36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 81
CONTENTS
Friday, April 7, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-25. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1010
1015
1020
1025
1030
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1035
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1040
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1045
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| AIR INDIA
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1100
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| BLOOD SUPPLY
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1105
| LÉVIS SHIPYARD
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| GROUP OF TWENTY
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| YOUNG AT HEART
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1110
| VICTORIA HARBOUR STUDENT PARLIAMENT
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| THE LATE VICTOR TREMBLAY
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| TALL SHIPS 2000
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1115
| BUDGET 2000
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1120
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. John Manley |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1125
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1130
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1135
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1140
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| MILLENNIUM BUREAU OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1145
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1150
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1155
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| Hon. John Manley |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1200
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of a Document
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1205
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mammography
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| The Senate
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| National Tartan Day
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1210
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Abortion
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Euthanasia
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| Motion
|
1215
| ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-473. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Bill C-473. Second reading
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Amendment
|
| >Motion for concurrence
|
| Bill C-473. Third reading
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1220
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-25. Second reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1225
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1230
| Mr. André Harvey |
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1255
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1320
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1325
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1330
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
| Bill C-206. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1335
1340
1345
1350
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1355
1400
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1405
1410
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1415
1420
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1425
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 81
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 7, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House resumed from April 6 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act
and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation
Act, 1999.
1010
It is said that the certainties in life are death and taxes, and
that certainly is true. I will tell the House a true story about
something that happened in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.
I was elected in 1993. In 1994, while opening my mail in the
constituency, I received a letter from a man who was living on
the poverty line. I was shocked when I read his description of
the desperate situation he was facing. The man was living on a
very limited income in a hotel in Princeton, British Columbia. He
was paying weekly rent. He had very minimal things in his life,
no furniture, no excesses and no extravagances. He went on to
explain that Revenue Canada was after him for back taxes. The
letter went on to say that this man was going to end his life by
committing suicide and that he was writing to his member of
parliament in desperation.
I did not know for sure if what the man was saying was true or
not, but I did what I felt was my duty and picked up the phone
and contacted the RCMP. Several hours later the RCMP called me
back and told me that the man was preparing to commit suicide.
Thanks to my intervention, the RCMP prevented that from
happening.
As I started off today, I said that death and taxes are the two
certainties we face in this world, but I think it is reasonable
that Canadians would expect that taxes should not be the reason
for our demise.
I will open my remarks today by first giving slight
congratulations to the Liberal government for eliminating bracket
creep in its current budget by tying income tax rates to
inflation. That is a very important step. This does protect
taxpayers against automatic tax increases caused by inflation,
and all Canadians do benefit from that action.
However, the reality is that the Liberals have only ended tax
increases through stealth. Tying tax rates to inflation is not a
tax break. It does nothing more than cancel scheduled tax
increases that the finance minister and the finance department
had planned.
Having said that, I have some other concerns as well. My first
concern is the way the Liberal government continues to tax
Canadians. My second concern is its refusal to tackle the
massive national debt facing Canadians. My third concern is the
way it mismanages the spending priorities, the priorities that
Canadians are saying very clearly they are concerned about,
things like health care.
These are the issues I will be dealing with in my remarks today.
I will then leave Canadians with an alternative vision to that
of the Liberal government, how Canadians should be taxed and that
is through solution 17, the Canadian Alliance proposal for a
single rate of tax.
The Liberal government claims that the 2000 budget proposes a
five year tax reduction plan that includes the most important
structural changes to the federal tax system in more than a
decade. This was supposed to be a tax relief budget. In fact,
the finance minister said “Today, we are setting out a five year
plan so that individuals, families, small businesses and others
will know for certain that their taxes will fall this year, next
year and in years to come”.
The finance minister proclaimed loud and clear that Canadians
could expect tax relief equalling $58.4 billion over the next
five years. He even admitted that tax dollars were really the
property of the Canadian taxpayer, something we do not often hear
from Liberal members in the House. “It is your money”, he
said, “after all”. Speaking to Canadians, he said that the tax
dollars were their money. That is a significant step forward for
the Liberal government.
Can Canadians really expect to receive $58.4 billion in tax
relief from this same government and that same finance minister
who made those comments?
1015
The answer is clearly no, Canadians cannot. After all the
hoopla died away, it became pretty clear that new spending
initiatives, combined with tax increases from previous budgets,
will wipe away the vast majority of this $58.4 billion tax cut.
Over the next five years spending on programs will increase by
$7.5 billion. This brings the supposed tax cuts down to just
over $50 billion. Then subtract from that $50 billion the
whopping $29.5 billion payroll tax hike caused by the massive
multi-year increase to the Canada Pension Plan premiums. Every
January Canadians have to pay more of their hard earned dollars
to bankroll a public pension plan that for all intents and
purposes is broke.
Now the tax cut is down to about $20 billion, but $13.5 billion
of this amount is nothing more than a cancellation of scheduled
tax hikes. Again, I would ask, is cancelling scheduled tax hikes
really a tax break? I do not think so, and judging from the
response of my constituents they do not either.
That leaves a grand total of $7.9 billion for tax relief. To
put it another way, $107.60 per year, or $8.97 per taxpayer per
month. Or, a taxpayer can pop down to the local Tim Horton's, or
whichever coffee shop, and use that tax break to buy a cup of
coffee because it equals about $2.07 per week.
Canadian taxpayers are getting no meaningful tax relief from the
Liberal government's latest budget. Each Canadian is still
paying over $2,000 more in taxes than they were in 1993 when the
Liberals formed government. This is a real blow to an already
shrinking disposable income. The disposable income of families
who want to put some money away for retirement, a vacation or
plan for their children's education, has shrunk under this
Liberal government, leaving them unable to do those things.
The policy of high taxation of the Liberal government is also a
blow to the economy of Canada on the whole. On Wednesday in
Toronto a summit of 200 CEOs brought together by the Business
Council on National Issues tried to come up with remedies for the
poor economic performance of Canada compared with a number of
other new economy jurisdictions. While Canada fell behind
during the 1990s, Ireland, a nation that traditionally had a
lower standard of living than the United Kingdom and much of the
European community, has become an economic hot spot.
Why has Ireland and not Canada been able to draw in so much high
tech wealth and talent when high tech companies in Canada
continuously lose many of their best and brightest to the United
States and other markets? The answer is clearly high taxation.
During the past decade, Ireland has acted decisively to lower
taxes, creating a pro-business atmosphere. Ireland now has one
of the lowest tax rates and, as a result, one of the most buoyant
economies. The standard of living of its citizens has also
increased dramatically vis-à-vis its neighbours. At the same
time, the standard of living in Canada has dramatically decreased
vis-à-vis the United States.
Ireland has achieved financial prosperity for its people partly
through the conscious policy decisions of a government that is
not afraid to cut taxes.
Canadians are not so fortunate. The modest tax cuts in the
current Liberal budget will do nothing to stem the slide of our
standard of living or the flow of skilled Canadians to lower tax
jurisdictions in the United States. Like Ireland, Canada must
act decisively through conscious policy decisions. This is what
Canadians expect of their federal government.
The Liberals have gone out of their way to make it difficult for
small businesses to conduct business in Canada.
1020
On this year's tax form small businesses found something new.
Any contractor who subcontracts work to others is now forced by
the government to police them by filing what is called a summary
of contract payments form with the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency. This is in addition to the burden that small businesses
already face with serious fines attached to this of up to $2,500
for those who fail to file their summary of payment forms on
time.
The Liberal's current budget also fails to make serious inroads
into paying down the debt. Canada's current debt load is
approximately $580 billion. This has remained steady for the
last two years with only a minute reduction of $6.4 billion
scheduled over the next five years.
At the rate we are going, it will take 100 years or more to pay
off the national debt. Contrast that to the United States which
intends to pay off its national debt in just 12 years. Without a
feasible game plan to pay off our national debt in a timely
manner that is consistent with our trading partners, the standard
of living of Canadians will continue to decline. At the same
time the lower tax, debt free U.S. market will continue to
attract Canada's best and brightest. As we know, that is the
brain drain that we all are so desperately concerned about.
To make matters worse, Canadians are deeply concerned about the
way the Liberal government spends their hard-earned tax dollars.
Just going through the clippings this morning, we read that the
federal government handed out more than $85 million to Liberal
ridings to fund projects for the millennium. This apparently,
according to the press, is double what was received in opposition
members' ridings.
An article from the National Post this morning said that
the PMO tried last month to force through cabinet the purchase,
at an inflated price, of a 10-storey building belonging to a
financially troubled Liberal supporter. Imagine, the treasury
board committee refused to approve the deal, but it would have
seen this 38,000 square metre building with an estimated market
value of $50 million being sold to the government for as much as
$78 million.
We see in the clippings this morning another RCMP probe into the
HRDC scandal. The federal government asked the RCMP yesterday to
look into another job grant in the Prime Minister's riding that
went to a company whose officers have personal, political and
business ties to, guess who, the Liberal Party of Canada. It
goes on and on.
Our two critics, one for the prison system and one for national
defence, yesterday held a press conference and showed to all of
Canada where prisoners serving time in our penitentiaries
actually have better living conditions than members of the
Canadian Armed Forces living in bases such as CFB Petawawa.
The problem here is that the Liberal government is using
taxpayers' money, not as the Liberal Prime Minister said, that it
was actually the people of Canada's money, but is using it as if
it was its own slush fund to promote its own particular
interests. That is what Canadians are saying must not happen.
The scandal surrounding grants and contributions for a variety
of ill-defined and unproven job creation schemes clearly shows
the Liberal government has no sense whatsoever of financial
accountability. The scandal does not stop at the department of
human resources. The auditor general has pointed out that
numerous other departments mismanage billions and billions of
dollars in grants and contributions.
It would appear that Canadians' tax dollars are there to be
spent on make-work projects that are designed to re-elect
Liberals, not to serve the best interests of each and every
Canadian. The fact that real permanent jobs and economic
prosperity can only be created through a combination of real tax
relief and business friendly policies is of no consideration at
all to the current government.
The Liberals are so out of touch with the average Canadian that
just recently, not that long ago, the industry minister was
talking about actually subsidizing NHL hockey teams. That was in
January.
Canadians were appalled at how a minister of the crown could be
so out of touch with the rest of the country. While the
government continues to mismanage portfolios and grants and
contributions, it grossly underfunds portfolios such as health.
Health care is the number one issue in Canada and the Liberal
government continues to ignore the issue. It also continues to
ignore the problems that we face with national defence.
1025
The number one concern of Canadians is health care. By the year
2004 the Liberal government will have starved the provinces of
$35 billion for health care at a time when the population is
rapidly aging and new technologies come with a hefty price tag.
Since 1993, the Liberal government's contributions to health
have been slashed by 28%. The Liberals claim they will put $2.5
billion back into the health care system every year for the next
four years. That is a reality and yes, that is true, but this
does not address the fact that they have cut $35 billion out of
that very system. The provinces are upset about this and rightly
so.
The only premier who seems to like what the Liberals have done
is the premier of my province of B.C., Ujjal Dosanjh, who was in
Ottawa last week to curry favour with the Liberal Prime Minister
and senior cabinet ministers. He looked like a whipped puppy in
front of Canadians, his fellow premiers and members of all
opposition parties, including the NDP in the House who have
railed against the deterioration of health care in Canada and
have unanimously called for the restoration of the money that has
been cut out of health care.
All the provinces, with the exception of B.C., are rightly
demanding that health care funding be completely restored to the
tune of another $4.2 billion annually. The Liberals would rather
funnel this money into the riding of the Prime Minister and other
senior cabinet ministers while waiting lines in hospitals in my
riding and right across Canada are growing with people waiting
for needed surgery. This is unacceptable.
In my riding the Okanagan Similkameen Neurological Society, the
Child Development Centre as it is known as, is a registered
non-profit society whose mission is to promote the physical,
psychological and emotional well-being of children in the South
Okanagan and Similkameen regions. This centre is so underfunded
that each and every year I hold a charity golf tournament to
raise money. Last year we raised about $15,000. This year we
hope to raise about $20,000. One hundred percent of that money
raised goes to the children at the OSNS Child Development Centre.
I will continue to do this.
It is a shame that an institution such as OSNS, which looks
after the well-being and psychological and emotional needs of our
children in this country is without funding. It has to look for
funding from other sources. It has to be creative, and it is. I
do my charity work willingly for the constituency and for the CDC
and I will continue to do it.
The government should also do something. It should put its
priorities in line with the priorities of Canadians who clearly
say that health care is the number one issue. Yesterday we heard
one of the former cabinet ministers of the Liberal government
speak out on the issue of health care, saying that the Prime
Minister and his current cabinet are out of whack with the rest
of the country.
Let me speak for a minute on defence because this is another
portfolio that is severely underfunded. Since 1993, the Liberal
government has slashed defence spending by a whopping 23%,
drastically reducing our combat capability in the Canadian Armed
Forces. The drastic cuts have literally gutted the Canadian
forces. Many of my Liberal colleagues on the defence committee
would agree with this.
I would like to offer in conclusion that the Canadian Alliance
and many Canadians are looking at solution 17, our tax proposals,
as one of the solutions that we would like to put forward. In the
next election campaign, we look forward to bringing this to the
Canadian public. Every single Canadian taxpayer would benefit
from a 17% single rate of tax combined with a number of
progressive deductions. We would take 1.9 million people off the
tax rolls completely, the low income people that I started my
remarks off about today.
1030
I am speaking about the man in Princeton, British Columbia, who
is living week to week, who is desperate because of the taxation
strain that the Liberal government has placed on people like him.
In a country like Canada there is no excuse. Those people
should not be taxed at all. Tax freedom day in the United States
has come and gone, yet Canadians still have two months to wait
before tax freedom day arrives for them.
We want to see changes. The country wants to see changes. Is
the Liberal government up to the challenge? I think the answer
is no.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to direct a question to my friend from British
Columbia.
I understand that he is a good friend of a gentleman by the name
of Stockwell Day. I have a newspaper clipping that puzzles me. I
thought it was from the National Enquirer, but it turns out
to be from the National Post. The headline reads:
“Provinces should collect taxes, not Ottawa, Day says”. The
article quotes a speech given by Stockwell Day in Montreal. It
reads:
The federal government should be stripped of its tax-collecting
powers and depend on the provinces for its funding....He said
provincial governments should collect all taxes above the local
level, and send Ottawa a cheque every year to sustain the federal
administration.
I have not heard of an idea like that since 1776, when the
American Declaration of Independence was signed, when a proposal
came to the people writing the constitution that the states
collect all the taxes. It was turned down as an idea that was
far out in right field.
Does my friend from British Columbia agree with this fellow
named Stockwell Day? We know he has some pretty extreme ideas in
terms of social conservatism regarding abortion, gay rights,
capital punishment and those sorts of things. His extreme views
are very well known. But I think this view that the federal
government collect zero taxes is even more extreme. Imagine
that, no taxes at all and every year the provinces would send a
cheque to Ottawa for the administration of the federal
government. Does he agree with Stockwell Day?
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from
the hon. member, who has the respect of the House. He has spent
many years as a parliamentarian, but I do not know if he goes
back as far as 1776.
If he wants to talk about extreme views, let us look at his
party's namesake in the province of British Columbia.
I mentioned in my speech that Premier Ujjal Dosanjh was here.
He is a man who has no mandate, by the way, in the province of
B.C., because he was recently elected as leader of the NDP by
default, by some 1,100 or 1,200 people. He does not have the
courage to call an election to put the issue of health care to
British Columbians. That is an extreme view when it comes to
politicians in this country.
As for Stockwell Day, until recently he was the treasurer of
Alberta. Yes, he is a leadership candidate for the Canadian
Alliance, but what we are hearing is the frustration being faced
by ministers of finance right across the country. The provinces
want to have more control over their funding. The situation with
health care again comes back to the provinces being at the mercy
of a federal government which at one time guaranteed to pay 50%,
half of the funding, for such things as health care. Does it do
that? No, it does not.
What we are seeing is the honest frustration of a person at the
executive level in a province that has lived under this big
central government philosophy. The hon. member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle would probably agree that he likes that model.
He likes to have the big central government in Ottawa. That is
what his party stands for. Folks like Stockwell Day want to see
a smaller government. They want to see more of the resources
going into priorities like health care.
The hon. member is frustrated with the system, and I do not
blame him. I am, too.
1035
Stockwell Day as a leadership candidate for the Canadian
Alliance will be an interesting element to what is going to be a
great race over the next couple of months. The hon. member for
Calgary Southwest will also be putting forward some interesting
ideas with respect to taxation. Also, the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca will be entering the debate. They will
be able to take those issues, sell them to Canadians and start
the debate. That is what will be exciting, as Canadians focus
their attention on this great movement across the country called
the Canadian Alliance.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave a
very interesting psycho-analysis of Stockwell Day and why he said
what he said.
My question is very simple. Does the member agree with
Stockwell Day when he says that the federal government should
collect no taxes, that the only taxes collected above the local
level should be done by the provinces and each year the provinces
should write a cheque and send it to Ottawa? In other words, no
taxes—income taxes, corporate taxes, the GST and excise
taxes—would be collected by Ottawa. That is what Stockwell Day
is saying. Does he agree with that?
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, I would have to study exactly
what Mr. Day said in his analysis. As I explained to the member
once already, we are hearing the frustration of a person who is
at the executive level of the province of Alberta who is trying
to wrestle with the issues of a large federal government which
does not spend its money wisely.
Billions of dollars go to grants and contributions each and
every year. The auditor general has said that he has severe
concerns about that. There are mismanagement issues that have to
be dealt with. That creates frustration.
The level of funding to health care should be restored.
Priorities should be set by the federal government, but it is
clearly not doing that.
Stockwell Day is accurate in his recognition that the federal
government does not responsibly operate in the fiscal arena.
That should be addressed. If Stockwell Day has a solution, then
I am one Canadian who is willing to listen. I am one Canadian
who will vote during the leadership race. I will be happy to
hear and assess what the other candidates say as well.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague. I
want him to explore another facet that he did not touch on too
much in his speech. I think that Canadians are quite willing to
pay taxes. They want to do their part to contribute to the state
of the nation. However, one of the things that frustrates them
is that when they pay their taxes, where does the money go?
I noticed in the finance minister's budget that he proposed to
give another billion dollars to HRDC for grants and
contributions, in spite of the condemning audit we recently had.
Eighty-seven per cent of the files that were audited showed no
evidence of any kind of supervision. There was no estimate of
job participants or cash flow forecasts for these grants.
Ninety-seven per cent showed no evidence that anyone had even
checked to see if the grant participants already owed money to
HRDC. One grant in particular stands out. The grant recipient
submitted a proposal requesting $60,000 and received $160,000. He
only asked for $60,000. When the details were examined by those
performing the audit they discovered that he should have been
granted only $30,000.
Canadians are frustrated. They do not mind paying taxes, but
for goodness sake, if they are going to pay, they want that money
to be used wisely.
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. In my remarks I stated that the finance minister said
that the government should treat taxpayer dollars as if they
belonged to Canadians. However, the example of the HRDC grants
which the member gave is clearly an indication that the
government uses the money collected for its own purposes.
1040
It is not used for job stimulation or job creation. The way to
create jobs is to put more money into the pockets of the average
family, the average taxpayer, the average entrepreneur, those
people who actually create jobs. The government does not create
jobs. People who think that the government actually creates jobs
are wrong. I know there are some bright people across the way.
They are not stupid, they are just simply wrong when it comes to
the concept of the redistribution of wealth. Canadian dollars
should be left to Canadians.
Priorities such as health care and education should be
addressed. We must ensure that we have an adequate monetary
system. Those things should be looked after, but the government
cannot get its priorities straight. Until the government does
that, the hon. member from the NDP will be fighting hard for an
increase in health care dollars, as will I and every other
opposition member of the House.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-25 is largely a technical bill which will
implement many of the changes made in past budgets concerning the
GST and other tax changes, customs changes and the like. It also
gives us an opportunity to talk about the general direction in
which we want to go as a country, in terms of what vision we
should have about the fiscal and monetary system and about some
public policy issues that are very important.
A few minutes ago I had an exchange with my friend in the Reform
Party—
An hon. member: The Canadian Alliance.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: The Canadian Alliance. I get mixed
up. It was the Reform Party, then it was the united alternative,
then it was C-R-A-P, then it was the Canadian conservative and
reform party of Canada, and now it is the Canadian Alliance.
I was asking a question because a proposal came from one of the
leadership candidates for that party which was very intriguing.
The headline read: “Provinces should collect taxes, not Ottawa,
Day says”. As I said before, I thought I was reading the
National Enquirer, not the National Post when I saw
the headline. I have not seen such a radical idea for a long
time.
Stockwell Day is a leadership candidate for the Alliance. He is
aspiring to lead that party. I see that some of the Reform Party
members are a bit embarrassed by what he said. The article
read:
The federal government should be stripped of its tax-collecting
powers and depend on the provinces for its funding....He said
provincial governments should collect all taxes above the local
level, and send Ottawa a cheque every year to sustain the federal
administration.
Here we have someone aspiring to be the leader of a national
party who is advocating that the federal government collect no
taxes, zero taxes. I have not heard an idea like that for a long
time. It is far out in lulu land. I know this guy takes some
pretty extreme positions on a lot of social issues, but now he is
taking a position that is very extreme in terms of public, fiscal
and monetary policies. Imagine, a person aspiring for federal
office who is advocating that the federal government collect no
taxes at all. I am really curious to know whether members of the
Alliance caucus support that position.
If we go back in history to the conference held in Philadelphia
on the foundation of the United States and its federation, one of
the ideas was that the states should collect the taxes and then
submit a check to the federal government every year to pay for
the federal administration. That idea was rejected back in 1776.
People talk about the Alliance-Reform party being a throwback to
the 1920s and 1930s, but here is an idea that is a throwback to
the 1770s, and even then the idea was rejected. It was an idea
that was unworkable to govern a country at that time.
I think people should be aware of what this leading contender
for the Alliance-Reform party is saying he would like to have as
his vision for the country, where the federal government would
have its hands totally tied and would collect no taxes
whatsoever, but would depend on the provinces for every single
penny required to run the federal administration.
1045
Is that the kind of vision we want? Is that the kind of country
we want? Is that the kind of holding company vision of the
country we want? The federal government and the federal
parliament would be subject to the whims of the provinces to
collect taxes and send a cheque every year to the federal
government. I suggest not. The reason I raise it in this debate
is that the debate is about our taxation system and our monetary
system.
I see the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has just arrived
in the House. I know he is a very sensible man from
Saskatchewan and I am sure he is upset with Stockwell Day for
suggesting such an idea of lunacy that the federal government
would collect no taxes and that all the taxes would be collected
by the provinces. I have never heard anybody put forth that kind
of idea before.
It is important that Canadians know where this new party is
heading in terms of its vision of federalism and its vision of
Canada. It does not want the federal government to collect any
more taxes. The provinces would do that and send a cheque every
year to the federal government. That is a very intriguing and
very interesting idea from a person who is aspiring to federal
office.
The bill before us talks about a number of changes in the sales
tax system, the excise tax system, the GST and other taxes in the
country. Concerning the GST we suggested during the prebudget
debate that the federal government make it a priority in terms of
starting to phase out the GST by cutting it back by 1% in the
budget, another per cent next year and so on, until the GST is
eventually rolled out and scrapped.
A few years ago, going back to the 1993 campaign, the Liberal
Party across the way was in opposition. It was campaigning for
the election in the fall of 1993 and saying that if it were
elected it would eliminate the GST. That has not happened. It
has not eliminated the GST. It has kept the GST. The GST is
still here today.
It seems to me the Liberals have broken a pretty fundamental
political promise by keeping the GST. The only member across the
way who has actually done something about it is the former deputy
prime minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage who resigned
her seat because she had made that promise. She put her seat on
the line in a byelection. She is the only one who has done
something honourable in terms of trying to address the promise
made in 1993 to abolish the GST.
They have not kept their word. If we look at the polling of the
Canadian population done by the Department of Finance about a
year or so ago, it shows that the number one priority of the
Canadian public in terms of tax cuts and tax changes was the
elimination of the goods and service tax.
Despite public opinion, despite what Canadians are saying to us
and to the pollsters every day, the federal government decided
not to cut the GST. It decided to address tax changes in terms
of general income tax, corporate tax and the like. I suggest it
is out of touch in terms of its fiscal policy as it pertains to
tax cutting.
When we talk about a bill that implements many changes coming
from the budget, we have to look at some of the priorities of the
federal government as well. As I look at federal government
priorities, the number one issue that should be addressed today
is the issue of the funding of health care. For every dollar of
tax cuts in the budget only two cents went into increased funding
for health care. No wonder health care is in a crisis. No wonder
Canadians from every province and territory say that this is the
number one issue.
It is in crisis largely because the federal government has cut
back transfers to the provinces under the CHST for health care
and education by billions and billions of dollars. The health
care system is now funded by about $4 billion a year less than it
was in 1993 when the Liberal Party took over government. It has
cut back on health care and social programs more than any
Conservative government has ever done in our history. That is
why we see lineups in emergency rooms and a crisis in the funding
of health care across the country.
I suggest that the priority should be to bring funding back up
to the level it was in 1993, to add an additional $4 billion per
year in transfers to the provinces.
1050
The health care system was started back in the 1960s when Lester
Pearson was prime minister, after being founded in Saskatchewan
in 1961 under the then CCF government of Woodrow Lloyd, the
successor of Tommy Douglas. After it became a national policy, a
national goal and part of a national dream and vision, the
federal government committed to funding health care on a 50:50
basis with the provinces: 50 cents from Ottawa and 50 cents from
the provinces. Health care went along relatively smoothly for a
number of years.
Then a number of years ago it started to change with new funding
arrangements, to the point today where the federal government
contributes only about 13 or 14 cents on the dollar depending on
the province in terms of cash support for health care. I suggest
that is not good enough. Government priorities should change and
the number one priority should be health care.
Another matter should be addressed in terms of the government's
fiscal policies. It should look more seriously at what is
happening to farmers, in particular prairie farmers. Prairie
farmers are going through the biggest crisis they have gone
through at any time since the 1930s. In the 1930s there was a
world-wide crisis in terms of a great depression and in the
prairies there was a great drought, so there was the combination
of a drought and a depression. Now we are seeing the biggest
crisis since that particular time.
One reason for the crisis is that the United States and Europe
are subsidizing grain farmers to a large degree compared to what
we are doing in this country. In Europe a grain farmer gets
about 56 cents on the dollar from the treasury of the European
Union in Brussels. American farmers who farm just across the
border from my province of Saskatchewan in Montana or North
Dakota get about 38 cents on the dollar from the federal treasury
in Washington.
Does the House know what it is in our country? Farmers receive
about nine cents on the dollar from Ottawa in terms of a support
payment under various programs to our grain farmers. Our farmers
receive nine cents on the dollar. American farmers get 38 cents
on the dollar. European farmers get 56 cents on the dollar. We
see right away that we have a very unlevel playing field. That
is why we have a crisis in prairie agriculture such as we have
not had since the 1930s.
A gentleman by the name of Nick Parsons drove his Massey combine
from British Columbia to Ottawa and parked it on the street in
front of Parliament Hill about two weeks ago as a way of drawing
attention to the crisis. He then had a chance to go over to 24
Sussex Drive and have a whiskey with the Prime Minister and
exchange some ideas. He enjoyed the whiskey. He enjoyed the
conversation, but what Mr. Parsons and farmers want is to put
some beef in the sandwich. They want more money for prairie
farmers so that they and their families can survive, pay their
bills and seed their crops next spring to feed the people of this
country and the people of the world. That is what should be
done.
For the first time in many years we now have the fiscal capacity
to do that. In the fiscal update last year we had a projected
surplus over five years of around $100 billion. Surely to
goodness, in addition to health care, farmers could receive a
couple of billion dollars extra with about $1.3 billion targeted
for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. That would help them survive as
farmers, pay their bills, seed their crops, maintain their way of
life, maintain the rural fabric which is so important to our
country, and maintain the small towns and small villages.
That is what we are asking on this side of the House. That is
what Manitoba and Saskatchewan are asking of the government.
That is what our people are asking for, but we do not see it
coming from the federal government across the way. These are
some of the priorities which the federal government should be
addressing and they are not being addressed.
We also need a tax system which is fair, a tax system which is
progressive, and a tax system which is based on the ability to
pay. That is becoming a very important issue today. The
Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party of Canada is a long
name. It will require a
longer ballot in the next election campaign. It is saying that it
has a new idea for taxes.
It wants a 17% flat tax rate right across the board: regardless
of what one makes, one would pay 17%. That is an idea that even
right wing Republicans in the United States have rejected with
the exception of Steve Forbes. Even the George Bush campaign has
said that idea is too reactionary and too conservative for right
wing Republicans. Yet it is an idea being pushed by the Canadian
Alliance Party.
1055
Why is it an idea that is not acceptable to good progressive
thought? If everybody pays the 17% bracket, those who make
$50,000 or $60,000 a year in taxable income would pay 17% as they
struggle to meet needs in terms of themselves, their spouses and
their families, while those who make $1 million or $2 million a
year would still only pay 17%. The big tax break would be for
the the millionaires and the wealthy.
That is not the way the country should go. We need a good
progressive tax system based on the ability to pay. Those who
make a lot of money would pay a higher percentage in taxes. Those
who make less money would pay less in taxes. That is the
Canadian way. Our tax system should be more progressive, not
less, and certainly should not go back to a flat tax where
everybody pays the same percentage rate regardless of one's
income, which is the way the Reform Party wants to go.
I conclude by saying what I said at the beginning. I would like
to hear the Canadian Alliance Party respond today in this very
important debate on the fiscal future of our country. I would
like to hear Canadian Alliance members respond today on whether
or not they support their leadership candidate, Stockwell Day,
who has made the radical proposal that the federal government
withdraw entirely from the field of collecting taxes. I repeat
that in case there are hon. members in the House now who were not
here a few minutes ago when I mentioned it.
According to a copy of an article from the National Post
last weekend headlined “Provinces should collect taxes, not
Ottawa”, Stockwell Day is saying that the federal government
should be stripped of its powers to collect taxes and that all
taxes in the country, except local taxes, should be collected by
the provinces. Every year the provinces would then send a cheque
to Ottawa for the federal administration of the country.
I have not heard an idea like this for an awful long time. I am
very interested to see whether or not the people on my left will
rise to say they support Stockwell Day and his radical idea, his
vision of Canada that the federal company is a sort of holding
company funded by the provinces. I would like to know the
response of Canadian Alliance members to that.
The Liberals can respond to that too. If there are any Liberals
out there who support Stockwell Day in his vision of fiscal
federalism where the federal government collects nothing, I wish
they would rise and tell me. If members have any questions or
comments, I will take them now.
The Deputy Speaker: I would love to have questions and
comments, but unfortunately it is time to move to Statements by
Members. When we come back to this debate later this day the
hon. member will have three minutes remaining in the time for his
remarks and ten minutes for questions and comments.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
AIR INDIA
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago 329 people were killed by the Air India
bombing. Since then a dark cloud of injustice has been hanging
over the families of the victims. The current Prime Minister
while in opposition said:
It is of fundamental importance that people who get involved in
these tragic events know that there is no place they can land
safely any more.
The current Deputy Prime Minister said in 1985:
We call on the government to do everything possible to assist the
families of those who lost their lives in the Air India
explosion.
Liberal government members when in opposition were demanding
justice, but what have they done as a government in the last
seven years? What help have they been to those families?
After a most expensive and lengthy investigation no charges have
been laid. Instead of doing everything possible, for over a year
they have stonewalled and denied me my right to have access to
the RCMP investigation file. Justice delayed is justice denied.
* * *
CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April is Cancer Awareness Month in
Canada. During the month thousands of volunteers from the
Canadian Cancer Society will be knocking on doors across the
country trying to raise millions of dollars needed for the fight
against cancer.
1100
The Canadian Cancer Society is a national community based
organization of volunteers whose mission is the eradication of
cancer and the enhancement of the quality of life of people
living with cancer.
The Canadian Cancer Society, in partnership with the National
Cancer Institute of Canada, achieves its mission through
research, public education, patient services and advocacy for
healthy public policy. These efforts are supported by volunteers
and staff and funds raised in communities all across Canada.
I urge all members to lend their support and efforts in helping
to fight cancer.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, medicare, the crown jewel of our social programs, faces
the challenges of an aging population, costly diagnostic and
treatment modalities, long waiting lists, crowded emergency
rooms and overburdened doctors and nurses.
We need an integrated health care system where hospital care,
community care, home care, pharmacare, primary care, illness
prevention and health promotion are seen as a continuum. This is
best achieved within the five principles of the Canada Health
Act, not by creating a private for profit system.
The Government of Canada has guaranteed more funding to renew
medicare. But money alone and a renewed vision without a plan
are romantic at best. A modernized plan without a renewed vision
is simply rearranging the existing order of things.
May provincial and territorial governments work with the
Government of Canada to effect a plan of action and achieve a
renewed vision of medicare for the 21st century.
* * *
BLOOD SUPPLY
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a blood safety day has been declared this year by the
World Health Organization, commonly known as WHO, as the focus
for World Health Day on April 7, WHO's birthday.
Canada has a highly regulated blood system which meets and often
exceeds international standards for blood safety. During the
past several years Canada has implemented a number of new safety
initiatives, including leukoreduction, nucleic acid testing and
deferral of donors based on theoretical varian Creutzfeld-Jacob
disease risk. Canada is a world leader in implementing these
safety initiatives.
In addition to regulation, Health Canada provides ongoing
surveillance for blood borne pathogens and other transfusion
related adverse events.
Lastly the National Blood Safety Council has been appointed by
the Minister of Health to provide public oversight of all
elements of the blood system.
Health Canada avails itself of scientists, physicians, analysts
and decision makers with expertise in processing bad blood borne
pathogens. The therapeutic products program, Health Canada's
regulator, also maintains a standing export advisory committee on
blood regulations—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to
the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
* * *
BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
Sunday on the anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the flag
on the Peace Tower will fly at half-mast to commemorate this
historic battle.
We will be reminded of our coming of age as a nation. Let me
read the words of General Byng, commander of the Canadian Corps
and later one of our governors general:
There they stood on Vimy Ridge...men from Quebec stood shoulder
to shoulder with men from British Columbia and Alberta and there
was forged a nation, a nation tempered by fires of sacrifice—
Out of Vimy a renewed confidence and sense of patriotism filled
our nation. Sadly, more than 10,000 Canadians were killed or
wounded in that heroic battle. May we honour their memory as
well as they honoured our country.
* * *
DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the rules governing registered
charities strictly limit the percentage of funds raised that may
be used for partisan indoctrination.
A begging letter which I recently received from the David Suzuki
Foundation describes its mission to initiate “profound changes
in our economic systems, in government structure and priorities,
in the organization of our communities and in the way we live”.
That sounds pretty political to me.
There are far too many registered charities whose principal
activities are raising lots of money and distributing propaganda.
If Dr. Suzuki wants to change the system, he should stop abusing
it and run for parliament instead.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, March 2000 saw the unemployment rate at 6.8%, the lowest
since April 1976.
New jobs increased by 30,000. That represents almost two million
since this government took office in 1993. Every Canadian
benefits from this success.
1105
In Ontario employment grew by 28,000 new jobs for March and
unemployment edged down to 5.6%. Nova Scotia employment grew by
4,000 more jobs in March 2000. Its unemployment rate is also
falling and shows the lowest rate since February 1989.
This Liberal government is making very positive changes for all
Canadians. Budget 2000 reflects that good news for small and
medium size business. Congratulations to the Minister of Finance
for his excellent budget.
* * *
[Translation]
LÉVIS SHIPYARD
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
with the recent acquisition of Davie Industries by the
Syntek-Transnational consortium and the current negotiations on
the possibility of management and employees buying into the
company, the Lévis shipyard is off to a new start.
As justification of this acquisition, the new owners stressed
Davie's excellent international reputation, based primarily on
the quality of its workers.
Anyone familiar with shipbuilding knows that Davie is ranked in
the top five in the world, as far as engineering is concerned.
It is the best builder of oil rigs in Canada.
What is still missing, however, is a true federal shipbuilding
policy to enable our companies to hold their own against foreign
competition.
Now that the legal matters surrounding Davie has been settled, I
wish its new directors good luck, for the sake of the workers
and the economies of Quebec City and the Chaudière—Appalaches
region.
* * *
GROUP OF TWENTY
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): This week, Finance
Minister Paul Martin today announced that the second meeting of
the Group of Twenty finance ministers and central bank governors
will take place on October 24-25, 2000 in Montreal. The Group of
Twenty is also known as the G-20.
Ministers and governors will review the global economic outlook
and discuss ways to make the world less vulnerable to financial
crises.
The G-20 was created in September 1999. It consists of finance
ministers and central bank governors from 19 industrialized and
emerging market countries.
The purpose of the G-20 is to ensure broader participation in
discussions on international financial affairs among countries
whose size or strategic importance gives them a particularly
crucial role in the global economy.
We wish the participants good luck in their discussions.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians want an immigration system that will
accommodate independent immigrants who will quickly add to our
economy, which will welcome genuine refugees and which will
reunite these people with their families as soon as possible.
The government has failed to deliver what Canadians want in the
new immigration act.
The immigration minister says that she has brought in tough new
measures to deal with people smugglers and illegal migrants. The
finance minister has said three years in a row that he has
substantially lowered taxes to Canadians, but have they looked at
their paycheques lately? The minister has not delivered what she
says.
The new act does provide for higher maximum penalties for people
smugglers. However, it is important to note that under the
current act the maximum sentence is 10 years. As of the end of
1999, the maximum penalty ever handed out was 10 months, so how
much good will a higher maximum penalty do?
Unfortunately the new immigration act will not help the very
people that it should help. It will not keep people smugglers
from operating into Canada.
* * *
YOUNG AT HEART
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I extend a warm welcome to
a group of senior citizens from the Pontiac who are visiting
parliament today.
The Young at Heart group from Chapeau wanted to see firsthand
how parliament and the House of Commons works. They are
accompanied on this occasion by Mr. Jerome Sallafranque, the
organizer of this odyssey to Ottawa.
[Translation]
I hope they will have a lovely day filled with all sorts of new
discoveries, and a pleasant trip back to the magnificent Pontiac
region.
* * *
BILL C-20
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
controversy surrounding the bill on the clarity of the
referendum process has perhaps abated, but Canadians opposed to
Quebec's separation must not be lulled into a false sense of
security.
1110
Bill C-20 was part of what was called plan B, which had as its
objective to ensure that separation, should it occur, would
comply with democratic principles. Plan B will never suffice on
either moral or political grounds.
Canada needs a plan A, a plan that would neutralize separatism
by proposing a vision of Canada that would reflect the
aspirations of the people of Quebec, by having the rest of
Canada recognize their past and present uniqueness.
This is the political legacy the Prime Minister should leave us.
* * *
[English]
VICTORIA HARBOUR STUDENT PARLIAMENT
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently I received a calendar from the foreign affairs committee
of the student parliament of Victoria Harbour Elementary School
in Victoria Harbour, Ontario. This is a group of 25 children in
grades five, six, seven and eight who meet monthly to plan ways
to help ease the suffering of the children of Sierra Leone who
are innocent victims of violence.
This is the fifth year the students have published a calendar
filled with their own artwork to raise funds in support of the
children of Port Loko Catholic Secondary School and St. Martin's
Orphanage in Port Loko, Sierra Leone. This year alone these
children raised $5,000.
I salute these young Canadians who have taken it upon themselves
to provide aid to others and to provide an example to all with
their generosity of spirit and commitment to global peace.
In the words of Stephanie Chapman, grade 6, “I wish we could
help more, and then celebrate their liberty and peace. Please
help”.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE VICTOR TREMBLAY
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the
death of Victor Tremblay, the valley of the Matapédia and in
particular the town of Causapscal are in mourning.
Victor Tremblay died on March 24 at the age of 52 following a brief
illness.
He was the youngest president of the Société nationale de l'est
du Québec. He also headed the Société d'aide au développement
des collectivités. He belonged to a host of organizations
focussed essentially on regional development.
An exceptional individual, Victor Tremblay had a passion for the
outdoors, and his commitment changed the approach of an entire
region toward a vital resource, salmon.
This commitment led him to assume a national position, that of
director general of the Fédération québécoise pour le saumon
atlantique.
To his wife, Françoise and his children and to the friends of
this exemplary regional advocate, this proud and courageous man,
the Bloc Quebecois offers its sincere condolences.
* * *
[English]
TALL SHIPS 2000
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Halifax,
Nova Scotia is going to be hosting Tall Ships 2000 in July after
they complete the four month journey across the Atlantic Ocean.
Two of the ships taking part in this event are particularly
noteworthy.
One is Eye of the Wind, a 40 metre brigantine based in
England that will be training young sailors as it sails to Nova
Scotia. One high school student from South Shore will be leaving
for England in early April to spend one week aboard the ship as
it makes its way across the Atlantic. Molly Kleiker is a grade
10 student at Park View Education Centre in Bridgewater. She was
selected as one of the hundreds of students who will have an
opportunity to learn or improve sailing skills while the ship
travels to Halifax.
The Picton Castle is a 44 metre barque that returned to
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia last year following its 19 month world
tour. This ship will also be participating in Tall Ships 2000.
I know that the students participating in this event will have a
wonderful learning experience as they complete this extraordinary
voyage. I wish them all best luck.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
important that we all take a moment to share responsibility for
the environment.
Yesterday members of parliament from all sides of the House
gathered to recognize 313 plants and animals that are endangered
in Canada. We all took a pledge to become foster parents to one
of the species at risk. I promised to take responsibility for
the small flowered lipocarpha which is extremely sensitive to
changes in the environment and can only be found in certain parts
of the country.
All of us must make a small piece of the environment a large
part of our lives.
To my dear lipocarpha, I will do all I can to support you in
providing education, nutritional information, respect and above
all, protection.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the grants and contributions scandal at HRDC keeps
getting more and more sordid.
1115
Yesterday the national president of the union that represents
HRDC workers testified before the human resources committee. We
learned that employees at Human Resources Development Canada were
ordered to review their job creation grant project files, fill in
any blanks and backdate documents so record keeping would appear
in order. That is file tampering. They were given that verbal
directive in January, right after it was revealed by an internal
audit that HRDC had mismanaged and improperly monitored $1
billion worth of job creation projects.
We are hearing a consistent message from many credible parties:
from the auditor general, from the information commissioner and
from the employees at HRDC. We are hearing that the problem of
HRDC lies with the Liberal political masters and the very top
officials in the department who do their bidding.
* * *
BUDGET 2000
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the members opposite quoted budget 2000 today and I am glad they
did. I call on the government to use budget 2000 to address
regional disparities in the country. I ask the government to make
investing in regions of high unemployment a national priority.
Investments in the budget for geoscience initiatives in mining,
the sustainable technology fund for the development of new
environmental technologies, Canadian research chairs and new
National Research Council facilities should be located in areas
like Cape Breton and regions of high unemployment in order to
generate lasting economic opportunities for that region and for
the benefit of all Canadians.
Let us use the budget to create jobs in areas of high
unemployment.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it seems there is no price too high
to pay, or at least lobby for, if you are a friend of the Prime
Minister.
Pierre Bourque, a close personal friend of the Prime Minister,
has found himself in financial trouble. He came up with a plan
to have the government buy his $50 million building in Hull for
$78 million. Taxpayers expected the Prime Minister to say no.
However, for golf buddies, ethics are merely an obstacle.
Instead, the PM put his chief of staff to work convincing
Treasury Board to pay up.
Why was the chief of staff to the Prime Minister lobbying to
have taxpayers pay an inflated price for a building owned by a
friend of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 3 my
department offered to purchase the Louis St. Laurent building for
a price equivalent to the value of the lease. This is a
lease-purchase building and is part of our long term strategic
plan for accommodating government needs. The offer was rejected
by the owner on March 31.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I guess the relevant price is
somewhat in doubt.
No one dares stand in the way of this Prime Minister. In order
for the Bourque scam to work it had to pass the cabinet Treasury
Board committee. The PMO convinced the justice minister and the
solicitor general to go along with it. However, Peter Harder, a
senior civil servant, defended the taxpayers and resisted the
deal. The Prime Minister swiftly had Harder transferred out of
the department.
Why is it always those who try to protect taxpayers who find
themselves punished by this Prime Minister?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that
this was a very simple transaction. We decided to buy the
building, and the hon. member should know the history of the
building. We offered the residual value, whatever was left of
the value in a contract signed in 1991 by a Conservative
government, with which the hon. member is now trying to unite.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt it is a simple
deal. It is simple: If you are a friend of the Prime Minister
you get special treatment.
Back in 1990, when the Prime Minister was fighting the finance
minister for the Liberal leadership, Pierre Bourque apparently
donated heavily to the Prime Minister's campaign. Now Mr.
Bourque is in trouble and the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, the Prime Minister's chief of staff and John
Rae are scrambling to find him money. They even went as far as
to attempt funnelling Bourque $28 million of taxpayer money
through this real estate scam.
Does Mr. Bourque warrant this special treatment just because he
is a friend, or because he has something on the Prime Minister?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was no special
treatment. We offered whatever was left on the lease signed by a
Conservative government in 1991. We offered $68.5 million, which
was the value of the lease. There was no special treatment, and
to prove there was no special treatment, the owner rejected the
offer.
1120
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister of public works was in
favour of this simple transaction, as he calls it. This simple
transaction would have paid $25 million more than the building
was really worth.
We have canoe museums, HRDC grants, loans for hotels, fountains,
CIDA grants and now inflated real estate scams. You name it, as
long as it benefits friends of the Prime Minister. No price is
too high to pay by the taxpayer.
Why does this Prime Minister continue to believe he can use
taxpayer dollars to help his friends?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is completely
wrong, as usual, comme d'habitude, because there is no deal.
The hon. member's question is not relevant whatsoever. He
should realize he has a wrong premise because, as the minister of
public works has said over and over in this House, no deal was
made. In fact, there was no special treatment. The owner of the
building decided not to accept the government's offer.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, what is wrong is the way this government tries to do
business.
The Prime Minister has been in trouble in the past for making
deals with unregistered lobbyists. I am sure we all remember
Réne Fugère. Mr. Riopelle, a mutual friend of Pierre Bourque and
the Prime Minister, did not register Bourque as a client when he
lobbied the ministers to approve this scam. Failing to register
a client can cost a lobbyist steep fines and up to two years in
jail.
How can the Prime Minister explain his involvement in yet
another shady, unregistered lobby deal?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every time there is an accusation that somebody has
failed to register under the Lobbyists Registration Act the
ethics counsellor looks into it, which is exactly what would
happen.
What is clearly disappointing to the members of Alliance Party
in this case is that they wish a deal had been done so that they
could get up and criticize it. However, not to let the facts
stand in their way, they get up and criticize something that has
not happened.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, a witness told the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities that HRDC employees had received oral directives to
review their files, fill in the blanks, and backdate documents
if necessary so that everything looked shipshape.
Can the minister tell us whether it is on the basis of these
doctored documents that she has been rising in the House for
several months now and telling us that everything is just fine
and that there are no skeletons in her department?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to set the
record straight. Human resources development employees have been
instructed, as always, to obey the law. It is clear that we are
reviewing our files. Part of our six point plan and our
commitment to Canadians is to improve the system.
I would like to quote factually from a directive of February 16,
2000, which clearly states “Documents currently on file are not
to be altered. If an amendment to an active agreement is
required a formal amendment should be filed and dated the day of
the amendment”.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's revelations confirm our concerns about the
department's refusal to launch an investigation.
Are we to understand that the sole reason for its refusal is to
buy the necessary time to clean things up and get rid of
anything that could incriminate the government?
We need a clear answer. We want clarity and nothing less.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. If the hon. member
has proof that there is wrongdoing in my department, I want her
to give it to me so we can deal with it expeditiously. If she has
proof, let her bring it forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the testimony of the representative
of HRDC employees, it appears that the climate in the department
makes it difficult for public servants to work with diligence
and professionalism, as they would like to do.
Does the minister not realize that the only way to restore
confidence in these job creation programs and to restore a
healthy working climate is to launch an independent public
inquiry?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I looked at the transcripts from the
committee yesterday, I saw that the representatives from the
union were saying that I, as the minister, was taking it
seriously and that the opposition should let me get on with doing
the job of fixing the problems.
1125
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps touting her six point plan.
Everyone knows this is a tactic to divert attention and avoid
facing up to her responsibilities, including getting to the
bottom of the HRDC scandal.
Does the minister not realize that, by refusing to initiate an
independent public inquiry, she is destroying all credibility
for these job creation programs, which are so important for the
economic development of all the regions?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member forgets that we are
working with the auditor general, an independent office of the
House. The auditor general has helped us to develop the six
point plan and is watching us implement the six point plan. In
October he will be reporting the results of his study of the
grants and contributions plan.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health. I want to re-engage
him on the question of the Canada Health Act, something we have
been talking about for the last little while.
The minister will know that there are now a variety of private
clinics across the country providing insured services, sometimes
for fees which go beyond what is provided for in the health care
plan.
The minister has said that he stands by the Canada Health Act
and wants to enforce it. What is the status of all these clinics
operating now? Is he saying that they comply with the Canada
Health Act, or is he saying that he is actually not enforcing the
Canada Health Act now?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are private clinics for profit around the country. In some
cases they are regulated by provincial legislation, such as in
Saskatchewan where such clinics are prohibited from charging fees
to patients for any service, or in Ontario where basically the
same arrangement is provided for in the statute.
Let me stress that if there are private-for-profit clinics
charging for insured services to patients, that would be against
the Canada Health Act and we would take action. If the hon.
member is aware of any such practices, I wish he would let me
know and we will respond.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my understanding is that there are clinics which provide
insured services but nevertheless, by paying a fee, people are
able to get a service earlier than they might otherwise get it
from a public system.
Given what is happening in Alberta with bill 11 and the prospect
of a greatly increased significance of private clinics in the
system due to bill 11, is the minister prepared to change the
Canada Health Act and not just to stand by the Canada Health Act?
Would he be willing to change the Canada Health Act if that is
what is necessary to protect medicare from this growing abundance
of private clinics within the system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I share the concern that the hon. member expresses. However, I
do not believe it is necessary to change the Canada Health Act
because the principle of accessibility is there to be respected.
The concern is that on the ground in a given clinic uninsured
services might be sold at the same time as insured services are
provided in such a way that the principle of accessibility is
threatened. If the hon. member knows of any instance of that, I
would want to know because it could be troublesome in terms of
the Canada Health Act.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, another day, another story about the Prime Minister
wasting taxpayers' money to bail out campaign donors.
Like a scene from The Godfather, Liberal donator Pierre
Bourque, senior, needed a financial favour. Reports have said
that the Prime Minister's cronies tried to force cabinet to
accept the purchase of a Hull office building for almost $30
million more than the appraised value.
The estimates show that as of March 31, 2000, $70 million had
been pegged for the purchase of Place Louis St. Laurent. How can
the government justify such a dubious and blatant waste of
taxpayers' money?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat for
the hon. member that my department made a reasonable and fair
offer to buy the building at a price that represents the value of
the lease signed in 1991 by a Conservative government. I
recommend that the member does some research to see who was the
minister who signed that lease in 1991.
1130
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, obviously this government is not against breaking
contracts signed by Conservative governments. It turfed the
helicopter contract then bought the same helicopters. We know
that the cheques may not have been written as yet, but it was the
clear stated intention of the government to go against the wishes
of the treasury board and pay off Mr. Bourque. It is obvious
that when you get in the way of the Prime Minister's slush fund
efforts, you will pay the price.
Treasury board civil servant, Peter Harder, who resisted the
sale of the building at such an inflated price, has been
transferred out of the department. Now that the Prime Minister
transferred him out, does he feel that this is the best way for
the government to function—
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, the hon. member's premise about Mr. Harder is
totally wrong. Mr. Harder has been promoted to another senior
deputy minister's position. Second, the next premise in the hon.
member's question is wrong because no deal has been made. A
provision for a possible deal in the estimates is not the same as
making a deal. By now the hon. member should realize that and,
if he cannot, he should check with one of his relatives about how
the original deal was made in 1991.
* * *
CINAR
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this government loves a botched investigation. If it
cannot do it itself, it messes up someone else's.
The RCMP is trying to get to the bottom of whether Montreal's
animation company CINAR is guilty of tax fraud, but the
government is refusing to co-operate. It is refusing to provide
the RCMP with copies of CINAR's tax credit application forms.
These documents are obviously central to the investigation.
Why is the government not co-operating with the RCMP
investigation into this matter?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that
under the law Canada Customs and Revenue Agency must keep
taxpayer's information confidential until such time as charges
are laid in a case, if laid. At that point information is
transmitted to the police if and when charges are laid, and only
then.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, do they have to keep that information
confidential even from the police?
This government is rolling in so much tax revenue that I guess
it does not care about a little fraud here or there. But the
RCMP is interested in getting to the bottom of these allegations
of criminal wrongdoing. It wants documents that only the
government can provide. Why will this government not co-operate?
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon.
member and to provide him with additional information.
I draw his attention to subsections 241(2) and (3) of the Income
Tax Act, which clearly state, and I quote:
Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or other law, no
official shall be required, in connection with any legal
proceedings, to give or produce evidence relating to any
taxpayer information.
That is clear.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
instead of restoring transfer payments to 1994-95 levels, the
Minister of Health has decided to meddle even further in
Canada's health care systems.
Yet, according to the Canadian Health Coalition, the government
is footing only 13.6% of Canada's $61 billion health care bill.
How can the minister justify his approach to health care
funding, with its single-minded focus on calling all the shots?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to transfers, it
is obvious that we increased them by $1.5 billion in a previous
budget. In this year's budget, we increased them by another
$2.5 billion.
We are up to $31 billion, higher than ever, and we have said that
we would contribute even more if an agreement were reached with
the provinces concerning health care.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in order to justify its unacceptable intrusions into the health
sector, the government is adding together equalization payments,
the Canada social transfer, and tax points.
Yet, in February 1996, the National Forum on Health wrote, and I
quote: “—the Forum considers the inclusion of tax points in the
federal contribution to be confusing and unhelpful”.
When will the minister restore the Canada social transfer to the
1994-95 level, and quit trying to confuse the issue?
1135
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is
suggesting that the transfer of tax points will not mean money
in the pockets of provincial governments, she is mistaken
* * *
[English]
CINAR
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the government says that it will not release these documents on
CINAR because of confidentiality.
The problem with that is that CINAR is accused of tax fraud.
One would think the government would want to get to the bottom of
this.
Why does it not just release these documents so the RCMP can do
its work?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just said
that this company has been charged with tax fraud.
If he wants to say so, perhaps he can do it outside the House.
As far as I know, no charges have been laid.
[Translation]
Let me elaborate. Subsection 241(3) is clear. It states the
following about communication where proceedings have been
commenced. The only time taxpayer information may be provided is
in respect of, and I quote:
criminal proceedings, either by indictment or on summary
conviction, that have been commenced by the laying of an
information or the preferring of an indictment, under an Act of
Parliament.
In other words, charges must—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let us review the CINAR tax fraud investigation.
A division of the Department of Canadian Heritage, as the public
understands it, is withholding documents central to an RCMP
investigation. It would seem to the average Canadian that the
release of this documentation is in the best interests of the
taxpayers of the country and the Government of Canada, unless of
course the documents show that the mismanagement was at the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
Why will the government not release those documents to the RCMP?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I hate to inconvenience
the member by suggesting that all of us have to live within the
law, but that is an inconvenience we live with in a democratic
society and I am proud of it.
Income tax information remains private for an individual until,
and only if, charges have been laid.
Another member has said that the company has been charged. I
challenge him to make that accusation outside the House. Perhaps
the member would like to join him.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
again in connection with the CINAR affair, the government House
leader has just cited section 241 of the federal Income Tax Act
as a pretext for why the RCMP is not empowered to enter and
search the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, the
federal counterpart of SODEC, by virtue of the principle of
confidentiality.
How is it possible to bring the entire situation in the CINAR
affair into the open, if this section is cited as the grounds
not to search?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of invoking a
specific section, but a matter of ensuring that the law of
Canada is respected.
The hon. member across the way must be aware—and if he is not, he
can ask one of his colleagues—that it is important to preserve
the confidentiality of tax files. He knows very well that a
colleague of his has fallen victim to this.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the House leader ought to know that, under section 231.4 of the
Income Tax Act, the Minister of Revenue may waive section 241
when he deems this necessary.
Can the minister assure us that he will provide the RCMP with
the necessary means to do its job properly, to borrow a
favourite line of his colleague at Canadian Heritage?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier,
and I will quote again.
Subsection 241(2) states the following:
Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or other law, no
official shall be required, in connection with any legal
proceedings, to give or produce evidence relating to any
taxpayer information.
This was cited in Glover vs. Minister of National Revenue, S.C. C., 82
DTC 6035.
* * *
1140
[English]
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on July 6 the Ethics Counsellor acknowledges sending CDC
minutes to the finance department and informing the department
that the documents had to be released under the Access to
Information Act. Two days later the finance minister sent a
letter to the Leader of the Opposition pretending the department
did not have the documents.
What is the department hiding? Why will it not obey the law and
release the documents that everybody knows that it has?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
made it very clear that he has asked his finance department to
make a thorough review of this matter. He has also asked that
the Information Commissioner be part of this review. He has also
made it very clear that all of the relevant documentation is in
the hands of the Ethics Counsellor and that he hopes that this
review will be made public as quickly as possible.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, hon. members have been talking about obeying the law, so
why do they not obey the law?
The Ethics Counsellor stated quite clearly that the documents
had to be released under the Access to Information Act. We know
that the finance department had the documents on the day they
wrote to the Leader of the Opposition stating that they did not.
The Ethics Counsellor told the finance department to release the
documents and yet the finance minister's department not only
withholds the documents but also denies their existence. Why?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only
repeat what I said earlier. The finance minister has asked his
finance department to make a full review of this matter and he
has asked that the Information Commissioner be brought into this
very examination and discussion. As well, the Ethics Counsellor
has been involved and will be issuing a report, we suspect, very
soon.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government House leader earlier read a decision that
referred to any other law or regulation.
Will he deny that section 231.4 of the Income Tax Act provides
that:
The Minister may, for any purpose related to the administration
or enforcement of this Act, authorize any person, whether or not
the person is an officer of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency, to make such inquiry as the person may deem necessary
with reference to anything relating to the administration or
enforcement of this Act.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a
detailed discussion on the wording of an act except to repeat,
as I said to the member opposite, what I said earlier:
regardless of any other law or rule of law. So this section
indeed provides “any other”. Second, I draw the member's
attention to the paragraphs following section 241(3), which
provide that the exception therefor, for disclosure of
information, applies only, one, to an indictment after charges
have been made or, two, to a conviction. These are the only two
exceptions.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The minister will know that many school-aged children in the
province of Ontario are not allowed to go to school because of
their immigration status.
Can the minister assure the House that the new immigration act
will protect these children's right to an education?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased and proud to have the
privilege and opportunity to table yesterday the new immigration
and refugee protection act, Bill C-31. I want to assure the
member that the government takes very seriously the best
interests of children. That is enshrined in the legislation and
the act states very clearly, and I would point him to clause
26.2, that the immigration bill that I tabled in no way requires
an immigration student authorization for children to attend
primary, elementary or secondary school. Education is provincial
jurisdiction—
* * *
MILLENNIUM BUREAU OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as if the HRDC scandal were not bad enough, now we
have the Millennium Bureau funnelling millions of dollars into
Liberal ridings.
I suppose we should not be surprised—yet another program set up
to provide Liberals with a slush fund. For example, the Deputy
Prime Minister's riding is receiving hundreds of thousands of
dollars funnelled from this fund into his riding.
The HRDC scandal was bad enough. Why are the Liberals allowing
the Millennium Bureau to pick up where the HRDC scandal left off?
1145
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is wrong. I
point out that there are projects which have addresses in Liberal
ridings but in many, if not all cases, they carry out activities
in many other ridings. This is the case as well for Reform
ridings.
I might mention, for example, Reform members have 18% of the
seats but 19% of the approved projects have addresses in Reform
ridings. That does not seem unfair, does it, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of that answer is
all wrong. The Deputy Prime Minister certainly has the Midas
touch when it comes to pumping boondoggle money into Liberal
ridings.
He administered the Millennium Bureau of Canada. Three-quarters
of a million dollars went into his own riding. A million dollars
went into the justice minister's riding and next door they got
$23,000; $850,000 went into the the foreign affairs minister's
riding and next door they got $70,000; and $600,000 went into the
Prime Minister's riding and there are four RCMP investigations
there already. Why does it cost so much to buy votes in Liberal
ridings?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of my hon. friend's question is wrong. For
example, the Provincial Museum of Alberta is in the justice
minister's riding. If it has a project, does that museum not
serve people in the entire province? Is there any law preventing
the constituents of Reform members from visiting that project?
No, there is not.
An address may be in a Reform riding or a Liberal riding, but
the money may well be spent all across the region and in fact all
across the country like the Trans-Canada Trail, for example.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, an article
published in today's edition of L'Acadie nouvelle says the
following:
According to Mrs. Adam, RCMP officials and those who complained,
fearing that francophones from New Brunswick would lose their
vested rights to French language services because as a result of
the new policy on linguistic requirements, are currently stuck
in “radically opposed” positions.
Will the minister responsible for official languages make sure
that Acadians and francophones will not lose their vested
rights?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental principle of
this government to preserve official bilingualism, and to
preserve the status of French as well as that of English
throughout the country, or from coast to coast to coast as we
say.
Our government is committed not only to protect this principle,
but to promote it energetically.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, home
care is more than just a more efficient and cost effective use of
health care dollars. It allows patients to live in dignity in
their own homes. Most home care users are seniors, but instead
of a national home care system the Liberal government is giving
them for profit American style health care.
The health minister said it takes more than money. I agree. We
need a plan, so why has the government not come up with a plan in
seven years? After seven years, why is it still blaming the
provinces and making excuses? When will the government stop the
excuses and the blaming of others and start doing what is right
for seniors and all Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is right about the need for the Government of Canada
to work to support what the provinces are doing in terms of
broadening access to home and community care. Indeed, when I
invited my colleagues to work with me this spring, and we started
last week in Markham, it was to discuss that very subject among
others.
Last weekend unfortunately we ran into ministers who wanted to
talk only about the money. Their first ministers would not let
them go beyond that, but there are hopeful and encouraging signs.
The Government of British Columbia has now said it wants to sit
and speak with us about substantive matters, including broadening
home and community care. I look forward in the weeks and months
ahead to working with that and other governments so that in the
last analysis we will have better services for Canadians.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister likes to quote transcripts. Let me quote
transcripts from yesterday's HRDC meeting. The president of the
employees' union on questioning said:
Have you ever received any comments from staff from any office in
Canada of this directive by HRDC to fill out forms, to fill out
these files that were empty and backdate them? Have you ever
received this information?
The answer was:
Mr. Chair, we have got similar directions and the answer is yes.
This is a very serious accusation. Could the minister shed some
light on these accusations?
1150
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed this is very serious and I want to
say to the House very clearly that the position of my department,
formally and informally, in writing and verbally, is that the law
will be obeyed.
Let me continue to quote from the formal directive of February
16 that states:
It should be clear and apparent on the file what changes have
been made to the file and the date the change was made.
If the hon. member has proof which would suggest that this is
not being done, I would very much appreciate him bringing it
forward because I will act on it very aggressively.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, that is
precisely what we are doing, bringing it forward.
Yesterday, in committee, the national president of the
department's employees reiterated the department's guidelines to
check all files and, where information or documents were
missing, fill out the empty files and backdate them. We are
bringing these facts to the attention of the department today.
These are very serious accusations.
Will the minister call for yet another police investigation?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a result of that testimony the
particular individual will be called and asked for the proof that
he has.
I too ask the hon. member that if he has proof, not just
allegations, not just hearsay, to please bring it forward so I
can deal with it.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Health.
For some days now, the Bloc Quebecois has been accusing the
Minister of Health of interfering in areas of provincial
jurisdiction as far as health care is concerned, particularly in
relation to nurses and health insurance.
Can the minister tell the House whether he intends to respect
provincial jurisdictions in relation to health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take advantage of this opportunity to clarify the
position of the federal government.
It is our intention to work in co-operation with the provinces,
respecting provincial jurisdictions.
I would like to point out that we have proposed new federal
programs for home care, community care and pharmacare, and have
offered our support to help the provinces pursue their
collective priorities. We have also made a commitment to
increase funding to the provinces in order to—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this week members of the First Nations National
Coalition for Accountability were in town. The Indian affairs
minister says they do not have anything to worry about.
Now they are back home and already they are once again being
threatened for speaking out against their chiefs and councils.
When will the minister take some responsibility and protect these
grassroots natives?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is news to me. If the
member has any information as it relates to the accusations he
continues to make, I suggest he bring it over here.
* * *
[Translation]
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier this
week, an NGO group released a very troubling report on the
activities of the Export Development Corporation.
The report points out that EDC has provided financial assistance
for a number of environmentally disastrous projects: relocation
of people in Colombia and China, pollution of rivers in the
Philippines, threats to endangered species, and that is not all.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. When
will he require EDC to comply with Canada's official foreign
policy and its international commitments?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the minister were here today, he would certainly say that the
government will soon respond to House of Commons and Senate
committees with respect to EDC and general concerns such as
those raised by the member.
* * *
[English]
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the development of the oil rich Laurentian sub-basin presents an
enormous economic opportunity to the people of Cape Breton, the
people of Newfoundland, and Canadians.
1155
The Conservative Government of Nova Scotia and the Liberal
Government of Newfoundland are engaged in a jurisdictional fight.
The project is in jeopardy. The companies are looking at setting
up in St. Pierre and Miquelon, taking with them hundreds of jobs
and millions of dollars in royalties.
When will the federal government exercise a leadership role,
help settle the dispute and ensure that the economic benefits
come to the people of Atlantic Canada and not to the treasury of
France?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question. The report of the agent is still being evaluated.
As the member knows, this is a longstanding dispute between the
province of Nova Scotia and the province of Newfoundland. At any
time they wish they could settle the matter. In due course a
response will be made on the report of the agent.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
With the number of RCMP investigations on the rise, does he
think that the RCMP will have sufficient resources to conduct
all of them and protect the interests of Canadian citizens?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this
opportunity to reaffirm two fundamental points. The first is
that the RCMP is doing an exceptional job of fulfilling its wide
range of responsibilities.
The second thing I want to remind the member is that the RCMP
budget was increased in the last budget and that allocations for
all investigation-related items went up.
The RCMP has the resources it needs to do its job and I have the
utmost confidence in the results it achieves.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. There are 350,000
Canadians alive today who have suffered a stroke and there are
50,000 new cases of stroke each year. What is the government
doing to help eradicate this devastating and debilitating medical
condition?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was delighted earlier today to announce the
establishment of the Canadian Stroke Network, another of the
networks of centres of excellence that we have established across
Canada.
This is an investment in the first phase of just under $19
million over four years. It is subject to renewal based on peer
review. This network will create a unique world class
infrastructure on stroke prevention, stroke treatment and repair
of the brain after injury.
It is cause for hope for all Canadians and their families who
have suffered from this dreadful affliction.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, of course it is news to the minister regarding the
threats on reserves that are going on. When they work only
government to government why would they ever care about what
happens to grassroots natives? They do not give a hoot.
The minister will not even return calls to the people who are
calling him and asking him to call. They are calling my office
and I am passing on the numbers. This is very serious. These
people are being threatened for speaking out. Instead of bowing
down to the chiefs, when will the minister protect the grassroots
people and stand up for them?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest what the member
should do, even though he has no respect for the RCMP, is call
the RCMP.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a poll by
Environnics published this weekend reveals that 75% of Canadians
are concerned about the safety of genetically modified foods.
This poll reveals as well that 95% of Canadians think
genetically modified foods should be labelled.
Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food act on the on the
almost unanimous demand by consumers by labelling genetically
modified organisms, without delay?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member checks the record, I
believe he asked the very same question yesterday.
The government has responded. We have asked the Standards
Council of Canada to work with consumer associations, provincial
government associations, producer associations, representatives
of the agricultural community and the agri-food industry to
create a set of criteria that can be meaningful, enforceable and
credible.
Until we have that, nothing can be done. That is the first step,
and that is the step that is being taken at the present time.
* * *
1200
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
in an earlier question to the Minister of Health, the minister
asked me to come forward with examples of where I felt the Canada
Health Act was being violated by private for profit clinics. A
number of examples have been brought to the minister's attention
in the recent past.
Is the minister really saying that, in his view, there is
nothing happening now in these for profit private clinics that
violates the Canada Health Act? Is there nothing under
investigation by his department pursuant to the Canada Health
Act? Could the minister clear that up for us? Would he tell us
what he thinks of situations where things are being deemed not
medically necessary, like MRIs, where people have to pay $600 if
they want to have one immediately rather than waiting for nine
months?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
indeed there are specific instances in relation to which my
department has made and is making inquiries. As I said earlier,
any time there are insured services and enhanced or uninsured
services together, we have to worry about the principle of
accessibility.
I want the member to know that my department and I are always
alert to issues that arise and will investigate and pursue cases
as appropriate.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF A DOCUMENT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, during question period today the Minister of Human
Resources Development Canada, in response to a question from a
member of one of the other opposition parties, referred to a
ministerial directive. I believe she read from it. I wonder if
she would be able to table it for the House.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would love to table it. I have it
here, in both official languages.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table,
in both official languages, the 1998 report on Canada's
participation in regional development banks.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to 15 petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the
11th Canada-Mexico parliamentary meeting held from March 6 to
March 10 in Mexico City.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 25th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92. This
report is deemed adopted on presentation.
* * *
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-32, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on February 28,
2000.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1205
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 21st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Industry, presented to
the House on March 22, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its
consent, I move that the following member be added to the list of
associate members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs: David Chatters.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians,
including those from my riding of Mississauga South, on the
subject of breast cancer.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that Canada
has the second highest incident rate of breast cancer in the
world. The petition outlines a number of details, but
specifically states that Canada has no legislation for mandatory
mammography quality assurance standards, that breast cancer
results in the potential loss of 94,000 years of life each year,
and that early detection remains the only known weapon in the
battle against this disease.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to enact
legislation to establish an independent body to develop,
implement and enforce uniform mandatory mammography quality
assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition to present which has been signed by
154 people living in the riding of Peace River.
The petitioners call upon parliament to demand the immediate
resignation of the Minister of Human Resources Development, and
for the auditor general to conduct a full and independent inquiry
into HRDC's management and accounting practices.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions to present, which call upon
parliament to withdraw Bill C-23, to affirm the opposite sex
definition of marriage in legislation, and to ensure that
marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
The petition is signed by a total of 204 constituents of Peace
River.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
from Canadians who draw to the attention of the House that Canada
has the second highest incidence of breast cancer in the world,
that there is no legislation for mandatory mammography quality
assurance standards in Canada, that one in nine Canadian women
will develop breast cancer in their lifetime, and that early
detection remains the only weapon in the battle against the
disease.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to enact
legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of
people from the city of Regina, as well as one person from the
town of Turtleford and two people from the village of Livelong,
which is a fine community in Saskatchewan.
The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that the
Senate of Canada costs $50 million a year, that it is
undemocratic, that it is unelected, that it is unaccountable, and
that, therefore, the Senate of Canada should be abolished in
accordance with the wishes of the people of this country.
NATIONAL TARTAN DAY
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the
honour to present the following timely petitions signed by 26
interested constituents from my riding of
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale.
April 6 has special significance for all Canadians, especially
those of Scottish descent, because the Scottish declaration of
independence was signed on April 6, 1320.
Therefore, the petitioners pray and request that the Canadian
federal parliament designate April 6 of each year as National
Tartan Day.
1210
MARRIAGE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure to table a petition from the
residents of the town of Cochrane in my riding who add their
names to the hundreds of thousands of names on petitions
requesting that the government withdraw Bill C-23.
ABORTION
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present a petition from a number of people from Lindsay and the
surrounding area, as well as Reaboro, who call on parliament to
act immediately to request the provision of Canada's annual
abortion statistics in order that more research can be done in
other areas, such as infertility, sterility and post-abortion
trauma.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by over 500
individuals who draw to the attention of the House that the value
of marriage is the cornerstone of public policy. They ask that
the definition of marriage remain as the union of one man and one
woman to the exclusion of others.
The petitioners object to Bill C-23 which extends marriage-like
benefits to same sex couples. They ask that parliament withdraw
Bill C-23 and, instead, affirm the opposite sex definition of
marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as
a unique institution.
EUTHANASIA
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present another petition, containing the
signatures of some 700 people. The petitioners ask that the long
history of recognizing the rights and freedoms of religion and
conscience in Canada be recognized, especially for those in
health care institutions and training centres, and that they not
be obliged to violate their conscience by being involved in acts
of abortion or procedures of euthanasia.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a
petition signed by 125 of my constituents, primarily residents of
the city of Swift Current.
The petitioners call upon parliament to withdraw Bill C-23,
affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and
ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there have been discussions, which I would qualify as
thorough, between the representatives of all the political
parties regarding the following motion, and I believe that if
you would seek it you would find unanimous consent for it. I
move:
That notwithstanding any standing order, Bill C-445, an act to
change the name of the electoral district of Rimouski—Mitis, be
deemed to have been read the second time and referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the chief government whip have the
unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, in the same spirit of
co-operation, I believe you would find consent for the following
motion. I move:
That notwithstanding any standing order, the bill entitled, an
act to change the names of certain electoral districts, be
introduced without notice, read a first time, read a second time
and referred to a committee of a whole, considered in committee
of the whole, reported, concurred in at report stage, read a
third time and passed this day; and that the orders for Bills
Nos. 317, 397, 449, 455 and 456 be discharged and the bills
withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. chief government whip
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1215
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-473, an act to change the
names of certain electoral districts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier
this day, the House will now proceed to second reading of this
bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger moved that
Bill C-473, an act to change the name of certain electoral
districts, be now read the second time and referred to a
committee of the whole.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House
went into committee thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
The Chairman: Order, please. The House is in committee of the
whole on Bill C-473, an act to change the names of certain
electoral districts.
(Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 4)
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to propose an amendment to clause 4, which I have not
drafted but which is very simple. It reads as follows:
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the
amendment proposed by the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 4, as amended, agreed to)
(Clauses 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 11)
The Chairman: Is clause 11 agreed to?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
(Clause 11 negatived)
(Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to)
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported)
Mr. Bob Kilger moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred
in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the
House will now proceed to third reading of this bill.
Mr. Bob Kilger moved that the bill be read the third time
and passed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1220
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the
Budget Implementation Act, 1999, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to summarize. Bill C-25 before the House today
is an income tax bill. When we talk about collecting income tax
in this country, we should also talk about the public policy
priorities that go along with the role of collecting taxes. Once
we collect taxes, on what do we spend the money?
I summarize by saying that the number one priority in this
country is health care. It is preserving the medical care
system.
Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed the daffodils on various
members' desks. There is one on my desk, one on the desk of a
member of the united alternative and one across the way on the
desk of a Liberal member. Those daffodils symbolize a campaign
by young people called Young People for Medicare. This morning
they had a press conference in Room 130-S of this building, the
Charles Lynch theatre. I was honoured to be at that press
conference with them. They argued as young people that they are
concerned about preserving our system of medicare in the country.
That is very significant. Young people as a rule do not use the
health care system very much. It is encouraging to see a group
of young people come here, organize a campaign and use the
Internet to speak out in favour of preserving our national
medicare plan.
When we debate a tax bill in the House and when we collect taxes
from the Canadian people, we should make sure that the number one
priority of those taxes will be social programs and, in
particular, health care which is so important to each and every
single Canadian from coast to coast.
Another point I wish to mention is that the farm crisis in
Saskatchewan and Manitoba is still there despite a bit more aid
from the federal government, a bit more help from the
Saskatchewan government and a bit more help from Manitoba. The
crisis is still there. We are in the midst of the worst farm
crisis since the 1930s.
Almost every single small town in Saskatchewan and Manitoba is
losing people because of the drop in farm income. Suicides are
up, reaching a record high. Farm stress, with all its attendant
problems, is now very serious. We should be addressing more of
the money collected in taxes to alleviate the problem for farm
families in rural communities across the country.
The last point I mention is the system of education. I think
that is one system where we should spend more money. In terms of
investing in research and development, training skills, education
and post-secondary education, the country should train a
workforce that is second to none. When we do that, we will build
a strong country we can all be proud of as we move on into the
21st century.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I could not help but notice the hon. member's comments
about the farm crisis in Saskatchewan. I know that is his home
province and he is very familiar with so many painful stories
that have come out of the crisis in Saskatchewan.
I am also reminded that the minister of agriculture has informed
the House that moneys will be made available to assist farmers in
the crisis situation they are in.
Although it has been stated in the House that millions of
dollars are available for financial aid, like so many federal
programs, the process to apply and all the various levels of red
tape and criteria, et cetera, exclude people who need access to
that assistance. It provides, like many federal programs, good
optics for the federal government to announce a big program.
How much of this money is flowing back to the people that need
it? As I understand it, of the farm assistance that has been
offered so far only a small fraction, I think at most a third,
has been put into the hands of farmers that need it. I would ask
the hon. member to speak about the problem of getting through the
red tape and actually getting access to the assistance that is so
often lifted up by government members opposite.
1225
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with
the member from Calgary Centre that one of the problems we have
is the bureaucracy and the red tape in terms of getting money out
to the farmers who need the cash. Somehow we have to figure out
a way that is more efficient and speedy in terms of getting money
out to people who actually need it.
It seems to me very strange in the modern age of technology with
the Internet and computers that we cannot be more efficient in
terms of speed and more expeditious in terms of getting money out
to the farmers in this country who need it.
The other thing I wanted to say to the member for Calgary Centre
is that we should at this time as well be looking at a long term
farm policy, making sure that there is some program that
guarantees the farmer a return that somehow reflects on the
farmer's costs of production. That is not the case today. If
the farmer got back the costs of production in the long run, then
there would be some way that that farmer, he or she, could plan
their lives.
Workers, for example, have trade unions and collective
agreements, so there is some kind of a guarantee. Doctors,
dentists and lawyers have fees that are negotiated and set so
there is some kind of a guarantee of a fee level.
The farmers are at the whim of the international marketplace and
the weather. Therefore, they have no guarantees or very few,
except for crop insurance and some of those programs.
We should be addressing our minds to devising some kind of a
long term program that is based on the costs of production for
grain farmers in particular, but also for livestock farmers so
that there will be some guarantees what the farmer receives in
the fall from a crop or from the livestock produced.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I ask
my colleague to expand a bit on something I know he has already
mentioned. That is the issue that one Canadian Alliance
leadership candidate is suggesting, that the provinces should be
collecting all the taxes. I am just wondering if my colleague
can expand on that and comment on laying his trust in the Mike
Harrises and Ralph Kleins of the world.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we have here a
leadership candidate for the Canadian Alliance who has a vision
of what I call holding company federalism where the federal
government is a sort of holding company for the provinces.
He said this in Montreal in a speech and I gather he has written
a letter to some papers like Le Droit and others, saying
that the federal government should no longer collect any taxes,
that all of the taxes in this country should be collected by the
provincial governments above the local level and that the
provinces every year should send a cheque to the federal
government.
I find that a very strange way to run a country, a very strange
way to run a federal government and a very strange vision of what
kind of a country we should have where the only tax collector
would be the provincial governments that would send a cheque once
a year to the federal government.
That might be acceptable in the case of the Senate. If the
funds were insufficient, we could get rid of the place. However,
in terms of all the other important programs like health care,
education and the farm crisis, I know in the heart of the member
from Calgary Centre he certainly cannot support Stockwell Day and
the kind of vision that he has for our country where the federal
government has no role and no say whatsoever on the most
fundamental policy in this country, which is the right to tax.
I know he must be pretty disturbed by Mr. Day's new vision, a
vision that was rejected by the founders of the United States in
the independence state in Philadelphia in 1776 when they rejected
the idea that all taxes should be collected at the state level
and then a cheque every once in a while would go to the federal
government.
I look forward to my friends in the Canadian Alliance Reform
Party getting up in this house and putting some distance between
themselves and Mr. Day. Let us shed some light on this topic
that Mr. Day has raised. I see my friend from Calgary is
champing at the bit to get up and make a statement that sets him
apart from Mr. Day.
1230
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to be here on this day, April
7, and to have taken part in the speedy passage, with all the
parties in the House, of a bill to change the names of two
ridings in my region.
The riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, currently represented by a member
with whom I have had the opportunity to work, will now be called
Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay. As for my own riding, Chicoutimi, it will
now be called Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, a name that will better
reflect the reality of the whole riding.
A process in under way to bring together all the municipalities
in that region. I think everyone will be happy to be represented
in the House under a name that accurately describes the
geographic reality of the riding. I am very happy to have taken
part in the speedy passage of this bill to change the names of
certain ridings, including mine and that of my neighbour from
Lac-Saint-Jean.
I am now pleased to speak to Bill C-25, which amends the Income
Tax Act, and to the whole issue of our tax system.
I am pleased
but, at the same time, I am also very disappointed. When the
people in our ridings are waiting for a budget, they are very
anxious and, sometimes, they have great expectations. The
measures contained in these budgets are always spread out over
several years. They are almost like Soviet plans, spread out
over three, four or five years.
The problem in all this is that the measures that would normally
be the most beneficial to our fellow citizens are always
postponed by three, four or five years. Try to go and tell
people who live from hand to mouth, have trouble surviving and
barely manage to provide for their family that, in three, four
or five years, the picture will look rosier.
After the budget, I often hear the same comments at home, in the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. It is always the same after the
tabling of the budget by the current Minister of Finance and the
Prime Minister, since, as we know, budgets are dictated by the
Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance is involved in the
drafting of the budget, and the Prime Minister tells him “Look,
you are going to do this and that”. That is the way it is done
usually. The comments I hear most often from my fellow citizens
go something like this “Are they ever going to give us a budget
for just one year with a real impact over the current year?”
Let them stop giving us Soviet-like budgets that keep on telling
us that in five years things will start looking up. We want
change this year. Canadians should be able to benefit this
year from the measures taken by the previous PC government.
I have often said that the current government does not have an
agenda of its own, that it is benefiting from measures passed by
the Progressive Conservatives and that took years to be passed.
When we ask a question here in the House, day in and day out the
answer is “Ah, the Progressive Conservatives”. In one sweep,
this brings us all the way back to the beginning of
Confederation. I can say this however. This year the GST, which
got the Liberals elected after promising to scrap it, will bring
in $24 billion for the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister.
What they do not know is that when the GST was adopted in the
1990s—it goes without saying that the measure was unpopular at
the time—its purpose was to bring about real tax reform, to
scrap taxes.
This government pockets money daily from the measures adopted by
the Progressive Conservatives, which unfortunately did not have
the time to implement real reform, to scrap taxes.
In 1993 I thought this government would at least be honest
enough to say “The measures passed by the Progressive
Conservatives make good sense but one element is missing. Our
mission as the new government is to continue with real
reform”.
1235
What did the Liberals do? They increased taxes 50 times. Not
many people know that.
They take in an annual surplus of $6 billion, $7 billion, $8
billion in the employment insurance fund, instead of lowering
contributions to $2 per $100, as they promised to do in the last
election campaign. Consider how much they benefit from free
trade. They campaigned against us and now they go around the
world praising free trade.
Here again, they failed in their mission, which was to
complement what we did.
We said that once free trade was passed certain compensation
measures would be required because it would involve all of the
people affected by the globalizaton of trade. The government
did absolutely nothing.
Do members know what that led to? A 50% increase in poverty,
particularly among young children.
I have often asked the government why, given that it abdicated
its responsibilities after the 1993 election, after the passage
of the GST and free trade, it did not pass measures to lower
taxes. It did not pass compensatory measures to offset the
poverty arising from globalization.
I often have to say “Focus, quick”.
There are 40 or so programs to help families in need but
they accomplish nothing”. I say why not follow the lead of the
European Economic Community? Why not follow the example of
Portugal? Why not follow the example of the Government of
Quebec which is going to put the issue of a guaranteed minimum
income on the agenda in May?
Why will the federal government not be progressive for once in
seven years and say “Yes, we will look into the question of a
guaranteed minimum income?” This is something that has been
called for by Quebec academics and those involved in social
affairs, such as Michel Chartrand. They have taken the trouble
to write a book about it.
Each time a question arises, the answer they give is this: “You
Conservatives left a deficit behind you”. Yes, we left a
deficit of $40 billion.
That is the same level as in 1984. We inherited a debt of $200
billion, which had been multiplied eleven-fold by Pierre Elliott
Trudeau in ten years. The Mulroney government only doubled it;
in the meantime, however, it adopted measures which have now
made it possible for the government to have wiped out the
deficit.
This is why I say this government has no economic or social
agenda. What does it do? It passes a bill like C-20 on clarity.
It is unbelievable how many people on the street are now
talking to us about the importance of passing a bill on
referendum clarity. I have never met anyone at home who told me
“Sir, you did a good thing in the House of Commons. You passed
legislation on referendum clarity”.
It is only too clear that the sole purpose of this bill was to
annoy Quebecers, to score points in the rest of the country and
to try to divide the other parties. That is the government's
game plan.
Worse yet, we were given to understand that there would be an
electoral reform. The government passed electoral legislation
to muzzle third parties, which are hard up for funds and cannot
even field any candidates in the next election because they will
not even have enough money to meet the requirements of the new
electoral legislation.
I would like one example of something that will improve the lot
of Canadians. We are debating Bill C-25 to amend the Income Tax
Act. This still just skims the surface. We have the impression
that this government does not want to govern. Unfortunately, we
sometimes wonder whether that is not what people want: a
government that is not there. We on our side continue to say
that a government is important to a country.
1240
We often read in the media that people do not want a government.
However a government is necessary because the present government
manages the money for taxpayers. People tell me “André, we are
working and every last cent of our pay cheque is spoken for”.
People no longer have anything to show for their efforts. The
Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are going too far.
It is a bit much. And we think this is a democracy. The
government says “We are at 45% or 50% in the polls. This means
that people are happy”.
People are not happy.
I want them to realize that this government is pocketing their
money, that its measures do not meet the needs of their children
and families, and that they do not help the development of
outlying regions, which are slowly dying.
Let us take a look at what is going on in all the regions of the
country, whether the Gaspe Peninsula or in my riding. Thousands
of jobs have been lost because the government is only
interesting in reaping the benefits of the measures taken by the
former Progressive Conservative government and its Prime
Minister, Mr. Mulroney. When the Liberals were campaigning
against us on the GST and free trade, they did not mince their
words.
I am proud to be here to defend the former government's track
record. I said so during my last speech and I am saying it
again: I am prepared to defend our record before anyone from the
current government and to show that the structural measures that
we implemented at the time needed to be followed up with other
measures.
This government abdicated its responsibility to continue the
work that had been started.
This government has no economic agenda and did not continue the
reform undertaken. Sometimes, as members of parliament, we make
speeches and we criticize the credibility of all politicians. I
deplore this, because the vast majority of my colleagues are
doing an excellent job. I am thinking, among others, of the hon.
member for South Shore who works very hard for his area and for
the whole country. Let me quote a line that is not from a member
of this House.
Mr. Asper, the executive chairman of CanWest Global
Communications and chairman of the board of Global Television
Network, said to the minister, about the Canadian tax system,
that it is a nightmare because of its complexity. That comment
was not made 50 years ago. It was made on Wednesday, during a
meeting of CEOs of the Business Council on National Issues. He
said it this week.
This is not the member for Chicoutimi speaking, but Mr. Asper,
who said that the Canadian tax system is a nightmare because of
its complexity, that it is an ocean of uncertainty. He added
that this system has an adverse effect on the business world,
the private sector, entrepreneurship, and so on.
This means that the government is absolutely not carrying out
its mandate. Instead of presenting these Soviet-style budgets
over a five year period, the government should bring down one
year budgets.
Moreover, instead of meeting the needs of the provinces, the
government spends its time quarrelling with them. We know the
Prime Minister has been in politics for 30 or 35 years. Canadian
federalism has been in trouble for 30 years now. We know why.
Mr. Speaker, you are a well informed man. You have followed
politics over the last 30 years. Why did the sovereignist vote
in Quebec go from 15% to 49.4%? Is it the Progressive
Conservative government's fault?
I cannot name all Canadians, because not all Canadians are
responsible for the mess the Canadian federation is in, but I
can name three, four, five or six members of the Liberal Party
of Canada. If the country is in trouble, and I think the bad
times are far from being over, it is because of the demagogic
attitude of some politicians.
Instead of working toward reconciliation, they continue to play
on concepts that will always be divisive.
1245
They play on concepts like roots and founding nations of this
country and they enjoy making political hay at the expense of 7
million French Canadians, particularly Quebecers, by passing
divisive legislation. This will be at the back of the minds of
French Canadians and of all Quebecers in the next referendum.
I have a few small things to ask this government. Instead of
continuing to be divisive by alienating western Canada, and
sometimes Quebec, and to govern with 37% or 38% of the votes, I
am asking the government to give money back to the provinces so
people can have surgery when they need it.
Is it too much to ask for the government to give back what
provinces were getting in 1993 so that members of our families
can get an operation elsewhere than in the United States? I
think we can agree on that. Health is what is urgent. Let us
give the funding back to provinces. Let us stop creating new
programs.
Just think for a moment about home care: as far as running home
care is concerned, my riding is far from Ottawa. If we want to
work toward national reconciliation, can we give back to the
various Canadian provinces the capacity to carry out the
responsibilities they have under the constitution?
Let us talk about the millennium scholarship fund. A new program
has been created, whereas, as we know perfectly well, that is
not what was needed. The federal government does have to collect
money, but it has to understand that people are sick and tired
of paying.
People have accepted the GST and free trade.
What irritates and disgusts them is that none of the money is
coming back to them. On Friday night, the working father and
mother want to see their work reflected on their pay check. They
want to be able to support their family and to work for
themselves, not for the Minister of Finance and the Prime
Minister. That is where the problem lies in Canada.
We should not be surprised if there are grumblings of discontent
out west and in Quebec. Provincial premiers keep meeting, not to
demand foolish things, but essential things for the future of
each province in Canada.
What will make the Canadian federation perfect is the perfection
and good performance of each provincial government. It is
perfection of the sum of all the parts.
In pursuing its campaigns of provocation and harassment against
the provinces, the current government, the Liberal Party of
Canada, wants to continue to stay in power with 37% or 38% of
the vote, or about a third of the vote. It is very important for
this government to understand that on taxation people want to
see and touch what belongs to them. They want the fruits of
their labour to be given back to them.
People understand very well that our exports have been
multiplied by 2.5 on the American market and that we are in a
globalization period. They want the fruits of their labour back
home in their families. They do not want the Minister of
Finance and the Prime Minister to manage surpluses for them.
I hear this every day from people in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Not
one of my colleagues from the other provinces told me that Bill
C-20 on clarity in a potential referendum was very important.
However, what I hear is “Sir, is there a way to have money on
our pay cheques? Is there a way for my parents not to have to
wait four, six or eight months for surgery?”
What is happening in hospitals in the country makes no sense. We
will have to wait months for the provinces to have the maximum
budget to effectively manage health care. In the meantime, the
federal government is creating new programs and squabbling. It
occupies the premiers by letting them convene meetings, where
they almost always end up asking the same thing “Will you give
us the money that is rightfully ours?”
1250
I am sorry but maybe what this country really needs is a true
confederation, with people from the west, from Quebec, from the
maritimes and from Ontario coming together. Certainly, through a
redefinition of our respective roles, we would.
Members opposite do not stick to their role. They keep intruding
into provincial jurisdictions. We should clearly redefine the
roles. The federal government should stop piling up money at
the expense of the provinces, of the citizens in Quebec and
in the whole country.
I hope things will change in the next election.
I know the members opposite are quite nervous. Support of 38% is
a bit shaky. The 101 members from Ontario are concerned about
their fate, and I can understand that.
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is
on the point he made about the need for the provinces to have
control over much of the programs. In effect what I hear him
saying is that the federal government should be nothing more than
a cash cow for transfers money with absolutely no standards and
no national requirements at all.
This country is a federation. The hon. member talked about
confederation. While we all agree that the provinces have
specific jurisdictions, it is important that we as a federal
government remember that we believe Canadians have a right to the
same quality and level of and same access to services wherever
they may live in the country. Therefore we would like to see a
strong federation with strong provinces, not a country that is
really not a country at all but 10 nation-states doing their own
thing whenever they feel like it. How does the hon. member see
that unfolding?
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her
question. Right now, there is no strength in the federation
because the taxation system benefits the federal government.
Instead of giving the provinces the tax resources they need
through the transfer of tax points or otherwise, and instead of
giving them the opportunity to carry out their responsibilities
properly, it cuts left and right and intrudes everywhere.
The federal health act exists to protect universality. The
government has to stop treating the provinces like big
municipalities. This government treats the provinces and their
premiers like children. It wants to see the provinces beg.
In my opinion, forcing the provinces to beg is not the best way
to build a strong federation. The provinces do not have the
budgets to carry out their responsibilities.
The federal government grabs all the money and then haggles with
the provinces on education, health services and the
infrastructure programs. The federal government wants to do
everything for the provinces and its spending power is out of
control.
I believe that the only way to find a solution would be to hold
negotiations according to the respective mandates of the
provincial and federal governments. But I will not hold my
breath. This has been going on for 30 years.
We all know what former Prime Minister Trudeau used to do with
government members from Quebec. For 16 years, he won the
elections by thumbing his nose at Quebecers. He was always
speaking from both sides of his mouth.
I think that the future of the Canadian federation should not be
based on provocation or on the fact that the federal government
sees itself as the father of all provinces, that it sees them as
big municipalities. It is contemptuous.
I would not bet on the future of the Canadian federation if we
go on with a government like this one, which does not respect
provincial jurisdictions and forces the provinces to come
begging to the Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague from Chicoutimi on his vision and I
have a question for him.
Does he not think that a way to put an end to the abuse by the
government opposite would be for the provinces themselves to be
responsible for collecting both federal and provincial taxes?
1255
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I think the main problem lies in
the attitude of the federal government.
I have an example of co-operative decentralized federalism. I
recall, at the time of former Prime Minister Mulroney, that in
the negotiations on regional development plans the provinces
were held in the highest respect. At the time, it was a real
partnership in both democratic and constitutional terms.
We will recall the Meech Lake accord. Was it scrapped by
western Canadians? It took five or six Liberals, no more.
Back in 1990, 92% of Canadians were in favour of reconciliation,
control over federal spending and respect for the regions,
particularly Quebec's cultural identity. It was a historic
setback to the development of the country.
Both economically and constitutionally, I think it is
through negotiation and mutual respect that people will arrive
at a federation that could function effectively.
I repeat that the disaster of the failed Meech Lake accord,
which was a landmark event, was due to four or five Liberals,
not to all Canadians, and not even to Albertans or British
Columbians.
It took four or five Liberals, goaded on by a former prime
minister and by the man who is now Prime Minister, to scrap the
Meech Lake accord, which would have given us constitutional
peace and would have freed us up to work on other more
constructive things. If it had been signed at least it would
not have been necessary to pass Bill C-20, which I think will
remain in the back of the minds of all French Canadians and
Quebecers.
I think that this will be a major weapon, should there one day
be another referendum, to remind Quebecers that the federal
government wanted to force them to stay in the Canadian
federation. Force is not the way to keep someone in a family
let alone seven million people in a country.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-25 which
is intended by the Minister of Finance to implement some of the
changes in the most recent budget that have been spoken of in the
House and reported in the press.
This most recent budget by the finance minister has received all
kinds of accolades, pumped from the finance minister's office
primarily. We have heard rhetoric about this budget and the
changes that are going to be implemented giving Canadian
taxpayers a break of about $58.4 billion.
We want to do a reality check on that. As is so often the case
Canadians are presented with certain optics from the Liberal
government that sound right but when we start to analyze them and
break them down to what they really mean, they do not not affect
the daily lives of Canadians who so desperately desire some
relief from the burden of taxes the federal government continues
to put on their backs. Let us break down this $58.4 billion claim
of tax relief.
About $7.5 billion in the most recent budget is really a new
social spending program. It is not tax relief at all. It is
albeit increasing some of the child tax benefit but it does not
impact the paycheque of a parent who has children at home. It is
a spending program. It is not a tax relief program.
In addition there is a $29.5 billion increase over the next five
years, almost $30 billion which will be taken out of the pockets
of Canadians to increase the CPP premiums over the next five
years. They are payroll taxes. Take that off the claim of $58.4
billion.
Even more grievous and in a sense more deceiving to the Canadian
public is that $13.5 billion in scheduled tax hikes that have now
been cancelled are included in the claims of tax relief.
That is unbelievable. Is cancelling $13.5 billion in scheduled
tax hikes really a tax cut? The government says that it will tax
us and then it tells us it will not and calls it a tax cut. That
is nothing but a tax cut for suckers. Canadians are not going to
fall for it.
1300
When we net all this out, it leaves us with about $7.9 billion
in net tax relief spread over five years, which is about $1.5
billion a year. What does that mean for us and families across
this nation? For a taxpayer, that works out to about $107 a
year, $8.97 a month or $2 a week. That is the great lauded tax
relief the finance minister delivered to Canadians in the last
budget, which he wants us to implement with Bill C-25.
If $2 a week is not a fake tax break, I do not know what is.
Canadians are not being fooled by that. It is not the first time
we have seen this kind of approach to tax relief. We have seen a
litany of it year after year from the Liberal government and it
is affecting Canada's international competitiveness.
More and more voices are saying that we are getting deeper and
deeper into trouble and that it will be very difficult to catch
up. This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of
financial experts working in the finance industry in Canada and
abroad. CIBC Wood Gundy produced a report which said “From a
tax competitiveness standpoint, Canada ranks dead last in the
G-7. While virtually every other G-7 economy lowered its personal
tax burden over the last 15 years, Canada's rose sharply, both as
a percentage of GDP and household income”.
We are moving in the wrong direction. The Liberal government
does not seem to get that through to the finance minister and the
cabinet. It is so reluctant to let go of the tax dollars that it
has grabbed onto over the last number of years since it was
elected that we are having to pry the dollars loose through
constant public pressure.
It is not just our party, the Canadian Alliance, although we
have been leaders in this since we came into the House. The
reason Canadians put us here was to voice their concerns and
frustrations over the weight of a central government that is a
tax and spend fanatic, a taxaholic.
Listen to the voice of one of the CEO's of a leading company
right here in Ottawa, Nortel, which employs 12,000 employees. Its
chief executive officer is Mr. John Roth. He had some
interesting things to say about the Liberal government's
approach. He said that the Liberal government was moving “way
too slow” when it came to promises of lower taxes. He said that
Canada still trails far behind the U.S. in providing an
environment where companies can recruit and retain highly sought
after talent, which is the most important aspect of companies in
the Internet age. This man heads up a company that employs
12,000 people and he has said that the government is moving way
too slow. We agree with him.
I hear some of the members opposite saying “Well, what about
the lower and middle income Canadians who are under the tax
burden of the government?”. The differential between the
Canadian marginal tax rate and the tax rate in the United States
and in other countries is really highest at those low and middle
income brackets.
This is what the CIBC study says, “Contrary to what most
Canadians believe, the largest difference in tax burden in the
two countries, Canada and the United States, is not at the top
end of the income spectrum but in the middle band where most of
the country's tax burden is carried. It is not that the rich do
not pay enough, it is that the low and particularly the middle
income earners pay far too much”.
1305
I have a chart in my hand that was prepared by this company. It
clearly illustrates that if people are in an income bracket
between $30,000 and $60,000 in Canada, they will pay a marginal
rate of 40%. In the U.S. it is 26%. That is a difference of
14%. If they are in a higher income bracket in the United
States, as opposed to Canada, the marginal difference is actually
smaller. The Liberal government is hammering lower and middle
income families with a high marginal tax rate. If Canadians are
in a $7,000 to $30,000 income, the marginal tax rate is 25%. It
is only 17% south of the line. This is an 8% difference. Poor
Canadian families pay more in Canada.
I am afraid that some of the members opposite have not really
heard about what would bring about the revival we need in the
corporate sector and the relief that low income and the working
poor need from the high tax burden the government imposes on
them. I will share with them the overall tax relief proposals
that the Canadian Alliance has brought forward which has been
endorsed by people right across the country.
What we are getting from the Liberal government is tinkering,
tokenism, empty promises, window dressing and photo-ops of false,
fake tax breaks that are making us nauseous on this side and
frustrating Canadians. When are we going to stop and realize
that taxing ourselves into oblivion and borrowing to a point
where a third of every tax dollar goes to pay interest on the
debt cannot continue? It has to stop. We have to turn it
around. Alberta and Ontario have realized this. The two
brightest lights on the economic stage in Canada right now are
moving in a totally opposite direction to this Liberal government
and it is working.
Prying those dollars from the hands of the tax and spendaholics
across the way is a persistent challenge and one that the
Canadian Alliance, and Reform Party before it, has championed on
behalf of Canadians and will continue to do so.
I have some concerns with the amendments to Bill C-25 that the
finance minister wants to put into the Income Tax Act. One of my
frustrations is how complex the whole Income Tax Act, and all the
things that go with it, is becoming. That is why we put forward
a simplified tax plan that gives real tax relief.
The current federal tax code has grown from a simple 47 page
document, at the end of World War II, to thousands of pages of
special instructions, schedules and interpretations. The
Canadian Income Tax Act fills more than 1,400 pages with another
700 pages of rules and regulations. The bureaucracy to collect
taxes has grown to the point where almost 45,000 people are now
employed by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, formerly
Revenue Canada. It is the only federal department that continues
to add people to its staff. The whole armed forces, the navy,
the air force and the army, only has 60,000 people. We literally
have an army of tax collectors and bureaucrats in the country
just to administer the taxes. It is getting way to big.
The C.D. Howe did a study on this and said:
Canada's Income Tax Act is no longer only about tax policy.
Social policy has become an increasing integral part. Whatever
the merits of that side of the Act, social policy considerations
have crowded out legitimate tax policy objectives.
It costs a lot of money to collect the taxes in this country.
Today we are talking about Bill C-25 which will add more
tinkering and tokenism and new layers of complexity to an act
that is already too complex. That is why we have come forward
with a simple, fair, single rate taxation solution.
1310
It is time to significantly lower taxes for all Canadians and to
reduce the cost of collecting those taxes. Our solution 17, as
it has come to be known, has been endorsed by experts in the
field. Some experts have said that it is a very good plan and
that it is an approach to taxation that is easy to understand,
fair and costs less to administer. Would that not be a breath of
fresh air in a country that is so laden with tax complexity that
more and more people have to take their taxes to a tax accountant
and pay money to do that? I once read that it costs upwards of
$12 billion in overall human cost just to prepare the taxes. If
we were to put a dollar figure on all the hours that Canadians
put into filing their income tax and paying chartered accountants
and others to do the work, it becomes very expensive to complete
our taxes in this country.
Let me quote from the WEFA Inc. Group, which does economic
forecasting. The finance minister even consulted with this group
and prior to his budget. In talking about the tax reduction
proposals that the Canadian Alliance put forward, the WEFA group
says “They are well focused on the needs of Canadians today.
They expand the economy and, most powerfully, personal disposable
income, consumption and our standards of living”. It also says
that our tax proposals create jobs by lowering the marginal tax
rates that are particularly effective in stimulating work effort
and stemming the brain drain and other productivity enhancing
features by powerfully reducing the level of personal income tax,
particularly for Canadians of average and above average income,
and are well directed at providing a more competitive tax
environment in Canada relative to the U.S.
If I go back, that sounds a lot like what Mr. Roth, the chief of
Nortel, said. He said that these are the kinds of changes we
need, not at a snail's pace and not for photo-ops, but before we
are so far behind that we cannot catch up.
The other aspect of solution 17, our simple and fair proposal
that has been endorsed by the WEFA group and others, is that it
addresses the need to take the working poor off the tax rolls.
Why are we taking money away from working poor families in the
form of taxes and then having them apply for some government
program and go through whatever hoops are put in place and
hopefully, some day after the kids have had to go through
whatever stress the family has had, there might be a cheque that
will trickle down from the big mother Liberal government to the
family? That is the wrong way to go. The working poor should
not be required to pay taxes. The federal government currently
takes $6 billion in taxes from people who make less than $20,000
a year. It is shameful. It is picking the pockets of the poor.
Why do we tax people with low incomes? The government should
not be taking the limited resources of the working poor. Some of
the key aspects of our package are that we would increase the
basic deduction from what it is now, which is around $6,000 or
$7,000, up to a clear $10,000 basic deduction. People would not
pay any tax on the first $10,000 earned. That seems abundantly
reasonable.
In addition, instead of saying to the stay at home spouse or the
spouse who is not working in the workforce that they are somehow
of less value when they contribute by caring for the family, we
would give them an equal deduction, the same deduction as someone
who is employed in the workforce.
That is a $10,000 deduction for the spouse. In addition, many
working poor families have children. They are contributing
greatly to the long term health of our nation by rearing the next
generation, imparting character and caring for them.
1315
That is why the Canadian Alliance has approved a plan that gives
a straight basic $3,000 deduction for every child in a family.
They do not have to keep receipts. We do not care how they
choose to rear them, whether they use a relative, a friend, an
institutional day care, or whatever their need may be. Because
they are rearing children we recognize that they are making a
social contribution and therefore a basic $3,000 universal
deduction for every child would be extended to the parents.
We suggest a simple 17% marginal federal tax rate. The lowest
rate that is available today would be available to all. In that
way we would increase the deductions and exemptions so that lower
income families and individuals are moved from the tax rolls.
Some 1.9 million Canadians who are currently paying taxes would
no longer have to pay tax. When they do pay tax they would pay
at the lowest possible rate.
It is simple, straightforward and beneficial to families, yet
the Liberal government cannot see it. According to the C.D. Howe
Institute, current Canadian tax policy affords no universal
recognition of children. In effect, it treats children in middle
income or high income families like consumer spending, as if
parents have no legal or moral obligation to spend money on their
care. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the C.D.
Howe Institute.
There is much that is grievous about the budget. In closing I
point out that Canadians are willing to pay a certain portion of
their taxes. They understand that they have to contribute to
government for the benefit of our country. I do not think they
mind doing it, but when taxes get so high that they can hardly
breathe from the weight of it they get concerned.
Another concern is that in the budget the finance minister is
proposing to give another $1.9 billion for grants and
contributions administered by HRDC. Billions of dollars will go
to HRDC, the same department which an audit has shown that for
15% of the grant applications there was nothing on file. There
was no description of the activities. There were no results
described as to the outcome. There is a lot of waste in that
department. It is a tragedy.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague was in the middle of explaining some
important points and I would like him to finish them.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest
of the hon. member for Calgary East. He is a very honourable
member. I want to drive home a point that I did not quite
finish.
How in the world can we be giving another $1 billion and more to
the HRDC department that has been clearly shown by an audit
funded by public money is totally out of control? For example,
McGill University submitted a proposal for $60,000 to HRDC. It
received $160,000. When the the audit examined the claims it
should have received only $30,000.
1320
A litany of these kinds of stories have been exposed by the
audits. Did that stop the Minister of Finance from giving more
money to that department? No, it did not. Yes, I will pay my
taxes, but please do not send them to Ottawa to flush it away in
a vote buying program.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during his speech the hon. member talked about the comparative
tax regimes in Canada and the United States. I was not going to
speak, but I need to raise with the House some facts of which the
hon. member maybe is not aware.
He talked about a marginal rate of 46% in Canada for taxpayers
with income between the levels of roughly $30,000 and $60,000.
The member is quite right that there is a federal tax rate of
26%. Taking a notional average of 50%, being the provincial
income tax rate on the federal amounts payable, it grosses that
up by another 50% to about 39%. So 40% is a good estimate of the
marginal tax rate. However, marginal is the rate paid on each
additional dollar. For the person at that same level of income,
his or her average tax would be much lower because the marginal
rate on the first $30,000 was only 26%.
I raise this issue because the member said that the comparative
in the U.S. was 26% for the same income range. He has
fundamentally missed a large portion of the U.S. burden in two
instances. The first is that he did not take into account that
there is also a separate state tax return required to to be filed
by people in the United States.
In Canada, except for in the province of Quebec, federal and
provincial taxes are collected by the federal government. The
hon. member's numbers for Canada reflect both the federal and
provincial components. The hon. member's number for the U.S.,
the 26% figure, represents only the federal tax component. He
has left out state taxes and he is in error. I wanted to be sure
the hon. member knew that and that Canadians knew that the member
was fundamentally wrong in his facts.
Second, the hon. member did not take into account that Canadians
pay for their health care system through their taxes. In the
United States that is not the case. In fact, the last time I
visited the United States and talked to legislators there, the
average cost for a family of four for health care was about
$7,000 a year. This is an important reconciling item between the
tax burdens in Canada and the U.S.
Finally, to wrap up, the hon. member talked about the Canada
child tax benefit. He concluded that was not any increase in net
take home pay. He is absolutely right because the Canada child
tax benefit is not a taxable item. When it used to be the family
allowance, it was included in the taxes. Exemptions were given
for children and a bit of tax was paid on that benefit. When the
whole system was taken outside the Income Tax Act, 80% of
Canadian children received the Canada child tax benefit. It is
not taxable and it does improve the amount of money in the
pockets of Canadians.
I raise these three issues to demonstrate that the arguments the
hon. member posed to the House and to all Canadians is
underpinned by facts which are ultimately wrong.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, we have just seen a
demonstration of the Liberal approach to dealing with facts.
They throw up a smokescreen and try to undermine the facts I
presented to the House. The member opposite accused me of
misrepresenting the information in the marginal tax rates between
Canada and the U.S.
I draw the member's attention to the fact that I was quoting
from a CIBC-Wood Gundy report which very clearly stated a
comparison of marginal tax rates of federal and provincial and
states in the U.S. It has combined both the federal and the
state tax rates. He stated that it did not do that, but it is
exactly what the chart shows. If CIBC and Wood Gundy are
misrepresenting the facts then maybe he would like to take it up
with them. It clearly shows that the marginal tax rate between
$30,000 and $60,000 for a Canadian is 40% and in the U.S. it is
26%.
1325
This report accurately represents the state and the situation
between Canada and the U.S. He has accused me that it has not.
He should apologize. When we bring facts to the House, they try
to undermine the facts—
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
privilege. The member has accused me of giving incorrect
information.
The Deputy Speaker: We all have trouble sometimes with
these kinds of allegations that fly around the House. The
Speaker is cognizant of the fact that sometimes members disagree
profoundly. For example, today during question period we heard
the premise of a question disagreed with and the premise of the
answer disagreed with on different occasions. This is not
uncommon and we will have to sit here and listen to that kind of
thing because members do sometimes disagree about facts. Their
interpretations of them are different, or the views they take of
them are different, or the facts they look at are selected and
perhaps are not the same as the ones selected by someone on the
other side.
Mr. Eric Lowther: I appreciate that ruling. I offer to
the member opposite that I would table the facts that I presented
in the House and he could review them at his leisure because I am
confident of what I have presented.
In his second point he was singing the praises of the Canada
child tax benefit. Our budget solution 17, our proposed solution
to the burden the government has put on taxpayers, is not to cut
it or remove it in any way. Our proposals are consistent with
what the finance committee has heard from Canadians from coast to
coast, to give a universal tax deduction for children to every
parent for which they do not need to keep receipts and all the
rest.
The government approach is to take the money away from poor
families, funnel it into the bureaucracy and a year later send
cheques to the families after they have had to pay for groceries,
shoes, clothes and everything else. A year later here comes the
cheque from the big state.
C.D. Howe pointed out that of $1.40 that goes into the
bureaucracy, a dollar in benefit comes out. Continuing to pour
money into the child tax benefit program on and on has become a
bureaucracy benefit more than it has become a child benefit. Why
does the government not just do what Canadians have been saying
to do: leave the money in the pockets of taxpayers by giving a
basic tax deduction. If families need help beyond that, the
child benefit can be there for that purpose. But why does the
government not just stop taking it away so people will have it in
their cheques in the month they earn it.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I was asking a question about Stockwell Day earlier
today. He is advocating a system where the federal government
collects no taxes, none at all, and the provinces collect taxes
and give a cheque once a year to the federal government. It was
an idea rejected by the Americans in 1776. I wonder if our
friend across the way endorses the vision of federalism in a
country by Stockwell Day where the federal government collects no
taxes, none at all, and the provinces do that and send a cheque
to Ottawa.
It is rather bizarre. I know a lot of Reformers are hanging
their heads in shame. I wonder if he is part of that group.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the hon.
member is taking an interest in the Canadian Alliance policy. He
would be wise to study the policy of the Canadian Alliance
because like many other Canadians the lights may come on for the
member. Who knows. Let us not give up hope.
The member will not find the statements to which he is referring
in the Canadian Alliance policy. Why did that person make those
statements? Let us think about it. He is the treasurer of one
of the brightest lights in the country, Alberta. He is so
frustrated because he could do so much within the province of
Alberta but it is the weight of the federal government that
limits the success of that province, the same problem that
Ontario is having.
I would suggest if the hon. member asked that same question of
the Treasurer of Ontario, he would probably share some of the
same sentiments as Mr. Day because he is so frustrated that the
problem is here, across the way. He is so frustrated that he is
willing to lay down his high position in Alberta to run for the
head of the Canadian Alliance to see if something can be done.
1330
I would suggest that the hon. member study that policy and maybe
some day the lights will come on for him as well.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being 1.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
* * *
[Translation]
MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
BILL C-23—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an
agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing
Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and the
third reading stage of Bill C-23, an act to modernize the
Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a
motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the
consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and to
make amendments to others acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise and to
speak to this, my private member's bill to reform the Access to
Information Act. The bill has a very long history and it has
been quite a struggle to get it to this point where it is being
debated before the House.
I believe that Bill C-206 is legislation that has the potential
of dramatically changing how government operates. Indeed, I
believe Bill C-206, because of the new standards of transparency
it would bring to government operations, could put Canada in the
forefront of not only transparency, but in the forefront of the
efficiency of the delivery of government services and, if you
will, the spending of taxpayers' money.
The world has changed since the Access to Information Act was
first introduced 17 years ago. It has changed in the sense that
we now have the Internet, we now have different procedures of
accounting and we now have the potential of putting documents
that are generated by the government on the Internet for the
entire world to see almost as soon as they are generated.
In order to take advantage of that potential we will have to
modernize the Access to Information Act which, at the time it
came in, was very, very good legislation, but over time has
become more and more an instrument to retain government documents
rather than to open government documents.
I became interested in this issue as soon as I became elected
for the first time in 1993, and in 1994 and 1995 pressed the
Department of Justice and the then justice minister to make
reforms to the Access to Information Act.
Despite the various recommendations I made, those reforms were
not forthcoming, and I soon came to realize that it was not the
lack of will on the part of the justice minister of the day. The
problem was that freedom of information, if you will, is
something that affects every government ministry. Unfortunately,
all government legislation emanates from the Department of
Justice. That is not bad in itself, but the Department of
Justice of course, because it is composed primarily of lawyers,
would tend to opt for withholding information or protecting
information rather than discovering ways of openness.
Moreover, I realized that in legislation like this it would be
impossible to get consensus across all the government
departments. Can hon. members imagine, even from the Department
of Justice, trying to get the approval for various prospects of
change in the Access to Information Act? We would have to
consult every government ministry, and not only would we have to
consult with the deputy ministers, we would have to consult the
ministers themselves.
So I realized that the real reason why there would be no progress
in reforming the Access to Information Act was the simple reality
that it was almost impossible to do it with the kind of consensus
that the bureaucracies normally operate when they develop
legislation. Therefore, I undertook to write it myself.
1335
I hired legislative counsel and we sat down together in my
office at my desk. Side by side we went through the existing
legislation and made the changes.
There has been some criticism to the effect that legislation of
this importance should not be developed from Private Members'
Business. The argument is that this should be put out in a
forum, debated, there should be committees struck and so on and
so forth, and another consensus developed. Indeed the current
access to information commissioner has suggested just that. I
think the justice minister at one point in time suggested that
perhaps there has to be another round table to examine the
reforms to the current Access to Information Act.
In making the reforms that I did make that are in the bill, what
I relied upon was the recommendations that emanated in the
1993-94 reports of the then information commissioner who had more
than a decade with the act. He also derived his recommendations
from another parliamentary committee that studied reforming the
act.
In other words, the recommendations that we see in this bill,
the changes, the amendments that we see in the bill before us are
actually derived for the most part from 10 to 12 years of
consultation with the stakeholders, by not only previous MPs but
by the access to information commissioner of longstanding, Mr.
John Grace.
What we find in this bill are things that are directly from the
recommendations made by these groups. That involves, to
summarize, things like opening up crown corporations because of
course crown corporations use the taxpayers' money and they
should be subject to the same amount of transparency as exists
with government departments, opening up opinion polls and opening
up, which is quite controversial, some of the contractual
arrangements between third parties. There is a great concern
that when the government enters into negotiations or bidding
contracts with private enterprise, it is sometimes in the public
interest to know the details of those various proposals.
One of the things that I introduced, as my own contribution to
the bill, is that all government documents more than 30 years old
should be automatically released unless there is a very apparent
threat to national security or public safety. That actually
conforms to something that was done not too long ago in the
United States.
One of the most dramatic changes in the legislation that is
before the House now is the total elimination of schedule II.
Schedule II in the old act is a list of exemptions. It started
out with five or six when the act was first passed and it has
since grown to 42 exemptions from the scrutiny by the Access to
Information Act. One of my amendments eliminates that schedule
II entirely.
What that means is that every piece of legislation, like the
Income Tax Act or any other legislation that has a section
protecting information, that section has to be subject to the
test of the Access to Information Act, the changed Access to
Information Act. When I came to examine how to change the act,
one of the things I tried to do was to develop a theme that runs
through the act that gives the public service guidance in what to
open and what to close.
That theme is that information should be only withheld if there
genuinely is a concern with respect to the national interest,
public safety or public security. There is an injury test that
runs right through the changes that we see before us.
This is all dramatic stuff. In making changes like that, I had
to consider how I could possibly bring it forward. The tradition
of freedom of information legislation around the world is that it
is very difficult to get it through legislatures because there is
so much self-interest by some government departments and by some
ministers perhaps.
It is always difficult to overcome the political hurdles to move
this kind of legislation forward. Actually, the word is fear.
While we all speak of transparency, while we all speak of
openness, while we all love to speak about these words as
politicians, in fact though, even we as MPs sometimes are fearful
about seeing everything we do open to the public. I believe
improperly so because in the end transparency is good for
everyone. Nevertheless, there is fear.
1340
My first problem to advance this as private member's legislation
was how to force my own government, the cabinet and the executive
branch of my party to take this legislation seriously, to not
discard it and to not turn away from it.
Therefore, the very first amendment in Bill C-206 is to change
the name from the Access to Information Act to the open
government act. How can any politician turn his or her back on
legislation that calls for transparency and puts transparency in
the very title?
The next amendment establishes the theme which is in the
interests of government efficiency so the people can see how
taxpayer money is spent. The government should try to opt for
openness wherever possible.
The default mode of the current Access to Information Act is to
withhold. The default mode in my open government act is to
disclose, the idea being if in doubt, the bureaucrat should
release the information, not withhold it. This theme I hope runs
right through it.
What is being called for is a change in cultural attitude in the
bureaucracy and in the executive leadership of the government. We
should be always thinking in terms of what we can disclose, not
in terms of what we can withhold. Openness is a kind of
contract. One cannot take the position that everything must be
open because the government has to operate. The government has
to have necessary secrets.
When I came to look at all these amendments, and I think there
are some 42 amendments to the Access to Information Act, I tried
to pay attention to the needs of government to function. I tried
to make sure that the provisions as to why a document should be
withheld were very, very clear. Consequently, members will see,
for example, concepts like certain documents can be withheld if
it is in the government's monetary interest or if it is in the
interest of public safety or cabinet function. So it goes.
In the end, the government can pass whatever kind of legislation
it wants, but if we do not have broad agreement from those who
are going to be affected by the legislation, the legislation is
not going to work.
I must tell you right at the outset that, while I enjoy
tremendous support from the backbenchers here, there is no
guarantee that the frontbenchers of my own side are in favour of
this legislation. I am sure some are, I am sure some are not.
So the evolution of this bill is going to be the debate in this
Chamber. Even more important, because it can be stretched out
over a longer period and can be gotten into in greater depth,
will be the time that this bill will spend in committee.
Just to go a little further, having presented the bill with all
these changes and in particular the change to the open government
act at first reading, I still had the dilemma of how to move it
forward. Then, as chance would have it, there was a change in
the standing orders to the effect that if one could get a hundred
seconders to a private member's bill, that bill could bypass the
lottery.
I think I am probably the first person to take advantage of the
rule change and I did get a hundred seconders for the bill to
bypass the lottery. Those seconders, I should say, were
principally from my own side, of course, and as required by the
rule change, from at least two opposition parties. At that time,
the seconders were from the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois.
1345
Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a doubt about the utility of that
change in the standing orders, I can tell you that when I had
those 100 signatures, then everyone paid attention to Bill C-206,
which was then Bill C-264 but is Bill C-206 now.
Then I had representations coming from the bureaucracy. I had
Statistics Canada wanting to visit to explain why it needed a
special exemption. I had the justice department come forward to
make some very, very helpful suggestions. I had representations
from the privy council office. They wanted to get in on it as
well.
The reason that I suddenly got this serious attention from the
bureaucracy was that the 100 seconders meant that this bill had a
very, very high chance of going forward.
I took advantage of the advice I got at that time, and it got me
into trouble in the end, I have to say, but I did take advantage
of it because some of the advice was very good in my eyes. I
thought it would solve the problem of the debate, when the bill
finally got to committee, being derailed toward avenues which
were not constructive.
I will give an example of one of the changes that was proposed.
In my original legislation, Bill C-264, at first reading I
proposed opening up the House of Commons and the Senate;
everything that you, Mr. Speaker, might have, financial records
and that kind of thing. The justice department people pointed
out to me that I probably stood a good chance of losing the
entire support of all my backbench MPs because the way I phrased
that particular clause would have opened up the private files of
individual members.
So one of the changes I made as a result was to eliminate that
particular clause from the original version of the bill and
transfer it, as you will see, into an amendment to the Parliament
of Canada Act, which basically applies, thereby, only to the
financial records of the House of Commons and the Senate, but not
to the private records of members of parliament.
That kind of change I thought was in my interests and in the
interests of the House of Commons, to change if I could, by
unanimous consent, which I brought forward in June of 1997, and I
did get unanimous consent to make that change. There was another
change with respect to cabinet confidences. I can explain that
in further detail either now or at another time.
The change that caused all the controversy, which I did not
think was a very important change at all, was a change that gave
the government the clear option of withholding documents if they
were planning documents pertaining to the possibility of the
secession of a province.
Much to my surprise, the Reform Party challenged that particular
change on a point of privilege and required me to get all my 100
signatures again. I did get those signatures, but the sad part
of that challenge, and I think it is a basic misunderstanding, is
that particular change only reflected what already exists. It
reflects what exists in the Quebec freedom of information law,
because the Quebec legislation has similar protections for that
kind of thing.
I thought I was doing something that was a mild change, but
unfortunately, I feel that it was misunderstood by the Reform
Party and probably, to a certain degree, poisoned my
relations—or this bill's relations—with the Bloc Quebecois.
I am hoping as the debate goes on that the Bloc Quebecois will
see that this change did not materially affect the legislation,
it is not unreasonable, and that they will come back onside and
examine this bill, Bill C-206, for the merits it really has,
because I would really like to see broad support, not just two
parties or three parties, I would like to see all five parties in
the House, the backbench MPs here and all the opposition
MPs—reasonably all the opposition MPs—get behind this
legislation and make whatever changes are necessary to make it
workable.
There are problems in the legislation. It is not perfect. There
are areas that have to be developed and examined in committee.
There may be some questions about whether I went too far in my
changes to cabinet confidences.
There has been some concern about giving the department the power
to refuse frivolous requests. That was a proposal from the
access commissioner.
1350
Some concern has been expressed about forcing people who
constantly use the service to pay a certain portion. The people
who use the access to information law, or the open government
law, when they use it for private or personal gain, for profit,
my bill provides that they receive a certain charge for service,
whereas people who use the open government legislation in the
public interest would be charged nothing at all. There would be
no user fee whatsoever. These are things that have to be
clarified and debated.
Probably one of the most contentious things that I would like to
see the committee examine is the clause dealing with
solicitor-client privilege. As recommended by the access to
information commissioner, in my original version of this bill I
eliminated the exemption for solicitor-client privilege. I put
it back in the new version. I am not sure that was a good idea.
This is what my colleagues have to examine.
I have tried to do something that I think is in the interests of
all Canadians and in the interest of government. If this
legislation goes through, with whatever amendments we agree upon,
in the end we will have the best freedom of information
legislation in the world. I have compared this with the freedom
of information legislation in the United States and we would be
miles ahead. If we are ahead, the government will be miles ahead
because transparency leads to accountability and accountability
leads to efficiency.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
speak to Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information
Act.
I listened very carefully to the hon. member and I found his
comments surprising. On the one hand we can appreciate the
efforts of the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, and on the
other hand he clearly recognizes his government's dismal failure
to provide timely and accurate responses to access to information
requests. This weak Liberal government has an abysmal record
when it comes to responding to ATI requests.
Last Tuesday the Canadian Alliance put forward a good and timely
supply day motion. We asked for an order of the House that all
departmental audit reports be tabled within 30 days of their
completion and permanently referred to the appropriate standing
committee. We asked that the audit reports since January 1, 1999
be tabled within 30 days after the adoption of our motion and
that all audit reports requested under the Access to Information
Act be tabled forthwith. We have since found out that the
government has been less than forthcoming with respect to
reporting and providing information to Canadians on how their tax
dollars are spent.
Our supply day motion simply asked this weak, arrogant Liberal
government to reaffirm its own regulations made by treasury board
and the privy council. That day the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington spoke against our motion. I have mixed
feelings. On the one hand the member wants to do something about
the Access to Information Act to speed up the release of
information, but on the other hand he spoke against our motion.
This bill was originally introduced as Bill C-268 on October 23,
1997. As we know, it is a votable bill.
1355
The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington received the necessary
100 signatures of MPs for the bill so that it could be given
priority on the order paper. Opposition members on this side of
the House signed the bill because we feel that the ATI
stonewalling by his own government is an attack on democracy.
Opposition members will do anything to force this weak
government to hand over information that the public wants to
know, and in fact has a right to know. It is the information on
the spending of our hard-earned tax dollars that the government
tries to hide by delaying and refusing to respond to ATI
requests.
In June 1998 the member got the unanimous consent of the House
to change the text of the bill, and the bill was re-introduced as
Bill C-206, which we are debating today. We knew that the 100
signatures would be allowed to continue to apply to the bill,
even though the bill had changed, so the deputy whip of the
official opposition objected to that by raising a question of
privilege. The ruling on that question of privilege saw the bill
dropped to the bottom on the order paper.
Then the bill needed to have another 100 signatures and, with
the co-operation of his colleagues on the Liberal side, the
member got those 100 signatures twice, which was amazing.
The question is whether cabinet is hiding information so that it
will not be released through ATI requests. We cannot understand,
with the way this government is behaving, how it will withhold
information when the hon. member is enlisting those members to
sign his bill. The member, who is pursuing this bill because he
could not get his cabinet buddies to listen to him, has now had
the bill reinstated in its position of priority. Maybe the
cabinet does not disapprove of the bill. We do not know. Maybe
it is hiding behind the member's bill so that it does not have to
take measures to strengthen our ATI legislation and system.
Canadians know that we cannot trust this government, and
Canadians do not trust the Mulroney Tories either. Canadians now
have an alternative in the Canadian Alliance and I am sure that
we will test the waters at the next federal election.
The bill has a chequered past. It raises concerns and
suspicions about who should change the ATI law. This weak
Liberal government has lacked vision and now it should provide a
transparent system for the changing of our ATI law. The ATI
system needs to be kept up to date and constantly corrected with
other housekeeping adjustments, but the Liberals do not want to
do anything about it. “If the ATI system is broken, that is
good. Don't fix it”. That is their attitude.
To break the suspense, the people of Surrey Central will not be
supporting this bill. Instead, we urge the hon. Liberal member
to visit or perhaps revisit his cabinet colleagues and tell them
to get going on changes to the ATI.
There are about 40 changes to the ATI act proposed in this bill.
For the information of the House and the people watching, the act
is 18 years old. It needs to be modernized, redefined, refined
and amended. The current information commissioner has expressed
concern over amending this most public of our laws with a private
member's bill. I wonder if the government is so weak that it
cannot even fix it.
Today we have a lonely Liberal member of parliament trying to
make up for his government's billion dollar boondoggle,
corruption and mismanagement.
This bill is in fact regressive. It limits the ability to access
certain types of information and extends timeframes on access to
certain information. Is the Liberal member of parliament unaware
that his government lags behind, drags its feet and is late on
the timeframe that already exists?
1400
One of the most glaring drawbacks and concerns with the bill is
that it proposes to exclude access to what it calls frivolous and
abusive users of ATI. Who decides that? Who determines when too
many ATI requests come from a certain specific source? Who
decides what information is not important enough to send to
Canadians? What criteria will cabinet apply to this provision in
the bill?
Another thing is the fees. The bill proposes to charge a higher
fee to those people who frequently use the ATI system. There are
two standards here. This is so undemocratic that it is
anti-democratic.
The government would be pleased if this bill passed. It could
then control the ATI system, discriminate against certain users
by monetarily penalizing them for the information they requested.
Is this a new tax? The government loves to increase taxes
because it thinks they are the best thing in the world.
The bill does not alter the government's ability to exempt and
exclude certain files from access by specific sources. There is
a section that allows the government to deny access if it would
harm national unity. No wonder there were no amendments put
forward by Bloc members. The revised bill also says that records
injurious to the constitutional integrity of Canada can be kept
secret for 30 years. That is the kind of information in the
bill.
I would like to say that the people of Surrey Central and many
members in the House cannot be fooled by this bill. We will not
be supporting it.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to address Bill C-206, an act to amend
the Access to Information Act.
The bill seeks to amend the act by defining more precisely what
records held by the government are to be disclosed and by
providing more severe penalties for those who would wilfully
circumvent the intent of this legislation.
Before I proceed any further, the PC Party will support the bill
at second reading with the hope that further improvement may be
made at the committee stage.
As background, the Access to Information Act was adopted in
1982. The act gives Canadians a right to access to information
held by federal government departments and its many agencies. It
is an important tool for a number of reasons, not the least of
which is maintaining public accountability within the federal
government.
While the Access to Information Act is a useful and necessary
tool that Canadians have at their disposal to ensure government
transparency, it is clear to most of us that the Access to
Information Act is an outdated piece of legislation. Dating back
to the early 1980s, this act has yet to be revised to improve
upon its current protections and to accommodate the changing
needs and demands of changing times.
This has not been for lack of effort. It is important to note
that a number of our colleagues have recognized the pressing need
to revamp the act. As such they have proposed their own bills
toward this end. One of these bills was brought forth by the
member for Nanaimo—Alberni in 1998. As expected, it was voted
down by the Liberal majority in the House.
Today we are presented with the most recent attempt to amend the
Access to Information Act. I commend the member for
Wentworth—Burlington for his initiative in this file. I am
hopeful that his colleague will see the wisdom in allowing the
bill to pass this stage.
1405
My party has always favoured increased openness and transparency
in government because openness and transparency combine to form
one of the fundamental tenets of an effective representative
government in Canada. They also serve to encourage faith and
trust in government, something that is sorely missing from the
Canadian political landscape today.
The Progressive Conservative Party is committed to the
principles of openness and transparency and has continued to
aggressively pursue all reasonable means by which to increase
government accountability to Canadians. It was our current
leader's government in 1979 that first introduced freedom of
information legislation.
Bill C-206 addresses many of the concerns of the Progressive
Conservative Party with regard to government transparency. The
bill represents a positive step toward eliminating the kind of
abusive government Canadians have witnessed under the present
regime.
This government's “business as usual” attitude and “behind
closed doors” mentality have proven to be destructive on many
counts. First, and most obvious, we saw that under the current
Access to Information Act the Liberal government almost got away
with what is perhaps the most scandalous abuse of government
power recorded in the history of our country.
The Liberal government's billion dollar fiasco in HRDC not only
points to the party's misuse and mismanagement of public funds,
but it also uncovers innumerable counts of unethical use of
taxpayers' dollars to buy electoral support. Were it not for a
mistake on the part of HRDC in submitting a report to my
colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, a mistake that we are all
thankful he was able to catch, Canadians may not ever have
learned of this devastating scandal.
Second, this “we know what is best for you” attitude has
resulted in a further alienated, disgusted and cynical population
at a time when the government should be doing its utmost to
encourage interest in governmental affairs and at a time when
public discourse is becoming increasingly distant from Canadians.
We need to reverse the damage that the Liberal government has
done to the morale of all Canadians and to their trust in the
federal government and its agencies.
This is what we need to redress and this is precisely what Bill
C-206 seeks to do. Bill C-206 aims to ensure that Canadians have
access to the activities, decisions and, more importantly,
actions of our governments. This is desirable and it is with
enthusiasm that I support the principles and the basic tenets of
Bill C-206.
I have a number of particular concerns with this bill that I
will outline in brief. First, one of the most questionable parts
of the bill seeks to prohibit access to information users who
make, and I quote from the bill, “frivolous and abusive
requests”.
While on the surface this may seem like a good idea, one that
would ensure that users cannot take advantage of the information
request mechanism, I am concerned because of the lack of
definition as to how the acceptability or admissibility of a
request for information would be gauged under this provision.
This concerns me because of the subjectivity involved in
evaluating requests for information.
I believe that I speak unopposed when I say that in the spirit
of fairness and equity, objective measures are usually more
favourable than subjective measures. Of course, we should strive
for fairness and equity in everything we do. Perhaps we can
consider this matter further at a later date should this bill
reach the next stage of the process. For now, I am satisfied to
have recorded this concern.
I realize that my time may be nearing an end, Mr. Speaker, which
is why I will mention only one more concern with this bill. While
the previous concern I cited was rather minimal, this one is
gravely serious in comparison.
As I understand it, the intent of this legislation is to provide
Canadians with increased access to the federal government and to
its decision-makers. I support this and I cannot agree any more
than I already have with this objective. However, I am concerned
because in this bill's earlier life the member proposed a
provision to include cabinet confidences, for instance, minutes
of meetings, under the Access to Information Act. He proposed
releasing them after 15 years. Now, in its revised form, Bill
C-206 holds true to the position of the government that cabinet
confidences may be excluded from the public domain for 20 years,
not 15 as the member had originally intended.
If we are really going to commit to opening the government and
to allowing Canadians greater access to decisions of government,
then why not release cabinet confidences after 15 years? While I
have yet to decide what time period would be most favourable for
the release of these and other such documents, I do believe that
this matter should be open to discussion and to careful
consideration at committee.
1410
Therefore, I will close by offering my support for Bill C-206 at
second reading with the hope that my colleagues will allow the
bill the proper scrutiny and discussion it merits in committee.
Matters such as the ones I have discussed very briefly, the
subjective matter of some of the bill's provisions, along with
what I will simply call a question mark on the question of
cabinet confidences warrant careful consideration at the
committee level.
In principle the bill represents a strong step toward winning
back the trust of Canadians. If my colleagues are genuine in
claiming to want Canadians to trust the federal government again,
if they really want Canadians to rediscover their faith in
government, then they will allow the bill to proceed to the
committee stage for intense scrutiny and close analysis of both
its merits and shortcomings.
I urge the House to vote in favour of Bill C-206 at this stage.
I have a supplemental in closing. I think it is important to
outline some of the chronology of the Access to Information Act,
where exactly it came from and what governments introduced it. It
comes as no surprise to anyone in the House that the champion of
the public right to access government information was the late
Ged Baldwin, a Tory member of parliament from Peace River. The
first government to introduce the access to information bill was
that of the Right Hon. Joe Clark. The Liberal government is now
afraid to strengthen the law or to modernize it.
Therefore, the members of the House must seize any opportunity
to open up the law so it can be strengthened and modernized. The
HRDC scandal is only one example of why we need to strengthen the
law. We need to prevent ministers from manipulating the process.
We need to use this bill as a starting point to work with the
commissioner to ensure a strong law. The information
commissioner stated in his last report and at the HRDC committee
that the government's record system is in chaos. That is all the
more reason why we need a strong access to information law to
protect citizens and certainly to protect their dollars.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a great pleasure for me to participate in the debate on Bill
C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act, by the
member for Wentworth—Burlington.
I am very honoured to have seconded the bill as well. I have
had the opportunity to work with members on both sides of the
House on a variety of legislation. In this particular instance,
however, it is indeed a particular honour to associate myself
with the bill, Bill C-206, of the member for
Wentworth—Burlington. The reason is that I know the member very
well.
I came to this place in 1993 with the member. I have watched
his work, he has watched my work and we have collaborated on a
number of things. I have great admiration for his work. He has
been one of the champions of openness, transparency and
accountability in this place. He has been a voice in the
wilderness at times, calling out and seeking to find ways in
which governments can demonstrate more fully that the principles
of fairness and equity, of openness, transparency and
accountability are hallmarks in all that we do in every aspect of
our job.
It is only when Canadians believe that everything that we do in
this place, every decision that we make, every action that we
take is on behalf of Canadians and that we have nothing to fear
and nothing to hide. In fact it is in our best interest that
Canadians are better informed about what it costs to run a
government, about the kinds of things that we invest and spend
in, about the nature of the decisions and the rationale and the
things that Canadians need to know so that they can continue to
have confidence in their legislators and indeed in their
government.
When we get information, I think it is human nature for us all
to consider the source of the information. It is that source of
the information that we look to for a degree of credibility. I
feel so very strongly about this bill because of where it came
from. It is a private member's bill. It comes from a member who
has spent the better part of six years of his personal time and
has even gone to the extent of hiring his own legislative counsel
to assist him.
1415
I have seen many private members' bills, many of which are a
paragraph long with one or two clauses. This is probably the
most comprehensive private member's bill I have seen in over six
years. It touches one of the most important pieces of
legislation we have in Canada. It boldly goes out and says that
we have an act that is outdated, an act that needs to be not only
updated but needs to reflect what Canadians have asked us to
reflect in our legislation, which is the aspect of openness.
When we consider the very first amendment that the member
proposed in this bill, it was to change the name of the bill from
the Access to Information Act to the open government act. It is
very significant that the member began on the right foot, that
the whole intent and theme of this bill, the many pages and
clauses, dealt with the openness of government.
It is a day we should celebrate because members of parliament
can now stand in this place and say “We value the principles of
openness, transparency and accountability. We know this is what
Canadians have wanted. We know it is responding to the
fundamental needs and rights of Canadians. This is the right
thing to do”.
I contemplated making an amendment to this act because I thought
that if I were to think of a member in this place who was
reflective of the values of openness, transparency,
accountability and of serving the people of Canada, it would be
the member for Wentworth—Burlington. I would have proposed an
amendment to change the name he is proposing, open government
act, to the Bryden act. I believe the member has earned the
reputation in this place to be recognized as someone who stands
for the principles that he is articulating in this bill.
I give him credit and I want his constituents and Canadians to
know that there is a member of parliament in this place who has
dedicated at least six years of his work, in addition to all his
responsibilities as a member of parliament, to an initiative that
he feels very strongly about and is dedicated to.
On top of that, I recognize him further for the fact that he has
come before us and placed this bill with some humility. We know
there has been great difficulty getting this bill shaped and
fashioned. I know the consultations he has had right across the
House. He has even come here today, given a speech, and said
that the bill is not perfect yet but that the bill belongs to the
House.
He is asking the House to consider the bill, to consider his
hard work and to send it to committee so we can have the very
best experts look at each of the clauses and provisions so it can
be, as stated in the member's closing remarks, the best Access to
Information Act in the world. What a noble objective, to have
the best Access to Information Act in the world. It is something
to which Canada should aspire. It is something to which the
member aspires. I believe there are many members in this place
who share his values and his wish that we make this act a better
act.
I know there will be some debate on it. I am surprised that
some members have already declared that they will not support it.
Some of the changes are very complex. It will take legal advice,
legislative expertise and broad consultation with Canadians to
ensure that we get it right. The member has asked us to please
help him get it right, which is why we should send this to
committee.
Let me give some examples. He wants to broaden the notion of
openness. He states that very clearly in the second amendment.
He is bringing in the whole concept of electronic data, which is
not covered under the current act.
That reason alone is enough for the act to be amended. There is
no question in my mind that even if the members of this place
decided that all the other changes proposed by the member were
not ready for their time, this change is absolutely necessary.
1420
We cannot deny the fact that we are in a global and electronic
world. Information does have many forms now and we have to
respond to realities. We cannot be followers. With this bill,
we have an opportunity to be leaders.
In looking at these provisions, we should consider that they
actually require prompt attention. The bill actually considers
that a balance is needed between the need to know and personal
information. It looks at so many different aspects that I could
not possibly address them all.
While I was in my office last evening I had a conversation with
the member because I wanted to inform myself a little more about
some of the provisions. I was actually astounded at the number of
ways in which we can improve this particular bill. I am sure
that it is a bill which, if the member had not come up with it,
the government itself would have tabled a bill to amend the
Access to Information Act, in some cases to ensure that we would
respond to some of the fundamental changes that have occurred in
our society.
The Private Members' Business question troubles me from time to
time. This bill, if it goes to committee and is enacted, will
become a law of Canada, equal in all respects to other laws in
terms of its force and its stature within the Statutes of Canada.
However, the process that the member has had to go through, the
time and the restrictions and the fact that we cannot even ask
questions of the member in this place, shows that we have a
second class process to deal with a first class bill. It is as
valid as any other bill in this place.
I will conclude by again congratulating the member for
Wentworth—Burlington for his hard work, his insight and his
representation of what many members would like to have brought
forward themselves. He has given us a tool, an instrument to
work with. I believe it is an excellent starting point. I know
the member is anxious to work with all members of the House to
make sure that we do have the best Access to Information Act in
the world.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to Bill C-206, an act to amend the
Access to Information Act.
I believe strongly that transparency in government is a laudable
goal. Unfortunately, I do not think this bill does exactly what
the member intended it to do.
A few years ago, in the 35th parliament, I introduced a bill in
the House, Bill C-263, which was an act to change the Financial
Administration Act that would bring into the Financial
Administration Act the seven crown corporations that are exempt
from following the rules of the FAA. We saw at that time that
the government was not interested at all in the transparency and
openness of that particular bill, as it failed in Private
Members' Business as well.
When the Access to Information Act was first implemented 18
years ago, it was an important step toward the development of our
democracy. It actually allowed Canadian citizens the opportunity
to legally compel the federal government to provide them with
information; not that the federal government has ever complied
with this. I am sure every member in the House can testify to
the fact that trying to obtain information from the government is
and extremely difficult and frustrating exercise.
For instance, I recently placed an access to information request
before the human resources department for information on grants
and contributions in the riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. I was
expecting to receive the information that I had requested through
the act, but instead of the information, I received an invoice
from human resources.
Human resources officials asked me for $11,713.80 to cover
searching fees. That is the kind of freedom of information that
we have in this country.
1425
Human resources officials calculated they would need almost
1,200 hours at $10 an hour to find the files on grants and
contributions that I had requested. One would think if the
government was in charge of managing grants and contributions,
information would be easily accessible and available to a member
of parliament, but it was not. This is a strong indication of
gross mismanagement by the minister of this department.
When I heard that the member for Wentworth—Burlington had
reintroduced his private member's bill amending the information
act, I assumed that the member wanted to tackle some serious
impediments Canadians have in getting information from the
federal government. After reviewing this bill, I must tell the
House that I was very surprised and extremely disappointed to see
what this bill actually proposes.
To me, this looks like a government bill by stealth because the
intent of this bill is to make it actually more difficult for
Canadians to get information from the federal government. Bill
C-206 proposes 40 substantial amendments that alter the nature of
the current bill in a regressive manner. The information
commissioner has expressed his concern over the extent of what
the member is trying to accomplish. My concerns with the key
proposals in this bill are as follows.
Bill C-206 proposes to exclude access to what it calls frivolous
and abusive users of ATI. This is an extraordinary amendment to
legislation dealing with openness. I think Canadians want to
know who is going to decide which frequent user requests are
frivolous. Will the government itself do this?
Many MPs are frequent users because they rely on ATI to acquire
real information from the federal government. From what I can
see, this bill is the Liberal government's attempt to block
information to opposition MPs through proxy. Furthermore, this
supposed private member's initiative intends to control users
further by charging frequent users higher fees, something I
recently experienced. Now the government wants to charge fees
higher than $11,000 to a member of parliament who is doing the
work constituents have asked him or her to do. This is
absolutely outrageous.
The intent of access to information legislation is to allow
Canadians an opportunity to acquire information from an overly
secretive federal government. Many individuals are forced to
frequently request information because departments attempt to
exclude information from their request. The only way they can
receive the information is to reframe the wording of the request,
then resubmit it.
A further restriction found in this bill is a section that gives
the government the ability to deny access to information that
could damage national unity. It also includes a section that
allows the government to withhold records injurious to the
constitutional integrity of Canada for 30 years.
To make matters worse, this bill proposes to include cabinet
confidences such as minutes of meetings to be excluded from
public access for a time period of 20 years. It also broadens
the definition of what constitutes a cabinet confidence, making
it more difficult for Canadian citizens, in this case historians
and political scientists, from accessing the information they
need for their work.
Further, the member for Wentworth—Burlington has reinforced the
access to information exemption enjoyed by crown corporations
such as the Export Development Corporation, Canada Post and
Atomic Energy. Sections like this make it clear that this is a
Liberal government bill in disguise. The member for
Wentworth—Burlington should be ashamed for acting as a surrogate
for a bill that has the Prime Minister and the Privy Council
written all over it.
The sole intent of Bill C-206 is to impede the rightful and
legal access Canadians have to information from the federal
government. Many would argue that the current legislation
governing ATI is too restrictive. The Liberal government
exploits every roadblock available and even bends the current law
to the breaking point to ensure Canadians do not get information
they have requested.
We need to look no further than the Somalia inquiry to see how
the government manipulates the current law to deny Canadians
access to information.
Less than 5% of private members' bills pass the House. Most are
rejected by the Liberal government, which takes private members'
best points as its own and writes its own bills.
The Liberals want what is in Bill C-206, but do not want to
claim ownership because they do not want Canadians to know that
they initiated legislation which would deny Canadians the right
to federal government information. Canadians should be aware
that this is a bill written by the privy council and disguised
under the name of the member for Wentworth—Burlington.
It is my prediction that this bill will be one of the few
private members' bills that passes this House, simply because of
the majority on the Liberal side.
When the effects of this bill are felt, do not thank the member
for Wentworth—Burlington, thank our Prime Minister.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.
[Translation]
It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)