some money again, I do not know. I
will talk to the Minister of Finance about it.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
not looking for hot tips for day traders; we are looking for a
fundamental policy direction on health care from the government.
Federal underfunding of health care has put Canada on the track
to an Americanized two tier privatized health care system.
I ask whether the government will continue to take us backward
or move us forward. Is the federal government content to remain
a junior partner in health care or will it once again become a
50-50 partner?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I answered the question earlier that we are very
preoccupied.
I received a letter from the premiers 10 days ago. I replied
last week. We are having a dialogue. The decision about how
much more we can do will be known by the time of the budget, if
we can do more than we have done in the past. We have restored
all the funding that existed in 1993 and 1994. That is the only
program that has been restored out of all of our programs because
we are preoccupied with health care.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, last Friday in response to a question during
question period, the Minister of HRDC stated that the
transitional jobs fund was “One of the first areas of interest
to which I turned my attention upon becoming minister”.
Will the minister now tell us what was the exact date that she
turned her attention to the program, and on that day were the
problems with the program discussed?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a new minister I was briefed over the
course on a number of issues: employment insurance, Canada
student loans and a number of other things. But in the House,
when we returned, there were questions about the transitional
jobs fund, so of course I had to prepare myself for this very
important place.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have seen better skating on the canal.
On Friday the minister made reference to the Privacy Act and the
protection of information when it came to the HRDC money that
went to her riding.
Will the minister please tell us who authorized the release of
personal correspondence between members of this House and the
department which were read into the record by the Prime Minister
on Monday? Why the double standard?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, letters
between a member of parliament and ministers about projects, not
about individuals, are not subject to the Privacy Act.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the human resources minister has a
peculiar sense of urgency.
In most circumstances the news of a $1 billion bungle would send
shock waves through any organization. Immediate action would be
taken, accounts would be frozen and people would be hauled up on
the carpet. Not the human resources minister. She just gets
upset if she cannot find a chequebook.
Why should Canadians have any faith that this minister will
solve the problem?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member refers again to a billion dollars.
Members opposite use figures very easily.
As I said to the House, there were 37 cases that needed further
investigation and we have received more reports. Now, out of the
$33 million, we have received final reports for $12.5 million.
We have a number of reviews completed, with a total amount in
overpayment of $251.50. They are still the same figures.
1430
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine being so cavalier
about a billion dollar bungle.
At the same time as the human resources minister was boasting
about her little six point plan she was cutting cheques for
millions of dollars in more grants. She tried to cover up the
audit and she got caught. She said she had a strategy to get out
of the mess, but she blew millions of dollars more on the same
grants. Instead of taking months to announce her six point plan,
why did she not just quit signing the cheques?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, even the auditor general did not suggest
that we suspend these important programs. What he did do was
agree with our six point plan and agree that part of our six
point plan and its implementation should include reviewing the
files and ensuring that we have the appropriate paperwork before
additional moneys are spent.
Let us be clear. The first thing we did was ask for a stronger
management response that included going out and getting the
advice of outside experts including the auditor general.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in March 1999, the Bloc Quebecois unveiled a
quota system for recovering EI overpayments imposed on all
Canada employment centres in Canada. Rates of recovery
regularly exceeded 100% of targets.
How does the Minister of Human Resources Development square such
efficiency in the battle against the unemployed with the
systemic leniency that characterizes the management of over
$1 billion in job creation funds?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
correction is in order, because the member has quoted yet
another figure. Two weeks ago, it was $3 billion. Now it has
fallen to $1 billion.
But the fact is that the auditors have reviewed $200 million. Of
the projects to which this $200 million went, they have found 37
cases with additional problems, representing $33 million. So
far, their final review of how $12.5 million was spent shows one
overpayment in the amount of $251.50.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for the Prime Minister to
say week after week that the department is keeping tabs on every
unemployed worker in the country.
But how does he explain that it kept no tabs at all on a
$500,000 grant to Wal-Mart for several months? Is a double
standard also becoming systemic?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again let us be clear. We know where the
cheques have gone. They have gone to important organizations,
small and medium size businesses. They have gone to individuals.
A billion dollars has not disappeared. What we are doing, and I
repeat again, is improving our system of administration so that
this problem will not happen again.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister is always assuring us that the only money that
is going out in the jobs grant is going to the poor and going to
the needy. Yet what do we hear today? The developer for
Wal-Mart received $500,000.
Would the Prime Minister kindly explain to Canadians what is
poor and what is needy about Wal-Mart?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was an initiative taken in a riding in Cornwall where
this grant of $500,000 was for a big building construction.
There were 300 jobs created. Three hundred people got jobs
because we helped the development, and these people are very
happy to work today.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we just heard the minister say that it is small and medium size
businesses and then we have the Prime Minister saying that they
are huge. The minister is throwing taxpayer moneys at companies
whether or not they need it.
Let us take the $80 million firm of RMH Corporation.
It received $1.6 billion to set up shop in, guess where, the
minister's riding even though, first, it did not qualify for a
grant and, second, it admits it did not need the money in the
first place.
1435
Why did the minister hand out millions to foreign companies when
they admit they did not need the money in the first place?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify again that the
transitional jobs fund did apply in my riding. Let me say too
that I have had the pleasure not only of understanding and
appreciating the role that the program has had in my riding, but
also for those who happen to live in the city of Cornwall.
If the hon. member would do as I have done and go to the city of
Cornwall and meet with Team Cornwall, the men and women who for
years have been trying to improve and diversify the economy in
that city, he would know how important this investment is to the
men and women who live there.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was
as early as October 1997 that the Corbeil matter sounded the
alarm on dubious project management practices at Human Resources
Development Canada.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the use of lists of
beneficiaries of the Department of Human Resources Development
grants for the funding of the Liberal Party was a strong
indication of major administrative shortcomings even then at
Human Resources Development Canada?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I will allow the question, because
the question itself is in order, although the preamble is
something of a mixed bag.
The hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the case of the incident mentioned by the hon. member, the
minister acted immediately. The RCMP was informed immediately,
and the person in question was taken to court. The individual
pleaded guilty and has served the sentence handed down.
In all of that, we acted very quickly, and the person who abused
the system was obliged to appear before the courts of Canada.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister thinks that by shifting the players the problems
will disappear.
They promote Mel Cappe to the highest position in the public
service and transfer the minister to international trade.
Does the Prime Minister really think that this camouflaging is
enough this time to save his government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is an unfounded insinuation. There was a change in
Cabinet, and I asked the minister to assume responsibility for
which he was specifically trained, that is, international trade.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: You need only read the papers. I am
not the one saying this.
Today in the paper there was a very long article on the
management skills of the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Cappe,
who was praised by those who know about these things, here in
the City of Ottawa.
[English]
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the human resources minister and Team Liberal have been throwing
good money after bad. She has doled out millions of dollars to
profitable firms even though those companies would have set up
shop anyway.
What was the minister's motivation for all this generosity? In a
word slush? The Ekos audit showed there has been political
interference in spreading the Liberal wealth. That wealth is the
taxpayer's. Is it not the case that the human resources minister
ignored that internal audit because she just could not bear the
thought of losing that slush fund?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated time and time again,
if the hon. member would speak to his own colleagues he would see
that the transitional jobs fund was a program that was made
available for areas of high unemployment, including those
represented by Reform members of parliament, those by the New
Democrats, those by the Bloc, those by the Tories and, yes, those
by this side.
The program was there to help individuals. It has done a good
job of making sure that 30,000 men and women who were not
employed before the introduction of this program now have gainful
employment.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the matter of who those individuals are is questionable. The
human resources minister spent months trying to cover up that
audit.
Most people would be concerned that maybe their boss would be
mad about that, but the minister knew that her boss would not
care and in fact would approve because they both have a vested
interest in flexibly shovelling large sums of money into their
ridings as hastily as possible.
1440
Is the real reason the minister did not worry about the audit
that she knew the Prime Minister would be pleased with this
mismanagement?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I suggest to the hon. member that
he perhaps ask the men and women in British Columbia, represented
by Reform members of parliament, what they think about the
transitional jobs fund and the opportunities it has given them.
I would suggest that those 30,000 men and women who thankfully
are now gainfully employed are grateful that the federal
government, at least on this side of the House, understands that
there is a role for the Government of Canada when times are
difficult in helping them find a job.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of International Trade was Minister of Human Resources
Development at the time of the Corbeil affair.
Obviously it is his administration that is referred to when the
current Minister of Human Resources Development describes the
administration she has inherited as right out of the dark ages.
My question is for the Minister of International Trade. Since
there is a precedent for former ministers testifying, is the
Minister of International Trade at last going to agree
voluntarily to come before the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the rules of this House, the government speaks
through the minister responsible for a department.
Ministers defend the files of their predecessors. That is how
it is done and how it has always been done. That is the custom.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is completely
capable of answering all questions on the programs concerned.
There have been four ministers of that department since we
became the government. The present minister is responsible for
answering for the other three.
* * *
[English]
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Some merchant
navy vets in Peterborough have told me that their compensation
payments are disappointingly low and others are concerned that
their compensation will be clawed back through taxation.
Could the minister tell us the current status of the merchant
navy veterans compensation program?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the
sensible question of the day.
It is exempt from taxation and it is a non-reportable item on
income tax. I think the credit here belongs to two groups:
first, the veterans themselves who came up with this plan and,
second, our House of Commons Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs that unanimously came up with the
solution. To both these groups I say congratulations on a job
well done.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, you do not need to win at Lotto 649 if you live in a
minister's riding. If you own a business, even if it is from
another country and is worth billions of dollars, you will
qualify for grants.
It does not matter if the money is needed. The human resources
minister will find a way to cut a cheque. It is not about jobs.
It is about pure slush. There is no other explanation. Why
should Canadian taxpayers tolerate this flagrant abuse of their
hard earned money?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I say again that the grants and
contributions from my Department of Human Resources Development
are used in ridings right across the country.
Let me tell the House what Dr. Allan Mandel of Calgary says
about a project in the riding of Calgary—Nose Hill. He says “I
have never donated to the Liberal Party. To me this is a program
to stimulate getting young workers into the workforce. I think
that is great. They are”, meaning the Reform Party, “painting
everything with the same brush and they don't even know what it
is being used for”.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that my huge
riding, which does not happen to be a Liberal riding, received
the staggering sum of $720.
1445
The Minister of Human Resources Development has invented a new
kind of extreme sport. She can blow a billion bucks, get caught
and slip another one out of her chequebook.
I ask the Prime Minister, why will he not take away the
chequebook from the Minister of Human Resources Development and
give it to the agriculture minister? We really need some money.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a few weeks ago we announced a program of $500 million
every year for the next two years because we are very concerned
about the situation.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that in the program
of his party, the program it used to get elected, there was a
clause which said that we should cut the subsidies to farmers.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
riding of Brant received $1.7 million of transitional jobs fund
money because of what the minister called a pocket of high
unemployment. Brant's unemployment rate is 7.6%. Inner city
ridings such as Winnipeg Centre and Vancouver East that also have
pockets of high unemployment were not able to qualify for
transitional jobs fund money. Why did unemployed workers in these
ridings not qualify for the transitional jobs fund? Was it
because the minister is not in those ridings?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to clarify the record. I
would like to tell the House what the unemployment levels were in
the riding of Brant during the year of 1995 when the transitional
jobs fund statistics were collected. In the month January, it
was 10.3%; in the month of February, 11.8%; in the month of
March, 14.4%; in the month of April, 14.5%; and in the month of
May, 14.2%. Brant was a pocket of high unemployment.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development is not the only Liberal minister
who has received funding from the transitional jobs fund even
though her riding is not eligible.
The Minister of Justice and the Indian affairs minister, the
President of Treasury Board, the former solicitor general, and
the Liberal Party whip have also circumvented the rules.
How can the minister justify that the poorest ridings—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The word circumvented is a bit
strong. I would like the hon. member to withdraw that word.
Mr. Yvon Godin: How can the minister justify—
The Speaker: Does the hon. member withdraw the word.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
How can the minister justify that the poorest ridings in Canada,
like Winnipeg Centre and Vancouver East received no money from
the transitional jobs fund, while ministers' ridings did?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these accusations are absolutely unbelievable.
In the case of Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh this was a riding
with 18% unemployment, but unemployment is dropping, and we can
list lots of ridings for you.
When we started out, unemployment was at 11.5%. It has now
dropped to 6.8%. When we started out, the deficit was $42
billion. Now we have a surplus. When we started out, the
interest rate was 11%. Now it is 6%.
That is what good administration is all about, and throughout
all this we have not forgotten the poor and the ridings where
there was unemployment, such as the riding of the hon. member.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development acknowledges having been
aware in August 1999 of serious administrative problems in the
management of programs.
In view of the scope of the situation, why did she not order a
stop to payments immediately and not six months later, that is,
on January 29, 2000?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I point to the record. We have
implemented a six point plan. We will deal with the challenges
before us. Canadians want this problem fixed and we are going to
do that.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I had another question, but I am going to go back to this one.
The minister was advised that there were problems with the TJF
in August 1999. Why did she not put a stop payment then and not
six months later on January 29, 2000?
1450
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, let me remind the hon. member that
we have implemented a six point plan that has got the endorsement
of the auditor general. I remind the House that the auditor
general did not say these programs should be completely stopped.
He understands the value of them. He agreed that the strategy
we are putting in place is the right one and that it will work.
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
On Friday the World Trade Organization released its decision
regarding Canada's auto pact claiming that it gives favourable
treatment to U.S. manufacturers while discriminating against
other manufacturers.
Can the minister tell the House on what basis does he plan to
appeal the decision?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday my colleague the Minister of
Industry and I announced that Canada will appeal the panel's
decision. We believe there are compelling legal grounds to
certain elements of the panel's ruling. We essentially want to
seek clarification on the reasoning and the scope of the panel's
decision and report.
The government will continue to consult closely with the
provinces and key industry stakeholders throughout the appeal
process.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let me quote Michael Scharff, executive vice-president of RMH
Teleservices in response to questions about why his company got
$1.6 million in grants. Listen to this: “I am sure we would be
in Brantford one way or another. That was kind of the icing on
the cake”.
Why do profitable companies get the icing while the taxpayers
pay the bill?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member of the
circumstances facing the riding of Brant, a community that had to
diversify its economy having lost the major employers that closed
and were all gone.
The transitional jobs fund and the Canada jobs fund were
identified precisely for communities like the riding of Brant.
The investments that we have made as a result of these programs
have been well received by the community members there because
they have provided opportunities that were not going to otherwise
exist.
* * *
[Translation]
SUDAN
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs unveiled the Harker report on
links between the civil war in Sudan and oil development by a
Calgary firm.
The report confirms that oil is fueling the conflict in Sudan
and recommends that the minister use the Export and Import
Permits Act to ensure that the firm acts ethically and respects
human rights.
In the light of Mr. Harker's harsh words regarding Talisman, why
is the minister refusing to use this legislation?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are using the legislation. We have very major
exclusions under the Export and Import Permits Act for all
military supplies and daily use supplies. The hon. member does
not know her facts.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Foreign Affairs
and is on Sudan.
The minister's envoy, John Harker, has said that there can be no
peace in Sudan while oil revenues keep flowing to that brutal
regime.
Why has the minister rejected the call by Harker to take all
necessary steps to stop oiling the war machine and to cut off the
oil revenues? Why is the Liberal government shamefully lining up
with Talisman to put corporate oil profits ahead of the human
rights and the human lives of the people Sudan?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again I suggest the hon. member take the
occasion to actually read the report rather than hallucinate, as
he always does, about its conclusions.
The reality is that Mr. Harker did not recommend economic
sanctions. Mr. Harker recommended a number of steps, including:
going to the United Nations, which we are doing; setting up a
mechanism to monitor, which is what we are doing; establishing
arrangements with the IMF, which is what we are doing; and
establishing major codes of ethics for business, which is what we
are doing.
We have engaged this issue very seriously, unlike the hon.
member who simply wants to be offensively extreme at all times.
* * *
1455
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of agriculture.
During the ice storm the federal government reimbursed farmers
for their agricultural losses. During the Red River Valley flood
the government contributed $26 million to farm losses in the Red
River Valley. The flooding last spring in southwestern Manitoba
still has not been addressed by the government. Will the minister
of agriculture please tell me why his government was Johnny on
the spot with those other disasters yet nothing has come forward
with this disaster?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get his facts
straight. He knows very well that this government was there last
year to assist in unseeded acreage coverage in both Saskatchewan
and Manitoba. We worked with the provincial governments there.
We put in place hundreds of millions of dollars for targeted
support not only for the producers who are suffering from serious
financial difficulties in that area. We continue to adjust those
criteria and we recently put another $500 million a year forward.
I would ask the member to encourage not only the producers in
his province but the producers in his neighbouring province to
encourage their provincial governments to come forward with our
federal—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Essex.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, air
pollution contributes to the untimely death of more than 5,000
Canadians and sends thousands more to hospital each year. The
city of Windsor and the county of Essex have some of the worst
air pollution in Canada. This is a serious matter that requires
immediate attention. This week Canada and the United States
begin negotiations for an ozone annex to the Canada-U.S. air
quality agreement. How will this help all Canadians including
those from Windsor and Essex county?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, sadly the hon. member's number of 5,000 is likely on
the low side. However, I point out that these are largely
preventable deaths due to air pollution and we fully intend over
the next decade to cut that number in half.
The negotiations with the United States are to establish a
protocol with the United States to reduce smog thus improving the
quality of air in Canada and in the United States with
substantial improvements in the life expectancies particularly of
young children and older people who are specifically affected to
a greater degree by air pollution problems.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, one week ago in the House the minister said the
following: “Mr. Speaker, let me review again what has
transpired. I as the Minister of Human Resources Development
Canada received the report of an internal audit. I was not happy
with the reports of that audit. I insisted on a strong
management response”.
Less than 24 hours later she cut a cheque for six more grants
totalling almost a million dollars. I guess that was the origin
of her six point plan, six more new grants. How can the minister
call this a serious management response?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a serious management response takes time
to build. That is why we enlisted the support of the private
sector expert Deloitte & Touche. That is why we presented our
ideas to the private sector board that advises the Treasury Board
Secretariat. That is why we took the plan to the auditor
general. That is why we took their advice and built it into the
plan. That is why we are now implementing it.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following a
consensus among premiers at the February 3 meeting, it was
decided to ask Ottawa to restore health transfer payments to the
1994-95 level, and to make up the $4.2 billion shortfall predicted
for next year.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he intend to
respond favourably to the unanimous request of the provinces,
stakeholders in the health care sector and the public, and
restore health transfer payments to the 1994-95 level?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to inform the hon. member that provincial transfer payments
have been restored to the 1993-94 level. When we formed the
government, we were forced to cut them a few years later, but
now we are back to the same level as in 1993-94.
In addition, the Province of Quebec and the poorest provinces
have received larger equalization payments than they did before
we formed the government.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, another scandal the government must come to grips with
is its failure to flow any money to victims of hepatitis C as
promised by the Minister of Health 23 months ago.
To date, no money has flowed.
1500
Today lawyers are in court demanding increases in fees to the
tune of a 4.29 multiplier, representing about $55 million in fees
for lawyers.
My question is for the Minister of Health who is responsible for
the terms of the compensation settlement. Can he not bring
closure to this issue, put an end to this legal wrangling and
ensure that every penny of the $1.2 billion goes to victims and
not lawyers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
lawyers for the Government of Canada are in court asking that
every step possible be taken to make sure that money goes to
claimants at the earliest possible moment.
Lawyers for the government oppose the payment of any fees to
lawyers until claimants are paid, and will continue to do that.
Lawyers for the government are in court asking that an
administrator be appointed as soon as possible so we can start
flowing the money to claimants that this settlement provides for.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board.
When Richard Klassen was commissioner of the Canadian Wheat
Board, he was given a huge settlement package so that if he left
the wheat board he would not go to a competitor with sensitive
information for two years. One year later, he is now working for
one of those competitors.
Is Mr. Klassen in breach of his severance agreement with the
Canadian Wheat Board?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have asked the Canadian Wheat Board to review this
situation to make sure that all the rules between the wheat board
and this particular employee with respect to his new employment
are completely satisfied.
I am confident that the wheat board will make absolutely certain
that all legal rules are complied with.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Judy Junor, Saskatchewan
Associate Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for
Seniors.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I seek your
guidance on this point of order.
In response to a question that was put to the Prime Minister by
my colleague from Edmonton North, the Prime Minister gave an
answer in which he insinuated that I had written a letter on
behalf of an organization in my riding requesting support from
one of these transitional jobs fund grants.
1505
I can assure the House and assure you, Mr. Speaker, that no such
letter exists nor was one ever written.
I would like your assistance, Mr. Speaker, in determining how
the record—
The Speaker: I would take it with regard
to all traditions that you have just cleared the
record. It stands.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in question period today, the Minister of Human
Resources Development made statements which I believe appear to
contradict her earlier statements made in the House.
I would like to give notice of my intention to raise this
serious matter after an opportunity to review Hansard of
today's question period. I want to reserve that right and pursue
this matter at greater length when I have had an opportunity to
review the record at length.
The Speaker: The hon. member is on record.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
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 20 petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved that the second
report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade presented on Thursday, December 16, 1999, be
concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today but,
unfortunately, we will have to explain to those who are
listening to us how business is conducted in this parliament.
We often hear that it is a parliament that works in a very
democratic fashion, that everyone has an opportunity to rise and
to express his or her views, but this is completely false.
We know full well, and most parliamentarians in this House
agree, that since it first came here, in 1993, the Bloc
Quebecois has been very serious and open during the proceedings
of this House and of all of its committees. I feel we have made
an effective and constructive contribution, as was pointed out
many times in the House and elsewhere.
However, the situation deteriorated a great deal when the report
on the Export Development Corporation was tabled. Let me briefly
explain to what happened. The last meeting of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the EDC
was held on December 14, a few hours before the government
decided to adjourn the House until February 7.
The House adjourned well before the scheduled date, probably
because the government was so embarrassed by the fact that Bill
C-20 was an insult to the democratic rights of Quebecers and by
the uproar caused in Quebec by the introduction of this
legislation.
1510
This key element in the debate is of concern to us today because
it eloquently shows the Liberal government's contempt not only
for the population as a whole, but also for the legislative
process and the work of this House.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and Quebecers as a whole, I
accuse the Liberal government, especially the Liberal members of
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, of having acted in bad faith with regard to the last
segment of the review of the Export Development Act.
As I said earlier, the Bloc Quebecois has always been very open
and has contributed to the smooth running of House proceedings.
However, on December 14 things changed for the worse.
I must deplore and condemn in the strongest possible terms the
cavalier, contemptuous and expeditious attitude of the Liberal
majority, based on more than dubious procedural considerations,
which, in collusion with the Reform Party, approved the report
now before the House.
In view of the significance of this report and the time the
committee spent listening to the many witnesses who enlightened
its members, it is unacceptable that the report was adopted in
less than 10 minutes. You heard right, Mr. Speaker, it took the
chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs less than
10 minutes to have the report adopted.
An hon. member: This is horrible. I cannot believe it. It is
incredible.
Mr. Richard Marceau: This is scandalous. It leaves us
speechless. It sends shivers down our spine. We are dealing with
an organization worth $34.7 billion. In 1998 its net profits
amounted to $135 million. And yet it only took 10 minutes to
expedite the matter. It makes no sense whatsoever. I see, Mr.
Speaker, that you are nodding in agreement. You are right, it is
completely unacceptable.
Worse yet—I see that the Chair is listening very carefully—the
Liberal members of the committee had been replaced by members
who had not followed the committee's proceedings and who were
acting on the orders of their whip.
Not only did they take ten minutes to adopt the report on the
EDC, an organization with activities totalling nearly $35
billion, but most people who were there had not even followed
the work of the committee. We can see what kind of attention
that report was given. Like you, I am outraged.
I think this shows contempt for the business of the House. Also,
the chair of the committee insisted on holding meetings on the
very day Bill C-20, which deals with the clarity issue in a
future referendum in Quebec, was debated in the House. It is
outrageous. As a Quebecer, as the representative of a Quebec
riding, it was my duty to speak out against Bill C-20 on behalf
of my constituents and to support the Bloc Quebecois, whose
mandate it is to defend democracy for Quebec here in the federal
parliament.
But what was the committee doing at the same time, in the
building next door? It was ramming through a report which, after
all, did not have to be adopted so hastily. It could have been
studied more thoroughly, but no. While Bill C-20 was being
debated here, the Liberal majority was in another building
ramming through this committee report with people who had not
even followed the work of the committee.
The people who are listening to us at home have every reason to
be disgusted by the way parliament works when the Liberal
majority decides to ignore democratic rules in this House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Since I have been here, we have always
worked closely with other parties in committee.
We often disagreed, but we could still talk, exchange views and
try to advance ideas that sometimes were contradictory. But the
clash of ideas often generates the spark of understanding.
1515
For the first time since my arrival here, there was animosity,
anger, the air was so thick you could cut it with a knife in
this committee.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Acrimonious.
Mr. Richard Marceau: The atmosphere was acrimonious, as my
colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has so eloquently put it.
This is not how a parliament and committees should work.
I can see members coming into the House to hear this bitter
criticism of the way the Liberal government operates.
It is a shame to bring in what I call puppets to get a report
like this passed.
However, on many issues, on many points, the Bloc Quebecois
agreed with the Liberal majority. We presented a dissenting
opinion, because we completely disagreed on other points. I see
my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert supporting me on this,
and am grateful.
We agreed on a number of points, and there was the possibility
of talking and taking time to reach a consensus in this
committee. But no. This highly undemocratic government
violates not only the rights of Quebecers to decide their
future, but also the democratic rights of the members of this
House to express their points of view properly, democratically,
thoughtfully and coherently.
All of this warrants the sharpest criticism possible.
The Bloc Quebecois, which drew on invaluable testimony gathered
at public hearings, considers that there is an obvious lack of
transparency in the operation of the EDC. There is a serious
lack of access to information. Discussions could have continued
at the report stage of the committee.
I am sure that some members of the Liberal majority, had they
simply not followed the orders of their whips like robots, would
have agreed with us. But no, to use a latin expression, they
rubber stamped it.
They said “That is what the government has decided to do”. In
any case, for the Liberal majority, everything from the
government is good. In my opinion, it is overly injurious.
I expected the work of the committee to be conducted in a way
that would allow Liberal members to freely express their views.
However, the Liberal members, even those who were sitting on the
committee, often came to the meetings unprepared. They simply
followed the minister's orders, passed on by the parliamentary
secretary, while opposition members, particularly Bloc Quebecois
members, came prepared. In fact, in the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, who was
there at the very beginning, the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, and my colleague for Mercier have always
been among the best prepared. We took our responsibilities
seriously, we were prepared—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: We are the best.
Mr. Richard Marceau: We are the best, as the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot just said.
But then what happens? Liberal members are mere bodies. They
come unprepared; they are just like puppets. They often ask
totally inane questions. They rubber stamp a report like that
one in ten minutes. It is unbelievable.
Mr. André Bachand: I agree.
Mr. Richard Marceau: I am pleased to see that members of the
Progressive Conservative Party agree with my assessment of the
Liberal performance in many committees.
During the hearings, witnesses expressed their delight that the
EDC was not required to make public potentially damaging
information about deals. The Bloc Quebecois is sensitive to
these concerns. However, we find it entirely unacceptable that
such a situation persists and we are worried that maintaining
these standards will undermine the positive effect of the Export
Development Act.
Once again, since I am certain that this is the case, I would
like to repeat that we could have convinced the few Liberal
members of the committee able to think for themselves that our
view was the right one.
It is entirely normal and legitimate to worry that, with such a
lack of transparency, the ECD's activities could serve ends
entirely inappropriate and even contrary to the objectives of
the bill.
As an example, even as the bill was being reviewed by the
committee, it was impossible for a Bloc Quebecois member to
obtain a breakdown of the EDC's financial activities in Quebec.
1520
If there is one place such information should have been
available, it is in committee. When a bill is being examined in
depth, it should be possible to get the answers to such
questions. But despite repeated requests, the hon. member for
Mercier was unable to obtain a breakdown of the EDC's activities
in Quebec. Once again, it sends shivers down one's spine.
We therefore think it essential that the government retain the
proposal of its task force to the effect that the EDC should be
subject to the Access to Information Act. In my opinion, that
is a minimum requirement.
Furthermore, in our opinion, this report is incomplete and the
committee has not fulfilled its mandate properly, because the
connection between the activities of the EDC and the question of
human rights was pushed aside in favour of issues that were
mainly economic.
The Bloc Quebecois has some serious reservations about how human
rights are respected by the EDC. I would like to address this
touchy point a bit further.
Although the EDC does provide financing services, it is
particularly active in credit insurance. Among the risks it
assumes are political factors. Even in assessing political
risks, the EDC does not take the human rights situation into
account, which leads us to say that, before providing its
support to a company, the EDC should, as a bare minimum, ensure
that the company in question subscribes to the OECD code of
conduct relating to human rights.
It seems to me that a country that boasts of being a beacon for
the world as far as the respect of human rights is concerned
should ensure that one of its arms, namely the EDC, is making
sure that companies with which it does business ensure that
human rights are respected.
It would be unacceptable for the legislation to be used as a way
to evade the precepts that guide our society in order to provide
largesse to companies that are very often involved in developing
countries.
Before I conclude, there is another aspect of the report we
cannot let go without comment: the delicate issue of
environmental standards. I can sense that the hon. member for
Jonquière is riveted to her seat, because for her the
environment is something that is fundamental.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That is true.
Mr. Richard Marceau: The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that
the committee's recommendations on the environmental
responsibilities of the EDC are limited to wishful thinking. We
think, rather, that they should be based more specifically so as
to further reflect the EDC's duties in this regard.
I would remind the House of what is written in the report. We
shall see the best recent example—there are a number; we could
have chosen others—of Liberal blah blah in such matters.
At pages 52 and 53 of the report, I will read their
recommendations. Mr. Speaker, if you are able to understand
what these recommendations say, I would like to speak to you.
I quote:
The Committee accepts that EDC's environmentally-related plans
are a good start but agrees with the Gowlings review that they
are insufficient in themselves. At the end of Part I of this
Report, we suggested a general amendment to Section 10 of the
Export Development Act which would add language requiring EDC to
give due regard to “the commitments and obligations undertaken
by Canada under international agreements”. In our view, this
would include internationally-affirmed principles of sustainable
development and obligations under multilateral environmental
agreements. If there is any doubt on that point, wording to this
effect could be added to Section 2 (Interpretation) of the Act.
We also see merit in adding language elsewhere in the Act which
would impart statutory weight to EDC's environmental review
framework and establish some basis of environmental criteria on
which to determine the eligibility of project proposals for EDC
support. While EDC may see such measures as “redundant”, in
light of the perceived weaknesses in its present Environmental
Review Framework, we believe that EDC could further enhance its
public credibility by conducting—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons, on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member has moved concurrence in this particular
committee report. I can only think that he is arguing against it
now. He is actually reading the report instead of debating its
concurrence. All I am hearing is him reading the report. I
would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to direct your attention to that.
1525
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think the hon. member was
intending to read the report. I trust he was quoting from
something in it that we wanted to refer to in debate. I know he
will do that, very briefly.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I am only quoting one
recommendation, Recommendation No. 21. I think I am allowed to
quote. I see that the parliamentary secretary to the government
House leader is gesturing to tell me that it is a very long
recommendation.
We wanted it shorter and we wanted it stronger on environmental
rights. Thank goodness they are not the ones who will draft the
next referendum question in Quebec, because their recommendation
does not even pass the clarity requirement they want to impose
on Quebec.
So, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons has something against the
length of the recommendations of his Liberal majority, let him
say so. We wanted it shorter and also stronger on the issue of
the environment.
So, I continue to read the recommendation; it is only one
recommendation. I feel like starting all over again, because he
does not seem to have understood anything, but I will continue
for the benefit of those who are listening to us.
We also believe that independent public oversight—reporting to
Parliament at regular intervals on EDC's performance in respect
of the implementation of its Environmental Review Framework—would
be enhanced by adding a provision to the Auditor General Act
establishing the Office of the Commissioner of Environment and
Sustainable Development as the Government's designated agent for
that purpose.
I am still quoting the recommendation.
In regard to disclosure and accountability issues, the Committee
takes the view that disclosure of environmental impact
assessments which allows sufficient time for preventive
action—i.e., identification and mitigation of potential problems
as early as possible in the course of the proposal approval
process and the project cycle—should be the operating rule,
subject only to any commercial confidentiality and viability
requirements that the Government deems essential.
In addressing
this matter in its forthcoming public disclosure framework, we
would urge EDC to carefully consider all of the arguments and
relevant international experience. Finally, as we suggested in
the previous section, EDC should explore the option of creating
an ombudsman post within its organization to respond directly
and in a timely fashion to public inquiries and appeals
regarding sustainable development impacts.
This is one recommendation, and the government hopes, with this
kind of mumbo-jumbo, to advance the cause of international
environmental rights. It is ridiculous and proves, as the
member for Jonquière said, that they do not want to do much when
it comes to the environment.
I see you are asking me to hurry up, Mr. Speaker. That is
unfortunate, because I could go on for hours about the
disgraceful way the Liberal majority has behaved in this
business. Not only is the report so much lip service, but when
it came time to adopt it, ten minutes was all it took, when we
were talking about a entity with some $35 billion in business.
Puppets who had not followed the committee's work were brought
in to rush the bill through.
So, to those who are listening, and I am addressing you,
Mr. Speaker, as much as I am addressing those listening, it is
very unfortunate that, when it comes to things as important as
this, the Liberal majority has decided to trample any semblance
of democracy. But who can be surprised?
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am quite surprised both by the tone and by the content of the
member's speech for whom until now I had a lot of respect as a
member of our committee.
I am a little astonished for a number of reasons. First, he rose
to move that the report be concurred in by the House, but he
spent his time not so much attacking the report as attacking the
behaviour of our Liberal colleagues on the committee.
I regret what he said all the more because, until now, I thought
that members of our committees worked rather well together.
Attacking the behaviour of other committee members seems to me
somewhat out of place in this House.
1530
As far as the substance of the report is concerned, I believe it
stands on the strength of its very responsible recommendations.
I might remind members of what was happening when the House was
about to rise, last year.
[English]
Members of the House will recall what occurred at the end of the
last session. The committee met with the intention of adopting a
serious report which had been the subject matter of a long series
of reviews.
I totally disagree with the member's analysis as to the
comportment or attention of any of the members. Many members
followed these debates with a great deal of interest. All
members on all sides were very interested in ensuring that there
was a balance in the report of the role of the EDC both in
guaranteeing that corporations and individuals who export from
this country receive adequate financing to enable them to carry
on their business globally and at the same time ensuring that the
EDC respected human rights values and the other concerns members
rightly raised before the EDC.
The report strikes a good balance between the needs of the EDC
to ensure that Canadian exporters are well served by financing
tools outside this country and at the same time to ensure that
the human rights and environmental concerns of our citizens are
met. It is a balanced report. It is a responsible report which
has the support and the concurrence of members of the House.
Since the member saw fit to challenge the way in which the
report was adopted, let me remind the member that the report was
adopted in the absence of members of the Bloc Quebecois. They
knew that the meeting was taking place. They were aware that it
was taking place and they chose not to come.
[Translation]
It seems to me disingenuous to say that the report was approved
by the Liberals in attendance, the Reform members and the other
parties present, in the absence of our Bloc colleagues. Bloc
members were boycotting the meeting precisely because at the
time they did not want any committee report to be approved
before the House adjourned for the holidays.
I have a lot of problems with what the member said. I respect
his opinion as far as the substance is concerned. I am ready to
debate it on its merits, but as far as the form is concerned, we
can criticize neither the committee nor the procedures it adopted.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comment of the
hon. member for Rosedale. We did not choose to boycott. We were
in the House because we were debating a fundamental bill, Bill
C-20, which is an unprecedented attack on Quebec's future.
We were not boycotting the committee, far from it. My assistant
in committee was even calling me to let me know when it was time
to go there. In the meantime, I had to attend the House. I was
not boycotting, and neither was any other member of the Bloc,
because the Bloc never did. We participate in committee work in
a productive way.
Previously, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice,
which is said to be a committee where tempers sometimes flare
up, because it deals with issues that affect very directly the
lives of Canadians and Quebecers.
I always made an effort, along with all the other Bloc members
who sat on the Standing Committee on Justice, to ensure the
bills move forward reasonably fast when we were in agreement. In
a few minutes, I will address Bill C-7. The five political
parties gave their support to this bill. We all worked together
to move forward a bill whose objectives we support.
When I was appointed to the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs, I was told this was the least partisan of the House of
Commons committees. I was pleased, because I do not like it when
it is too partisan and I like it when we can work together.
I was most surprised and disappointed to see this was not the
case when the report was adopted, on December 14 of last year. I
was disappointed.
1535
We can disagree with the substance of the report, and I am
prepared to debate it further, but I find it totally
unacceptable that it was adopted in ten minutes, at a time when
we had to be in the House to counter an unprecedented attack
against the democratic rights of Quebecers.
People in my riding ask me “Mr. Marceau, what can we give you as
a Christmas present?” I always ask for the ability to be
everywhere at the same time. But I do not yet have that ability.
I had to be here, in the House, and therefore I could not attend
the committee meeting at the same time. But I ran all the way,
and my colleague from Repentigny will recall that he and I ran
from this House to the East Block to try to make it in time. But
between the time we received the call saying “Come quick, you
need to come” and the time we got there, the report had already
been adopted.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask some questions on the review of
the Export Development Act.
My colleague and his party are committed to the separation of
Quebec. Given the fact that they want to pursue it and that one
of their objectives is to ensure the strength of the French
language and French culture in North America, what would happen
if Quebec gained independence and was trying to engage in
bilateral economic relations and trade with the United States, an
entity many times larger than the province of Quebec? What would
this do to the strength of the French language and culture in
North America?
Does my colleague think that one of the things that prevents
Canadian companies, be they in Quebec or in une autre province,
from being as competitive as they can be is the fact that high
taxes and egregious rules and regulations are making Canadian
companies less competitive than what they could be?
What would be the fate of the French language and culture when
Quebec is forced to engage in trade as an independent entity with
the United States? Are the taxes, rules and regulations as they
currently stand choking the life out of companies in Quebec and
the rest of Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I am
astounded to see that the members of the Reform Party are for
the first time showing some interest for the French language. It
is a bit surprising.
I will be brief. Since 1760, and even before, Quebecers have
always been challenged to excel, if I can put it that way. Being
a minority people in North America and living right next to the
world's biggest economic, cultural and military force, Quebecers
are challenged to excel. Since the Quebec people began to exist,
this challenge has always been addressed by Quebecers.
When the debate on free trade became an electoral fight in 1988,
Quebecers were the ones who made it come true. Quebec supported
free trade while our friends on the other side were against it.
But, what did they do as soon as they were elected? They began
to support it. As members can see, if we repeat things often
enough to them, they finally see the light, at least this is
what I hope.
The majority of Quebecers are in favour of free trade. The
sovereignist movement wants to be at the crosspoint between the
two main movements, the end of the 20th century and the
beginning of the 21st century, which means political
independence and economical interdependence. This is why we were
in favour of the free trade in 1988, why we were in favour of
NAFTA in 1992 and why we were in favour of the Free Trade Area
of the Americas until 2005, because we will take up the
challenge to excel.
We have done it before and we will do it again.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
1540
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1625
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Folco
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
| Manley
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Matthews
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
– 137
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis – 43
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
adopted.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1630
[Translation]
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
The House resumed from February 11, 2000, consideration of the
motion relating to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7,
an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make
consequential amendments to another act.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few
minutes ago, I took the floor in order to show how a committee
can be a little mean. I think it was a sad day for
parliamentarism and for parliamentary committees in Canada.
Bill C-7 is a very different story. Initially, this bill was
introduced during the first session of the 36th Parliament. It
was then called Bill C-69.
The Bloc Quebecois made an outstanding contribution on that
bill. In fact, that contribution was acknowledged by the
parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general. I have to tell
the House he also did an excellent job. For once, he did not
have to obey the Liberal majority. He was willing to discuss.
In the debate on Bill C-7, the five political parties have shown
openness, flexibility, and diplomacy.
Thus, the bill got the support of the five parties in the House.
I would be remiss if I did not say how regrettable it is that
the government does not show openness more often in parliament,
whether in committee or in this House. Lack of openness and
narrow-mindedness are the main features of this government, as we
can see with Bill C-20.
If the Liberal majority showed a bit more openness, if it took
off its blinders and stopped being so highly partisan, as it is
all too often, I believe we would see more often bills like this
one, which has the support of the five parties in this House.
Is it not a worthy cause to bring all the political parties to
support a bill? Is it not worthy cause to try to reach a
consensus on a given subject? Should any government, any
parliamentary majority not have as a rule to get opposition
parties to support everything that can be supported, all
elements upon which there can be some agreement? This is what I
call leadership.
A government should always reach for the widest consensus
possible. But because of its lack of leadership, its lack of
vision and its narrow-mindedness, this Liberal government refuses
to reach for a consensus even if it would be much better to do
so, as was shown in the case of Bill C-7.
On May 14, 1999, this bill got the support of all the political
parties in this House, it was deemed to have been read a third
time and passed.
Through a motion passed on October 14, 1999, the House permitted
that bills that had not yet received royal assent be
reintroduced during the second session and, on October 18, 1999,
what is now Bill C-7 was passed by the House of Commons.
We will recall that, last fall, the government had decided to
postpone the opening of parliament, because of its very poor
legislative performance. Indeed, its legislative agenda was so
thin that it was not sure it would take us to the Christmas
recess.
The Prime Minister took advantage of this to keep his patronage
machine rolling and appoint a friend of the government as
governor general, as well as several other cronies.
Thus. Bill C-7 came back from the Senate with several amendments.
It is now again before the House to be read a second time as
amended.
1635
The main objective of Bill C-7 is both very simple and very
noble. Its purpose is to prevent serious cases of sexual
re-offending against children or vulnerable members of society.
If protecting young people, children and the less advantaged
members of society is not first and foremost for lawmakers, I do
not know what is.
During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Justice, we
heard and listened with great interest and a lot of respect to
the opinions of social groups involved in rehabilitating
criminal offenders.
We had to properly determine the safeguards included in this
bill in order to ensure the preservation of society in general
and at the same time of the reputations of those who have
committed serious offences and have been pardoned. It is the
balance between protecting human rights, including those of
pardoned offenders, and protecting society, particularly its
weaker and younger members, that we had to seek.
Offenders whose record include criminal acts of a sexual nature
are therefore directly concerned by this legislative measure.
Although there is a relatively low proportion of repeat
offenders, even the slightest doubt is too much.
Parents who send their children to day care, to a playground, to
school, to Scouts, to a club for children or teens need to be
sure that these places are not teeming with sexual deviants.
There is no worse thought for a parent that the prospect of his
or her child being the potential victim of a sexual aggressor.
There is nothing worse. It is essential for every parent who
decides to hand over responsibility for a child to any kind of
organization to have absolute certainty that this child will be
safe and cannot be preyed upon by some sexual pervert. And this
does not only apply to the present. We are aware of all of the
physical and emotional scars borne by adults who were victims of
sexual abuse as children.
The bill also covers vulnerable members of society as well as
children. These are some of the weakest members of our society,
people of sometimes limited capacity who could also, like our
children, fall prey to sexual predators.
There are cases as recent as this very week of sexual predators
in positions of trust or authority with children, and these
justify rapid passage of this bill.
It is not a question of limiting the right to privacy of those
who have been granted a pardon, far from it, but rather of going
beyond lip service and taking concrete action to keep our
children safe.
During committee deliberations, the Bloc Quebecois was assured
by government members that the solicitor general's authority
would be used with the greatest circumspection. The Bloc
Quebecois also supports the amendments proposed by the Senate
and hopes that the implementation of these new legislative
provisions will make it possible to ensure that our children and
other vulnerable persons are protected effectively.
As legislators and guardians of democratic legitimacy, it is the
duty of all members of the House to protect society's weakest
and most vulnerable members, and the children who are its
future.
This bill is a concrete, first step in the direction of this
laudable and noble objective, which should be paramount in our
society.
1640
That is why the Bloc Quebecois wholeheartedly supports the bill,
why the Bloc Quebecois is glad to see that the five opposition
parties support it, and why the Bloc Quebecois is disappointed
that the government has absolutely no interest in taking a
similar approach to other matters.
When we operate by consensus, when we, as a society, set a goal
that cannot fail to meet with general agreement, all Canadians
and all Quebecers stand to gain, as do the weak and
disadvantaged members of our society.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and honoured to speak in favour of
this bill. I want to congratulate all the previous speakers,
particularly my colleague for Charlesbourg who gave a very
impassioned and very eloquent speech. He cares deeply for
children. Recently having had two young sons, twins, he knows of
what he speaks.
Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-69, will further protect the public
upon the release from prison of a pardoned sex offender with the
disclosure of what would be relevant information should the
circumstances so dictate.
It goes without saying that children are the crown jewels of our
country and our future. A number of young children have appeared
here on the Hill. I am speaking of young people like Ashly
MacLean of Hopewell. They have so much to offer, so much promise
and need our protection in every possible way.
Bill C-7 is a step in that direction, a step toward protection
of our most vulnerable citizens. It amends the Criminal Records
Act and makes criminal records for pardoned sex offenders which
would normally be sealed available for background checks from
interested parties. It uncovers information that is of vital
importance to those individuals and organizations who work to
protect children. Information is certainly power in these
instances.
We have all heard of the high profile cases involving the
horrific crimes of the Bernardos and the John Robys and the
public outcry for tougher legislation to protect children and
protect society in general. Tolerance is at an all time low, I
would suggest, for deviant sexual abuse of any kind but
particularly that involving our children.
Sexual assault is often not an issue of sex; it is an issue of
power and control, the dominance of an offender over an
individual. This dominance, this sexual violence or perversion
and the exploitation of children is perhaps the most cowardly and
heinous act that one can imagine.
The need to disclose information and protect children, those who
are most vulnerable, and expose to individuals information of a
past record will allow the relevant and connected organizations
to do everything in their power to prevent the contact which
could lead to this type of abuse.
Sadly, recidivism occurs often with those who involve themselves
in this type of activity. It goes without saying that the
lasting effects are almost incalculable in both the long and
short term. It is not the physical but the emotional and
psychological scars that individuals carry throughout their life
when they have been subjected to this kind of abuse.
The high rate of recidivism among sex offenders in particular is
most troubling. The potential for unknowing parents,
organizations or individuals for leaving their children in the
care of a pardoned sex offender is addressed to a large degree by
the bill.
Presently community organizations or police departments would be
prohibited from accessing files that involve the names of
pardoned sex offenders. Bill C-7, in vetting each request and
striking a balance between those who have the right to know and
those who have the right to be protected and the right to
confidentiality, is certainly a bill that we can all embrace.
Access to previously unavailable information on pardoned
individuals in these circumstances is what we strive to achieve.
Last year all members of the Conservative Party supported this
bill as did all members of the House.
1645
The successful passage of the bill through parliament before the
recess was again a strong signal of non-partisanship and the
co-operative effort that can result in very positive change.
Previous members have spoken to it, and it was certainly a
feeling that prevailed at committee and in the House, given the
level of support the bill has received.
By the end of 1999, Bill C-7 returned from the Senate with
amendments. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs cited some obvious and very reasoned
concerns. One of those was the lack of expressed reference to
the intent of the bill to pertain to records of pardoned sex
offenders. Therefore the word sexual was added to clause 6 of
the bill in order to make it clear that only sexual offences
would be flagged under this proposed system.
Definite rules are then put in place, listing the sexual
offences that may be flagged and the making of notations with
respect to the records of those convictions. Police must have
the consent of the offender and the solicitor general for the
release of offender's records to potential employers or inquirers
if the offender is in fact applying for a job.
Schedule of offences and the important terms such as children
and vulnerable persons were removed from the regulations and
placed in the bill. This allows these offences to again be
subject to parliamentary scrutiny as opposed to being left to the
discretion of the governor in council.
The term handicap has also been deleted from the definition and
replaced with vulnerable person. It goes without saying that the
term handicap is no longer acceptable in today's society, and it
is more than just semantics to ensure that this bill reflects a
modern view.
The Senate's position set out some very useful and poignant
amendments that put a greater emphasis on what the bill seeks to
achieve. It ensures a clear, narrow and limited exception in the
Criminal Records Act. The changes with respect to sections 7 and
8 of our constitution and charter to protect privacy are
reflected in the changes proposed by the Senate that maintain the
balance between rehabilitation and the objectives of the pardon
system and the need itself to protect children and others who are
vulnerable.
I would now quote from Senator Beaudoin, a very renowned
constitutional expert and prominent Conservative senator, who
spoke to the bill when it was in the other place:
In closing these remarks, I must state that, when the committee
studies any matter relating to criminal records, as is the case
with this bill, or some related subject such as DNA, we always
step up our efforts to be assured of compliance with the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we all know, sections 7 and 8
of our Constitutional Charter protect privacy. This is a
fundamental value of our system. I believe that it can be stated
that Bill C-7, which we have before us, respects the
Constitution, including the 1982 Constitutional Charter, to the
best of our knowledge.
As acknowledged by members who have spoken previously, it
demonstrates that the Senate has made a very significant and
important contribution in the amendments that we are speaking to
today.
Child care organizations, those hiring new volunteers or paid
employees, will now be able to identify a candidate who has
received a pardon of a sexual offence. It is only permitted if
the position is one of authority or trust relative to those
children or vulnerable persons and the applicant has consented in
writing. This is a very important safeguard that has now been
inserted into the bill by our senators.
Organizations such as Scouts, Guides, Big Brothers and Big
Sisters, coaches, day care workers and others will benefit
directly where there is an implicit element of trust in the good
work they do.
Flagging these sexual offenders will also alert police doing
background screening checks to submit fingerprints with a request
for any pardoned record that may exist. If the existence of an
applicant's pardoned sexual assault record is confirmed, the RCMP
or the police force that did the screening can request the
commissioner then provide the solicitor general with any record
of conviction of that applicant.
Proposed subsection 6.3(5) allows the solicitor general to
dispose of all or part of the information contained in that
record if he so decides. The RCMP or police forces may disclose
the information to the organization that requested this
verification.
However, in accordance with new subsection 6.3(7) the
organization may only use this information in relation to its
assessment of the job application.
Also the new subsection 6.3(3) stipulates the following:
Except as authorized by subsection (2), no person shall verify
whether a person is the subject of a notation—
1650
This is very technical in nature but I would suggest very
important because these safeguards and the balance sought are
addressed by these very useful amendments.
Access to the offender's information is limited to authorized
police officers and law enforcement personnel. The consent form
must be signed pursuant to subsection 6.3(6) by the affected
individual. By requesting consent the applicant could choose to
either agree or refuse to allow the record to be unsealed.
Refusal would be a signal to the organization wishing to conduct
the search that the applicant may not be the appropriate person
for the position. If the applicant gives consent obviously the
authority of the solicitor general would still be needed to
unseal the record in question.
Many volunteer agencies engage in a screening process of the
applicant's background. However, screening is not done with the
same degree of precision or thoroughness that we know occurs with
a police check. Under Bill C-7 we will be permitted to put this
information into the hands of those most in need, the
organizations that by their very nature can potentially set up a
situation where a young person could be exposed to a person with
a prior sexual assault conviction.
Police record checks are not always effective. The CPIC system
has been gutted in many instances in terms of the funding.
Although the solicitor general has spoken with great ballyhoo
about the injection of new funding, this is less than half of
what is needed to bring the CPIC system up to par.
With that said, there is a sad reality to all of this. Research
confirms that the vast majority of people who perpetrate sexual
abuse against children are often those who do not seek out
employment in that area. Oftentimes there is no prior
conviction, that is to say they have never been convicted of a
crime and therefore they would not show up on a police record
system. This highlights the need for education and the need for
participation in a public education effort to let people know
there is more that can be done to protect children. The bill
therefore is not a panacea by any stretch of imagination but it
is certainly significant progress.
Volunteer organizations throughout the country are obviously
aimed at the enhancement of children's lives. To this end I
believe the legislation very much enhances the ability we have as
legislators and people of this country who have been entrusted
with the responsibility to put into effect laws that will help
our law enforcement agencies. This will enhance protection for
children.
Pardons themselves are very much an important part of the
justice system. They serve a very important purpose. They are
obviously of great benefit both to the pardoned offender and to
society in terms of the stigma in allowing an individual to get
on with life after having served a debt to society.
With respect to sexual offences the new legislation very much
strikes that balance. In terms of priority and where we in this
place should be focusing our attention the bill puts it very much
in the hands of our legislatures and very much in the hands of
our law enforcement and volunteer agencies to protect children in
every possible way, to use all means, to use extreme caution, to
go that final step to see that children will always be first and
foremost in our efforts to protect them.
This is not a universal remedy or solution that can be found in
the legislation but it can offer this additional mechanism of
protection. It does not erode the integrity of the parole
system. The exceptions it now provides in the parole system may
appear small but they are very justified.
In the last 28 years nearly one-quarter of a million pardons
have been granted for all offences in Canada. In relation to
Bill C-7 only 4,500 of those pardoned concerned sex offences. The
need to protect society has to be given greater strength. The
bill moves us in that direction.
It is unfortunate the government of the day would not put
forward the same effort, the same resources and the same strident
timetable that we have seen with respect to the bill. It should
somehow rebalance its priorities in putting its resources into
efforts such as this instead of into efforts such as gun
registration which obviously do not seek out and do not
particularly protect society in the way it would have us believe.
1655
This type of public protection initiative and the support it has
received here is an indication of the type of co-operative effort
that can occur in parliament. It should renew some faith and
restore some lost hope that we can, when the cause is right,
rally around to pass legislation quickly and effectively that is
aimed at protecting society.
As long as the government can ensure systematic and effective
scrutiny of the police control processes and ensure that Bill C-7
is used only for checking criminal records and those involved in
sexual offences, Bill C-7 is very much acceptable and necessary
as a violation, a minor infringement, I would suggest, of the
charter of rights and freedoms. It is certainly one that can be
exercised in the interest of public safety.
We know the age-old adage that talk is cheap. This is action
that speaks volumes. It is an unusual occurrence when we can do
so in such a unanimous and unified fashion.
The greater good is what we must constantly strive for. Law
enforcement agencies must strike a balance of equal treatment
under the law always with a mind to protecting the innocent. We
can do that in this place. A Progressive Conservative government
would very much like to see the opportunity to move on laws such
as this one, laws that put the emphasis on protecting society.
In conclusion, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to St. Peters,
P.E.I., to Victoria, British Columbia, and all places in between
in this vast country, this is a positive and laudable piece of
legislation that the Conservative Party supports whole-heartedly.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the
hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Drug Approval.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have received
notice from the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge that he
is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on
Tuesday, February 15, 2000.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in
the order of precedence. Accordingly I am directing the table
officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order
of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and
the House will continue with the business before it prior to
private members' hour.
* * *
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion relating to the
amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-7, an act to amend the
Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to
another act.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just returned from a very enlightening meeting with about
200 young people who are here with Encounters with Canada. They
were asking very reasonable questions, having just spent some
time in the Speaker's gallery watching question period, such as
what in the world is going on. Why is there so much hostility?
Why are we always going at each other?
It therefore gives me a tremendous deal of pleasure to speak
very briefly to this bill and just recount how we arrived at this
point. The bill and the co-operation there has been within the
House of Commons among members of parliament are examples of some
of the good legislation that we can work together on, that we can
co-operate on.
I give special acknowledgement to my colleague from Calgary
Centre who entered the House in 1997. He became the critic for
the Reform Party responsible for issues surrounding families. He
arrived without any parliamentary experience and very quickly
studied and came forward with a very useful piece of legislation
not dissimilar to this one. As a matter of fact, I suggest in a
spirit of co-operation with the government that perhaps it was a
catalyst on the part of my colleague from Calgary Centre that
this legislation saw the light of day.
It went through the Private Members' Business process and was
referred to committee following second reading.
The solicitor general's department came forward with legislation
that was very similar to my colleague's bill. Again, through a
spirit of co-operation in the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights, an agreement was struck to co-operate and ensure
that the same process being used for the solicitor general's bill
would be used for the private member's bill, while negotiations
went on behind the scenes to try to blend these two together.
1700
It is not infrequent for members of my party and perhaps some
Canadians to have nothing complimentary to say about the other
place, but today I will say something complimentary. The other
place is part of the Canadian government and the government
process as it presently stands in Canada, and whether we have
questions about that or not is irrelevant. It is there and it
does a do its job with this bill. I think it made improvements
to the bill which has now been referred to us here.
This shows the kind of work that can happen when there is
unanimity and agreement on vital issues such as this. This shows
that even when a bill like this comes forward from an opposition
member, my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre, that the
House can respond in a positive way to his initiative.
It would be unseemly for me to take any partisan shots at this
point in talking about the actions behind the scenes and the
negotiations that took place. The bottom line to this exercise
is that everyone in the process should be complimented for having
seen it come to this point, and that the protection of children
in Canada will be stronger as a result of this. As I said, I
particularly want to acknowledge the tremendous hard work,
dedication, perseverance and foresight of my colleague from
Calgary Centre.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
(Amendments read the second time and concurred in)
* * *
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
ACT
Hon. Robert D. Nault (for Minister of Industry, Lib.)
moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made
by the Senate to Bill C-6, an act to support and promote
electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is
collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by
providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or
record information or transactions and by amending the Canada
Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute
Revision Act.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on
Bill C-6, the personal information protection and electronic
documents act.
I will begin by putting things into perspective. The government
is committed to fostering the growth of an electronic based
economy in Canada, to prepare all Canadians for a new global
economy and electronic commerce and to ensure that we are ready,
willing and able to compete against the best the world has to
offer.
1705
For Canada to do that and to become a leader in the knowledge
based economy and in electronic commerce, consumers and
businesses must be comfortable with the new technologies and with
the impact that these technologies will have on their lives.
Trust is very crucial. Canadians want to know that their
transactions are private and secure, that legal and financial
networks exist to support transactions and that the information
infrastructure works.
A recent survey by Angus Reid found that 80% of Canadians think
that their personal data should be kept strictly confidential. A
1998 Ekos survey also found that four out of five Canadians want
the government to work with businesses to set rules for privacy
protection.
Canadians have called for legislation that would define a single
set of rules and establish a level playing field where the same
marketplace rules apply to all. The direct marketing industry,
information technology companies, telecommunication companies and
banks all realize that we need a clear federal legislative
privacy framework in Canada. They also recognize that flexible
but effective legislation will help customers accept electronic
ways of doing business and, of course, less expensive for them.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
apologize for interrupting the member's speech. On the last vote
that was carried unanimously, I believe the Reform members had
five members standing and they wish a recorded vote,
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I accept your point
of order. However, I was in the Chair at the time and I did not
see five members standing. We were very careful to make sure of
that case. The motion was carried unanimously. If there was to
be a point of order on that it should have been made at the time.
Obviously through unanimous consent we could revert back. If
the hon. member cares to move a motion requesting the Chair to
ask for unanimous consent to revert, I will do so. It is up to
the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, this only happened a few
minutes ago and it appears that there will be no unanimous
consent. There were five members standing and, as you can
appreciate, I consulted with you on the proper procedure. We
have taken a few minutes to bring this point of order forward
because it appeared that you had not observed the five of us
standing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I appreciate that
but I just said that I did not see five members standing. If
that was the case, and I could very easily have been wrong, it
seems to me that the member should have made the point at that
time. However, I will be happy to put the question to the House
if the member requests it. If not, it is over and done with. We
are not going back. We are on debate.
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, just before the
interruption I pointed out some data. It was in response to
demands such as this that the government developed a strategy for
electronic commerce that the Prime Minister announced in
September 1998. This strategy, designed to establish Canada as a
world leader in the development and use of electronic commerce,
was built around seven firsts in the areas of: consumer
protection, tax neutrality, cryptography policy, standards,
secure electronic commerce, digital signatures and privacy.
Today I am proud to report that with the final passage of this
bill we will have achieved the seven firsts.
The protection of personal information has been recognized as a
fundamental pillar of the global information society. For
example, the European Union has a directive that came into force
in 1998 that requires member states to block the flow of personal
information to countries without adequate data protection. They
are looking for the same elements that we have included in Bill
C-6.
The EU and Canada consider that legislative frameworks for the
protection of privacy and personal information are a vital
component of electronic commerce strategy and are beneficial to
the evolution of the information society. Internationally, the
European Union and Canada have committed to supporting a standard
based approach to complement national frameworks.
1710
Bill C-6 has already cleared the House and many hours have been
devoted to its debate and passage. However, I would be remiss if
I, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, did not take a moment
to personally thank the Standing Committee on Industry for the
excellent and exhaustive work it did to ensure that this
legislation met the needs of all the stakeholders, including
industry, consumer groups and Canadian citizens.
The Senate unanimously supported the bill's principles and
agreed with its broad based approach to the protection of
personal information. The standing Senate committee on social
affairs, science and technology, the committee that studied the
bill, described the bill as a masterpiece of electronic commerce
that struck a very significant and delicately drawn balance
between business and consumer interests.
While the bill was being examined by the Senate, Canada's health
sector voiced serious concerns. This sector, uncertain as to the
scope and applications of the bill, was concerned that it would
not be able to get its systems and procedures under way in time.
Many within the health care sector felt that they should be
excluded from the legislation altogether. In response to these
concerns, the Senate has proposed amendments to the bill that
will allow the health sector one extra year from the time of
proclamation to meet the requirements of the bill.
It should be stressed that the health sector is not being
exempted from the legislation, nor should it be. Personal
information is just too sensitive to be left unprotected. In no
way do these amendments change the basic tenets of the
legislation. The health sector is simply being given more time
in which to prepare. As the bill is scheduled to be proclaimed
and come into force on January 1, 2001, the amendments will give
the health sector until January 1, 2002 to prepare for the coming
into force of the legislation.
During this additional transition period, Industry Canada is
ready to work with the entire health care sector, including
commercial organizations, the provinces, Health Canada and other
stakeholders to clarify any uncertainties on how Bill C-6 applies
to them. Reasonable and practical solutions exist within the
framework provided by the bill to ensure that the personal health
information that is collected, used and disclosed in the course
of commercial activities is protected by law.
Time is of the essence. This is a message that the government
and stakeholders, including provincial and federal privacy
commissioners, have voiced repeatedly. The Minister of Industry
recently a received a letter from the Information Technology
Association of Canada. Letters were also received from Canadians
in support of Bill C-6, which included the Public Interest
Advocacy Group, B.C. Civil Liberties Association, B.C. Freedom of
Information and Privacy Association, the Canadian Health
Coalition, Electronic Frontier Canada and Democracy Watch. The
Canadian Marketing Association and the Insurance Council of
Canada have also recently written to the federal government
urging it to give royal assent immediately.
I agree with these stakeholders who are supportive of the bill.
Consumers, businesses and the government are calling for royal
assent of Bill C-6. The bottom line is that Bill C-6 is too
important for the future of Canadians to delay it any further.
For that reason, the government concurs with the amendments made
by the Senate. Let us all work together to make this happen.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-6, the privacy
in electronic commerce bill.
The Reform Party supports the thrust of the bill, but we had a
couple of concerns which we put forward in the form of
amendments. Had the government seen fit to adopt these
amendments they would have strengthened the bill. However, the
government chose not to adopt them. One of the reasons we put
these amendments forward was the importance they had to social
concerns, particularly in health care and welfare.
1715
As it stands, this bill the government has put forth really is
comprised of two bills. One deals with electronic commerce which
we ardently support. The Reform Party recognizes that the
government unfortunately has failed to support our business
sector in the world of electronic commerce. Our e-commerce
business is falling far behind that of our colleagues to the
south. The government needs to do much more to give business the
ability and power to compete internationally in the global
e-commerce market. We support the parts of the bill that deal
with electronic commerce.
We wanted to strengthen the first part of the bill that deals
with privacy. There is a need to deal with the privacy aspects
of the bill, in particular the aspect that deals with health care
issues. The bill does not do that at all. In the coming era of
e-commerce, globalization and sharing of information by
electronic means, it will become increasingly important for the
government to introduce legislation that protects individuals and
records concerning them, particularly in health care issues.
Privacy in this area is a right of Canadians. Unfortunately that
is lacking in the bill. We put forth amendments to deal with
that.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Before a
subject of such importance, I think the members should be
present, especially those of the party in power. I would
therefore call for a quorum count.
And the count having been taken:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Chambly has requested quorum. We do not have quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
1720
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, thank you for calling in
the members on this riveting Bill C-6. I am disappointed at the
Bloc members who have left after they chose to call quorum. It
shows their interest in e-commerce and Bill C-6.
The Minister of Health would find this very interesting because
he has proposed plans and solutions to develop a mechanism
whereby patient records can be shared by medical practitioners
across the country. This is a good idea. However, it is very
important that the medical information on these records be
protected. There is very little in the bill to protect patient
records from individuals who have no business whatsoever getting
that information and dealing with the personal medical records of
individuals.
That is why the Reform Party proposed amendments to Bill C-6.
They would have ensured the personal health care records of
Canadians remained protected so unscrupulous individuals who have
no business whatsoever in knowing about another individual's
personal medical records would not have access to them. This is
not included in this legislation. The Canadian Medical
Association and civil liberties groups have asked the minister
repeatedly to amend the bill so it will protect the personal
health care records and personal information of individuals.
A number of things have to be drawn up since the feds have
failed to do this. The provinces should take the bull by the
horns.
A code of conduct, a code that governs personal health care
information should be implemented. It should involve the
following aspects.
Health care information should be defined. Who owns this
information? Individuals should be permitted to identify
specific aspects of their records as sensitive. Patients could
indicate that certain aspects of their records are sensitive and
absolutely nobody could have access to that information.
It would require restructuring the health care records to allow
different levels of access by different individuals. It would
require electronic health care records to separate the fields
that can be used to identify individuals. A uniform consent form
to release personal information should be established. The
keeping of audit trails would be required. Obligations
respecting the security of information should be imposed.
Protocols for third party access to personal information must be
developed. Oversight mechanisms should be established or
existing data protection oversight bodies should be used to
review legislation and policy issues relating to this.
Transparency of the collection, use and disclosure of personal
information must be ensured.
Those holding personal health care information would be required
to inform individual patients of their rights relating to their
information and provide civil rights to redress the statutory
penalties and misuse of this information.
Not only should this be applied to health care information, but
it is important that it be applied to banking information,
personal information relating to finances, welfare payments and
other social issues the federal government relates to
individuals.
I want to deal with the larger issue of e-commerce in Canada.
Our country is significantly lacking in our ability to compete in
the dot-com world. Dot-com companies are taking the world by
storm and they are on the cutting edge of the new economy today.
The vast majority of dot-com companies are in the United States.
We can see by corollary that very few of the dot-com companies
are in Canada. Why is it so few of the dot-com companies are in
Canada?
It speaks to a lack of innovation. It does not rest with the
people in our country; it rests with a structural problem in
Canada which starts with the education system which has provided
many of our finest individuals. Individuals who have studied and
taught in Canadian universities such as McMaster which has an
excellent program, or Waterloo which has a better one. Students
on the cutting edge of information technology are flocking to the
United States.
People at these universities and in the private sector tell us
that they yearn for these people to stay in Canada.
Unfortunately very few of them do, not because they do not want
to stay in Canada and not because they do not feel compelled to
contribute to our economy.
They find that Canada's economy and the environment under which
they work in the information technology field are so far behind
those of the United States and other countries that they leave
Canada. They leave with a broken heart. They would like to stay
here but we are very far behind.
1725
It is critically important for the Minister of Industry to work
with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National
Revenue. They must develop an acute strategic emergency plan to
ensure that our students who are graduates from our fine
universities and are experts in computers and information
technology stay in Canada. The government must address the issue
of taxes, the rules and regulations which are choking off the
ability of our companies to compete in this new IT world. If we
fail to do that, we will have a serious problem on our hands in
the future and there will be a vacuum in our economy which will
be very difficult to fill.
I impress upon the government the urgent nature of dealing with
the privacy issues that I have mentioned. It must institute with
the provinces rules and regulations to govern privacy issues. It
is also equally important to develop an urgent strategic plan of
action to work in connection with the private sector and the
educational leaders, the academia. An integrated program must be
developed with the government and educational facilities on the
tax structure and rules and regulations at the federal,
provincial and municipal levels to ensure that Canada can take
advantage of today's IT wave.
The longer we hold out, the more we as a nation will fall behind
in our industrial capabilities.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are again
debating Bill C-6 or rather the amendments by the Senate. This
bill is important to the government, which promised it in its
throne speech.
The government decided to speed up the process and hurry the
bill through in the fall. It has decided now to adopt the
Senate's amendments. Bill C-6, it must be remembered, is
legislation to protect personal information, but its primary
intent is consumer or individual protection. In fact, in nine
provinces in Canada, with a few exceptions, there was no
legislation where the parties could be covered.
In the case of Quebec, there is a consumer protection act. The
federal government decided to bring in a personal information
bill, which is a bit misleading. The intent behind it all is to
promote, particularly, from what we have seen in the
definitions, to promote the development of e-commerce, even if it
means at times rounding off corners and not properly protecting
personal information that an individual might provide in the
course of such transactions.
Initially, the situation was examined in the bill. The debate
began over two or three years ago—at the time my colleague from
Mercier was shepherding the matter within the Bloc Quebecois—and
many groups told the federal government they were not in favour
of its meddling in this area. Why? For a variety of reasons.
As I said earlier, as far as Quebec is concerned, we have to
understand that a consumer protection legislation is in place,
which has been regulating for a number of years the whole issue
of protecting personal information, among other things, in the
context of e-commerce. Naturally, this area is evolving fast, but
there are definitions, including those of consent and signature.
A signature on a traditional document is no problem, but consent
in the context of electronic transactions is something else. We
have our own definitions, based on the tradition of civil law.
Our approach is clearly different from that of the federal
government, which is based on the common law.
1730
In its legislation, the federal government has to define these
concepts. What is a consent? What is a signature? There are many
terms to define.
The first difficulty arises from the definitions being
different. Our approaches are different. It is important to know
that, in Quebec, every business and person was covered by the
consumer protection legislation. Even businesses and
institutions under federal jurisdiction complied with that
legislation.
Some will say “Look, it is clear to everyone that federal
legislation applies to everyone”.
What is not clear is, in the absence of a federal legislation,
do they legally have to comply with the Quebec one? They did not
take a chance and they did so. Of course, they did not take the
risk of going to the courts, being turned down and being told
that Quebec had jurisdiction in this area and that, because the
federal government did not take up this jurisdiction, the Quebec
government had been able to do so.
There are different supreme court decisions, and I do not want
to get into the whole technical debate on this, but some people
say it is possible they were legally subjected to the
legislation; others say no, the courts should decide on the
issue.
This would have been a good opportunity for the federal
government members, these great champions of flexibility, such
as the intergovernmental affairs minister and those in front of
us here, who are telling us they have an extremely flexible
regime. If that is the case, why then does the federal
legislation not say that, in the case of provinces, such as
Quebec, that have consumer protection legislation, such
legislation applies? It would then take precedence. It was
becoming clear for everyone in Quebec tthat it was the Quebec
legislation that applied, including for federal institutions.
What must be understood is, it is very rare that businesses are
not engaged in commerce elsewhere: in the Canadian market, in
the American market and everywhere else in the world.
Most of a company's activities can be subject to provincial
jurisdiction in some cases, and to federal jurisdiction in
others as a result of this bill, because there are some aspects
that deal with foreign trade.
In practical terms, we will have many problems because
businesses will sometimes be subject to one jurisdiction and
sometimes to another. If the government wants to protect the
consumer, surely it is not by making things more confusing that
it will provide better protection. People will have great
difficulty understanding their options; when someone feels he
has been wronged, he must understand what remedies are available
to him. And things are much clearer and simpler in Quebec's
legislation than they will be in the federal act.
Therefore, depending on the type of information involved and on
the legislation to which it is subject, people will have a
particular recourse against a business, a different type of
remedy or another organisation to turn to defend them.
Again, we will have a concrete example of the problems we face
when two jurisdictions are involved in one area. There are many
problems. First of all, for the consumers we want to protect,
but also for businesses that have to abide by the legislation.
Business people tell us constantly “Look, let us do our work. We
are entrepreneurs. Stop bothering us with all this paperwork”.
But now, in Quebec, this bill will add a second level of
jurisdiction regarding personal information protection.
And businesses will have to deal with both.
Basically, the Liberals want to push Quebec aside. They want
sole jurisdiction, as they will have outside Quebec. They want
to legislate for Canada as a whole. The fact that Quebec already
has legislation is the least of their worries. Indeed, none of
the Liberal members on the other side has risen to remind this
House that Quebec already has a solid jurisdiction that deserves
to be recognised. They probably did not know about it. They did
not say anything.
And these are the people who speak of flexibility, who tell us
that things must be clear. These people, who are also apostles
of clarity, are the ones who give us legislation that will make
the protection of personal information very confusing.
One need only read the minutes of the most recent hearings of
the Senate committee, to see that the experts do not agree on
jurisdiction, on the scope of the legislation and of the
definitions. It is a real jumble.
1735
This is what the so-called experts were saying, those lawyers
from whom we will be seeking advice. Businesses that need advice
go to legal firms. The people we heard all had different
versions of what that meant in practice. But we should not worry
about that. The federal government did not wait long to go all
over the world claiming that it had an act protecting privacy
and electronic documents. That was the objective. Then, they can
say “Look at how good Canada is”. They will go and brag all over
the place.
We are not supposed to worry if the system does not work in
practice. This is the least of their concerns.
All they want is to be able to say that there is something in
place.
People from the health sector in Ontario have been critical of
the bill from the beginning. They were very worried about the
transfer of personal medical files, and they ought to be since
the objective of the bill is to promote electronic commerce.
They were saying that the commercial approach does not exist in
the medical field and that the bill would not have any
application in their sector.
The government that said no will support the Senate amendments
and exempt the health sector for one more year. This decision is
a direct consequence of the lobbying by the Ontario health
sector. We will wait one more year. Finally, that will give the
health sector almost two years to think of ways to better define
consent in the context of the electronic transfer of personal
medical data.
The amendments exclude the sector.
From the very beginning, we said that there were a lot of
problems with this act. The government was in a rush. It wanted
to act fast. We have known that since the beginning. These
groups from Ontario who have won their battle in the Senate had
come to the committee to say so. They had written to all the
members sitting on the committee. They had repeatedly phoned our
offices to tell us that it did not make sense.
The government was in a great hurry. It did not want to talk
about such amendments here in the House, or as little as
possible. It wanted things to move quickly. It wanted the whole
thing submitted rapidly to the Senate where they have a bunch of
friends controlling the situation. There are not too many
problems on that side. They wanted to allow them to give the
impression that they do work from time to time. So they
suggested amendments.
I am very curious to know who wrote those amendments. Let us
presume that they were done in the Senate, although they could
very well have been inspired by the Department of Health or the
Department of Industry.
So we have the Senate amendments. We cannot support those
amendments, even if they represent an improvement over the
present act, because this act makes absolutely no sense.
There were all sorts of things. Later, I will quote the Minister
of Industry. It is true that, in theor, the act could allow the
minister to exempt certain sectors or areas of activities. It is
not in the act. The minister is keeping some leeway to do so—
An hon. member: Behind the scene.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Exactly. Cabinet could, behind closed doors,
exempt certain sectors.
It might say “Quebec will indeed have jurisdiction over that
area, and we are recognizing your ability to make such a
decision”.
The person responsible for this in the Quebec government is
David Cliche, the minister responsible for the information
highway and government services. He wrote to the minister, and
his letter was not filled with insults, to request a meeting,
saying “I wish to meet with you to review the situation, which
is of concern to you as it is to us”.
It must be pointed out that, among the organizations that
appeared before the committee during the hearings—not the Senate
committee hearings but those of the House committee—were groups
from Quebec, including the Commission d'accès à l'information,
the organization supervising the Quebec legislation, which came
to tell us “We already have legislation in Quebec; be careful of
what you are going to do. We do not think your bill is a very
good idea, it will cause confusion”. This warning was ignored.
Other organizations came, organizations like the Conseil central
de la CSN, which the minister referred to as “mothball clubs”. I
do not know that expression also applied to the Conseil du
patronat. It too came and it told us that our legislation did
not make sense. A group of friends of the minister came to say
that the legislation would cause problems. They presented a
brief to this effect.
The Chambre des notaires came to say the same thing. The bar,
the organization representing lawyers, those who advise
businesses and interpret this legislation, said “No, do not do
that, do not pass Bill C-6, or else exempt Quebec from its
application”.
1740
These groups went as far as to ask that Quebec's jurisdiction be
recognized in the federal legislation. They said “Everything
will be clear. We will know what to expect. We will know what to
do and we will comply with Quebec's legislation. If Quebecers
wish more or less rigorous legislation, they will put pressure
on their provincial government. We have a democracy in Quebec.
There are election campaigns. There are pressure groups. There
is a public consultation process with parliamentary committees,
for example. We live in a democracy. Groups will be heard. But
it will be clear that there will be only one piece of
legislation”. But, this advice went unheeded.
I was saying that, on October 19, Mr. Cliche wrote to the
Minister of Industry. But the government made sure the bill
passed second and third readings first. Then the minister
replied “I wish to thank you for your letter”, and went on to
explain how Canada badly needed the legislation. “The bill has
already been read a third time in the House of Commons, he said.
It has just been passed”.
How unfortunate, the minister had not read his mail earlier. He
had just realized that the bill had been passed and wrote “I
agree that we should meet to talk about this”, once the bill had
been passed. Could he not have met with the minister to list his
arguments or even just to hear what the minister had to say,
incorporate amendments into the bill at that time, and come back
with more amendments, as required?
He could have kept some leeway and told us: “Whatever can be
done through order in council will be done that way.” Instead,
he says: “Our officials should work together in order to discuss
the exemption that will apply to organizations subject to the
Quebec legislation”, because he would be in a position to grant
some exemptions.
At the beginning, the industry minister said: “Yes, Quebec will
be exempted. We could meet to find out which sectors could
receive an exemption.” The speech has taken a very different
turn. In a few weeks he will be telling us: “In the end,
nobody was exempted; the legislation will apply to one and all.”
We know them. It is always the same process and the same
conclusion. These people are steely-brained. According to them,
the federal government has a monopoly on truth, efficiency, etc.
and it knows best what is good for us and what it should impose
on us, in that area as in others.
We have seen that before. I have been here for six years and
for six years things have been the same. Some have witnessed
that for much longer. It has always been the case and things
are even getting worse. I could speak about many other areas,
but, in this case, we are talking about a statutory area.
Imagine the areas where the federal government can spend its
money. The temptation to control is even greater, even more so
because the federal government holds the financial levers. That
is why, for example, the federal government is withdrawing from
areas like health and education and has almost stopped making
the transfer payments it used to make before.
The federal government itself decides how the moneys will be
primarily allocated in education and health. It leaves the
provincial governments stuck with major administrative problems
in the management of basic services, including in health. I am
also concerned about education, because with the whole debate on
health, we must not forget what is happening in the education
sector, which is just as important.
But their one concern here is visibility, visibility and
visibility for the federal government. As for the rest,
including effectiveness, the provinces will administer the
programs and, therefore, will be the ones criticized if things
do not work. The federal government is saying “We are keeping
what is good to manage, they can have the rest”.
We cannot support the various amendments, particularly those
that are in response to the pressures of the Ontario lobby in
the health sector. Such criticism was not voiced in Quebec. Why
is that? It is because we have a consumer protection act. We
also have, through the supervision that can be done by Quebec's
access to information commission, processes and recourses, which
means that the communication of personal information is already
regulated.
In Quebec, no one phoned our offices to say “Listen, we need
federal legislation to protect personal information”. This is
clearly an area that people must know about. The Quebec
government will have to increasingly promote an awareness of its
act and of the possible remedies for individuals, because
electronic commerce is developing at an incredible rate.
1745
Of course, from time to time there are problems, as we saw last
week—there will always be smart guys, faster than technology, who
can paralyse the system—nevertheless e-commerce is bound to expand
at a phenomenal rate. It is all right to have regulations, but
we have ours already.
If Canada wants its own, this is all right too, but why impose
its views, its way of doing things on us, especially in an area
that comes under what the Prime Minister himself calls the
Napoleonic Code, that is to say the Civil Code. The Prime
Minister is still stuck in the past, but true enough, it is
inspired by the Napoleonic tradition.
We are told that we, in Quebec, are distinct, that it has been
recognized, and that there is even a resolution of this House
recognizing the distinct character of our institutions and the
Civil Code. And yet, the bill before us does not recognize the
Quebec government's ability to manage something which clearly
comes under, which should directly come under the Civil Code.
This is worrisome because it is probably the beginning of an
increasing trend on the part of the federal government to move
in in a roundabout way. A nudge here and a nudge there, and it
occupies more and more space, a little bit in the area of
health, a little bit here and a little bit there. What is
worrisome with regard to the amendments concerning health care
is that when the federal government comes to an agreement with
Ontario in a couple of years, will it come up with an new way to
deal with transmitting personal information that it will then
impose on Quebec?
What will happen? It is very worrisome. Are we going to give the
government a blank check and say “Yes, in a couple of years, not
necessarily through legislative channels, cabinet will make
regulations in the area of health care, which could have an
impact on what we do in Quebec”. This government is telling us
it wants to give the provinces enough leeway in the area of
health care, but it will not do it in this particular instance.
Therefore, we will vote against these amendments. Mr. Speaker,
in conclusion I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1835
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne – 35
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Eggleton
| Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Serré
| Sgro
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 163
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
[English]
MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
The House resumed from February 11 consideration of Bill C-10,
an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.35 p.m., the House will
now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at
the report stage of Bill C-10. Is it agreed that the members are
in the Chamber?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 4.
1845
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 57
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Sgro
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 142
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. A negative vote on Motion
No. 5 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 6.
1850
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lunn
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
– 61
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Borotsik
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Sgro
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 142
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
1900
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lunn
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
– 61
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
1905
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 62
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Sgro
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 142
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 8.
1915
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 63
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 141
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 8 lost.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of the love
and kindness that Valentine's Day has come to represent, would
you seek unanimous consent to apply the remainder of the votes?
The Deputy Speaker: That is a pretty generous request. I
am not sure which way I am asking to apply them, but is there a
disposition on the part of the House to deal with these votes
more expeditiously?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Apparently not. The question is on
Motion No. 10.
[Translation]
A negative vote on Motion No. 10 requires the question to be put
on Motion No. 16. The vote on Motion No. 10 applies as well to
Motions Nos. 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18.
1920
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Hilaire
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 64
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
|
Sgro
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 141
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 10 lost. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
1930
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams
– 63
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Folco
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 139
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 16 lost. The
next question is on Motion No. 33.
[Translation]
A negative note on Motion No. 33 requires the question to be put
on Motions Nos. 34 to 37.
1935
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 33, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Johnston
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
St - Hilaire
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 60
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Sgro
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 136
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 33 lost.
* * *
1940
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
DRESS CODE
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. In the Standing Orders, I found this:
The Speaker has already indicated to a member wearing a
turtleneck that his vote could not be recorded. I therefore ask
you to ask the member wearing a turtleneck to leave the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The House has a new book of
procedure and I refer the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, and all
other members, to the citation on page 514, which reads as
follows:
The contemporary practice and unwritten rule require, therefore,
that male Members wear a jacket, shirt and tie as standard
dress. Clerical collars have been allowed, although ascots and
turtlenecks have been ruled inappropriate for male Members
participating in debate.
I refer to note 86, which says: “On occasion, male Members not
wearing a tie have been permitted to vote”.
So, for the time being, we may continue with the practice
described in the new book.
* * *
[English]
MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend
the Municpal Grants Act, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 34. A
negative vote on Motion No. 34 requires the question to be put on
Motions Nos. 35 to 37.
1950
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 34, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
– 31
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grewal
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Sgro
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 160
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 34 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 35. If Motion No. 35 is
defeated, the next question will be on Motions Nos. 36 and 37.
1955
(The House divided on Motion No. 35, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp – 32
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Grewal
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Sgro
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 161
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 35 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 36. If Motion No. 36 is
defeated, the next question will be on Motion No. 37.
2005
(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
– 31
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bailey
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grewal
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Sgro
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 161
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 36 lost.
The next question is on Motion No 37.
2010
(The House divided on Motion No. 37, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Crête
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Grewal
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Johnston
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Hilaire
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vellacott
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 59
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Sgro
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 134
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 37 lost.
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be
concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
DRUG APPROVAL
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am up tonight in relation to a question I asked the
Minister of Health in the House in December 1999, just a few
short months ago.
It was on the drug approval process, the very cumbersome time
delayed process that we have in the country. In that question
for the minister I was talking specifically of a cancer drug
called Rituxan, which has been approved in 40 other countries of
the world but not yet in Canada.
2015
In my hand I have a number of letters supporting the approval
process of this drug. We have patients in Canada who could use
the drug at this very moment, but it is not available to them
simply because of the very cumbersome time delay that the drug
approval process has to go through at Health Canada.
The drug in question, Rituxan, is what we call an
immunotherapeutic monoclonal antibody which has a unique ability
to bind itself to cancer cells without the toxic effects that are
often associated with other cancer treating drugs.
What is so disturbing about this process is that other countries
have had this drug for the last couple of years. I want to go
through the 40 some countries that I mentioned previously. Some
of the countries that presently have the drug are Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.S.
In total 40 countries can now use this drug to treat patients
with non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
The argument could be that we can get the drug under special
warrant in Canada, which is absolutely true, but that is a very
cumbersome process and a very expensive one. Until that drug is
approved by Health Canada no insurance company will cover the its
cost. Nor will any health jurisdiction in the country cover it
through the medicare system in Canada. In other words, the drug
is denied simply because it is not approved. We have to improve
upon that process.
We always have to exercise caution in the approval of any drug,
but we are talking about a drug that was approved in 40 other
jurisdictions. I want to give the minister credit as well
because I did speak to him on this privately outside the Chamber
in addition to the question that I asked and he has paid some
special attention to it.
The information I am now receiving from Health Canada—and we
have to be very careful on this because there is no way of saying
for sure that this is going to happen—indicates that probably
within the next couple of weeks this drug will be approved. I
hope this is the case. I am going to give the minister credit
for speeding this process along.
The problem is we have to come up with a better way of doing it,
realizing that safety always has to be paramount. I want to
suggest that we take a very close look at the—
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt, but
the time is up.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, you did not signal me
that I had a minute left. Can you give me an extra minute? I
want to finish my speech.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not the rules
at this point. The time is over and that is it.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Could I have unanimous consent to
finish? I am giving the minister and the government credit.
Madam Speaker, members are entitled to a warning when they have a
minute left. I want unanimous consent to have a chance to finish
my remarks.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member knows
very well that at this point there cannot be any request for
unanimous consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to reply on behalf of
the Minister of Health to the question from the hon. member for
New Brunswick Southwest concerning the process for approving
drugs, specifically Rituxan.
2020
[English]
Drugs are authorized for sale in Canada once they have
successfully gone through the drug review process. This process
is the means by which a drug application is reviewed by
scientists in the therapeutic products program of Health Canada
to assess the safety, efficacy and quality of a drug.
Throughout the process the safety and well-being of Canadians is
the paramount concern. Health Canada strives to make significant
therapeutic advances available to Canadians as quickly as
possible consistent with public safety.
[Translation]
Health Canada's objective is to be competitive internationally
with respect to drug review and approval and, during the past
five years, it has cut in half the time needed to review the
average presentation.
[English]
Health Canada has been and continues to be committed to ensuring
the greatest efficiencies in the drug review process. To do
this, the therapeutic product program in consultation with
stakeholders is pursuing several initiatives to further
streamline the process.
[Translation]
Rituxan is a new drug for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma. So far, it has not been approved in Canada, but
patients can obtain it through the special access program.
Practitioners sometimes resort to drugs not approved in Canada
for the treatment of serious or life-threatening illnesses, when
conventional treatments have been unsuccessful or are not
appropriate.
[English]
In such situations the therapeutic products program of Health
Canada has a mandate to authorize the sale of these drugs to
practitioners. This mandate is administered by the special
access program of the TPP. This special program is—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. member as the time is over.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.22 p.m.)