CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 25, 1995
Bill C-83. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 11717
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11717
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11717
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11717
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11717
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11718
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11718
Bill C-43. Report stage 11719
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 11721
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 11724
Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7. 11724
Motions Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 11724
Motions Nos. 16, 17 and 18 11725
Motions Nos. 24, 26, 27, 32 and 33 11725
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 11732
Division on motion deferred 11736
Division on Motion No. 7 deferred. 11736
Division on Motion No. 9 deferred. 11737
(Motion No. 21 agreed to.) 11737
Division on Motion No. 19 deferred. 11740
Motions Nos. 23 and 25 11741
Motions Nos. 28 and 29 11741
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11748
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11750
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 11753
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11755
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11755
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11755
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11755
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11755
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11755
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11756
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 11758
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11758
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11759
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 11759
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11759
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 11759
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 11759
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 11760
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 11760
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11762
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11762
Bill C-43. Consideration resumed of report stage 11762
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 11763
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 11766
Division on Motion No. 22 deferred 11768
Division on Motion No. 25 deferred 11769
Division on Motion No. 28 deferred 11769
Division on Motion No. 31 deferred 11769
Division on motion deferred 11769
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 11769
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 11769
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 11770
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 11770
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 11774
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 11778
Bill C-76. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and of amendment 11781
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 94; Nays, 143 11781
Bill C-69. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 11782
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 11784
Bill C-43. Consideration resumed of report stage 11784
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 47; Nays, 191 11784
Motion No. 2 negatived on division: Yeas, 89; Nays, 149 11785
Motion No. 3 agreed to on division: Yeas, 233; Nays, 5 11786
Motion No. 11 negatived: Yeas, 89; Nays, 149 11787
Motion No. 16 agreed to on the following division: Yeas, 186; Nays, 52 11787
Motion No. 7 negatived on the following division:Yeas, 94; Nays, 144 11788
Motion No. 9 agreed to: Yeas, 186; Nays, 52 11789
Motion No. 19 negatived: Yeas, 47; Nays, 191 11790
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 52; Nays, 186. 11790
Motion No. 23 negatived: Yeas, 94; Nays, 144 11791
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 233; Nays, 5. 11791
Motion No. 31 negatived: Yeas, 47; Nays, 191 11792
Motion for concurrence 11792
Motion agreed to: Yeas, 144; Nays, 94 11792
Bill C-263. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 11792
Motion negatived on division: Yes, 88; Nays, 143 11792
Bill C-254. Motion for second reading 11793
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 11793
11717
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 25, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages,
covering the calendar year 1994, under our standing orders and
under section 66 of the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(b), the
document is deemed referred to the Standing Joint Committee
on Official Languages.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
34 petitions.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of 61 people in
Deloraine, Manitoba. The petition calls on the government to
amend the Income Tax Act to provide a child care expense
deduction that is available to all families, regardless of the
income level of the parents, the amount of child care expenses
incurred, or the form of child care chosen.
As members will be aware, my private member's bill, C-247,
did just that. It is too bad that the government chose to defeat it,
largely because of special interest group agendas and the fact
that stay at home parents do not provide tax revenues for
government coffers.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to present a number of petitions on
behalf of my constituents, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition requests that current laws regarding assisted
suicide be enforced and no changes that would sanction or allow
suicide or euthanasia be made to the law.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second and third petitions ask Parliament not to
indicate societal approval of same-sex relationships or
homosexuality by amending legislation to include the undefined
phrase ``sexual orientation''.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the next petition prays that Parliament amend the
Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by human
beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my constituents have also requested that I submit their
petitions asking Parliament to support laws that punish
criminals using firearms; to support, recognize and protect the
rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational
firearms; and to abolish any existing gun control laws that have
proven ineffective.
11718
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my last petition asks Parliament to recognize the
Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition during the
remainder of the 35th Parliament. The signatories feel the rights
and interests of all Canadian citizens cannot be adequately
protected by the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this morning to present to the
House of Commons a petition containing 1,375 names.
The petitioners humbly suggest that there is a need for more
crime control in this country, not necessarily more gun control.
The petitioners also ask for the removal of the firearm registry
from Bill C-68. The petitioners also ask Parliament to
concentrate its efforts on the criminal element of our society and
not to erode gun owners' rights in Canada. The petitioners ask
that common sense prevail.
(1010 )
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present petitions gathered by people along the Chelan
Subdivision of the CNR, which is now, thanks to government
order in council, no longer protected to the year 2000. Virtually
every resident along that line has signed this petition.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to support Canada's
rural way of life by rejecting the policy proposals of lifting the
prohibition order on branch lines and developing agricultural
and rural development policies for Canada in which rural
citizens are considered to be human beings with spiritual, social,
and economic needs and not just economic commodities or
statistics.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
present a petition today with which I agree.
This petition asks that Parliament do not include the phrase
``sexual orientation'' in Bill C-41. This is one of many petitions
that come from my constituency on this issue.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I also wish to present a petition asking that sexual
orientation not be included in any new hate crimes legislation. I
endorse this petition. It is from the riding of
Victoria-Haliburton in Ontario.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No.
136.
[Text]
Question No. 136-Mr. McClelland:
With respect to the old age pension (a) how much money is paid in old age
pension to citizens of Canada now residing outside the country and what are the
top five countries to which payments are made; (b) what residency requirements
are necessary as a pre-condition to collecting old age pension; and (c) is it
necessary to have paid taxes in Canada in order to collect old age pension while
living outside Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): (a) During 1994 approximately $177
million in old age security, OAS, benefits was paid outside
Canada. It is not known how much of this was paid to citizens of
Canada because an individual does not have to be a Canadian
citizen to qualify for OAS.
The five countries to which the highest overall OAS payments
were made in 1994 are in descending order:
United States-$92.2 million
Italy-$17.8 million
United Kingdom-$13.6 million
Greece-$5.3 million
Portugal-$4.7 million
(b) To receive an OAS pension an individual must be a
Canadian citizen or legal resident of Canada on the day
preceding approval of the OAS pension application; or if no
longer living in Canada, must have been a Canadian citizen or
legal resident of Canada on the day preceding the day he or she
stopped living in Canada. In addition, an individual must have
resided in Canada for a minimum of 10 years after age 18. To
receive an OAS pension outside Canada, an individual must
have lived in Canada for at least 20 years after age 18.
The amount of the OAS pension paid either within Canada or
abroad depends on how long an individual has lived in Canada
after age 18. A full pension is payable with 40 or more years of
residence in Canada after age 18. A partial pension is payable
with less than 40 but at least 10 years of residence after age 18,
accrued at the rate of one-fortieth of the full pension for each
year of residence after age 18.
Individuals with less than 40 years of residence can qualify
for a full pension under a former set of rules that is being phased
out over a 40-year period which began July 1, 1977. A full OAS
pension can be paid if, on July 1, 1977, an individual was 25
years of age or over, and lived in Canada on July 1, 1977; had
lived in Canada before July 1, 1977 after reaching age 18; or
possessed a valid immigration visa on July 1, 1977.
In such cases, an individual must have lived in Canada for the
10 years immediately preceding approval of the OAS
application. Absences in this 10-year period may be offset if the
individual lived in Canada after age 18 and before the 10-year
period for periods that equal at least three times the length of the
absence. In this case, however, the individual is required to live
in Canada for a full year immediately preceding approval of the
OAS application.
11719
The Old Age Security Act permits the inclusion of the old age
security program in reciprocal social security agreements. Such
agreements enable people who live or who have lived in the
other contracting country to add periods of residence abroad, or
in some cases periods of contributions, to periods of residence in
Canada to satisfy the minimum eligibility requirements for the
OAS pension, and the income tested spouse's allowance. For
example, someone who lived in Canada for less than the 10 years
required to qualify for a partial OAS pension in Canada would
be able to use periods of residence in the other country to meet
the 10-year requirement. As well, a similar provision would
apply to someone who lived in Canada for less than the 20 years
required for payment of the OAS pension outside the country.
Once eligibility for the OAS pension is established in this
way, the actual pension paid is based only on actual periods of
residence in Canada.
The answer to (c) is no. Payment outside Canada depends only
on whether an individual has resided in Canada for at least 20
years after age 18 or is living in a country with which Canada has
concluded an international social security agreement.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to Starred Question No. 163, I would ask
that the answer be made an Order for Return, in which case the
return would be tabled immediately. I would ask that all the
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 163-Mr. Penson:
With regard to the Prime Minister's recent trip to Latin America, (a) how
many business people accompanied the Prime Minister, (b) what was the total
amount of federal government assistance to business people on the trip, (c)
which Canadian companies signed firm deals, (d) what was the total dollar
amount for these deals, (e) what was the extent and source of federal
government financing to make these deals possible, (f) which memorandums of
understanding were signed, and (g) what promises were made of possible
federal government financing or other assistance if these MOU's should result
in firm sales?
Return tabled.
11719
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-43, an act
to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related
amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from
the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There are 33 motions in amendment in
the Notice Paper concerning the report stage of Bill C-43, an act
to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related
amendments to other Acts.
Motions Nos. 10 and 20 are identical to motions presented and
rejected in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order
76(5), they will not be selected.
[English]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
21, 24, 26, 27, 32, and 33 will be grouped for debate and voted
on as follows:
(a) A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8,
12, 13, 14, 24, 26, 27, 32, and 33.
(b) An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 will obviate the
necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 3, 15, 16,
17, and 18.
i. Motion No. 11 will be voted on separately.
(c) However, a negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the
question being put on Motions Nos. 3, 11 and 16.
i. A vote on Motion No. 3 applies to Motion No. 15.
ii. A vote on Motion No. 11 applies to Motions Nos. 17 and 18.
(d) Motions Nos. 7, 9 and 21 will be voted on separately.
Motion No. 19 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
Motions Nos. 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31 will be grouped for
debate and voted on as follows. An affirmative vote on Motion
No. 22 obviates the necessity of the question being put on
Motion No. 23. On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion
No. 22 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 23.
Motion No. 25 will be voted on separately.
11720
(1015 )
A vote on Motion No. 28 applies to Motion No. 29. An
affirmative vote on Motion No. 28 obviates the necessity of the
question being put on Motion No. 30. On the other hand, a
negative vote on Motion No. 28 necessitates the need for the
question being put on Motion No. 30.
Motion No. 31 will be voted on separately.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref) moved:
That Bill C-43, in clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 8 to 20, on page 2.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is distinct pleasure to address the
questions before us today on the Lobbyists Registration Act.
One of the pledges of the Liberal government was to rebuild
trust in government which has been eroded to a considerable
extent over the last number of years under previous
governments. I use the plural extending to more than two.
The amendment is very specific. The government labelled the
report on this bill ``rebuilding trust''. Therefore our party has
tried to come up with amendments-this will be true for the one
before us now and for the others we are proposing-that work
toward that goal.
In a way we are trying to help the government to achieve the
goals it stated but for some reason has now become unwilling to
follow through on.
We are moving an amendment to increase the openness, the
accountability and the disclosure required under the Lobbyists
Registration Act so citizens can see more clearly what is
happening. In a very general sense hopefully the more they
know the more we will move toward a true democracy since it
seems we have lost the sense of true representative democracy.
MPs are elected and sent to the House to represent their
constituents but sometimes are not allowed to vote according to
the wishes of those they represent; the decisions being made in
smaller rooms elsewhere and the results being orchestrated from
here. Obviously if people want to have their input into how
government works they will find out where the decisions are
made and then proceed to use that particular approach.
How did lobbyists gain such a large force? The people have
discovered that it is a way they can get to the root of where the
decisions are made in government. It is not through the members
of Parliament. They have essentially lost their representative
function.
The way one influences government policy is by getting to the
decision makers. The decision makers are the top bureaucrats,
the deputy ministers, the ministers and the Prime Minister.
Backbench MPs on the government side ultimately feel that
pressure. I have spoken to some who have expressed some
consternation about the fact that they are not free to express
their views in the House because of the element of party
discipline.
The amendment we are moving would require more openness
and disclosure. Therefore when people become aware of how
government is being influenced, hopefully the more they know
the more they will dislike it and we will then be able to achieve a
shift toward true representative government via members of
Parliament.
(1020 )
I found the work in the committee on Bill C-43 for the most
part very interesting. It was a good committee. Our chairman
was very capable and very personable. Sometimes he tried to
push things through too fast. We had a committee that worked
together and pulled him back. For the most part things went very
smoothly until we came the end. Suddenly there was a dramatic
shift on the part of government members. They stopped
listening to reason and suddenly it was orchestrated from the
back rooms.
When the motion simply says to delete some lines and
introduce new ones, it is not really clear to the average person or
even to some members exactly what this motion proposes.
Presently the bill exempts from registration requirements any
meetings initiated by public office holders. In other words, the
Lobbyists Registration Act says if you lobby government, you
are supposed to register. That is an acknowledgement that there
is a lobby group, organization, a business, a firm or a
corporation trying to influence government.
We found out that quite often the government makes an
initiative to talk to lobbyists because it wants to find out
something about a particular business sector or it has some other
reason. It initiates the call.
If it is a straight transfer of information, information
gathering and if all of our amendments are accepted, that would
not be included in a registration requirement. Where the
lobbyist is trying to influence the government, however the first
contact is initiated it ought to be disclosed. Bill C-43 as
proposed by the government does not include that.
We are saying there should not be an exemption from
registration if a department official or the minister or anyone
else in government initiates the communications. In other
words, if there is communication taking place, the purpose of it
is ultimately in order to influence government, however it was
implemented.
We need to be careful because if we do not permit this
amendment, we will provide a very easy loophole. If we are
rebuilding trust, the last thing we want is to provide a number of
escape routes from accountability. The present bill has that
escape route because it says that if a government official
initiates the meeting, then registration is not required. Therefore
what happens in that meeting may be greatly directed toward
11721
influencing government. A government official has asked for it
but immediately the lobbyist is influencing government.
It would not be correct to provide a means whereby the person
doing the lobbying is now exempted from registration just
because he did not take the first motion.
I will quote a local columnist: ``Any lobbyist who cannot
finagle an invitation from a public office holder is not worth his
retainer''. That is true. If a lobbyist wants to influence
government but wants to do it in such a way that is not disclosed
all he has to do is, in the words of this columnist, finagle an
invitation.
(1025)
That is very easy to do if one has a good lobbyist network.
That is what these guys are about. This is their business.
Therefore members can see where the lobbyist would meet
casually with the government official and say: ``Invite me down,
I would like to talk to you about some things''. There is a delay
of a couple of days. Then he gets an invitation and now he is not
required to register.
There is some question as to whether this would inhibit
government officials from genuinely seeking information. I
need to have the members, when they are considering supporting
us in this amendment, to remember that we are also proposing
another amendment that really is necessary to understand in
order to approve this one. We want to also change the definition
of lobbying. Lobbying is not well defined in the present act. We
would like to change it so that the element of influencing or
attempting to influence government is an integral part of
definition of lobbyist.
That way if there is a genuine request simply for information
there would be no requirement at all to register in any case. That
is not a lobbying function. That would be a very normal routine
of talking to some sector of industry for absent association in
order to find information.
This new definition, if we say it must include influencing or
attempting to influence, would totally look after that. Therefore
in supporting the amendment we are proposing the government
would do well. It would be fulfilling its own red book promise of
increasing transparency, increasing accountability, increasing
the openness with which government operates so hopefully the
result could be achieved. We want to make sure all aspects of
government operations whether procurement or influencing of
government policy be done in the open so people know what is
happening. Hopefully they can renew their trust in the officials,
in the MPs and in the cabinet ministers elected by them.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what
the member for Elk Island said, that it was a great experience
working on this bill in committee. We on this side of the House
found it satisfying as well.
The member's motion will not be supported by the
government because we believe the bill covers the very thing the
member says it does not cover. If a lobbyist were to lobby for an
issue with a public servant even though the initiation was made
by a public office holder on a totally different issue, it does not
take away from the responsibility of the lobbyist to report that
piece of lobbying in the context of a government initiated
meeting.
There is a balancing act between transparency and making
sure there is a good working relationship between the
government and the private sector in the interests of developing
good public policy.
We did say that in the interpretation bulletin from the registrar
that the area the member is concerned about is crafted precisely
to make sure there would not be any kind of loophole.
(1030 )
The essence of the bill states clearly that if a lobbyist within
10 days of registering is arranging meetings or attempting to
influence legislative proposals, bills, resolutions, regulations,
policies, programs, award of grants, contributions, other
financial benefits, or award of contracts, must be duly noted.
Another thing the member talked about in his speech was the
need to make sure all of this information was open and
accessible. All of these registrations, all meetings and all of this
information would be available through computer access via
Internet. Therefore there is no need for this amendment. The bill
has gone a long way in advancing the transparency of the
relationship between lobbyists and the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, like my two colleagues who spoke before me, I will
make a brief comment on the work done by committee members
who considered this bill. I sat on the committee myself and
attended most of its meetings. I followed proceedings very
closely and listened to many witnesses. I can tell you that I am a
little disappointed in the very partisan work done by government
members.
The attendance record of the government members was not as
good as that of the representatives of the Bloc Quebecois and the
Reform Party, so that it was extremely difficult to agree and
achieve one of the objectives, namely to reassert the value of the
work done by ordinary members of Parliament through
exchanges between government and opposition members.
When people opposite us keep changing from one meeting to
the next, it is very difficult to resume a discussion or complete
the arguments introduced one or two days before the last
meeting. Yes, there were good exchanges at the committee level.
11722
There is, however, room for improvement with respect to the
attendance record of government members and how they could
follow up the work done in committee.
With regard to the objective sought by Bill C-43, I think that
no one in this House can be against it. True, taxpayers and
constituents from across the country have lost some confidence
in the government for several reasons. One only has to look to
the past to find many reasons to lose one's confidence in the
government. Bill C-43 is designed to ensure a certain level of
openness, to show everyone what the power brokers in Ottawa
are really doing behind the scenes.
In any case, the objective of Bill C-43 was to make all
lobbyists-or influence peddlers as some people call
them-accountable, to make their work on Parliament Hill more
transparent, to show the people that, in the end, the government
was justified in doing business with a given individual, in
changing the regulations, in drafting a bill or anything else.
This goal is commendable and the opposition agrees with it.
The reason we agreed to work with the government was to
achieve greater transparency. However, the bill we are debating,
Bill C-43, is very disappointing in that it did not achieve this
goal. Today, I am doing the same thing I did at the committee
stage, when I suggested a number of amendments to promote
more openness and bring about the desired transparency. It is
one thing to have a goal, but efforts must be made to achieve it.
I suggested a number of approaches-twenty or so-at
committee level, but this government, government members
who, by the way, had not even heard the evidence, attended our
meetings and heard witnesses request specific measures,
rejected every one of the amendments proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois. They voted them down. Today, the government is
given another opportunity to improve this bill through a series
of amendments. We have 33 motions before us and I think that
some of them would greatly help improve transparency, as Bill
C-43 seeks to do.
(1035)
I urge the government to give serious consideration to these
motions, to review the goals it set in its famous red book during
the election campaign and then to look at Bill C-43 in order to
determine whether or not these goals were met. I am convinced
that it will come to the conclusion that, indeed, they were not.
Now, the opposition is offering to help the government achieve a
goal it has set for itself during the last election campaign.
I must say however that Motion No. 1 may not be going in the
direction that I just mentioned. Let me explain. I agree with the
government that Motion No. 1 should not be passed.
We must set Motion No. 1 in context and see what changes it
introduces. It amends clause 2 of the bill, that is to say section 2
of the present act, under definitions. It also affects subsection
4(2) of the act, under application, which specifies to whom the
act applies and particularly to whom it does not apply, because I
think arrangements have to be made so that citizens can contact
the government. I think that honest citizens who are looking for
information, want to express their views before our committees
and act openly and publicly should not be restricted in their right
to contact the government to make representations.
In fact, two exceptions to subsection 4(2) are already
contemplated. The first exception concerns those who make
representations before a Senate, a House of Commons or a joint
committee. Several pieces of legislation are reviewed in
committee, and it only makes sense that those who submit briefs
and come to tell the committee what they think of a bill should
not have to register. That exception is already included.
The second exception deals with the case of a taxpayer who
phones a public servant to obtain an interpretation regarding
existing legislation. Again, it goes without saying that the
person should not have to register, nor state his reason for
contacting the government, since it is normal to communicate
with public servants to obtain details regarding legislation.
This amendment to Bill C-43, which the Reform Party wants
to eliminate through its motion, would affect all those contacted
by the government. During the review conducted by the
committee, I referred to these situations as ``government
initiatives''. Before awarding a contract or considering a
specific measure, the government, for a number of reasons,
usually contacts some organizations to get their opinion. It
approaches various groups and asks them: ``Do you have a
problem with this legislation? Would you be in favour of
improving it in this fashion? Would you be opposed to such a
measure? What do you think?''
If an exception is not provided regarding clause 4(2) of this
bill, people will stop providing such answers to the government.
The witnesses heard by the committee clearly said that, if they
have to comply with the provisions of Bill C-43, they, as
officials representing mostly non-profit community
organizations, will definitely stop providing opinions to the
government and help it make choices. These people added that
they would certainly not pay to reply to a government's request.
So, that amendment, which is just about the only one accepted
by the government, should not be set aside right away. It should
be reviewed, and I ask the Reform Party to really consider the
purpose of this amendment, which is the only one which was
accepted by the government following the review of this bill by
the committee.
The amendment is very simple.
11723
(1040)
The bottom line is that any oral or written submission made to
a public office holder by an individual on behalf of any person or
organization will be exempt if it is in direct reply to a written
request from a public office holder for advice or comment in
respect of the specified provisions. Other clauses are also
quoted to specify who the clause will apply to.
The wording of the clause now before us guarantees that the
fears the Reform member just expressed will not be
substantiated, that there will be no bending of the rules or
attempts to get around the law, because everything will be done
in writing. And I think that, under the Access to Information
Act, we as taxpayers can obtain copies of this information.
Therefore, we can check the public servant's request and the
organization's reply because they will be in writing. This
applies to a direct, written reply to a request.
Bill C-43 and the amendment proposed this morning, which
the Reform Party does not support, would not exempt the
information in cases where, following analysis or research, it
was discovered that the public servant asked the organization
whether it would support such and such legislation and it is
obvious from the organization's reply that it would only support
the government's proposal in exchange for such and such a
contract or an amendment to such and such other regulation.
Therefore, the organization in question would have to meet the
requirements of Bill C-43.
Motion No. 1, as it is written, quite simply moves that the
entire amendment or the content of clause 4(2) of Bill C-43 be
removed, and I cannot support such a motion. This and all of the
reasons stated above is why the Bloc Quebecois, the official
opposition, will vote against Motion No. 1.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
confirm my support for the motion before the House that Bill
C-43, in clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 8 to 20 on page
2.
We want to ensure that the Lobbyists Registration Act is open,
transparent and that it works for the benefit of all Canadians. I
mean all Canadians, not the few who feel that behind the scenes
they can influence government policy and government decisions
to their own particular benefit.
No greater example exists than the Pearson airport situation.
It has been deliberated on in the House on many occasions over
the last year or more. It was a deal struck behind the scenes by a
government that, in its waning days, knew it was headed for
defeat. It decided it would get all its friends rolled up into one
neat little package and provide a contract worth millions of
dollars over many years. One of the prime assets of the country,
Toronto's Pearson International Airport, would be given to a
select few at a cost to all Canadians. That is the type of thing
which we want to ensure is eliminated once and for all.
We have also read the book On the Take. It is a litany of
situations where, from beginning to end, government and
individuals, behind closed doors, manipulate things in their
favour. The innocent Canadian is left with nothing other than the
bill to pay, which is in the millions of dollars. That is the type of
thing we want to see stopped by this motion.
It is a two-way situation. When individuals are talking to
people in government, be they cabinet ministers, backbenchers,
or senior civil servants, it is a two-way street. Therefore, we
must register when the public servants talk to these people, not
just when the individuals talk to the government. If I phone and
leave a message for a deputy minister, a cabinet minister or the
director of a department and find out that he is out and he returns
my call, that does not need to be registered. If he returns my call
it does not need to be registered. Had I had talked to him when I
called the first time, there would be a requirement for it to be
registered. However, if one leaves a message to have the
individual call back, the government person is now talking to the
individual and it does not need to be registered. It makes no
sense at all. It is a two-way street. This loophole is so big that a
747 could fly through it. In fact every day many 747s could fly
through the loophole.
(1045)
If the government were serious about representing Canadians,
about being open and transparent about lobbyists, about
ensuring that Canadians deserve better and about wanting to be
perceived as a government that is honest, reliable and
trustworthy, surely it would want to support the motion.
I cannot think why the government would not want to support
the motion, unless it has devious things in mind and once it is in
place it can tell Canadians that it has tightened up the Lobbyist
Registration Act, made it more difficult, and requires more
registration. It has left out the situation where bureaucrats,
cabinet ministers, backbenchers or whoever talk to the
individuals. That type of exchange has been eliminated from the
registration act. Basically the legislation means nothing because
the loophole is so wide it has destroyed the whole meaning of
lobbyist registration.
That is the point we are trying to make to the government on
behalf of Canadians. If the government wants the registration
act to mean something, surely it would want to support the
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
11724
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
We will now move to the second group which has 22
amendments. I hope I will be able to dispense as we go along or
there will be a lot of reading.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 28, on page 2
with the following:
``5. (1) Every individual who, for payment, pursuant to a contract or other
arrangement or as an employee, undertakes or as a part of the duties of
employment is required to undertake, on behalf of any person or organization
(in this section referred to as the ``client''), or on behalf of the individual's
employer or the employer's client, to
(a) communicate with a public office holder or advise a client how to communicate
with a public office holder''.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended in the French version, by replacing
lines 26 and 27, on page 2, with the following:
«toute personne (ci-après «lobbyiste-conseil») qui, moyennant paiement,».
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 12, on page 3, with
following:
``office holder and any other person or advise another how to arrange such a
meeting,''.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended in the French version, by replacing
line 14, on page 3, with the following:
``(2) Le lobbyiste est tenu, dans sa''.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 3, with
following:
``individual is engaged in business or employed;''.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 23, on page 3,
the following:
``(a.1)
(i) any employment or appointed or elected office the individual has held with
the government of Canada or a province or with a municipality;
(ii) any employment or office the individual has held with a political party,
political party caucus, a member of Parliament or of the legislative assembly of a
province or a minister of the Crown in right of Canada or a province;
(iii) if the individual donated more than one thousand dollars in aggregate to
political parties during the preceding year, the amount donated to each party;''.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you
shorten things by just reading the sections. I would like you to
read the sections themselves and then we could say we would
dispense with them all in one sweep.
The Deputy Speaker: For example, Motion No. 7. Mr. Epp,
seconded by Mr. Hoeppner, moves that Bill C-43 in clause 3 be
amended and so on. Is that acceptable?
Mr. Epp: All these motions are on the Order Paper. If you
were to read the exact motions we are dealing with in this group
we could dispense with all of them in one fell swoop.
(1050 )
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is required to start to read
them because they have not been introduced in the House.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 44, on page 3,
the following:
``(e.1) where the individual is employed by an organization and the organization is
funded in whole or in part by a government, the name of the government or
government agency, as the case may be, and the amount of funding received by the
organization from that government or government agency during the previous three
years;''.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 44, on page 3,
the following:
``(e.1) where the client is funded in whole or in part by a government, the name of the
government or government agency, as the case may be, and the amount of funding
received by the client from that government or government agency;''.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 19, on page 4,
the following:
``(h.1) the name of every public office holder the individual has attempted to
influence or expects to attempt to influence;''.
11725
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 27, on page 5,
the following:
``(6.1) Where the individual is employed by a corporation or an organization
and carries out activities mentioned in subsection (1) in the course of the
employment, the employer must
(a) ensure that the individual complies with this section, or
(b) make the returns and provide the information that the individual is required to
make by this section.''
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended in the French version, by replacing
line 20, on page 5, with the following:
``(7) Le lobbyiste qui s'engage à''.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 36 to 47 on page 5,
1 to 46 on page 6, 1 to 46 on page 7, 1 to 45 on page 8, 1 to 48 on page 9, 1 to 47
on page 10 and 1 to 47 on page 11.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended in the French version, by replacing
lines 32 and 33, on page 5, with the following:
``phe (3) tout employé (ci-après «lobbyiste salarié») d'une personne''.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 16, on page 7,
the following:
``(f.1) where the employer is funded in whole or in part by a government, the
name of the government or government agency, as the case may be, and the
amount of funding received by the employer from that government or
government agency;''.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 46, on page 7,
the following:
``(j.1) the name of every public office holder the employee has attempted to
influence or expects to attempt to influence;''.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-43, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 7, on page 11,
the following:
``(j.1) the name of every public office holder any such employee has attempted to
influence or expects to attempt to influence;''.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended in the French version, by replacing
line 23, on page 13, with the following:
``ne sont pas des textes réglementaires au sens de la''.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33, on page
13, with the following:
``the activities described in subsection 5(1).''
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 11, on page
14, with the following:
``10.3(1) Every individual who is required to file a return under subsection 5(1) shall
comply with the Code.''
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 35 to 41, on page
14, with the following:
``5(1), in respect of any matter referred to in any of subparagraphs 5(1)(a)(i) to (vi);
and''.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 44 to 48, on page
15 and line 1, on page 16, with the following:
``in respect of any matter referred to in any of subparagraphs 5(1)(a)(i) to (vi), if the
Ethics''.
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-43, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 29, on page 16,
with following:
``section 5, or for any service''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I begin this section of my participation
today by commenting briefly on the process we went through.
When Bill C-43 was first introduced last June we were
relatively new in the House. I did not understand the full impact
of what it meant to go from first reading directly into committee.
Consequently we had a very good open discussion, I guess
because most of the members of the committee were first time
members of the House. We actually operated like a group of
co-operating individuals for the most part, especially at the
beginning of the committee. We tried to come together on a
number of issues.
I was really quite disappointed to find that some of the things
we tried to do were subsequently defeated or were not accepted
as ideas worthy of being put forward.
In this grouping I will talk specifically about some of the
motions. It would have been nice if we could have spent a little
more time on all of them, but I will not be able to cover them all
in 10 minutes. It is important for us as the House to adopt this set
of amendments. Obviously I believe that or I would not have
brought mine forward. In this instance I am eagerly anticipating
that we will come to an agreement to accept the amendments.
I will begin talking about Motion No. 2 because it is a very
important one. We need to clearly define who a lobbyist is. This
amendment very clearly specifies what a lobbying activity is
and how it is defined so that there is no question.
The problem with Bill C-43 and indeed the old Lobbyists
Registration Act is that they are not clear as to precisely who is
11726
required to register. We have said a lobbyist is a person who is
clearly a lobbyist and there should be no question.
This is the definition:
Every individual who, for payment, pursuant to a contract or other
arrangement or as an employee, undertakes or as a part of the duties of
employment is required to undertake, on behalf of any person or organization (in
this section referred to as the ``client''), or on behalf of the individual's employer
or the employer's client-
(1055 )
We want to specifically add the activity:
(a) communicate with a public office holder or advise a client how to
communicate with a public office holder.
That person would be defined as a lobbyist. This is a critical
part of the bill.
If we fail to bring in a clear definition of who has to register, it
does not matter what the requirements for disclosure are. The
presumed lobbyist can ask whether or not he or she is required to
register. If the conclusion is that he or she is not required to
register then he or she will not register. The result will be no
disclosure at all, which defeats the whole purpose of the bill.
That would be a pivotal point in this group.
We also want to include advice on how to lobby. Sometimes in
order to avoid disclosure we could have a lobbyist who simply
trains someone else. He or she does not make the contacts but
does everything else. He or she indicates by the connections
with whom to get in contact and shows the tree to follow in terms
of making the connections. In other words, basically he or she
orchestrates all of the work of the lobbying effort without
becoming personally involved. We would include that also in
the definition as given here.
In the current definition there is a real loose word. It states:
``Anybody who spends a significant of time lobbying''. The
word significant is really one that is open to interpretation. We
could have some people who because of the nature of their jobs
spend 50 per cent of their time lobbying. They could actually
spend less time than other people who spend 10 per cent of their
time lobbying. To leave significant in the definition leaves it
open and there is no clarity. This has the added problem for those
people who are involved in lobbying to know if they should
lobby. Neither will the registrar know by the definition whether
or not there is a breach of the law. We should fix that one up.
Turning to Motion No. 7, this amendment is also very
important because it provides for disclosure of connections.
This is one area where Canadians have taken the greatest
offence. After a person has worked particularly in the higher
echelons of government, and indeed in the higher echelons of
the House as a cabinet minister, retires from the activity and
becomes a lobbyist, there is a network which occasionally is
very suspicious in the minds of the people. It could happen that
what the people are thinking is not accurate. I admit that.
However, if we provide for disclosure and openness, at least we
can honestly say that we are not trying to hide anything: these
are the facts and they stand for themselves.
In this motion we are simply asking that anybody who in their
past has had employment with or been elected to office in the
Government of Canada, a province or a municipality, because
those are important networks as well, be required to disclose it.
We are asking that people register by stating that they have held
a position with a political party as an employee or have held an
office with a political party. Let us not hide it.
Undoubtedly someone will say in debate that it is on the
public record anyway. Yes, it is. Anybody who has been a
cabinet minister is on the public record. However it should be
clear and concise.
(1100 )
When a person looks up the registration of a particular
lobbyist it takes little effort for the person to simply delineate it
in the registration. People can then see there is nothing being
hidden.
We are asking that even those who have been heavily involved
in contributing to political parties disclose that. If an individual
donated more than $1,000 in aggregate to political parties
during the preceding year, then the amount being donated to
each party should be disclosed. Again, this is a matter of public
record. During an election campaign major contributors are
made public. The lists are available to anyone who asks. All we
are saying is this should be readily accessible. It is very
important for us to consider these different parts.
Another element in this group has to do with the tiers. As we
know there are different levels of lobbyists. There are those who
are simply professional lobbyists and work in a professional and
client relationship. They get paid. There should no longer be a
distinction among the different tiers. In other words, anybody
who is there to influence government should be able to and
should be required to give disclosure. We would like to say that
whoever does it, whatever their level, it should be open. It
should not be anything that is withheld from the people of the
country.
Another element which I think annoys many Canadians and
that we can fix in this bill is the disclosure by companies or
groups that receive direct government funding. It is really an
enigma that we are elected as members of the House of
Commons.
During the campaign I certainly emphasized, and members on
the government side said the same thing, that we were proud to
represent our constituents. In reading the maiden speeches in
Hansard by the 200 members here for the first time in this
Parliament, almost every one said: ``I am proud to have been
elected by the people in my constituency to represent them
11727
here''. That is wonderful. That is the way democracy should
work.
It annoys Canadians when the very people they send to
represent them are not able to do the job, but their tax dollars go
to fund lobby groups to influence high government officials to
change government policy. Something is backward. They
should use the MPs because they are paying a lot of money to run
our offices and to have those people in place. Let them do their
jobs or reduce the House of Commons to 20 people. They do not
need us if we are not going to do our work.
If there are going to be lobbyists, why should the taxpayers be
funding the MPs offices, salaries and pensions and at the same
time funding the lobbyists? In our system it appears the
lobbyists have a greater influence on government policy than do
the members of Parliament.
Therefore, we are proposing as stage one that when funding is
received from government it is going to be made public. If any
lobbyist individually or through representation by an
association or corporation receives direct government funding,
that should be disclosed. That is step one.
Hopefully step two would be that when this was sufficiently
known, the people of Canada would revolt, of course in a
friendly manner, at election time. They will elect Reformers
who will say it is the responsibility of the MPs and not the
lobbyists to represent the constituents. Hopefully with this
openness people will at least become aware and will be able to
make a rational decision.
(1105)
I would have a lot to say about some of the other amendments
as well since I have been working on this for a year. However, I
realize my time is up and I will yield the floor now to other
colleagues who will speak on some other matters.
The Deputy Speaker: The member is certainly welcome to
ask for unanimous consent if he wishes a few more minutes to
continue.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I then ask for unanimous consent
to have a few more minutes?
The Deputy Speaker: How much longer does the member
require?
Mr. Epp: Five minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I love this good sense of negotiating
here.
An hon. member: Lobbying.
Mr. Epp: This was clear negotiation. No lobbying was
involved here.
One of the things we need to do is to make sure that there is no
means of hiding the lobbying process.
Right now what we are doing with the intent of this bill-the
Lobbyists Registration Act started it, this bill amends it and its
intent is to strengthen it. It is recognizing the reality of lobbying
in our present system.
As I have said, if we are going to have it, we need to be totally
open. We need to make sure that the people of the country
understand this. What we want is for the rules for lobbyists to all
be the same.
Presently the bill does not require the disclosure of who is
lobbied. Therefore I come to another very important point. One
of the amendments in this group-and I do not remember the
exact number, perhaps it is Motion No. 17-indicates what we
want to include in the registration of the lobbying process. It is
not only which government department is being lobbied. That is
what is being called for now. We also want to have specific
individuals.
Again, how general is this going to become? We need to
recognize that just because a person makes a phone call, that is
not lobbying. A person who talks to someone to ask who is in
charge of a department, is not lobbying.
We must go back again to the definition which says if you are
influencing or attempting to influence government and you are
being paid for it, that is the definition of a lobbyist. If that is
occurring, then the people of Canada should know not only who
the lobbyist is on this side but also who the government official
is on the other side.
What is there to hide? Why should we hesitate for a moment to
say who the deputy minister was in the meeting to present the
information? Why should we hide that? There is absolutely no
reason. Again, the more information we can get to the people,
the greater their trust will be in the whole process.
Another one is, how much money passes the hands?
Obviously this is a matter of great importance. In talking to my
constituents I have found that they are very concerned about the
total costs to run an MP's office. For example, there has been a
lot of interest in my constituency about the fact that the average
MP gets an additional present value of around $2,500 a month in
order to provide for his pension benefits. They are interested in
those things.
Our question is, how much is being paid to lobbyists? People
should know this. If it is a small amount, probably there is no big
deal but if we are dealing with millions of dollars, that should
raise a flag. People should know that.
I would like to quote someone: ``I think fees and major
disbursements should be registered''. Later in the same session,
the same person said: ``What is wrong with a system that would
disclose fees and major disbursements? After all, if the whole
business of having a registration system is to identify who is
doing what to whom so that the competing interest has a right to
11728
know, how do we know who is doing what to whom unless there
is a price tag, unless there is a caveat at the end? At what cost?''
(1110)
I am quoting the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who, when he sat on this side of
the House, said that we need to disclose these things. We need to
make sure that the people know not only who is doing what but at
what price. This is a very important aspect of the bill.
I would also like to read another quote: ``One of the reasons I
believe we must reform the act to declare lobbyists' fees is
because at times''-and then he interrupted himself and said:
``Just take the referendum. Millions of dollars were put through
the system by lobbying firms advocating a particular point of
view and very little of that was known''. That too was spoken by
a member of the Liberal Party, the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood.
Obviously, I am speaking of things that members on that side
of the House agreed with when they were on this side. So let us
stay with our principles and let us support these amendments.
I appreciate the additional time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to intervene in this debate. It gives me
the opportunity, not having been a member of the committee or
the subcommittee charged with the matters before the House
today, to look back on earlier professional work in another
capacity.
Clearly this has been an excellent committee and a really
outstanding subcommittee. This is a thoughtful, well-reasoned
report. It reflects great credit on members from all parties who
did the necessary research which led up to the conclusions. It
says a great deal for the capacity of Parliament to evolve as a
living institution and about the sort of new responsibilities that
committees are being encouraged to take on. My compliments to
the committee, to the subcommittee, its chair and its members
for the work they have done.
I believe the debate to date has been helpful, constructive and
useful. Members of the opposition will pardon me if I make
some suggestions on the preliminary definitional question.
The life of the law, as Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
reminded us, has not been logic, it has been experience. It is an
error and perhaps the labours of Sisyphus, an eternal task that
never reaches a conclusion, to attempt an a priori definition of
lobbying.
I think it is best, as the bill provides, to try to reach an
operational definition, a definition in logical extensity, and to
say what types of activities are to be subject to disclosure or
registration, rather than to attempt an abstract definition in
advance. It will be, in the end, up to the courts-the courts in the
regular sense, the judicial sense, and the court in the original
constitutional sense, the high court of Parliament-to decide
what is permissible and impermissible lobbying activity. Again,
the effort to define in an abstract way is perhaps better
redirected to spelling out in more detail the sort of activities one
wants to cover.
When I was first a student of constitutional law, lobbying was
viewed as evil per se, a reprehensible, nefarious activity. The
attitudes changed, however, with increasing sophistication as to
what the legislative processes are about and what parliamentary
decisions in contemporary democratic societies amount to. That
is to say that one is balancing competing social interests.
To do that job effectively one must identify those competing
social interests. One must attempt some sort of quantification of
the social value of those interests and that requires a detailed
empirical record. One must then attempt to establish some sort
of hierarchy of importance of the interests before leading to an
intelligent, rational decision. The philosopher would tell you
this is William James' conception of pragmatism, the pragmatic
conception of truth. In constitutional law terms it is simply
Roscoe Pound's sociological jurisprudence, the balancing of
interests which is at the core of any rational judicial decision
making today but not less of decisions within Parliament itself.
(1115)
The United States pioneered legislation on lobbying many
years ago. Its emphasis is on disclosure: the bringing out into the
open of particular interest groups involved in any piece of
legislation and trying to assess what the interest groups
represent. Are the interests they represent substantial as distinct
from merely vocal? Does the vocality or the degree of force with
which they are expressed balance their representativeness in
social terms and their claim to validity in the economic or other
terms in which they are being debated? Therefore the emphasis
on disclosure is the key element.
Every member of Parliament who does his or her job is subject
to lobbying by various interest groups in the constituency or in
the general region. Nothing is wrong with that. It really depends
on the degree of control of the office and the degree of energy
the member brings to putting the interest groups in proper
perspective.
When companies or trade unions wish to meet with me I
welcome them. If it is a company I want to read the balance
sheet, the annual report. I want to meet with the officers. If it is
important enough I want to visit the plant. I want to see potential
competitors. All of us do this. We recognize the value involved
and the good faith and integrity with which people approach
this.
11729
The only thing objectionable is covert lobbying, the covert
exercise of pressure. I do not think for most of us this is what is
involved.
Reference was made to the Pearson airport issue. I would have
thought that was less an example of lobbying than an example of
the public contracting process and how not to operate it. Very
clearly one thing is that in the lame duck period of any
government, as the concept has emerged in the United States,
public contracting of a high level of community involvement
should be avoided at all costs or exercised with extreme
discretion.
I do not think it is an example of lobbying gone wrong. It is
rather an example of the need to exercise extra control over
public contracting when a government effectively has lost its
mandate.
Putting it in proper perspective, the bill recognizes the reality
that interest groups will bring forward their particular cause to
parliamentarians; two, that they are entitled to do so; and three,
provided they bring forward proper information, properly
researched, and that members themselves exercise the necessary
care of reading those reports, trying to make assessments,
seeking further information from other independent sources
before making any decision, it is a valid and necessary part of
the gathering of information in aid of legislation.
Intelligent legislation demands that interest groups bring
forward their claims and their causes. In that sense the
committee has met the challenge and brought forward a
thoughtful law that takes us a good deal along the way to
solution of any problems that in the public domain might have
been thought to exist.
As I have said, I have no problem with professional interest
groups, with companies, with trade unions, with other groups
that come to me. I have more problems with umbrella
organizations that claim to represent whole segments of society.
These are the hardest ones to catch in the scope of legislation
such as this because their operation in the political processes
comes not through this reasoned process of bringing
information in aid of legislation but more in terms of social
context. Maybe there is room for covering this. I do not see how
we could do it in the present law without destroying the very
careful work, the very precise set of ground rules the legislation
has established.
(1120)
Mr. Williams: What is the member proposing?
Mr. McWhinney: I am proposing that we adopt the law as it
stands. It is a good law. Let us see how it works. We can always
try one year later to do something more.
However, do not attempt to make a law that has a precise role
and mission into an omnibus bill to cover just about everything
else. Stick with the integrity of the law. Rest with the fact that in
definitional terms of describing and identifying categories of
conduct that must be registered this does represent an advance.
The search for the a priori definition, cute as it may seem in the
privacy of a member's own office, is not realistic in terms of the
dialectical and empirical process that will operate as courts,
parliamentarians and parliamentary committees react to this.
Again, I congratulate the committee on an excellent piece of
work, the subcommittee in particular. It is a good law. In terms
of comparative legislation it is an advance compared with
similar legislation in other parts of the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, faced with a block of 22 motions like the one before the
House today, I find it rather difficult to comment on every single
one. What we have is two or three substantial motions, around
which other motions have been grouped to provide more
transparency, plus additional elements to achieve what
Parliament has set out to do with Bill C-43.
To appreciate these amendments, including Motion No. 2, I
think some background information might be useful to see what
led Parliament to make this statement on influence peddling and
lobbying. The Parliament of Canada has examined this question
twice before. We had the Cooper committee's report in 1986 and
recently, in 1993, we had the report from the Holtmann
committee.
These committees looked into exactly the same aspects of
lobbying as the present committee did today, in 1995. It is
interesting to note that the Holtmann report published a series of
recommendations, the first few being the most significant.
These recommendations said, more or less, that for legislation
like the bill before the House today to be truly effective, it would
be necessary to remove all distinctions between lobbyists.
As you know, in the existing legislation, there are three types
of lobbyists: the so-called Tier I and Tier II and a third group.
There are in-house lobbyists, professional lobbyists and the
others, organizations that lobby the government. The Holtmann
committee concluded that lobbying was lobbying.
Whether people want to influence the government to obtain a
contract, lower the rates in certain regulations, get a permit or
obtain government assistance for their organization, this is all
lobbying. People try to influence the government for their own
purposes, for the benefit of the company for which they work or
for the benefit of an association or whatever. In its first three or
four recommendations, the Holtmann report said that
distinctions between lobbyists should be eliminated.
(1125)
I am sure you will remember this, Mr. Speaker. If I am not
mistaken, the Liberals were to implement the Holtmann report
from A to Z-this was a campaign promise made by the
Liberals, by people acting in good faith, people who knew what
they were doing in the enthusiasm of the moment-which means
11730
that indirectly, and without exactly saying so, they made a
commitment to eliminate all distinctions between lobbyists.
In committee, however, when I started to realize that
Canadians had been fooled once again, I was very disappointed.
I heard members who had been part of the committee that
produced the Holtmann report say the exact opposite of what
they signed when they tabled the report, with respect to these
distinctions, for instance. There are a lot of other examples,
particularly with regard to categories, which was the important
element of the Holtmann report. It was not just anyone who was
opposed. It was the people, who, today, hold fairly important
positions in the government and who could influence it and talk
it into meeting its campaign commitments.
But no. Throughout the whole time we heard witnesses in
committee, some witnesses were in favour of eliminating
categories, others were less so. The closer we got to the category
of lobbyists capable of influencing government, in the back
rooms of power, the greater the likelihood of their not really
favouring the elimination of categories.
On the whole, however, the witnesses were in favour of
greater transparency. We were sort of the guinea pigs in a new
approach to examining bills and we were given a little more
freedom. We were part of a pilot project, in a way, considering
this bill under a new set of rules. We therefore did not adopt the
principle of the bill at second reading, and, accordingly, we were
able to broaden Bill C-43 from what the witnesses said and from
the input of each of the parties. Members' work had to be given
greater consideration, etc. It was all very fine.
Therefore, through a procedural swap and an exchange
between members of the opposition and members of the
government, we negotiated and we discussed, and I was ready to
make a concession on the categories, so there would be only two
instead of three. My first thought was to have a single category.
However, it is better to bend a bit to achieve part of the desired
objective than to risk missing it completely. So, I was ready to
bend and to recommend to the members of the Bloc Quebecois
that they support an amendment that would reduce the three
categories to two. There would then be the category of in-house
lobbyists (corporate) and professionals and the category of
in-house lobbyists (organizations). All lobbyists would then be
in two categories.
Before Christmas, this was accepted by just about everyone
around the table. After Christmas, well, I do not know who had
been making telephone calls, or what lobby had exerted
influence or what, but everything was off. The amendments
proposed to the committee were rejected by the government.
Today, with Motion No. 2, the government could rectify the
situation. Motion No. 2 now before us this morning is a carbon
copy, or just about, of what I presented in committee in order to
eliminate categories of lobbyists and have only one.
I do not imagine that anyone here has anything against
lobbying per se. It does not matter whether organizations are
non-profit or profit making, if they lobby in an attempt to
influence the government, they have to abide by the rules.
(1130)
To get approval for a single tier of lobbyists for all
organizations, including community agencies, that is the
purpose of clause 4(2) of Bill C-43, which I discussed earlier
with respect to government initiative, which would eliminate
people who might not agree to being recognized as lobbyists on
the same terms as professional lobbyists. However, the
government accepted the first amendment but did not accept
what would have been consequential on the amendment, which
was to have a single tier of lobbyists.
I have a few examples that will show why it is important-and
when I say lobby, I mean lobby-to make C-43 a bill that has
clout, that has teeth, as they say. There were organizations like
MATRAC, for instance. I do not know if you remember this, Mr.
Speaker, but when cigarette smuggling was going on in January
and February 1994, there was an organization called MATRAC,
a non-profit organization that sought to have taxes lowered. I
have no objection to that. We in the official opposition were in
favour of reducing these taxes. However, MATRAC initially
gave the impression of being a non-profit organization. In other
words, it worked for the benefit of its members and did not enjoy
any immediate benefit.
It could be called a non-profit organization, which would
come under the third heading in the bill before the House today.
However, if we look a little closer at MATRAC, we realize that it
was 100 per cent financed by the cigarette manufacturers in
order to get taxes down. This is a clear instance of trying to
influence the government on an important matter, tax revenues.
Why have a separate tier for such a group? I am of the opinion
that the act should deal with that by allowing a single tier of
lobbyists. But no. I believe we must conclude that lobbyists on
Parliament Hill have manged to influence the government with
respect to a bill that was supposed to limit their influence. That
is the obvious conclusion.
They made certain commitments with respect to the tier
system before the election. Now they are in government, they
can implement what they promised to do, but they are not doing
it. In addition, that would explain why we could create just one
category to make the process more transparent and to give
everybody in this country the impression that they are all being
treated equally. But no, the government did not do this. The
lobbyists got involved, phone calls were made, and the Liberals
buckled. They buckled like the Conservatives did and like others
before them have done since Confederation. And they will keep
on buckling until they are doubled over. I cannot wait to see the
day that happens in the House. I mean I will no longer be in the
House when that day comes, but will watch the spectacle from
the outside.
11731
One motion in this set of motions is extremely important, and
that is Motion No. 7 regarding political affiliation. This is
another amendment I proposed to the committee, and it would
make it easier for taxpayers to identify which lobbyists are
politically affiliated with the government or with any other
party. For example, I helped organize party X's election victory.
I would have to mention in my return that I contributed to the
election campaign and that I was the political organizer of Mr. X
or Ms. Y. I think that is what transparency is all about. What
does the government have against making the process more
transparent? I do not know. But if they were not against the idea,
they would have included it in Bill C-43 and they did not.
I will conclude my remarks, for I see that my time is up. This
is yet another good example of this government's double talk:
one tune before the election, another after. Once again,
taxpayers will have to foot the bill for this, and they still will not
know why Bill C-43 was introduced, which was to make the
process more transparent in order to obtain answers to our
questions.
This has some implications for the Pearson issue. With Bill
C-43, we will still be in the dark and will not know any more
than what the newspapers have already disclosed regarding the
matter. And that is deplorable.
(1135)
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak on Bill C-43 and to
support my colleagues in the House.
Rebuild trust in government, is that not a familiar term? In
Manitoba last month I heard these words repeated because it is
having a provincial election today. Mr. Mulroney in 1983 when
he defeated the Liberal government of the day said we have to do
away with corruption, rebuild trust in government, lobbyists are
overdoing it, ripping us off.
The hon. member for St. Albert mentioned a 747 flying
through a loop. The ``Fifth Estate'' about a month ago showed
how two lobbyists flew 34 airbuses through the loops the
Conservatives had put out. A couple of lobbyists have received
$20 million. They can be identified by their accounts in Swiss
banks. When I heard that I assumed we were to have a
government that would crack down on stuff like this and we
would be debating it in the House the next day. I have heard
nothing about it.
Why do we want to pass the bill if we never want to do
something about it by cleaning up the corruption? In Manitoba
over the last month I heard about the terrible mess the
Conservatives made of the health care system. They paid $4
million to an American lobbyist to tell them how to fix their
health care system and they do not have one.
Why are we debating this bill? Why do we not have some
action? We have had rules and regulations before. One very
good example took place about a year ago in the subcommittee
on transport. Every member, Liberal, Bloc and Reform, said to
stop the backtracking. The backtracking issue over the last two
years has cost us $60 million. We had total support from the
committee to stop it. Who was lobbying the agriculture minister
and the transport minister to continue with this? I talked with the
railways and they said there was no way they had lobbied for it
because they would be shipping grain regardless.
I talked to the wheat board people. They said they did not
export grain and that it was the registered grain companies that
did that. I talked to the grain companies and they told me it was
the wheat board that insisted they do it.
I looked at the facts and found that we do not sell grain
delivered to a foreign country. It is Appleby, Thunder Bay or
Appleby, Vancouver. This backtracking has cost us $60 million.
Are the American lobbyists lobbying our government to give
them money to backtrack the grain so they can have it a little
cheaper? This concerns me.
We are passing bills. We are passing rules and regulations but
nobody seems to want to enforce them. What good are we in
Parliament when we all agree on doing something and then have
lobbyists change the system? Now the WGTA will correct it.
However, we have allowed it to go on for two years and we knew
about it.
I am beginning to wonder whether we should all stay at home
and leave these lobbyists instead of sitting in Parliament day
after day trying to pass regulations. I am sure we have laws on
the books that would prosecute these people for ripping off the
taxpayers, the only lobbyists we should be listening to.
On the last day in the House on the gun legislation, what
happened to the three members who finally listened to the
lobbyists in their constituencies and had the guts to stand up in
the House and vote no? They have been muzzled, shut up. When
that hit Manitoba there was a backlash which I believe blew the
election for the Liberals. Why would we elect people who are
not even allowed to get up in the House to speak their minds and
represent their constituents?
They are some of the best backbenchers the Liberals have. I
have worked with them.
(1140 )
It is very sad when we have to witness this day after day and
our country is deeper and deeper in debt.
People who have the guts to get up and say something are not
allowed to say it. It is time we realize that when there are
amendments made that will be beneficial to taking corruption
out of the system we should support them, not because they are
made by the Reform Party or the Bloc, but because they are good
for the country.
11732
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no one on this side of the House
fears recrimination for standing up and speaking out on issues.
Members have heard the Prime Minister say on many
occasions that quite often we have a much better debate within
our own party than we have in the House because sometimes the
opposition does not get to the complexity and the depths of
issues. The member who spoke previously really distorted this
bill.
I was one of the most outspoken members in opposition on
amending the Lobbyist Registration Act. There were three very
specific areas we amended in this bill. I will talk about where I
feel I did not get everything I wanted.
We have in the bill now things that make it much better. We
now have in the loop all grassroots lobbying. That is important
but was not a deal breaker for me. Another thing that really
concerned me in opposition was communications techniques
used by lobbyists. We knew lobbyists used polling and
advertising. They sometimes spent millions of dollars in
advertising and no one knew how the mood of the nation or the
House was being affected.
This bill was amended to include a declaration of all those
communication techniques so those in the House who have to
deal with a lobby coming at them not just from a lobbyist but
also from the way a market can be manipulated now know the
techniques being used.
Mr. Hoeppner: What about if you used the lobbyists for
input. What if the government wants the input from the
lobbyists?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I will come back to
that. Let me state the three things in the bill which the member
did not mention when he said this bill did not have any teeth.
Another thing in this bill has to do with contingency fees. The
example the member used about the air bus situation, obviously
it was not an hourly fee.
Mr. Hoeppner: Twenty million dollars, no matter what it is.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): That was obviously a
contingency fee and in this bill there is a provision to look at
contingency fees.
Mr. Hoeppner: Do something about it.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, the
member keeps saying do something about it. We are saying that
it is in the bill. He has to read the bill and he will see it is there.
I was a little disappointed with one area. I have been
campaigning for six years on comprehensive tax reform. Five
years later there is one little mention in the Globe and Mail. It is
not easy to get things through the House and we do not always
get everything we want.
There were some substantial amendments to this bill that I
think go a long way in creating transparency. I felt
uncomfortable about the declaration of fees. We did not get that
one through, but it does not take away from this being a good
bill.
I want to deal with Motion No. 7, which I am opposed to. It is a
Reform amendment: ``Past political or government work and
political contributions over $1,000 shall be disclosed''.
(1145 )
I am totally opposed to the Reform amendment.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): That does not
surprise us.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Let me tell you why I
am opposed to this. What we need to do, and you are eventually
going to discover this-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has been here since
1988. For the 400th time, I imagine, would he please put his
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, my
humble apologies. In fact, I have been in this town since 1980 so
I should know better.
I am opposed to this motion because I believe that as members
of Parliament our greatest challenge is trying to attract people to
participate in the political process. I believe that our
responsibility is to attract-
Mr. Hoeppner: Your greatest challenge is trying to attract
constituents.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, how
tough. We all know how tough it is to get businessmen and
women to knock on doors and get involved in the political
process. It is not-
Mr. Bellehumeur: Ce n'est pas cela.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I can tell you right
now, Mr. Speaker, that probably not more than 40 or 50 members
in the House can claim that they have more than 100 or 200
businessmen and women knocking on doors and doing polls or
getting involved in their campaigns. They might come along and
go to a fundraiser but they will not actually go out to do the real
slogging.
11733
A motion like this only discourages people from getting
involved in the political process. One of the reasons it
discourages people from getting involved is because we have a
situation, regrettably, where because of the concentration of
power-and most of the real concentration of power tends to be
with the Conservative Party-quite often large corporations do
not encourage their employees to get involved in the political
process.
We all know what happened during the 1988 election when
large corporations not only took out full page ads saying: ``Vote
for the free trade agreement'', they also wrote letters to their
employees saying: ``Campaign for the free trade agreement''.
Mr. Hoeppner: I thought you were going to change that.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): We made some pretty
good changes to the free trade agreement. Do not forget that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Hoeppner: It was the wrong bill.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Do not ask me to get
involved in the changes that were made vis-à-vis the
environment or labour standards. The point is that we did make
some amendments.
The Reform Party amendment calls for past political or
government work or political contributions over $1,000 to be
disclosed. That works against getting people involved in the
democratic process, not to mention the fact that it creates all
kinds of paperwork. Absolutely nothing is hidden because the
extent to which lobbyists have to register right now is 1,000
miles of improvement in comparison to the previous bill.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak in support of the reasoned, intelligent proposals
and amendments being put forward by my hon. colleague from
Elk Island.
Let us take a look at some of the situations being proposed by
these amendments. First, we are talking about adding the names
of everyone that the lobbyists attempt to influence to the list of
the disclosure requirements. Quite simply, if a lobbyist is paid
handsomely to achieve a desired goal, to win a contract, or
whatever the case may be, we want to know whether that person
has access to the minister, to the deputy minister or whether he is
talking to the individual directors. We want to know to whom he
is talking. Unfortunately the vast majority of Canadians do not
have that kind of access to people at the decision making level.
(1150)
I cannot understand why the government is opposed to this
type of motion. It seems perfectly clear to me and to the Reform
caucus that we want to know who is being lobbied by these high
priced lobbyists. They have unlimited expense accounts. They
can wine, they can dine and they can go on trips. They have
money to acquire information. That is what a lobbyist does. All
Canadians want to know how the money is being spent to try to
win influence from a particular person.
I spoke earlier about the book On the Take. I would hope that
nobody else is on the take from that point forward but we can
never be sure. One story after another in that book is of people
on the take, from riding presidents, to political hacks, to past
employees, to friends, to the Mafia, you name it. They were all
in it and they were all running around Parliament Hill rubbing
shoulders, buying favours and currying attention that they were
getting on many occasions.
When Canadians read that book and realize what has been
going on they are shocked to the core that these types of things
can go on in a democratic system such as Canada's. We are
proud of our system. The system has to be opened up so we can
see what is going on, so we can ensure that when these backroom
deals, which benefit nobody except one or two people, are
ferreted out, these people are held to account. It has to be
prevented from happening again.
If we are going to hold our heads high in government, one
thing that we want to be able to ensure is that all Canadians have
faith in the system. That is what we are trying to do with these
motions.
How about the motion to which the member for
Broadview-Greenwood is so adamantly opposed? We are
asking that lobbyists be required to report previous government
or political employment, executive positions with a political
party and if they have made a political contribution over $1,000.
That does not seem to be an onerous requirement, yet he is
totally and adamantly opposed. He says it will discourage
people from getting involved in the political process. That is
exactly what we want to say. When people are no longer sitting
in the House, the day after they are defeated, we do not want
them involved in the political process.
After they have been defeated or have retired from politics we
do not want to see them back on Parliament Hill talking to their
friends and other people they know, saying: ``I am now getting
paid a large amount of money by some corporation to win
influence from my friends with whom I used to work''.
I cannot understand why the member for
Broadview-Greenwood would be so adamantly opposed to
such a situation. He has been around since 1980. He just said that
a few minutes ago. That is 15 years he has been in the House.
Mr. Boudria: No, no.
Mr. Epp: He has been around here for 15 years.
Mr. Williams: Has he been a member for 15 years?
11734
Mr. Epp: No.
Mr. Williams: I apologize. He has been a member of the
House since 1988. No doubt he knows a large number of people
because that is the way Parliament Hill works.
We want to know that the day he is defeated or retired from the
House is not the day we find him back on Parliament Hill
collecting an even bigger salary, working behind the scenes and
currying influence from his friends. That is what we are trying to
say. We want to discourage people from getting involved in the
political process when they are no longer participating in the
House.
A riding president, a member of the party executive have
access to cabinet ministers, to the Prime Minister. If they do
their jobs properly they win elections for cabinet ministers and
the Prime Minister and for all the members of Parliament. They
are volunteers. They work hard. We know the people in our
constituency. No doubt that applies to every member in the
House. Therefore constituency presidents and constituency
executives have the inside track in contacting the people in
power and we want to know if they are doing it.
(1155)
Then of course there are those people who have money in their
jeans and may feel that by giving a donation to a political party
that brings their name to the attention of the member. No doubt
the member is grateful for the contribution and some people may
feel they can buy influence that way. All we are asking is that
these things be brought out into the open.
Yet the Liberal government in its red book said it wanted to
have an open and transparent policy on lobbyists. Now that the
Liberals are on that side of the House they have changed their
tune. We heard a quote earlier today by the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who in 1991 said: ``What's
wrong with a system that would disclose fees and major
reimbursements?'' Now as the whip for the government side is
he supporting our motion? No.
The Liberals have this double speak system. When on they
were on this side of the House they said this is patently unfair.
They held their hands up in horror and said that it had to be
changed. Now when they are on the other side of House only
mild, ineffectual, little changes are all that they propose.
We ask that the remuneration paid to lobbyists be part of the
list of disclosure requirements. That is not a big thing. We have
found out that there are millions of dollars changing hands to
buy influence in this country. We would like to think that is the
type of stuff that only goes on in other countries that have a
much lower parliamentary tradition than we have. I do not want
to make disparaging remarks about other countries so I will not
name them. We know there are countries where bribery, money
changing hands and currying influence is the order of the day
and we want to ensure that in Canada that does not apply.
We want all Canadians to know that the system ensures that
does not work. We ask that this bill require these contingency
fees, if they are not a salary, which can be very large, be
disclosed.
Again I go back to the Pearson International Airport fiasco
where hundreds of millions of dollars are potentially being
made or lost. Unfortunately it is the taxpayers who are going to
lose and it is a small group of businessmen, including some
Liberal people, who are going to win. All we want to know is
who is getting paid what in this deal. It is not much to ask on
behalf of the Canadian taxpayer who ends up paying, paying,
paying and gets nothing, nothing, nothing.
We want to ensure openness, transparency, fairness. We want
to ensure that the individual taxpayer who is paying the bill gets
a fair shake. It is not much to ask but obviously beyond the
capacity of this government to provide.
What else are we proposing? We are asking that anyone who
receives funding from the government or a government agency
discloses the fact, including the amount of that funding. Is the
group itself doing the lobbying or has it hired a professional
lobbyist? This is where we are paying government money to be
lobbied to pay more government money. It has got to be the
biggest insult of all to the taxpayer. The Liberal member from
Wentworth has investigated some of these organizations and
finds that by and large these groups exist to get more money out
of government to pay their salaries so that they can come back
and get more money out of government to pay their salaries. We
are asking that this be made open.
(1200 )
I think this type of motion, which suggests we want to know
whether government is paying people to try to get more money
from it, should be out in the open. I cannot think of any real
reason the government would be paying under that scenario. If it
is happening, we want to know about it. As I understand,
according to the member for Hamilton-Wentworth it is already
happening.
The taxpayers are not aware of it. I am sure they would be
lining up to get that kind of job, which would become
self-serving and a continuing situation. They could go to the
government and ask to be paid another $100,000 a year because
they claim to represent x number of people. After receiving the
money they could come back and ask what about next year, the
year after, and the year after that. We are trying to stop that. We
want to get it out in the open. These are the situations we are
talking about.
I could go on and on. Let this government know they made a
commitment through the red book. We expect they would live up
to that.
11735
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the
great honour to report back to Parliament an amended Bill C-43.
I think it represented a most historic moment in Canadian
parliamentary democracy. I believe it has improved
parliamentary democracy. The process we adopted in this
particular bill improved democracy greatly.
Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act,
was tabled by the Minister of Industry on June 14, 1994. As
members know, it was immediately referred to our
subcommittee, before second reading. That is before agreement
in the House on the principles of the bill. I believe it was one of
the first bills in Canadian history that has taken advantage of
this new parliamentary procedure.
These new procedures have allowed a committee of
backbench members of Parliament, including opposition
members, to take a government sponsored bill and amend it to
its liking with basically no restrictions on how far members of
Parliament could change the tabled legislation. All the members
of Parliament really tested the new procedure.
As chairman of the committee, I am very proud of the report
we used and the powers we were given. Some of my colleagues
feel they want more power. They wanted a greater opportunity to
make changes. We listened very carefully. We worked as a team.
I believe we produced a very good report.
I was very impressed by the wide-ranging and open
discussions of the various views expressed by all members of
Parliament. We had over 75 witnesses who testified before our
committee last fall and into the winter. We had some very lively
debates. We had more than 50 individuals and organizations who
also submitted briefs before our committee. At the end of the
day, I believe a majority of the committee enthusiastically
subscribed to some of the important amendments brought
forward by some of our colleagues in the opposition ranks.
I also believe that some of the opposition members came to
accept some important improvements proposed by the
government side. That is precisely what democracy is about and
that is precisely what the new procedures were intended to
achieve.
In summary, I believe the experience was very valuable. I
encourage the government to continue to use this new
committee procedure as often as possible. I believe it can only
result in better legislation. By giving members of Parliament a
more proactive role in drafting legislation, it can only further
the people's confidence in our democratic institutions. I think
that fostering people's faith in their government is very much
what this process is all about. But as the report was entitled, it is
rebuilding trust in our institutions. It presumes that over the
course of the last eight or ten years some cynicism has crept into
the system by virtue of activities of certain members of
Parliament over the course of the last Parliament.
(1205)
I see the members of our committee here today, and I am very
impressed that all members are very committed to making those
changes. We listened very carefully to members of both the
official opposition and the third party when they put suggestions
forward.
Let me summarize some of the key elements. In fact there
were 13 specific amendments that I believe the government has
accepted for this bill. Bill C-43 as it was originally tabled had
improved certain amendments on the lobbyists registration. I
believe that our committee made some additional
improvements. We significantly enhanced the transparency,
which is so crucial in breaking the cynicism that has been
associated with the lobby industry. We have significantly
strengthened the powers of the ethics counsellor. All lobbyists,
for example, are going to have to indicate if they intend to use
grassroots lobbying in their attempt to influence the
government. This was not in Bill C-43 as it was originally
proposed.
Consultant lobbyists will have to indicate if they are paid on a
contingency fee basis. This is over and above the ban on
contingency fees for lobbying on government contracts. Any
organization that lobbies the government will have to reveal any
amount they receive from any government. That is an important
change.
The ethics counsellor, as part as of an investigation, will have
the power to disclose information on fees and disbursements
associated with any lobbying activity, not only on government
contracts. I am particularly proud of this amendment because I
think it gives a significantly enhanced new power to the
important role of our ethics counsellor.
The ethics counsellor will not only have to report on the
results of his investigations of a breach of the lobbyists code of
conduct, but he will have to include the investigative findings,
conclusions and reasons for the conclusions. That came out of
the spirit of one of our colleagues from the opposition ranks.
Finally, the ethics counsellor will have to make a separate
report once a year, which will be submitted to Parliament, on his
activities with respect to lobbying.
Our committee has also amended Bill C-43 significantly as
far as the lobbyists code of conduct-
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
listened attentively to the hon. member who was chairman of the
committee. However, I think that he should save his speech for
third reading and I would ask him to deal more directly with the
group of motions before us.
11736
I am sure that he has interesting things to say, but I think that
his speech today is totally out of context.
[English]
Mr. Manley: It is not a point of order.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, I think that the hon.
member for Berthier-Montcalm is right. We must focus on the
amendments. I know that there are a lot but I think that, in the
common interest, all hon. members should restrict their
comments to the amendments before us. As the hon. member
said, we will have an opportunity to go over all the issues at third
reading.
(1210)
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I have to remind my colleagues from
the third party and the official opposition that I believe my
comments do direct the larger issue. The larger issue is that at
committee our colleagues in the Bloc and in the Reform had an
opportunity to propose their amendments during that process.
On balance, I have listened very carefully to the suggestions
that have been made by my colleagues, and, with the greatest of
respect, I believe our new process has worked very well. Also,
while I understand the suggestions and amendments our
colleagues proposed, I believe we listened very carefully and
made some significant amendments, in fact 13 in total.
I would respectfully suggest that we decline supporting those
Reform and Bloc suggestions for the reasons I outlined earlier.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have
been some consultations with all of the parties, and I think you
may find unanimous consent for the following two motions.
First, Motion No. 9 be amended, so that it would now read:
That clause 3 of Bill C-43 be amended by adding immediately after line 44
on page 3 the following:
``(e.1) where, to the knowledge of the individual, the client is funded in
whole or in part by a government, the name of the government or government
agency, as the case may be, and the amount of funding received by the client
from that government or government agency;''
By way of explanation, this just adds the phrase ``to the
knowledge of the individual''. That is the first motion to amend.
The second amendment has to to with Motion No. 16. It is an
amendment to the wording in the French. I regret that I am
totally inept in the French language. Therefore, I would like to
table that and perhaps prevail upon you, Mr. Speaker, to do the
reading for me. I think it would do greater service to the
language.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member
said that you would find unanimous consent. The Bloc
Quebecois is not giving its consent to the two proposed
amendments to motions, which deal more or less with the same
matter. We are not giving our consent.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: As we do not have unanimous consent,
there is no point in reading the motion in French or in English.
Accordingly, is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to
Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 24, 26, 27, 32 and 33.
Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 7?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1215 )
The Deputy Speaker: Under Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
11737
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were supposed
to vote on a group of motions. I notice that you are presenting
the motions one by one. If we are voting on the version of
Motion No. 9 that I have before me, I will vote against this
motion. I thought this had already been settled by grouping the
motions. Are we dealing with each motion separately and
deferring the division until the end of the day?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has raised an
important point. If he will refer to the very long and complex
decision made earlier, he will see that Motions Nos. 7, 9 and 21
will be voted on separately. That is what we are doing now. I
think that if our colleagues show enough flexibility, we could
now proceed with the vote on Motion No. 9 by unanimous
consent.
Mr. Bellehumeur: The official opposition is against Motion
No. 9, but I thought that it had been voted on at the same time as
Motion No. 7. I now understand that you are dealing with every
motion separately. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to go back to this vote because we wish to say that we are
against this motion, so that the vote can be deferred until the end
of the day.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Then it is settled.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 21. Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Motion No. 21 agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 19 will be debated and
voted on separately.
(1220)
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-43 be amended by adding after line 2, on page 13, the following
new clause:
``4.1. Section 8 is replaced by the following:
``8. The governor in council may designate any person as the registrar for the
purposes of this act''''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to rise to
address the issues before us in Bill C-43 and this particular
amendment.
I will respond briefly to the speech made by the chairman of
our committee moments ago. We appreciated his leadership in
the committee. It looked at first as if it were a good process. I
now have some reservations about going to committee after first
reading because in the end party discipline came to rule and we
were unable to finish the way we had started.
So that all members have a clear understanding of the purpose
of the amendment, it says the governor in council may designate
any person as the registrar for the purposes of this act.
I want to make it very clear that what we are aiming at here is
to have more accountability and less of the backroom politics
which have plagued our parliamentary system. This distresses
many voters and taxpayers. There are lobbyists who have in
11738
some cases better access to the government decision making
loop than the access enjoyed by members of Parliament. We
need to take strong action in this matter.
Bill C-43, the act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act,
now with this amendment basically designates two individuals
responsible for the administration of the act. One is the ethics
counsellor. That discussion does not fit under this amendment so
I will simply say he or she is one of the very important elements
in the administration which has to do primarily with the ethics
end of it. The other is the registrar. The registrar will be
enforcing the compliance of the act with respect to registration
and disclosure.
Once again, our goal is for the Canadian people to say they
believe now those lobbying activities are transparent. They will
be able to find out about them. They will be able to find out who
is lobbying who, what they are being paid, what the conditions
are, what their connections are.
There will be a good check and balance against the kind of
corruption which can so easily enter the open government
system. What is happening today is a public debate. People can
hear it; not only members of Parliament but any member of the
public who wants to hear what is happening in the House has the
ability to do so. They can watch it on television, they can read
Hansard or they can read media reports.
However, when it comes to lobbying, that is not public.
Therefore we require a mechanism whereby lobbying is made
open so that the taxpayers know what is happening just like they
have the right to know what is happening here. In order to
achieve that we need a system whereby the accountability of the
registration system is also trustworthy. That is what we are
addressing in this amendment. We are saying the appointment of
the registrar should go far beyond being a civil service
appointment. I am in no way casting any dispersions on any
office holder here past or present when I say this.
(1225)
There may be perfect honesty and trustworthiness in that
position but people are suspicious if they do not have real input
into the appointment. Many of these public service positions are
filled without even proper information being given to the
Canadian people. I know that information is available but it is
not publicized.
We are dealing, as the title of the report says, with rebuilding
trust. This amendment will provide that this be a governor in
council appointment rather than a civil service appointment. It
means there will be proper notice. It means there will be an
actual public debate about the individual, his credentials and his
trustworthiness.
The process of giving the governor in council appointment to
an individual also gives more credibility to the individual. In
other words, it gives him a little more clout. He will be able to
with good authority investigate where there seems to be a
violation of the act. He will be more than just a person who has a
job to fill. He will have a public role because a governor in
council appointee will have to report and account for the way
things are done.
I cannot talk about the process extensively in this debate.
However, I am disappointed in one thing, getting back to the
process. We were given the impression that in committee at first
reading there would be no problem with bringing forward
amendments at second reading and at report stage which is
where we are at now. We would have liked to bring in greater
strength and authenticity to the position of the registrar. Because
of this process, and this is one of the things now causing me to
have second thoughts about its viability, we are prevented from
going as fully in this direction as we would like.
We would have liked to had the registrar make a public report
and have the appointment in public and also that there would be
a way for the registrar to really go after people who deliberately
try to circumvent the system of registration.
I am not sure the bill as it now stands will provide enough
accountability and enough authority in the hands of the registrar
to do that. I really hope it will happen. The way the bill is being
written and without this amendment which strengthens that
position somewhat I think we are leaving it to a great extent to
chance which is not sufficient for the process we are looking at
here.
The whole registration system as administered by the
registrar must be open. I am very pleased to see that in our
committee the recommendation is that there will be electronic
access to the information so that as individuals want to find out
who is lobbying who, that information which is registered will
have a wider accessibility. That is a very positive part of the bill
and one which I am sure all members of the House would
support.
I want members of the House to apply their good common
sense, listen to reason and support this amendment because it
strengthens the authority and the position of the registrar, the
position which is really pivotal together with the ethics
counsellor in making these changes work.
(1230)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I was not going to repeat what I said at the beginning, in
my introductory remarks on Motion No. 1, when I took a few
minutes to explain why the Bloc Quebecois had taken the stand
it took at the committee stage of this bill and describe the
general attitude of the hon. members who sat on this committee.
But in the light of the comments made by the hon. member for
11739
Fundy-Royal, who also chaired the sub-committee on this
bill, I will focus on the causes for my disappointment, since he is
here to hear what I have to say, as will the minister opposite.
I repeat, I am disappointed with this new consultation
process. The main reason for referring the bill to committee
before second reading was to allow members to play a more
prominent role and promote dialogue between the government
and opposition parties to enhance the contribution of members
to the development of legislation. The idea was to give
opposition members the chance to express their views on the bill
now before us.
Look at the changes to Bill C-43 as a result of this process and
watch what will happen, at the end of the day, to the proposals
made by opposition parties this afternoon. You will see that
nothing changes. It comes to the same thing. So much so that
when the minister appeared before the committee as our first
witness, he told us that we had a free hand, that we were the best
lobbyists there was to have the act amended, but he also gave us
directions. While all his directions made it to Bill C-43,
amendment proposals made at committee stage by the
opposition, and the official opposition in particular, including
twenty or so of my own fostering greater transparency, were all
rejected. That is why I want to tone down this whole thing. I
think we could revert to the old process, since this one is not
much different anyway and comes to the same thing.
Regarding Motion No. 19, I must tell the sponsor of this
amendment straight off that I agree in principle with his
amendment. I think that Motion No. 19 serves the purpose of
fostering greater transparency. This is a commendable goal and
we, Bloc members, will work toward and support this goal.
However, what stands in the way of this motion being adopted is
much more a technical consideration. Let me explain.
Motion No. 19 seeks to amend section 8 of the existing
legislation, the Lobbyists Registration Act. That act is in
Chapter L-12.4 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Section 8,
which is under the heading ``Registry of lobbyists'', reads as
follows: ``The Registrar General of Canada may designate any
person employed in the office of the Registrar General of
Canada as the registrar for the purposes of this Act''. Therefore,
the section 8 currently in effect deals with the designation of the
registrar. What does the registrar do? His role is to keep the
registry of lobbyists. This is what the existing act provides.
Based on its wording, section 8 designates the registrar.
Motion No. 19 reads as follows: ``8. The Governor in Council
may designate any person as the registrar for the purposes of this
Act.'' The motion therefore refers to the Registrar General of
Canada. The amended section in Motion No. 19 designates the
Registrar General of Canada. But who will designate the
registrar? As I said earlier, the underlying principle is good.
Things would be clearer if the Governor in Council were the one
designating the Registrar General of Canada.
(1235)
This would ensure greater transparency. However, the
amendment proposed by the member does not specify who will
designate the registrar. Yet, this is extremely important, since
the registrar is the one who maintains the registry of lobbyists. I
believe the amendment proposed in Motion No. 19 is incomplete
and thus we cannot support it, since it would create a vacuum
regarding the implementation of the Lobbyists Registration Act.
There is a legal principle which says that the legislator does
not intervene uselessly. The legislator does not make a law for
no reason. This is even more true in this case, where the
legislator is represented by all of us here. Parliament does not
make legislation to poke holes in its implementation. I sincerely
believe that, if we support Motion No. 19, we will poke a hole in
the legislation regarding who will designate the registrars. If we
are going to create problems by amending the current
legislation, we should stick with the existing section 8 of the
Lobbyists Registration Act.
As I said, the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, will
oppose this motion, not because of its underlying principle,
which we support and which has to do with ensuring greater
fairness and transparency, but because it creates a vacuum in the
bill. Consequently, we will vote against Motion No. 19.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it certainly is
a pleasure to speak on Bill C-43.
I had the opportunity to sit on committee and participate in the
discussions. The committee was very successful in putting
forward a number of amendments that reflect what witnesses
had communicated to it. The disclosure of grassroots lobbying
and the disclosure of government funding for associations are
just two of the many amendments which have been put forward
with respect to Bill C-43.
Specifically on Motion No. 19, section 8 as it exists in our
present legislation reads: ``The Registrar General of Canada
may designate any person employed in the office of the
Registrar General of Canada as the registrar for the purposes of
this act''. Motion No. 19 attempts to amend that with the
following: ``The governor in council may designate any person
as the registrar for the purposes of this act''.
As the bill reads today, the registrar general is able to appoint
a person that is employed in his office, a public servant. That
public servant is bound by codes of conduct, Public Service
Commission rules, Treasury Board, all of those provisions
which ensure there is no political influence. There was no
evidence in committee that political pressure had been exerted
on this official, nor that the nature of the duties involved would
make this likely. If these duties justify parliamentary appoint-
11740
ment in order to ensure the independence of the registrar, then
countless other government officials should also be made
independent.
I wonder whether the hon. member with the intent put forward
in this motion realizes that it already exists. There are
provisions in the registration act where if we appoint a public
servant, as is the present provision, that public servant is
independent of any political pressure as the hon. member is
alluding to because of the code of conduct that individual is
bound by as a public servant. I am struggling with the intent of
the motion. The opposition party did bring out a point which
supported the fact that we would be unable to support this
amendment.
(1240)
I will comment briefly, as other members have done, on how
the committee functioned. The new structure in committee gives
members of Parliament a great opportunity to affect legislation.
We were able to do that with this bill by putting forward 13
amendments. We can make changes and provide input which
reflects what the witnesses asked us to do.
There will now be a legal obligation for lobbyists to comply
with the code of conduct and explicit authority for the registrar
of lobbyists to issue interpretation bulletins. These are all things
that improve the transparency and improve how the bill and its
application will function.
Let us look at the comments made earlier on how the intent of
the bill was to improve transparency and the statement by the
opposition parties that we are not doing that, we are not going
far enough. Let us just take a moment to look at what we have
done thus far.
The ethics counsellor who has been appointed will develop
the code of conduct for lobbyists. As I said earlier, there is a
legal obligation to comply. In keeping with the spirit of
increased powers for MPs, we will have the ability to review the
code of conduct by the parliamentary committee.
The ethics counsellor can investigate breaches of that code
and submit a detailed report of each investigation to Parliament.
This report can now include fees and disbursements that were
paid. These are all things that lend to the transparency of how
government works. Bill C-43 goes a long way in improving the
transparency.
With respect to Motion No. 19, the assumption behind the
motion is that the registrar is vulnerable to political pressures. I
find the arguments somewhat confused because the registrar, as
stated by the Bloc in an earlier comment, is responsible for the
administration of the lobbyists registry. As I said earlier, there is
and was not any evidence in committee that political pressure
had been exerted on this official.
If we defeat this motion, as I hope the House will do, we will
maintain in the bill the ability of the Registrar General of
Canada to designate that public servant who is bound by the
public service code of conduct to perform the duties required.
What did the committee do? The committee did strengthen the
powers of the registrar. The person will have the formal
authority to audit the information contained in any return or
document submitted and to issue interpretation bulletins and
advisory opinions. We have strengthened that position. We have
done so to allow the bill to work more effectively and to allow
for that transparency.
In summary, the registrar will have the authority necessary to
ensure the effective implementation of the act. I hope that we
will defeat Motion No. 19.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
Motion No. 19?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
(1245)
[English]
Motions Nos. 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31 will be grouped for
debate but voted on as follows. An affirmative vote on Motion
No. 22 obviates the necessity of the question being put on
Motion No. 23. On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion
No. 22 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 23.
Motion No. 25 will be voted on separately.
A vote on Motion No. 28 applies to Motion No. 29. An
affirmative vote on Motion No. 28 obviates the necessity to the
question being put on Motion No. 30. On the other hand, a
negative vote on Motion No. 28 necessitates the question being
put on Motion No. 30.
11741
Motion No. 31 will be voted on separately.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 29, on page
13, with the following:
``10.1(1) There shall be an Ethics Counsellor who shall be appointed by
commission under the Great Seal after approval of the appointment by
resolution of the House of Commons.
(2) Subject to this section, the Ethics Counsellor holds office during good
behaviour for a term of seven years, but may be removed by the Governor in
Council at any time on address of the House of Commons.
(3) The Ethics Counsellor, on the expiration of a first or any subsequent term
of office, is eligible to be re- appointed for a further term not exceeding seven
years.''
The Deputy Speaker: We are debating a group of motions. I
believe the Member for Elk Island had the floor to start.
[English]
I believe the member for Elk Island would like to ask for
unanimous consent. Is that correct?
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Though I
would normally have the floor first, I seek unanimous consent of
the House to have the floor granted to the member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley who would like to speak first on the
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order only to ask
whether we will complete the moving of the motions grouped
for debate in this case prior to commencing debate on one of the
motions.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is obliged to read each of the
motions in full because they have not been put on the public
record before in the House. They are not very long.
(1250 )
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 29, on page
13, with the following:
``10.1. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by commission under the Great
Seal, appoint the person who has been recommended by a resolution passed by
the Senate and the House of Commons to be the Ethics Counsellor for the
purposes of this Act, to hold office during good behaviour for a term of ten
years, but the Ethics Counsellor may be removed by the Governor in Council on
address of the Senate and House of Commons.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) the Ethics Counsellor ceases to hold
office on attaining the age of sixty-five years.''
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 37, on page 13,
the following:
``(2.1) The Ethics Counsellor shall cause a copy of the proposed Code to be
laid before each House of Parliament and shall not apply any proposed Code
that has not been first approved by both Houses of Parliament.''
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
moved:
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 45 and 46, on page
14, with the following:
``(3) The investigation shall be conducted publicly.''
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by deleting lines 13 to 30, on page
15.
[
English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended in the English version, by replacing
line 23, on page 15, with the following:
``any findings or conclusions contained in a report under''.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36, on page
15, with the following:
``lor's conclusions and shall cause a copy''.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to speak to the
bill and the motions.
We have talked in previous debate about the three-tier
registration system for lobbyists. We have talked about
increasing the transparency of how lobbyists operate. We have
talked about increasing the authority and the autonomy of the
ethics counsellor. I should like to focus my input on Motions
Nos. 23, 25 and 31.
Reformers were sent to Ottawa to try to influence the way
government operates in the House of Commons, a return to
ethics, integrity and honesty in the way the House of Commons
and different government departments operate.
In the eyes of most Canadians, politicians and government
people in this plastic city, as it is called in my riding, are very
much in question. The average Canadians has lost trust in
government, lost trust in the bureaucracy of the public service
and lost trust in the way the people entrusted to operate on their
behalf operate.
I will talk about integrity and trust, in particular the portion of
the bill that deals with the ethics counsellor. The ethics
counsellor, according to Bill C-43, will develop a lobbyists
code of conduct. I do not share the same concerns about how
lobbyists operate. Having been in the marketing business all my
life-and I was a pretty good salesman-I look upon lobbyists
as salesmen. They are selling concepts or ideas to the
government on
11742
behalf of companies or interest groups. They are there to do a
job. If they do a good job I am not uncomfortable with that.
However, the part of the bill I am uncomfortable with is how
the people in trusted positions react to lobbyists, whether they
be the ethics counsellor, the registrar or employees. Guidelines
must be put in place to ensure people in positions of trust are not
privately influenced by lobbyists. In other words, it has to be an
open and visible process so the people of Canada and
parliamentarians are able to see clearly what is going on behind
the closed doors of the people in trusted positions.
I refer to the infamous Liberal red book or the red ink book, as
we prefer to call it. The red book said that integrity in our
political institutions must be restored. That is a very honourable
statement but the proof of the statement must be in the pudding.
How is integrity in our political institutions to be restored? That
is the question people ask. It is fine, in the heat of an election, to
make statements and even put them in writing. However
following through on the statements is the most important thing
a government can do and the most important thing the people of
Canada are looking for.
(1255)
When Canadians see a statement in the Liberal Party red book
that it is going to restore integrity in the political institutions,
they are looking for some proof of it. The proof is not there.
We have a situation where the Prime Minister can appoint an
ethics counsellor. We beg to ask the question: Where is the
integrity in that? It opens a door to many conflicts of interest.
We in the Reform Party are firmly convinced that the
appointment of an ethics counsellor, if integrity in our political
institution is to be restored, must be approved by the Parliament
of Canada. After all, every MP in this place represents the
Canadian people. We were elected to come here and do a job. A
position as important as the appointment of an ethics counsellor
should be approved by Parliament as a whole.
There are some examples already in the 35th Parliament in
support of the Reform Party's demand that an ethics counsellor
must be approved after debate in the House of Commons. Let me
go through a few.
Patronage is alive and well in the country and in the
government. When the Prime Minister appoints another Liberal
he says that he has to appoint Liberals. We question every day in
question period the qualifications of some of the appointments
made by the Prime Minister and his ministers. We say that they
have the qualifications but we ask if they happen to be Liberal
supporters, long time Liberal friends. That is a small example of
patronage being alive and well. It is something the government
said it was to do away with.
Let me quote some other examples such as the minister of
heritage affair. In October 1994 it was revealed that the minister
of heritage wrote a letter to the CRTC on ministerial letterhead
in support of one of his constituent's applications. In our
opinion it was a clear conflict of interest in as much as the
minister of heritage is responsible for the CRTC. The Prime
Minister in his wisdom called it an honest mistake. We
questioned that. We asked how many more examples of
perceived conflicts of interest can be written off by the Prime
Minister as honest mistakes.
The Prime Minister refused to ask for the resignation of the
minister of heritage as was demanded by many members in the
House. He also refused to tell Canadians what the ethics
counsellor had advised him to do.
On one occasion the Prime Minister said that he had talked to
the ethics counsellor. Then he said he had not talked to him and
then a staff member had talked to the ethics counsellor for the
Prime Minister.
Under the present guidelines of the ethics counsellor we in the
House will never know what happened in the minister of
heritage affair. Canadians have seen a perceived conflict of
interest swept aside with some talk about an honest mistake, that
maybe he should not have done that but should have done this
instead.
(1300 )
If we had an ethics counsellor, truly independent and
responsible to Parliament rather than the Prime Minister, there
would be a clear obligation on the part of the ethics counsellor to
report an incident such as I have described to Parliament and
there would be no question as to what happened.
We can talk about the post office scandal and the perceived
conflict of interest between a Liberal senator and president of
Canada Post and a developer. We can talk about the direct to
home satellite flip-flop just discussed in the House the other
day.
What we want in Motion No. 23 is to force the ethics
counsellor appointment to be approved by Parliament and that
he or she would serve 10 years. In that case the ethics counsellor
would no longer be at the whims of the Prime Minister as to his
appointment and removal. Setting a term limit would ensure he
does not become entrenched in a self-made empire, which
happens all the time in this place.
The red book promises an independent ethics counsellor.
Under Bill C-43 he is not independent. This amendment would
truly make him independent.
11743
Motions Nos. 25 and 31 would require the counsellor to table
his code of conduct to Parliament for approval and for debate.
The counsellor would report directly to Parliament, not to the
Prime Minister.
Motions Nos. 25 and 31-this is very important-create
accountability, legitimacy and autonomy within the ethics
counsellor's department. I believe these last three words,
accountability, legitimacy and autonomy, are very important to
this bill and I urge members to give their support.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the group of motions we are currently
considering is the most important, because it focusses on the
essence of the problem and of the goal of transparency. The
amendments, the motions presented by the opposition relate
directly to this.
This is why I am extremely happy to see all the Liberal
members and ministers listening very attentively to what I have
to say. Let them take notes and they will realize that the
objective of the motions put forward by the Bloc Quebecois,
Motions Nos. 22, 28 and 29, is indeed in line with the purpose of
Bill C-43 with respect to transparency.
I believe that, if we are really to convince Canadians and
Quebecers that Bill C-43 does indeed increase transparency and
is not some dubious undertaking, it will be with the help of
Motions Nos. 22, 28 and 29.
Motion No. 22 concerns the appointment of the ethics
counsellor. I do not want to go over this whole issue, but I think
and I believe everyone across from me will agree that the elected
representatives are the people who sit here. If someone is to
report to somebody or account for something to somebody,
anywhere in the entire system, it is to the duly elected
representatives.
But they still have to be able to choose this person-the ethics
counsellor. Bill C-43 gives a lot of power to the ethics
counsellor. Some witnesses even told us that the ethics
counsellor should be someone extremely powerful. Powerful for
whom or for what, if we, the elected representatives have no say
in the choice or in the appointment of this individual and, more
importantly, if he or she is not required to report to the House
and is not accountable to the elected representatives?
(1305)
We are now being told that his job is to watch over
parliamentarians' chastity. I would like to have a say on the kind
of work to be done by this ethics counsellor. I would like to have
a say on his appointment and his reports to the House.
As it now stands-and I think that most critics will agree on
this-, Bill C-43 has no teeth. One of the reasons why this bill
does not achieve the objectives set in terms of transparency is
that the ethics counsellor will have to report only to the Prime
Minister.
I see hon. members opposite shaking their heads in
disagreement and indicating to me that Bill C-43 still provides
for some safeguards. The ethics counsellor will release his
findings. That is not enough. Not only do we have no say in his
appointment, but the ethics counsellor will only justify his
findings. That is the purpose of Bloc Quebecois Motions Nos. 28
and 29, which provide that the ethics counsellor must conduct
his investigations publicly.
We must keep in mind that the ethics counsellor will act in
matters involving public money. I would not say anything if the
ethics counsellor could look at contracts involving two private
individuals or companies. I do not need to know the
circumstances, how much they paid for a given piece of land, or
why the contract was signed. However, when one of the parties
is the government, when one of the parties spends taxpayers'
money and makes laws or regulations that will have an indirect
impact on the population as a whole, I think it is a different
matter.
When I sat on the committee, people told me that, even though
I am a lawyer, I asked for things that even the Bar Association
could not ask for. I reminded these people that, whenever the
Quebec Bar Association investigates a lawyer, it is no longer a
public but a private matter.
The ethics counsellor is responsible for reviewing an issue
like the Pearson Airport deal, which everyone in this House is
familiar with. This is not a matter between two private parties.
The ethics counsellor will have to look go over the telephone
calls, the letters, the contacts, the meetings. We could have had
information. The people could have received information they
do not have at this time.
I think that the Canadian people have a right to know what is
being done with their tax money. We are paying enough taxes. I
think we should know what our money is being used for. The
only way to get to the bottom of this whole matter of lobbying
would be through public inquiries. This way we would know
which ministers and members of Parliament were involved and
who contacted a particular civil servant. We need to know. It is
not enough to go by findings on which the ethics councillor will
base his conclusions.
Let me give you a very simple example. If the only part of
court judgments to be released were the conclusions, whether at
the Superior Court, the Quebec Court or another court, few
people would be able to find grounds for an appeal. Basically,
disagreement would be expressed regarding the conclusions.
But why did the judge come to these conclusions? How does one
know what the judge's decision is based on? To appeal a
11744
decision, one needs to know who testified in the case, what they
said, what evidence was introduced, what the charges were and
so on. And where is all this information found? In the judgment.
(1310)
Why the judgment? Because most of the time, perhaps 99.9
per cent of the time, trials are public. While private parties are
involved, 99.9 per cent of trials are public and we get to know on
what basis the judge made his decision.
This is plainly a public matter involving public funds, and the
government, which claims to be transparent and which came up
with Bill C-43 to show its hands were clean and it was fulfilling
an election promise, introduced a bill whereby we will have no
say in the selection of the ethics councillor and, moreover, we
will never know a thing about his activities.
That is what this government is about, a Liberal government
that cannot even manage to fulfil the simplest of promises made
in its red book concerning transparency and lobbyists, when it
had promised to implement to the letter the recommendations of
the Holtmann report on greater transparency. I can see that what
we are saying here is painful to them because it is the truth. This
government is good at hiding problems without ever solving
them. It is hiding something. Bill C-43 is further evidence of
this.
You will understand therefore why these motions are so
important and why the government is reacting this way to my
comments. The fact is that we have put our finger on the real
problem and the problem is over there.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with
my hon. colleague from the Bloc that this is undoubtedly the
pivotal group of the items we are discussing today.
As I mentioned in my earlier intervention, the ethics
counsellor and the registrar basically will be the people who
administer this act and the revisions to the Lobbyist Registration
Act. The ethics counsellor is undoubtedly the one who will make
it work or allow it to fail. It will not be due to his or her work.
Subsequently it could be anyone. It is possible their work could
be undermined simply because this legislation is inadequate.
It is not really what the ethics counsellor does but the freedom
he has which will determine whether his reports will be received
with trust by the Canadian people or whether they will be
suspect. This is what I am speaking about.
The word independence is mandatory here. Imagine a court in
which a judge ruling on a matter is part of the family of one of
the people in the dispute. I am not a lawyer but I think it is
against the rules. A judge cannot sit on a case which involves a
member of his family.
Liberals are in government but next time it will be the
Reformers and then they will obviously have a need for an ethics
counsellor. There should clearly be no connection to the
Liberals. When Reformers are in power after the next
election-I hear no objections so I take it the House approves of
the idea-the ethics counsellor should have no connection to the
Reform Party. There should be not only a perceived
independence but an actual independence, or else the ethics
counsellor will not be heard.
When is the ethics counsellor needed? Primarily when there is
an item in dispute. If everything is tickety-boo, as we say, if
everything is running smoothly, there is no need for an ethics
counsellor. People are not suspicious and everything is fine.
The ethics counsellor comes into importance when there is a
perception that something has gone awry.
(1315 )
In this Parliament, even after the Liberals ran under the
platform of more accountability, more openness, more
trustworthiness, a number of questions have been raised. There
are really only two possibilities. Either the suspicions and
accusations are accurate and something has gone wrong, or the
suspicions and accusations are not accurate, which means the
people involved are innocent of the suspicions.
If we have an ethics counsellor who is basically answerable to
the government of the day and not to Parliament as a whole, nor
to the people, then we will have an ethics counsellor who is
totally unable to put the matter to rest. If there is something
untoward and he is answerable to the Prime Minister, he now has
lost his freedom to be totally open and honest in describing the
situation. He will not be able to make his friends or his family
look bad, so there will be a restriction there. If the people are
innocent and he so declares, the public will not believe him. It
will be perceived by the people-probably incorrectly-that he
is part of a cover-up, he is part of trying to put the matter to rest
without necessarily disclosing the truth.
I would like to remind the members opposite that I am not
trying to persuade them of something they do not believe in. At
least their words are that they believe in this. I would simply
quote from the Liberal red book, quoted often here. I do not
think we have any reason to distrust the integrity of the people
who wrote this in their book as part of their election platform:
``A Liberal government will appoint an independent''-I
emphasize that word-``ethics counsellor to advise both public
officials and lobbyists in the day to day application of the code
of conduct''.
That is the Liberal aspiration. Frankly, it is our aspiration as
well. It is what Canadian people are asking for. If we agree, then
I am sure we will have consent to the motions before us, which
will provide that independence.
11745
There are several of these motions here. The first one is really
a choice we have between accepting Motion No. 22 or Motion
No. 23, because they are very similar. Both provide that the
ethics counsellor be appointed by governor in council but
subject to the approval of the House of Commons and to be
removed by the same authority, rather than just being an
appointee of the Prime Minister with all of the implications of
that closeness, answerable to him-a necessity to make him
look good, a necessity to try to cover up. Whether it is true or
not, it has that appearance.
The ethics counsellor must have a method of appointment so
that there is absolutely no connection. He must be totally
independent.
I want to move on, because the time is limited and we have a
number of items in this grouping that I want to address. I would
next like to talk briefly about the code of conduct itself, which
the ethics counsellor will be administering. He of course is
responsible under this act for developing the code of conduct
and then administering it. I would like to say something about
that code of conduct.
It is almost impossible to legislate goodness. Sometimes
governments try to do that. I have said in public meetings,
especially when we talk about gun control, criminals, and the
Young Offenders Act, that there is probably not a law we can
pass that will make people good. I believe that. However, we do
have to have laws that will restrain those who are not good. That
is the objective of a law.
(1320)
When we think of the flaws in the human psyche we are trying
to prevent here, it has to do with office holders and their
relationship with lobbyists. If we are going to have a code of
conduct that is going to be fair, that is going to satisfy the needs
of the Canadian voters and taxpayers, that code of conduct also
will have to have a certain degree of independence. There will
have to be a development of that code that has a broad support.
I would like to recommend Motion No. 25, which says that the
ethics counsellor as proposed now will be producing the code of
conduct but that it will be approved by both Houses. Both the
House of Commons and the other place will have approval of
this code of conduct.
Indeed, I would even go further and say that it would be very
judicious of us to give that code of conduct wide reading. It
should be published in the papers so that the people know what
level of expectations we have of ourselves. Then they can
comment on it and we can get feedback from the people.
We need to provide for not only independence of the ethics
counsellor but also independence of the code of conduct. That
will come through open debate and free votes, as promised in the
red book, on that issue in the House of Commons. So all
members, if they see a flaw in the code of ethics, will have the
freedom to move an amendment to it and to vote against it
unless that amendment is made.
These are necessary things. They are absolutely mandatory.
Without the acceptance of these amendments, the code of
conduct, the ethics counsellor, the whole of Bill C-43 will
essentially come to naught.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to respond to
some of the things I have just heard.
I had something to do with the drafting of the 1987 report, the
Cooper committee, the legislation that appeared afterward, and
then of course the Holtmann committee, which reported to this
House early in 1993.
The member across who just spoke is missing a few points. I
know he is sincere in what he is doing and in what he is
proposing. For that I commend him. I am sure he means very
well. There is, however, something wrong with the logic of what
is proposed by the member. The member is saying that only an
officer appointed by this House and the other place could in fact
be truly independent in terms of administering a code of conduct
for lobbyists. There is something very flawed with that.
Members will know that if that were the only test for
independence of judgment then no judge in this country would
truly be independent. If it were the only test for independence,
then the director of competition policy would not be
independent, and so on.
Of course members will say that one of the differences is that
judges have tenure. That is obviously true, but it is not true of all
positions where there are quasi-judicial bodies. Therefore the
member is wrong when he says that only an officer of the House
administers in an independent and non-partisan way. What he is
doing, notwithstanding his obvious good intentions, and I credit
him for those again, is creating and setting a stage whereby it
will be difficult for anyone having this function to operate
independently because of the aspersions that are cast perhaps
even inadvertently today and in this debate.
There are a number of people who make rulings. I can think of
the CRTC. I can think of the director of competition policy as
one person who reports to the same minister. Does anyone say
that these people operate in a way that is not independent? Does
anyone suggest now that their judgment is tainted because they
were appointed by the government?
(1325)
In this case, the person was appointed by the government in
consultation with the opposition. There has been that
consultation. I remember the Prime Minister specifically
mentioning it on the floor of the House. The consultation was
made with the two opposition parties.
11746
Someone was just heckling who obviously-and I will try to
be kind-not having had the benefit of hearing the whole debate
in this House today is pretending to be outraged by-
The Deputy Speaker: If the whip of the government is
suggesting that the member who heckled him was not present for
the debate, he knows as well as I do that is an improper
statement. I would ask him to be more careful about what he is
saying in the House.
Mr. Boudria: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that. I
was implying that perhaps he was not listening to my comments
previously, for whatever reason. I will let the House decide what
the reasons were; I did not attribute them.
The member, who was not listening to my remarks previously,
for whatever reason, would know that in fact the government's
effort in this bill, including the acceptance of amendments from
the opposition and amendments proposed by the parliamentary
committee, is evidence that we have tried as a government to get
the input of all members of the House and from people outside to
produce a good report to present to this House in an effort to get
something unanimous. We wanted to get something that
Parliament as a whole could live with in terms of a piece of
legislation.
As critical as I was of the previous government, Mr. Speaker,
as you will no doubt recall, you will remember that when we
produced the bill that is presently the law of the land in regard to
lobbying, I supported the bill in the end at third reading and
recommended, as the critic, to my colleagues to do so. I thought
it was important that whatever law we had on the statute books
dealing with lobbyists be supported by all of Parliament.
At that time the New Democrats did not support it, and I
thought that was wrong, because it was sending the wrong
message. The message would have been sent, had I not
supported it and recommended that support to my colleagues,
that the law was inherently flawed and those administering it
could never do a proper job. I do not think that was true,
notwithstanding the partisanship that was there at the time. I
know a little bit about being partisan.
Today we have taken that law that existed, we have taken the
Holtmann committee report, which was unanimous, adopted
virtually the whole thing in the bill that we have before us, and
we have added to it amendments proposed by members of the
Reform Party, government members, and people who have come
to testify before the parliamentary committee.
We have added from where we started off, which I do not think
was even a bad law. Yes, we said that five years later we had to
redraft it, taking into account new situations and how the bill
had worked.
[Translation]
However, I believe that a bill on the registration of lobbyists
can only work if the members of this House want it to work. I
personally think that this is a good bill and that the proposed
amendments are appropriate. If the members opposite think
about it for a moment, they will certainly come to the same
conclusion.
An hon. member: The bill was improved.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that it was
improved. Again, the hon. member may not have been listening
carefully when I said a little earlier that we accepted
amendments from the parliamentary committee and from the
government, and that today we will even accept some from one
of the opposition parties. We incorporated these changes to an
existing bill, and we also took into account a report tabled in this
House by a parliamentary committee.
(1330)
That was a unanimous report. The member opposite may think
that he has the monopoly on virtue. Good for him. However,
those who were here during the previous Parliament also
believed in what they were doing. Together, we proposed what
we have today, and we even included all the amendments I
mentioned earlier.
I believe this bill deserves the support of the House. When the
bill comes back at third reading and when we vote on it, we will
have to ensure that the ethics counsellor, who will be
responsible for the application of all these rules, can rely on the
support of all parliamentarians. Otherwise, it will mean that we
sabotaged the bill ourselves. We have to make it work. This is
about parliamentary integrity. This issue does not only concern
the government: it concerns all of us in this House, as well as
those in the other place.
[English]
We can make this bill work. The way to do it is to co-operate.
We are not just dealing with an issue that involves government.
It is Parliament, both houses of this institution. If we do not
work together to support the bill, then I suggest it will not work
and it will be the fault of those who have chosen not to give it
their support.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, allow
me to briefly comment on the chief government whip's
comments before moving on to my comments on certain
amendments or certain motions in amendment, in particular
Nos. 22, 28 and 29 which were introduced by my colleague from
Berthier-Montcalm.
The chief government whip has just talked about the
co-operation, openmindedness, and responsibility that
parliamentarians have regarding this bill. Let us put this into
perspective.
11747
First of all, we are talking about keeping better tabs on
lobbyists. Let us not forget that the government manages and
spends close to $160 billion annually. I think that it would be
worthwhile to tighten the controls on those who influence the
government's decisions.
He also told us that this is the responsibility of all
parliamentarians and not just government members, the Cabinet
and ministers. This is pretty well the spirit of the proposed
amendments. The issue is having the House nominate the person
who will be ethics counsellor, which is in line with what the
whip was saying. In this case, we are told no; let us choose the
person who will be answerable to the Prime Minister, not only to
the government, but to the Prime Minister. And there, he went
against what he was suggesting earlier.
The current debate seems in a way to be an attempt to get out
of a commitment that they regret having made now that they are
in power. One must understand party funding, for example
Liberal Party funding, to understand that, once under the direct
influence of lobbyists, it is less desirable to keep better tabs on
lobbyists than it was when they were in opposition. A
remarkable change in attitude.
An hon. member: And well noted.
Mr. Brien: And well noted, indeed. Regarding this issue, I
would like to quote a few sentences from the red book. During
our first months in this House, the first months of the election
campaign-our ears were ringing with the contents of the red
book, the famous red book. The book talks about the integrity of
the government and the trust relationship between it and the
population. The book says: ``The integrity of government is put
into question when there is a perception that the public agenda is
set by lobbyists exercising undue influence away from public
view''.
I discussed this bill with some of my constituents and certain
colleagues, and none of them feel that the bill changes this
perception. On the contrary, because in the meanwhile, we
noticed-some of us did our homework-that lobbyists had
even influenced this bill in order to reduce its impact as much as
possible.
And now, if I may, I intend to quote the Canadian Press which
said that, according to information obtained under the Access to
Information Act, it would show that lobbyists had stepped up the
number of meetings during the months preceding the tabling of
this bill and that some had vowed to start legal proceedings if the
new legislation obliged them to disclose their political
connections.
(1335)
This was information obtained under the Access to
Information Act, so it is not pure conjecture. In La Presse, there
was a revealing headline: Lobbyists manage to get rid of
constraints Ottawa would impose on them. The lobbyists came
out as winners in the struggle around a bill that was supposed to
regulate their dealings with the government. Now people
opposite talk about restoring the people's trust. There is a
serious problem.
Motion No. 22, standing in the name of the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm, proposes to have the ethics counsellor
appointed by the House and to make him accountable to the
House. I think that is perfectly normal. After all, we are elected
by the people, who put their trust in institutions, not only in the
person of the Prime Minister, and they expect Parliament to have
a say in these matters. The government is doing everything it can
to avoid this, although the government whip was no doubt
entirely sincere in his desire to empower parliamentarians and
ensure that everyone feels bound by this bill.
The House has before it a number of proposals to improve a
bill that is not bad but could certainly stand some improvements,
but the government is reluctant to make genuine improvements.
Why? Perhaps we should start wondering whom it may have met
in the past few days, weeks and months. There may have been
people who convinced it to change its mind and who had every
interest in doing so.
Since this government came to power, we have had several
cases that remain to be clarified. There is the Pearson airport
affair. There was also the case involving the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, and here we had a telling example of the
powers of the ethics counsellor. Three weeks after the Prime
Minister asked him for an opinion, he very discreetly took steps
to cover the minister's tracks.
When all is said and done, the role of the ethics counsellor
would appear to be to cover for the government in matters that
raise some controversy. The ethics counsellor is used to make
the government look good. They say: Look, the ethics
counsellor said there was no wrong doing. The fact is, the ethics
counsellor is accountable to the Prime Minister and his job
depends on the good will of the Prime Minister. There is a
serious problem here.
The motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois suggests
appointing this person for a period of seven years. As a result, he
will not always have connections with the party in power. There
will be changes in governments, and that will give him a certain
amount of independence. That will mean more power,
particularly because he will not be accountable to anyone who
could decide from one day to the next to dismiss him on the basis
of the opinion.
Some information should be made more public and not simply
left as conclusions of a report. He is asked to report on his
investigations, but only the conclusions are made public. In
some cases, it would very interesting to know more than just the
conclusions, to know how they were reached. This is another
important step in response to the wishes to the whip and the
entire Liberal government, which has been saying since its
election that it wants more transparency, that it wants political
action to be as transparent as possible. The waters look pretty
11748
cloudy to me, as if an effort is being made to create some
confusion and prevent people from seeing the real picture.
I will not get into the whole question of the scandal
surrounding the deductibility of lobbying costs. In the end, the
public is indirectly paying the lobbyists to influence decisions
according to certain specific interests. This warrants serious
consideration.
It seems to me it would be in everyone's interest to make
Parliament credible. It is also what the Reform Party would like
to some extent and I think what the government whip would like,
but his hands are tied-I think everyone is basically good, but on
this, his hands are tied somewhat. People put their trust in
individuals and in political groups and expect Parliament to play
a role.
In this regard, I hope with all my heart that the government
will support this amendment, which will give us a better bill in
the interest of all taxpayers.
(1340)
It must be remembered that the government spends $160
billion a year. This is a lot of money. We must make sure that this
money is not spent in the interests of a few privileged
individuals with good connections with previous, present or
future governments, or even with corporations the government
is closely connected to through their funding of political parties.
These are the reasons why we must make sure we succeed.
I would like to quote Mr. Reisman, a committee witness who
supports the recommendation made by my colleague from
Berthier-Montcalm. He said: ``If we get into the business of a
code of ethics to govern the behaviour of the members of this
industry, it ought to be kept out of partisan politics as far as you
possibly can. I think one good way of doing that is to make the
appointment an appointment by Parliament, rather than by the
government of the day''. There it is. The Bloc members are not
the only ones to think that way.
This may not be a guarantee in itself, but it certainly helps, as
he more or less suggested when he said: ``You are more likely to
get someone more objective. If he is appointed by Parliament, I
think he should report to Parliament-which is the
recommendation in any event-and be accountable to
Parliament''. There are other reasons why he should be
accountable to Parliament.
So this seems to be a fundamental point on which everyone,
including the government, should agree.
In conclusion, I expect this government will abide by its
commitments. I hope they will not bring in a legislation simply
to mask their change of heart when moving to the other side of
the House. I hope they will meet the initial commitments made
at the beginning of the election campaign and written in the red
book, bible of the Liberal Party, and that they will support the
recommendations of my colleague, the member for
Berthier-Montcalm. These give the government an
opportunity to respect its own commitments and restore the
bond of confidence that existed between the Canadians and their
institutions so that the ethics counsellor will not simply be a
coverup for the Prime Minister, his ministers or government
members when they get into difficult situations.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to begin by talking about just how this code of conduct is
developed, why and what happens to it.
Currently the code of conduct is developed in the same
manner as it has been, but it is approved by the House of
Commons. The ethics counsellor tables his report with the
Registrar General. The Registrar General who receives this
report is currently the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
I have some problem with the ethics of that in itself because of
a lot of the dealings I have had in this House with the particular
minister who receives that report. I dealt with an issue just
yesterday in question period with that minister. I question very
much the avenues that were taken to disburse federal funds
through a provincial road program. Even a member opposite
called the disbursement of those funds misappropriation. I have
a real concern with these kinds of reports going directly to a
minister rather than to the House. After all it is the House of
Commons that has to deal with the ethics, is it not, and not the
Prime Minister or not a minister?
I want to raise another issue and that is an individual who is a
member but is not a minister who I have long said should come
under the auspices of an investigation by the ethics counsellor.
Again I question. If you cannot be entirely ethical as a party or a
minister how in the name of heaven does one get to receive
reports from an ethnics counsellor and deal with them?
(1345 )
It is just not the right way to do it. All members of this House
have the right to receive the reports directly. They have the right
to make the appointments. They have the right to set the
standards. I cannot comprehend why this government, after all
the talk about ethics during the election, has turned around to
table something which says that the appointments should be
made by the Prime Minister and the report should be given to a
minister. It is hogwash.
Why is it that the Liberals do not want the ethics counsellor to
report to the House of Commons? What is wrong that we cannot
understand that it should come to the members? If we can
understand the longstanding traditions of a traditional party, the
difficulty it has is that it does not trust itself or its own members.
11749
It does not want to be put into a position of being embarrassed
down the road.
I would like to say one more thing about the minister with
whom I was dealing yesterday. I found out that there is a
federal-provincial agreement on roads in Nova Scotia. I found
out that the minister and the Minister of Transport deliberately
made a deal to transfer moneys from a federal highway program
to a provincial highway program. They made a deal on it.
Why did they make the deal? It happens that the money they
wanted to take from the federal program is going to the
minister's riding. The federal road they had the money for is
considered one of the most dangerous roads in this country. The
road the minister had the money transferred to in his own riding
happens to be a road for tourists. It is a make work program. I
have a great deal of difficulty understanding the ethics of that
manoeuvre. So do the people of Wentworth Valley in Nova
Scotia.
How on earth can I comprehend this government taking the
very same reports from an ethics commissioner and giving it to
the very same minister who made the transfer? Talk about
ethics.
What happens if an ethics counsellor or an ethics
commissioner in this person's government makes a report which
chastises somebody from the government? The Prime Minister
takes that report and downplays it. We in the House probably
will not even get the report. The public will never see the report.
On it goes. If he makes the mistake of divulging what is in the
report, he gets canned. That is why this counsellor must report to
the House of Commons and not the Prime Minister.
We can look back at all of the processes we have gone through
on ethics in this House. For instance, there is the ethics having to
do with patronage appointments. Time and time again the
government talks about ethics and patronage appointments.
What does it do day after day? It gives all its hacks, everyone it
can, patronage jobs. The Liberal I defeated in my riding just got
his plum. That is ethics over there.
(1350)
Mr. Cannis: Wait until you see what is coming.
An hon. member: It has nothing to do with ethics. He is
qualified.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, the member
says: ``It has nothing to do with ethics. He is qualified''. These
folk only have to know the individual I defeated to find out if he
is qualified. They should have had a good look at him. The
difficulty with them is that they do not know what ethics are.
How can an ethnics counsellor report to the Prime Minister
when they have no idea what ethics are?
Suffice it to say one of the most important issues for
Canadians today is ethics. Another important issue for
Canadians is integrity. Politicians across the country suffer in
the eyes of Canadians because they do not believe they have
integrity.
There is an easy way to try to help the situation. The
counsellor should be appointed by the whole House of
Commons, not just that group. I question the ethics of some of
its members and will continue to do so.
It is not good enough to legislate integrity. We have to believe
in it. Will the government look at the amendments on the table
and vote for them in favour of objectivity, in favour of integrity
and in favour of informing the people of Canada in the proper
way? Or, will it be business as usual from a traditional party and
in some cases a traditional party that has already proven it has
questionable activities, particularly the ones I mentioned
before.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make a couple of comments.
An hon. member: Not her again.
Ms. Clancy: I am sorry my hon. friends are so disturbed and
that my intervention might upset them. Given that the hon.
member made comments about route 104, I thought it might be
an idea to set the record straight about Nova Scotia. Being born
there is not quite as good as growing up there and living there,
although it is good to be born there and we are glad he was.
The Nova Scotia solution offers the quickest, safest and most
cost effective redevelopment of highway 104 possible. The
important issue is safety. I know the highway. We cannot lose
sight of the necessity of safety because of those who engage in
petty and partisan bickering.
By working in co-operation with the private sector the Nova
Scotia government is protecting and promoting the interests of
the taxpayers by levering private sector funds, by creating jobs
and by providing for a safe and competitive transportation
system. I think the people of Nova Scotia-I do not know about
my hon. friend-deserve nothing less.
It is not about $26 million. It is about a $110 million project
that runs right through Cumberland-Colchester. That is not bad
from any standard.
(1355)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-43 gives us the opportunity to ask ourselves: Who
exactly is running this government? Is it the people through its
elected representatives or is it private interests, corporate
interests? The people of Canada are concerned. For a long time
they called for a law governing lobbying activities on
Parliament Hill, even before the arrival of Conservatives and
Liberals, because they know that lobbyists exercise undue
pressure. They know that patronage exists within the
government, as well as waste and corruption. They know it,
although they do not have
11750
any concrete proof, but there are signs, gestures, and recent
events that show without any doubt that lobbyists manage to
extract favours from the government by undue pressure. For
example, there is the Pearson airport case which involved
millions of dollars, and even today the people of Canada do not
know what the players, the lobbyists and the various interests
actually did.
The case of the Minister of Canadian Heritage was mentioned.
Although he is the minister responsible, he interfered with the
CRTC and this, of course, raised the question of the role played
by the ethics counsellor within the government, a person who
was not even consulted by the Prime Minister in this case.
In the case of BST, a hormone developed by Monsanto, we
read in the papers that this company had people, lobbyists, who
met with officials of Health and Welfare Canada and offered
some 2 million dollars to convince them to approve BST for use
in Canada. These are but three recent cases among the very many
which prove the abusive role of lobbyists in Canada.
I will come back to this with an even more distressing case.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members.
The hon. member will have the floor after question period.
_____________________________________________
11750
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to relate a success story in my riding of
Lambton-Middlesex based not on government handouts but on
true community spirit and the refusal to let a dream die.
On March 11 pledges from a variety of local service clubs for
about $125,000 were announced toward the construction of
additional facilities at the Brooke-Alvinston-Inwood
Community Centre complex.
After no government grant money was available, organizers
decided that the project would not go ahead if it meant an
increase in tax dollars for local ratepayers. Instead, based solely
on the generous contribution of thousands of dollars from a
variety of service clubs in the riding, plus the donation of
material, products and volunteer assistance, ground breaking
will begin this spring.
This project exemplifies the rural community spirit that is
alive and well in the riding of Lambton-Middlesex.
My congratulations to all participants in this very worthwhile
community project, and a special mention to Doug Redick,
chairman of the building committee, and Ian Lehrbass, the arena
manager.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in this
National Volunteer Week, I am pleased to pay tribute to the 13
million devoted and dynamic men and women who have chosen
to get involved in our society, particularly by helping those less
fortunate.
However, it seems that the federal government has a whole
other view of volunteer work. Whereas a brochure from the
Department of Heritage highlights the importance of their
action, the government has no qualms about drastically reducing
assistance to volunteer agencies. Indeed, their budget is
dropping from $1,066,000 in 1993-94 to $65,000 in 1995-96.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, condemn this shameful decision.
Not only did the federal government miss an opportunity to
really support these groups, but it has also been indifferent to the
have-nots in our society.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this past weekend I had the opportunity to meet a friend
of mine, Mr. Lee Bellows of Moose Jaw. Mr. Bellows has been
involved in the sport of rodeo for many years.
Lee Bellows is highly respected in Saskatchewan for his
common sense and great wit. Mr. Bellows is also a cowboy poet.
On his behalf I would like to quote a few of his thoughts:
What's your thoughts on gun control?
They ask, but they don't hear.
They run 'round ``chicken little style''
and share with us their fear.
I've done a bunch of ponderin',
and its become plain to see
the controlling of my old rifle
would be the best if left to me.
Your logic misses the point, my friends.
Don't inflict your values on to me.
Life's different where the pavement ends
and you know what's bothering me
Well, I'll tell you with this rhyme,
You've went and gone and convicted me,
befor' I done the crime.
11751
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at the Reform Party policy convention in October, 1994 the
delegates passed two resolutions. First, if elected the Reform
Party will introduce legislation by which the criminal use of
firearms will be severely punished and the right of law-abiding
citizens to own and use firearms will be protected. The
amendments introduced to the Young Offenders Act by our party
include stricter penalties for crimes using firearms.
The second resolution stated the Reform Party supports the
rights of citizens to protect themselves and their property
against criminal acts using all reasonable means and that the
right to do so has priority over offenders' rights.
This resolution has been marketed to the gun lobby as the
Reform Party's answer to gun control. It is a motherhood and
apple pie statement that could only confuse the people who
would believe this is a Reform Party position against the gun
control act, yet another example of Reform Party pretence.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, April 24, over 2,000 protesters rallied on
Parliament Hill for the 25th time to remember and pay tribute to
1.5 million Armenian victims of the first major genocide of the
20th century. This genocide was planned and executed by the
Ottoman Empire on April 24, 1915 as a brutal and final solution
to the Armenian question.
The Permanent People's Tribunal in Sorbonne, France
considered the Armenian genocide in April 1984 and ruled that
it was an international crime for which the Turkish state must
assume responsibility.
We must not allow the international community to simply
dismiss Ottoman Empire crimes against the Armenian people.
Benjamin Whitaker, a British writer, said if we cannot face
yesterday's truth how can we ensure tomorrow's justice?
* * *
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on March 20 of this year the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak
Republic signed an historic treaty in Paris. One highlight of the
treaty is an agreement between Hungary and Slovakia to refrain
from the threat or use of force against one another's territorial
integrity and political independence.
Another highlight of the treaty is the confirmation that the
protection of national minorities and the rights and freedoms of
individuals belonging to a national minority are a matter of
international human rights. In this sense the problems of
minorities are not exclusively an internal affair of states but
rather a matter of legitimate interest for the international
community.
This treaty sets an example for all the world. From African
nations to the former Yugoslavia the world is witnessing a
dangerous rise of ethnic conflicts. This treaty provides an
example of what nations can achieve with negotiations, not
guns; with discussion, not destruction.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
five months after taking office, the federal Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans won the award for claiming the highest travel
expenses of all federal ministers. This piece of news had already
angered taxpayers, who expected the Liberal government to
keep its promises and stop wasting taxpayers' money.
Well, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has done it again,
spending over $200,000 on redecorating and refurnishing his
headquarters in Ottawa.
How can we let a minister spend so much money on fancy
furniture, when his own government is cutting billions of dollars
from social programs?
(1405)
The Liberal government is asking the middle class and the
most disadvantaged to make sacrifices in the name of deficit
reduction, but is unable to eliminate the advantages enjoyed by
the lucky few who are squandering taxpayers' money.
By acquiring this furniture, the fisheries minister is taking
taxpayers for a ride.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian parents and families are being threatened by
a movement to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code.
Section 43 presently permits parents and teachers to use
reasonable discipline on children should the circumstances
warrant. Repeal would reduce parental authority and replace it
with state authority.
This government interference would undermine the integrity
and viability of Canadian families.
Today in the news there is a case in London, Ontario of an
American tourist charged with assault for spanking his 5-year
old daughter. In Calgary a triple amputee mother was similarly
charged.
11752
The justice and health departments have been reviewing
section 43. The government has to come clean with Canadians as
to its intentions. Polls tell us Canadians do not want more
government interference in their homes and families. It is the
parents who know what is best for their children, not interest
groups, bureaucrats or so-called experts.
I call on the justice minister to reaffirm parents' rights to
reasonably discipline their own children.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am sure all members of the House will join with me in
opposing attempts by various media organizations to allow
public viewing of the Paul Bernardo video tapes.
The public showing of these tapes would not serve the public
interest. This is not, as the media claims, a matter of free speech.
The Bernardo trial will be open to the media and to the public.
Attempts by the media to gain access to the video tapes are
simply an effort to boost ratings at the expense of the victims'
families. The families of the victims have suffered enough
without having these videos broadcast. This is a prime example
of tabloid journalism at its worst.
I hope the courts turn down the media's request. I call on the
media to show some restraint and consideration for the feelings
of the French and Mahaffey families. They have suffered
enough.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on April 25, 1945 there was no more bombing in Italy. People
turned to the streets to celebrate the end of a cruel war which
killed many people and destroyed many cities, villages and
lives.
[Translation]
All wars are cruel and we always lose whatever the outcome.
In 1943, the Canadians landed in Sicily. Old Sicilians living in
Vancouver still remember with gratitude the summer day when
they were liberated by the Canadians.
On this 50th anniversary of the end of the war in Italy, I wish
to thank the thousands of Canadians who liberated families like
mine, ensuring the freedom we enjoy today. Many died but their
sacrifice will not be forgotten.
[English]
Without the great sacrifice of our Canadian friends, European
history would have had a different course. It is due to many
young Canadians if today European countries can get united and
try a united destiny in the name of freedom.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
world has just witnessed yet another horrific massacre of
innocent people in Rwanda.
I believe I express the sentiments of most people when I say
this situation is profoundly disturbing.
[Translation]
It is difficult to imagine societal circumstances that would
lead individuals to commit such atrocities. The massacres in
Rwanda are the perfect example of what can occur when we let a
society develop in a climate of hatred and intolerance.
These killers show a flagrant lack of respect for human life.
We should all draw important lessons from this massacre and
think about our society's values.
[English]
No society is immune to intolerance or hatred. However, it
can be measured by the treatment it confers to its minorities.
Canada does not have an unblemished record but we do have
before the House a bill which will help suppress an ugly side of
our society. Bill C-41 will not protect the innocent people of
Rwanda but it will stem odious acts affecting Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
massacre of thousands of Hutu refugees by the Rwandan army
on Saturday raises many questions regarding the use of
Canadian aid to Rwanda, which amounts to a hundreds of
millions of dollars over the past 30 years.
There is a growing rumour that these funds may have been
diverted and, in the light of disturbing revelations relating to the
murder of Brother Cardinal, the government must reconsider its
support and assistance to the regime currently in place in
Rwanda.
(1410)
Instead of being lax and complacent, the government must
immediately check into this matter and release the findings of
the special envoy it dispatched to the scene. Otherwise, one
could wonder if the government is not backing, through its
international assistance, a regime which has no qualms
slaughtering its own refugees.
11753
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Douglas Campbell, a great
Canadian and great Reformer, who passed away this week at the
age of 99.
Mr. Campbell was elected to the Manitoba legislature in 1922
as a Farmers' candidate. He was later a cabinet minister in the
Liberal Progressive government of John Bracken and served as
premier of Manitoba from 1948 to 1958.
Douglas Campbell liked to quote from an old poem called The
Bridge Builder. In his honour the Reform Party instituted the
Bridge Builder Award. It recognizes special people who have
pioneered the way to a new and better Canada and have built
bridges to make the journey easier for those who follow.
Douglas Campbell was truly a great Canadian bridge builder.
We pay tribute today to his wisdom, his public service, his faith
and his memory.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, a study just released by the Canadian
Advisory Council on the Status of Women indicates that many of
our country's middle aged women will be poor when they retire
from the workforce.
These women, between 45 and 54, stayed at home to raise
children, care for their spouses and in many cases their elderly
parents, and volunteered countless hours in their communities.
Because they did not enter or re-enter the workforce until their
mid-thirties or early forties, their retirement benefits are very
low. For these women the future is particularly bleak.
This study comes at a time when the federal government is
about to reform the retirement income system. Ironically it is
one of the last documents released by the council, its mandate
having been ended with the last federal budget. As we well
know, the social security reform process is really the Liberals'
definition of slash and burn just like the Tories.
It is vital the government seriously take into consideration
this very important information when it reviews options for
changing Canada's pension system. The women who dedicated a
good portion of their lives in caring for others deserve to live
their retirement years in comfort and dignity. They do not
deserve to be repaid for their service with a ticket to the
poorhouse.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to convey to
all members of Parliament who donated flags for the Cornish
fishermen the sincere thanks and appreciation of Canada's High
Commissioner to Britain, the hon. Royce Frith.
According to the High Commission office there was wall to
wall press coverage in England: ``In all our memory Canada has
never had such a positive profile''.
Through the combination of a minister of fisheries who was
relentless in his defence of Canadian sovereignty and
conservation, a Prime Minister with the diplomatic skills to
strengthen that position and the cross party support of members
of Parliament and Senators, Canada has taken a leadership role
in the international community to preserve marine resources.
This was the message that Royce Frith received as he handed
out the flags donated by parliamentarians to British fishermen
and their families. He told each recipient where the particular
MP was from and why they had donated the flag.
On behalf of the High Commission office I have been asked to
tell all MPs who donated their flags they would have been
extremely proud of the outpouring of affection and support for
Canada. It was a moving experience and all who received the
flags-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vaudreuil.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like
many Quebecers, I am getting more and more confused about
the sovereignist option. With the Quebec Premier's
pussyfooting and the Bloc Quebecois leader's countless
about-turns, it is easy to lose one's bearings.
No one was fooled by the latest shift toward association. The
common political and economic structures proposed by the Yes
side already exist. What is the use of burning bridges only to
rebuild them? Would it not be more effective, and especially
cheaper, to upgrade and reinforce them instead?
Indeed, this about-face is just one more trick to win support
for a separation plan opposed by a majority of Quebecers.
Fortunately, while this infighting is going on among separatists,
the federal government is tackling the real priorities:
employment and economic growth.
11754
11754
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this morning the federal cabinet postponed its
decision on direct-to-home satellite services. For the time
being, it preferred not to go ahead with directives that would
benefit Power DirecTV by reversing a decision by the CRTC.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Why did his
government intervene directly in this matter, supporting the
interests of Power DirecTV, which is owned by Power
Corporation, when Power DirecTV should have gone to the
CRTC, the same as its competitor Expressvu did and, in fact,
was obliged to do?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the CRTC's decision has been widely discussed, even
in the media. For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, I
may add that newspapers as diverse as the Globe and Mail and
the Toronto Star gave substantially the same advice.
[English]
The Toronto Star reads: ``Ottawa should endorse the panel's
report without hesitation and instruct the CRTC to move quickly
to let the competition begin''. In the Globe and Mail we have
similar advice: ``The government acted in the public interest by
creating the review panel, which did its work well''.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, considering the position taken by daily
newspapers as diverse as the Toronto Star and the Globe and
Mail, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would consider
agreeing with the government's policy.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the Leader of the
Government refuses to answer himself because his son in law's
interests are at stake?
I will nevertheless address my question to the Prime Minister.
After all, he is the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. And this is a
fundamental issue which concerns Canadian content and the
future of international communications, am I right?
So now my question for the Prime Minister, if there is still one
in this government. Would he agree that the retroactive impact
of his proposed directives would have the effect of penalizing
Expressvu which, unlike Power DirecTV, is able to provide all
the guarantees for Canadian content prescribed by the CRTC?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition
seems to think that he has to get down to the level of personal
attacks on the Prime Minister in order to deal with an issue of
policy.
It is very clear on this issue that in the face of concerns
expressed in the broadcasting sector by groups such as the
Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, ACTRA, the Canadian
Conference of the Arts and many newspaper editorials, they are
all urging the government to act.
It would appear that in the mind of the Leader of the
Opposition the government should not fulfil its responsibility to
bring about good public policy because someone happens to
have some relationship to a relative of the Prime Minister.
Although that seems to be what is in the mind of the Leader of
the Opposition, this government was elected with the
responsibility for public policy. We are prepared to answer on
the basis of good public policy and that is what we are doing. It
is consistent with what the public is urging us to do.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, when a government is about to commit a violation
of this magnitude of its arm's length relationship with the
authorities that award licences involving millions and millions
of dollars and one of the beneficiaries is related to the Prime
Minister, it is perfectly normal that we should talk about it in the
House.
Again, I want to ask the person who is supposed to act as
Prime Minister and answer for the government's actions to say
what excuse he has for the fact that his government is so ready
and willing to interfere in a matter over which the CRTC has
jurisdiction, when the same government refused to intervene at
the request of the Commissioner of Official Languages to make
RDI, the French news service, available to all francophones in
Canada?
(1420 )
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again the problem is with the preamble to the question.
Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition of some of the
things that have been written concerning this issue by parties
which he should agree are disinterested.
The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting: ``I want to inform you
of our strong support of the analysis and recommendations of
your DTH review panel. We endorse their findings without
qualification''.
The Canadian Conference of the Arts: ``The Canadian
Conference of the Arts was quite supportive of the creation of
this panel to deal with the issue of DTH in the Canadian
broadcasting
11755
system in a fair and timely manner. The panel has now
discharged its responsibilities and it is our hope that you and
your colleagues will move with dispatch to direct the CRTC to
proceed on an urgent basis with licensing hearings for DTH
undertakings''.
Some hon. members: Order.
Mr. Manley: I am sorry if the Leader of the Opposition is
frustrated but this is what the world is saying out there.
ACTRA: ``We have requested multiple copies of the
report-''
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his report,
the Official Languages Commissioner deplores the difficulty
that the federal government has providing services in both
official languages. He says that this year's review of various
offices shows that the situation leaves much to be desired,
except in Quebec. All too often, service in the minority official
language is mediocre if not non-existent.
How can the Prime Minister, who claims that francophones
can live anywhere in this country and prosper, explain that year
after year the federal government continues to fail to provide
French-language service to francophones outside Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we received a copy of the Official Languages
Commissioner's report today, and it says that the situation
improved in 1994. I do not deny that we must constantly strive to
improve the situation and that we must continue to monitor it.
We have made staggering progress over the past 20 years in this
area, and I am happy to see that the commissioner stated that
1994 was the best year yet.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, those who saw the commissioner at the press
conference would say that, actually, he looked rather depressed.
Mr. Bouchard: He had every reason to be.
Mrs. Tremblay: How can the Prime Minister not be
embarrassed by the fact that even in Ottawa, the nation's capital,
26 years after the Official Languages Act was passed, one out of
three times a francophone requests a service, he or she cannot
get it in French?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said earlier that the situation is not ideal and that it
has considerably improved. The government's policy is to put
pressure on all federal government bodies and offices to use
both official languages when providing services to the public
and to public servants in the national capital region.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for months the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois
have insisted that they would settle for nothing less than the
outright separation of Quebec from Canada, but a majority of
Quebecers continue to reject that option. Now the PQ
Government of Quebec says that it wants to explore the
possibility of an economic and political association between
Canada and an independent Quebec.
Will the Prime Minister tell this House and all Canadians
what the Government of Canada's position is on so-called
sovereignty association?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said earlier and I repeat that if there is separation
some day, to have Canadian citizenship, a Canadian passport,
Canadian currency, a Canadian economic union and Canadian
political union it is going to be the Parliament of Canada and the
provinces that will decide. I am glad the leader of the third party
mentioned that the real goal of the Bloc Quebecois is separation.
They do not have the guts to say they are separating.
(1425)
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his answer.
Obviously, it is important that Quebecers know how the rest
of Canada feels about so-called sovereignty association before
any Quebec referendum this fall. It is also quite evident that
Quebecers will not get a clear view of Canadian public opinion
on that subject through the BQ or the PQ.
How does the Prime Minister plan to ensure that Canadian
public opinion on sovereignty association is clearly registered
and communicated to Quebecers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only thing we have to tell Quebecers at this time is
that the project being proposed is the separation of Quebec from
Canada. Everybody in Quebec knows that Quebecers do not
want to quit Canada. Even the Leader of the Opposition said that
two weeks ago.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Prime Minister knows, one of the most effective
democratic mechanisms for registering and communicating
Canadian public opinion on a constitutional question is a
formally conducted referendum.
11756
Does the Prime Minister see any place for a national clear the
air referendum on these issues, particularly if the Government
of Quebec continues to delay its referendum and to shift away
from outright separation toward some fuzzier option?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have to speculate on that. I just hope that the
Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois will have the courage to
ask the very clear question: Do you want to separate from
Canada? The answer is going to be no, and there will be no need
for any other referendum.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, the Minister of Justice said that those who use
firearms for sustenance purposes, particularly aboriginal
people, will be exempted from the registration fees for their
firearms, thus creating a double standard?
How can the Minister of Justice claim to be in a position to
check if those who own firearms use them for recreation
purposes or for sustenance purposes, particularly among
aboriginal people?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my statement
yesterday was that the existing exemptions from the payment of
fees for those who use firearms for sustenance will be continued
in the new legislation. That statement is accurate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the Minister of Justice recognize that, by exempting certain
firearm owners from paying the owner's permit, he creates two
categories of citizens and totally contradicts his statement to the
effect that the law must be the same for everyone and must be
implemented everywhere?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the premise of
the question puzzling. We make categories in law all the time.
We distinguish between kinds of firearms. We make exceptions
for people who use firearms in their occupations, for example.
For many years in the criminal law we have provided that for
those who use firearms for sustenance purposes. It does not talk
about aboriginals. It talks about Canadians. Canadians who use
firearms for sustenance purposes are exempted from the
payment of fees. That, of course, is a common sense approach
and one which we will continue in the new legislation.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice is attempting to link the horrific situation in
Oklahoma City with the firearms situation in Canada in a
pathetic attempt to gain support for Bill C-68. I am appalled that
the Minister of Justice would try to capitalize on such a heinous
crime in order to drum up emotional support for his gun
regulations.
(1430 )
In interviews yesterday, the minister defended the proposed
firearms registry by saying that registration will provide
information to police about whether someone is stockpiling
firearms. Will the minister explain to the House how the
firearms stockpiling in Oka occurred, how these prohibited
firearms were acquired and how registration would have
prevented this?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was while meeting
with representatives of the Canadian Police Association last
month that the advantages of registration in identifying
stockpiling of firearms was first brought to my notice. I referred
to it yesterday because of its power as a compelling example of
the advantages of registration.
As I said yesterday and as I firmly believe, if people are
stockpiling firearms to create their own arsenal that is
something the authorities should know about. We permit
firearms in this country for good and legitimate purposes,
whether it be hunting or farming. If someone has a collateral
purpose and is stockpiling firearms that is something the
authorities should know about.
Registration will enable the authorities to have access to that
information. The police want it. I want to know why the hon.
member will not support the police in the work they are trying to
do to achieve a safer country.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, surely the
Minister of Justice is not so naive as to believe that the
registration of firearms will stop terrorist attacks the magnitude
of Oklahoma City or the illegal importation of prohibited
firearms.
I ask the justice minister why his government does not use the
millions of dollars planned for the gun registry and reinstate the
RCMP counterterrorist unit which was abolished three years ago
if he has any information that firearms or weapons of any kind
are being stockpiled in our country?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have succeeded at
some measure already in this debate. We now have the hon.
member referring to registration costing millions instead of
billions. We are going in the right direction. Some of the facts
are seeping through.
11757
It is terribly important to deal with this issue on the facts. That
is why I decry the efforts of the hon. member and his colleagues
to distort the discussion with disinformation among the
Canadian people.
The Canadian Police Association, representing 35,000 front
line police officers across the country, has now joined with the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in asking the
government to enact legislation including the registration of all
firearms. They know what is in the public interest. They know it
is consistent with public safety. Let us get behind the police.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Justice.
Twice this year, on February 10 and on April 5, the Minister of
Justice was not able to explain why Quebec individuals and
companies get barely 5 per cent of the total value of contracts for
professional and special services awarded by his department
since the Liberal government took office.
Will the Minister of Justice finally tell us why his department
is only granting five per cent of the value of service contracts to
individuals and companies from Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
quite right to remind me of my undertaking to furnish that
information. It is under review. The material will be
forthcoming.
In order to satisfy the hon. member, I will determine
overnight when I might expect to have the information. I will let
him know in writing tomorrow when I will have it for him.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the Minister of Justice's answer. While we are at it,
could he also tell us why 99 per cent of the research contracts
financed by his department are drafted in English only? Is this a
demonstration that French speaking employees cannot work in
French in his department?
(1435 )
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not certain of the
numbers to which the hon. member refers.
Mrs. Venne: We are.
Mr. Rock: I will add that to the list of assignments I will take
from the hon. member to complete.
I am certain of the falsity of the conclusion he offers. The
Department of Justice is very proud of its continuing tradition of
offering services in both official languages and of the strength of
the staff, both professional and otherwise, that we have in the
department to serve Canadians in both official languages.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, access to information has just revealed that the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has spent over $200,000 for
renovations and luxurious items for his Kent Street office in
Ottawa, including over $7,000 for art work, $1,800 for a love
seat, and some $254 for a brass nameplate.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the
economic hardship and belt tightening that most Canadians have
to undergo and the Liberal red book promise to cut spending,
will the Prime Minister justify the rationale for this outrageous
spending by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the expenditure for the renovations to the office of the Minister
of Fisheries was not unreasonable, due to the simple fact that the
office had not been renovated for a number of years.
The current minister of fisheries wanted to use this office at
200 Kent Street to conduct the department's business, unlike
previous ministers who used their office on the Hill. What was
done was reasonable. We also wanted to take advantage of the
fact that the building owner wanted to do some repairs on the
floor in order to do the repairs to the minister's office at the
same time.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the average working Canadian will be
very happy with that reply.
While the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans surrounds himself
in luxury in Ottawa, he also finds it necessary to move and to
upscale his ministerial office in St. John's, Newfoundland.
Considering the fact that most Newfoundlanders are being
forced to live somewhere near the subsistence level, will the
Prime Minister explain to them and all Canadians the rationale
in the costs involved in moving the minister of fisheries' office
in St. John's to a fully renovated and more opulent surrounding?
11758
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a hard time believing that the members of the Reform Party
would use this as an opportunity to attack the minister and
undermine his credibility. After all the minister has done to
defend the interests of Canadian fisherman of late, I would think
the members of the Reform Party should applaud him.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Robichaud: The St. John's offices were moved to
another building according to standard procedure, which
requires a call for tenders and selection on the basis of the best
service at the best price.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister. Last year, we learned with
dismay about the setbacks experienced by francophone parents
and students in Kingston, who were prevented from building a
French language high school. Because he wanted to make
Kingston the showcase of Canadian bilingualism, the Prime
Minister personally promised in May 1994 that a high school
would be built as soon as possible.
Given his promise to Kingston francophones, how can the
Prime Minister explain that, one year later, nothing has been
settled in this matter?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said at the time that the situation in Kingston would
get straightened out and that a high school would be built.
(1440)
Decisions were made in this regard and, according to the
information available to us, there is no problem at this time. A
piece of land has been agreed on but the school must be built. It
cannot be done in just one week, it will take some time.
However, all the administrative problems have been solved
thanks to the close co-operation among the federal, provincial
and municipal governments.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the reason there are no problems is that there is no school yet.
There was such close co-operation with Kingston that new
problems surfaced again yesterday, in that children of French
speaking members of the military would now be required to go
outside the military base to attend a French language school.
Does the Prime Minister intend to come to the defence of the
young people who would be required to go to a different school,
thus preventing another act of discrimination against
francophones in Kingston?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
education on Canadian military bases was the responsibility of
the Department of National Defence until 1987 when agreement
was reached to discontinue that. There have been accords with
various provinces to phase out DND's role of being responsible
for education.
It is the province of Ontario that is responsible for the school
boards. It has made a decision which it considers to be practical.
It is one which we do not agree with, in light of the discussions
that have gone on in the House. To make the military college in
Kingston a welcoming place for francophones is something I
intend to take up with the educational authorities in the province
of Ontario.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
A United States congressman has proposed legislation which
would impose sanctions against countries trading with Cuba.
This could threaten approximately $.5 billion in Canadian
exports to the United States.
What is the government doing to protect Canadian trade
interests with both Cuba and the United States?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly Canadian interests would be
adversely affected if the bill were to be implemented as it is
currently drafted. For example, if enacted the provisions of the
bill would violate the obligations on the United States in both
the NAFTA and the new World Trade Organization. We have,
therefore, protested most strongly to the United States.
As my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has made
abundantly clear, we have no intention of accepting the United
States' attempts to impose on third countries its embargo on
Cuba.
Finally, Canada, along with countries of the European Union
and in the western hemisphere, have protested most strongly to
the United States, to the state department, to the administration,
and in my own case to the U.S. trade representative, to register
our strong opposition to the present bill.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 12 months ago the government introduced the $1.9
billion Atlantic groundfish strategy. First the government
underestimated the groundfish stock and the number of people
who would be thrown out of work. Next it underestimated the
staff needed to process the claims and counsel the unemployed.
Now
11759
I understand that the government has underestimated the
amount of money required for TAGS by some $385 million.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development assure
the House that this program will stay within its already hugely
inflated budget?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question comes at a
very appropriate time. It gives me the opportunity to point out to
the hon. member and other members of the House that up to this
point, with the program in place a little less than a year, we have
already been able to process over 38,000 applications for
assistance from the groundfishery.
Over 25,000 of those people have received direct counselling
to look for alternative options. We have over 14,000 people
placed in training programs, of which 4,000 are taking direct
literacy programs. Several hundred have started their own
businesses. Several hundred are now working on a number of
green resource conservation projects. Several hundred have
been able to get work in other areas.
(1445 )
In other words we are demonstrating that while we are facing
a major tragedy, the collapse of the fishery, the federal
government through the support of unions, business and
certainly the people of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec is
showing that Canada can respond by giving people some real
hope when they face that kind of calamity.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the question is whether or not it is going to stay within
its budget.
Failure to identify a sustainable fishery has created great
uncertainty for the same TAGS recipients. Everyone hopes they
will be among the lucky few to get work if and when the fishery
recovers, but it is cruel of the government to hold out false hope.
At the same time as Atlantic fishermen struggle to feed their
families we see the minister of fisheries spending over $200,000
on office furnishings.
I have a supplementary question. Everyone knows fish stocks
will not have recovered within five years. What is the
government's plan for the fishermen following the end of
TAGS?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had quite
a mouthful to get out. I will try to answer very simply.
First, the program will stay within budget. Second, fishermen
who are facing the end of the fishery are now successfully
making a transition to new jobs, new opportunities, through the
help of their federal government. Third, we are helping to create
a new economy in the Atlantic provinces and eastern Quebec to
demonstrate that while fish is a very important staple the
country can go beyond that and add new products, new services
and new opportunities for Atlantic Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Defence.
We know that Quebec is being shortchanged by $650 million
each year in the distribution of defence funds. In a recently
televised report on this unfair distribution of military spending,
which appeared on Radio-Canada's Enjeux, the minister
indicated that total fairness was a luxury his government could
not afford.
How can the minister be so ill-advised as to consider treating
Quebec fairly to be a luxury?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): As often happens, the
hon. member did not quote the full remarks I made on the
television program, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously defence expenditures are not balanced equally
across the country because of the staging areas that we used in
the second world war and the fact that certain areas lent
themselves to the building of infrastructure.
However I pointed out in the same program that the province
of Quebec generally leads the country in its share of defence
capital acquisition expenditures and probably will do so in the
future when the new defence acquisitions are announced.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will
agree with me that as long as Quebec remains part of Canada, it
is entitled to its fair share.
Are we to understand that the minister is perfectly content
with this custom of penalizing Quebec both in terms of
representation at senior military levels and in terms of military
spending and does he recognize that it would have been fairer to
Quebec not to close the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I
have said, and I said it on that program, is that defence
expenditures are not an instrument of equalization. There are
other programs of the Government of Canada to attain those
objectives.
11760
I did say that in any capital program we do our best to ensure
there are regional benefits, that all regions of the country benefit
proportionately.
I underline for the hon. member that much of the defence
industry is located in the province of Quebec. If he checks the
records he will see that much of the capital spending that has
been engaged in by ministers of defence in the past has been on
industries located in his province.
I do not expect that to change.
* * *
(1450)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have learned that a trade mission to the Far East last
year led by the Governor General and the agriculture and
international trade ministers also included representatives from
the Tobacco Industry Marketing Board and was designed in part
to promote the sale of Canadian tobacco products in that market.
Will the minister of agriculture confirm that he believes the
Canadian government has no problem promoting the export of
tobacco?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has
significant programs in place in conjunction with the provinces,
most particularly the province of Ontario, to encourage
agricultural production away from tobacco through our tobacco
diversification program.
Since the implementation of the tobacco diversification
program in 1987, the number of flue cured tobacco producers in
Canada has decreased by some 44 per cent and the number of
producers of burley, pipe and and cigar tobacco has decreased by
about 80 per cent. It is obvious the program is working.
Nevertheless it must be noted that tobacco production is legal
in Canada and tobacco producers must be treated fairly along
with all other Canadian farmers. If the hon. gentleman holds a
different point of view, I suggest he go to Delhi, Ontario, in the
constituency represented by the chairman of the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and explain to
the farmers of Delhi his views with respect to tobacco
production and what he would do to compensate the farmers for
the kinds of losses he is proposing.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, calling a spade a spade, tobacco companies go overseas
to find other markets to sell tobacco, not something else.
The Minister of Health has said in the House that she would do
anything to prevent even one person from taking up smoking. As
the minister knows, representatives of tobacco companies freely
distribute their products to nightclubs overseas in an attempt to
get young people addicted.
Does the Minister of Health support the practice of the
government in aiding tobacco companies to promote smoking
overseas?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are doing everything in our power to help people
overseas, as well as people in Canada, to sensitize them to the
dangers of tobacco.
Next week I will be in Geneva at a World Health Organization
conference where we have put on the agenda the problem of
smoking in the world. It is very important for the member to
realize the effort the country is making in sensitizing people
around the world.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
Last week a Conservative MLA in Alberta criticized the child
support system for producing deadbeat dads and vindictive
leech moms. Statistics show that single custodial mothers and
their children are the most likely group of Canadians to live in
poverty.
How will our government ensure parents properly support
their children no matter where they live in Canada and no matter
who is the custodial parent?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, within coming weeks
the government will introduce measures that will deal with child
support to improve the present system in three important ways.
The first will have to do with the method by which the
amounts of child support are determined. At present that is left
to the uncertain and expensive process of litigation. We will
propose that such amounts be fixed by regulation on a statutory
guideline or formula geared to income.
The second element has to do with the tax treatment of child
support both in respect of the consequence for the payor and for
the recipient. Since the budget of 1994, and indeed since the
judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in Thibaudeau a year
ago, that has been a matter of both public consultation and
careful consideration. We will be making the position of the
government clear on the issue in the weeks ahead.
The third has to do with enforcement because the proper
amount with the appropriate tax calculation is meaningless
unless the order is actually paid.
(1455 )
I am working with my colleagues, the Minister of Human
Resources Development, the Minister of Finance, the Minister
of National Revenue and the Secretary of State for the Status of
11761
Women. We will include in our proposals a national strategy for
the enforcement of child support orders to ensure that those who
are required to pay, support their children.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian embassy in Paris refused to deliver a
visitor's visa to Hafsa Zinaï Koudil, an Algerian film producer
who was scheduled to present her film, ``Le démon au féminin'',
this week at the Festival Vues d'Afrique, in Montreal.
How can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration justify
rejecting the application of this Algerian filmmaker who already
received a death sentence from fundamentalist groups because
of her film, which precisely denounces the rise of religious
fundamentalism in Algeria?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we received one million
applications from people all over the world who want to visit our
country and we accepted 85 per cent of them.
[English]
It is nearly impossible for anyone to be responsible for all the
applications. They number almost one million and 85 per cent of
them get approved. Obviously one needs some degree of
flexibility with respect to visa officers.
If there is something special or particular about the case I do
not mind looking into it, but I do not want to make it a habit so
that all visa applications are automatically reviewed by a
minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I still do not understand why the application was
rejected. I wonder how the minister can justify his officials'
decision not to grant a visitor's visa to this filmmaker,
considering that, last week, he himself deemed appropriate to
deliver a minister's permit to Randall Terry, the leader of
Human Life International, who just served a five-month jail
sentence in the United States, which clearly makes him
ineligible to enter Canada. Is there a double standard?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the case of the refused
applicant in Algeria I asked the member if there was anything
special or particular about the case that he wanted me to look
into.
The person in question has not granted permission for people
to look into her file. Therefore I am very mindful and respectful
of the privacy she wishes applied to her case.
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the
Environment.
Over the Easter recess a United States appeals court
overturned its 18-year ban on the lead replacement MMT in
automobile gasoline. It is understood that in the next short while
the minister plans to do the exact opposite and ban the octane
enhancer.
What impartial evidence does the minister have that clearly
indicates MMT is harmful to the environment?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the U.S. court of
appeal did not deal with the substance of MMT; it dealt with the
process.
The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States
has no intention of licensing MMT for use. We do not want to see
Canada and Bulgaria being the only two countries in the world
that continue to allow the particular additive, unless the Reform
Party member would like to see the cost of Canadian
automobiles increase by approximately $3,000, which is what
will happen if we do not get MMT out of the Canadian gasoline
industry.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of
Industry.
The industry minister clearly knows that the oil and gas
industry and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association are
on opposite sides with respect to MMT. He knows that the only
wise course is to bring in a neutral third party evaluator.
How can the minister justify to the oil and gas industry that
banning MMT without any impartial evidence is indeed harmful
to the environment, the health of Canadians or any of the new
cars?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted the member is aware of the importance
of the automotive industry to Canada. He will know, for
example, that Canadian producers account for about 17 per cent
of automotive production in North America, whereas we only
consume about 10 per cent.
(1500 )
Key to that is uniformity of standards between the U.S. and
Canada. The member will know that MMT is not permitted in
the United States by legislation. It is crucial that we have
11762
uniformity of standards. The effort we put into trying to ensure
there was a voluntary agreement between the two sectors has
been well placed, but finally governments have to decide.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will know there is great concern across
the country about the transfer of health and social programs, the
transfer legislation. There is no doubt, given that federal
funding under this legislation will end in 2005, that people are
rightly concerned it is the end of a national health care system.
Would the Prime Minister put a moratorium on this transfer
and ensure that public hearings are held across the country on
this issue?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's
question does not really put forward the fact that the new
transfer payment gives the federal government a much greater
and stronger ability to continue to ensure the basic principles of
the Canada Health Act are maintained by consolidating the cash
transfers under the three programs into one solid fund. It used to
be given separately for health, education and welfare. We now
have the continuing ability to ensure that leverage is exercised
and to make sure the accountability under those five principles
of the Canada Health Act and the residency requirements of the
Canada assistance plan are maintained.
Contrary to what the hon. member is imputing in her question,
the transfer payment strengthens the federal ability to ensure the
responsibility of the provinces to live up to those national
principles.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform member for Prince George-Peace River seems to
think the government should just abandon the fishing families of
Atlantic Canada. Can the minister please explain to this member
and the third party what the TAGS program is doing to help the
people of Newfoundland and the maritimes survive this difficult
time and improve their chances for a much better future?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for the question.
In my previous answer I cited statistics that showed over
25,000 Atlantic Canadians are now engaged in programs. Let me
now talk specifically about real issues.
There is a family in Newfoundland I receive correspondence
from who have left the fishery. The father has now established
himself through a nautical training program as a mate on the
Irving Oil line. The grandson and their daughter, through
training in electronics, have now become active workers in the
local television company.
In North Sydney there is a group working on beachfront
development under the green project.
Perhaps most directly, I received a letter from a gentleman in
his mid-forties who has been illiterate since he started working
in the fishery 20 years ago. For the first time he is able to write
letters directly to his sons and daughters across Canada and
communicate with them.
That shows the people in the Atlantic region are taking up the
challenge and have the motivation to change their way of life
and change their occupations.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of a parliamentary delegation from
Cambodia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would also like to draw your
attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Veysel Atasoy,
Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of the Republic of
Turkey.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1505)
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and
means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act,
and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of this motion.
_____________________________________________
11762
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, an act to
amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related
11763
amendments to other Acts, as reported with amendments, and of
Motions Nos. 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 31.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I said there were some very recent cases that have proved
beyond a doubt that in Canada lobbying can be excessive,
dangerous and costly and can have an impact that is rather
disturbing to Canadians who, for some time, have been
demanding a bill that would regulate the activities of lobbyists
on Parliament Hill.
In fact, in its red book, this government promised, as we all
know and as many have said repeatedly, to introduce a bill with
teeth. Of course we realize that, when the bill was being
examined, lobbyists themselves managed to get certain
proposals eliminated from the bill, to the extent that the bill
before the House today has no real impact on the power of
lobbyists. There has been no real increase in transparency. That
is what we want and what the people want. Canadians want
assurances that lobbyists will not operate in a way that
constitutes abuse of power or undue favouritism.
The Bloc Quebecois was the party that suggested a series of
amendments, that made recommendations for the purpose of
improving this bill. Motion No. 22 proposes that we should have
an ethics counsellor who is not appointed by the Prime Minister,
as is the case now, but elected by the House of Commons. We
suggest that the ethics counsellor should be independent and
only accountable to the House of Commons. This is one of the
suggestions for improving Bill C-43 and giving it some
credibility. It was also suggested that this bill be enforceable by
the courts, that there be disclosure of fees and meetings with
senior officials and ministers. These are all measures to
strengthen Bill C-43, to encourage transparency in this area
which is, as I said, quite troublesome in Canada.
(1510)
There was the Pearson scandal. There was the case of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage interfering in a matter handled by
the CRTC, an agency for which he is responsible. These are all
cases which make the public suspicious. In addition, there was
the BST case, where representatives of the Monsanto company
offered Health Canada officials $2 million to approve BST.
But, in my opinion, these are just drops in the bucket, despite
the fact that they are already very serious incidents involving
large sums of money. But the most flagrant abuse of power was
when the federal cabinet decided last week to intervene in a
decision which the CRTC made, according to its own standards
in the usual fashion, in order to favour a company owned by
Power Corp. We know that Power Corp. has a considerable
influence over cabinet. We know that Paul Desmarais, chairman
of Power Corp., has close family ties with the Prime Minister of
Canada. To me, the fact that Paul Desmarais' son André is
married to the Prime Minister's daughter is indication enough
that there is such potential for abuse of power that cabinet could
even intervene in the CRTC's decisions.
If one adds to that the fact that the Minister of Finance used to
work for Power Corporation, that he was vice-president of
Power Corporation, it is obvious that this company has exerted a
powerful influence on cabinet. These are cases of abuse. It is
reported that André Desmarais, Paul Desmarais's son, was the
main organizer of the Prime Minister's trip to Asia last year-a
trip which was therefore organized by representatives of Power
Corporation, who were so influential that it is during that trip
that the Prime Minister changed his policy toward China. Just
imagine, lobbyists like Power Corporation can have such an
influence that they can make the Canadian government change
its foreign policy.
Unfortunately, I see that my time has expired. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I appreciate the
opportunity to speak on this legislation.
I believe that the members of the Bloc are not being fair, in the
sense that they are not explaining to Canadians some of the real
amendments that have been made to this bill, which have
increased transparency way beyond the previous piece of
legislation. The member says there are no increases in
transparency. He obviously has not read the bill.
(1515)
I would like to take a moment on this whole notion of the
Power Corporation. Let us talk about Mr. Desmarais. I cannot
understand why the opposition casts aspersions on people who
have had previous experience with leaders from the business
sector, the entrepreneurial sector.
I have a great difficulty with that. I was in the business realm
before I came here. I worked for a large multinational
corporation, Magna International. As members of the House
know, when we take a position in cabinet or as a parliamentary
secretary and we sit down with the ethics counsellor we are
asked about our previous lives, about our relationships. It is all
on the public record.
The position members of Parliament take when they are on the
government side, when they have had a previous experience
with an industry or a corporation that deals with government
from time to time, is that one absents oneself from decisions
taken that directly affect that corporation.
If transparency and accountability are the objective of this
bill it would seem to me that in the case of the Power
Corporation, which the opposition has mentioned several times
today, or the Desmarais connection, to use the member's words,
there is
11764
probably more scrutiny on that relationship than any other
relationship in the House because it involves the Prime Minister.
Members of the opposition are trying to insinuate that in some
way, shape or form this bill inhibits transparency or would
diminish the exposure or the analysis or the relationship
between members of Parliament and their previous lives or their
continued relationship with previous organizations. I cannot
figure out where they are coming from. As an MP who comes
from that background, I do not want to hide my relationship with
my previous employer.
Mr. Hanger: Why should there be any worry if you have not
done anything wrong.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): There is no worry. It
is on the record. It is publicly known if one goes to the registrar.
As long as I am not in here trying to lobby the cabinet or officials
on behalf of my previous employer, I do not see where the
difficulty is.
I do not understand where the members on the opposite side
are coming from. What I find distressful about the tone and the
approach from the members opposite is that it seems to me they
are suggesting if we had some kind of a relationship with the
private sector or a high profile organization we are putting
ourselves in a position where we cannot be a member of
Parliament where we can be above reproach.
I expect that all of my actions in relation to my previous
employer to be scrutinized. I expect if I have received a
campaign fund or received moneys from my previous employer
to promote a particular cause or whatever, I do not have any
problem with that being analysed. The opposition is really
missing the point. It is saying that when one has a relationship
with a major corporation that person's ability to do work as an
MP is questioned.
(1520)
That is a sad state. I do not want my friends in the House who
are lawyers, doctors or from other professions to take this the
wrong way, but we need more men and more women who have
had entrepreneurial experience, who have had business
backgrounds.
With that type of experience we might be able to re-energize
that part of our responsibility which has to do with the economy.
When opposition members single out relationships that existed
either in the past or in the present with corporations or
multinationals because I either worked for them or had a
relationship with them, it casts aspersions on that relationship in
a way that is counterproductive to why we are all here.
The essence of this bill has to do with increasing the
transparency, making sure all the activities of lobbyists and
their relationship with the government are enhanced,
documented, that we have an ability to get a sense of how we as
members of Parliament are being lobbied and sometimes even
manipulated. Does this bill meet that test? I believe it does.
We have the appointment of the ethics counsellor, a new
creation of this government, and as time moves on that position
will evolve and be refined. The code of conduct for MPs we as a
committee will work on, refine and improve. We have
committed ourselves to that process and if we continue this type
of debate eventually the final product will be something all
Canadians and all members of Parliament can be proud of.
The bill goes a long way in taking us in that direction.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is a
principle in law which says that one should always be presumed
to be in good faith. I do not wish to use the tabling of Bill C-43
and its amendments as an excuse to go against that principle.
Yet, I find it somewhat strange that a government which used
any means it could during the 1993 election, namely in the
famous Toronto airport case, and swore left and right that once
elected it would impose an ethics code and put some order in the
scheming of lobbyists on Parliament Hill, I find it strange that
this government now puts forward those concrete proposals. I
also found that strange when the bill was introduced. I was
among the privileged who received a short briefing the morning
the bill was introduced. I was there with the leader of my party
when counsellors from Justice, Industry or Commerce-I forget
which-gave us a crash course on the bill.
I could already see that with the title of ethics counsellor the
government had toned down those nice principles it defended in
its red Bible, which was probably red with shame since the
electoral campaign. The title ethics counsellor reminds me of a
style of politics ``à la'' Pol Martin: you have recipes for
favouritism and political influence. As the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said earlier, the success of that
law depends on all members and ministers. Therefore, why not
acknowledge their wishes and appoint an ethics counsellor by
means of a motion in this House?
(1525)
You know, it is quite something to have judicial
independence. This ethics counsellor will have to make rulings
on quasi-judicial issues. He will have to make value judgments
about the actions of members of Parliament. He will really
perform a quasi-judicial function. The independence of the
courts has always been recognized, whether they are judicial or
administrative tribunals or, as we call them, quasi-judicial
courts.
But the party that is now in office does not want to get
involved in this sort of thing. It seems peculiar to me that the
Prime Minister is the only one to whom the ethics counsellor is
accountable, even if I do not want to assume that he would act in
bad faith. The judicial courts judges who were supposed to be
11765
charged higher parking fees in the Justice Department buildings,
in Quebec, rose up against this practice, not long ago, giving as
an excuse their need for independence, their need to cut all links
with the administration or the executive, that is, the legislative
power.
I did not really understand their reaction at that time, but in
this case, it is crystal clear. The only one who will be entitled to
appoint the ethics counsellor is the Prime Minister. The only one
to be able to call him to account is also the Prime Minister.
Again, he can only be dismissed by the Prime Minister. Now, I
am told that this counsellor will be impartial, that he will not
feel that the Prime Minister is trying to appeal to his emotions,
depending on whether his opinions are negative or positive.
Really, all this is nothing more than a dog's dinner. Why not
let Parliament, the House of Commons, all of us here make the
decision through legislation about the appointment of this
official. There is another side to these things. During the
campaign, the Prime Minister talked about how this scheme
would be nice, great, pure and neat. Now he comes up with a
piece of legislation that is not clear and is stifled by its own
interpretation. Bill C-43 and other bills, particularly Bills C-61
and C-62 with their infamous clauses opening the doors to
lobbyists as never before, look like an invitation to lobbyists
saying: ``From now on the place is wide open, come and make
your representations''.
Let us consider clause 9 of Bill C-62: ``The designated
regulatory authority-'' Now we have regulatory authorities.
Who are they? They are public servants. ``-must evaluate and
decide whether to approve the proposed compliance plan-''
Let us take, for example, the candy maker who decides to
replace white sugar with brown sugar. He comes here and talks
to the official who buys that idea, saying it is all right. Do you
think that a provision like this one in clause 9 of Bill C-62 does
not represent an invitation to abuse? With those compliance
plans, one will be able to replace anything with anything,
anytime, anywhere.
If that is not an invitation to lobbyists to come to the Hill and
do their job, I do not know what it is. Bill C-61, now, is even
worse.
An hon. member: With a donation to the party.
Mr. Lebel: With a donation to the party, of course. Bill C-61
is awful. For a given violation or offence, a penalty of $2,000,
$1,000 or $500 can be meted out, or it can be waived entirely, at
the discretion of a public servant who will decide if we are guilty
or not and who will assess the degree of guilt depending on
whether we belong to the right party or have contributed or not
to the election fund. What are we to understand? Where are
those great values of openness which the Prime Minister and his
colleagues advocated in 1993? Why invite criticism so
blatantly? The government could have simply recognized that
the amendment makes sense and realized that it was about to
make a big mistake. Why not be open to openness? Why not
demonstrate openly that they are what they pretend to be? No,
that was not meant to be.
(1530)
Liberals will fight tooth and nail and stop at nothing to reject
the amendment moved by the opposition parties concerning the
ethics counsellor. It is already bad enough that there is only one
counsellor. But if he is going to advise us, it would be perfectly
normal that we appoint the counsellor or at least suggest or
refuse nominations. All those powers are taken from us, but we
are told the ethics counsellor will be our counsellor. Do you not
find all this very strange? I wonder where such an attitude is
leading us.
When the Pearson airport issue was raised, I told the House
that cancelling the contract would cost at least $250 million. The
transport minister, in the House at the time, jumped from his
seat and said: ``That cannot be. It will cost $25, $30 or $35
million at the very most. It is unthinkable that it could cost more
than that''. Legal proceedings have already cost us $444 million
and the matter is not settled yet.
No, they are always the only ones in step, like in the army,
they are always the only ones to know the truth and to
understand everything, especially the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell with all his phone numbers.
They are the only ones who are right. Do you not find this
frustrating in the long run?
We are simply asking them-since I do not want to call them
hypocrites because apparently it is not a parliamentary
expression-to stop burying their heads in the sand. They are all
for women when we debate women's issues, but they are against
women when we talk about the budget. It is always the same
thing. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
While the right hand was saving money, the left hand was
putting us $600 billion in the red. That is what the Liberal Party
is all about. We talk about the old approach and a renewed
approach, but it is one and the same.
Mr. Bellehumeur: It is a good thing they only have two
hands.
Mr. Lebel: Yes, it is a good thing they only have two hands,
but they do not seem to know what to do with their two ears.
Even if they had no ears at all, it would not change anything,
because as much as we try to make them understand and see the
evidence for themselves, they do not understand anything. Give
them more hands to replace their ears and they would be happy.
This is our tongue in cheek way of saying that this debate is
pointless, because they have already made their beds, they
already know where they are heading and they are not listening
11766
to what we are saying here, even though it makes sense and even
though the public's perception of the government is at stake.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this motion, which is to
amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.
Unfortunately, I deplore the fact that this bill does not go far
enough in controlling the activities of lobbyists and reinforcing
the openness of public activities. Yet the Liberal Party made
many promises in its red book. I ask members to take a look at
my copy of the red book. This is what is left of it because every
time the Liberals introduce a bill, I tear a few pages out. Since
they never keep their promises, my copy does not have many
pages left.
What did the Liberals say on lobbying in the red book? They
said: ``The lobbying industry has expanded enormously in
Canada during the nine years of Conservative government. The
integrity of government is put into question when there is a
perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising
undue influence away from public view''.
This is obviously the case with the DirecTV project which is
presently being debated in this House in another context. There
are still lobbies at work. However, we do not know much about
them; they are not registered and we did not do everything we
should have to ensure the desired transparency.
According to the red book, ``the cosy relationship between
lobbyists and the Conservative regime has contributed not only
to public cynicism about politics but also to the sense of
americanization of Canadian government''. So they also
insulted our neighbours. ``Serious concerns have been raised in
the minds of Canadians about some of their political
representatives and some of the companies and individuals who
lobby''.
(1535)
And it goes on like that. What are the Liberals doing now that
they are in power? They said that they would make a law on
lobbying. So, we are checking up on them. If we look at the
famous committee report and at the bill now before us, we can
see that the Liberals did not take any account of what they said
when they were in the opposition, they dismissed that
completely and, today, they introduce a bill that, except for a
few minor points, could have been introduced by the
Conservatives if they had been elected instead of the Liberals.
And yet, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
who sat on the committee, said some very interesting things.
The government did not retain a single element of the report.
The promises have evaporated. What did our friend across the
way, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, tell
us? ``I do not agree with you when you say that all that is
unimportant, that the question of knowing how much money has
been spent on lobbying interests neither the concerned parties
nor the public''. So, he was in favour of the disclosure of
revenues. But is there anything about that in the bill? No. The
Liberal Party has forgotten about all that. But it keeps saying
that the mushrooming of lobbyists is a cause for concern. The
public has a right to know who does what and to whom. And
must we add, at what cost? All that was included in the
unanimous report of our committee. And it came from the mouth
of the aforementioned member.
Another Liberal promise concerned the appointment of an
ethics counsellor. They promised to appoint an independent
counsellor in consultation with all parties in the House and they
said that he or she would report to Parliament. What do we have
in this regard in the bill before us? Again, absolutely nothing.
That is why we are proposing amendments so that things can
be done exactly the same way as the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was pointing out in the
committee report when he was a member of the opposition.
Section 10.1 of the act says that the Governor in Council may
designate any person as the ethics counsellor for the purposes of
this act. So we want to change that. We want to amend clause 5
of the bill, which amends sections 9 and 10 of the act. We want to
replace section 10.1 by the following:
``10.1(1) There shall be an Ethics Counsellor who shall be appointed by
commission under the Great Seal after approval of the appointment by
resolution of the House of Commons.
(2) Subject to this section, the Ethics Counsellor holds office during good
behaviour for a term of seven years, but may be removed by the Governor in
Council at any time on address of the House of Commons.
(3) The Ethics Counsellor, on the expiration of a first or any subsequent term
of office, is eligible to be re-appointed for a further term not exceeding seven
years''.
That is the way to fulfil a promise. That is the way to correct
the very things that the previous government was criticized for.
That is the way to give Canadians more confidence in the
lobbying system, which is probably impossible in today's
politics. Bureaucracy has become so cumbersome that it may be
necessary to have lobbyists who are able to tell us on which door
to knock, how to knock, how to open the door, how to dress, how
to talk, etc. That is basically what lobbyists do when they lobby
on our behalf so that we can obtain more easily what we ask for
as a legitimate right and not as a privilege. People must not think
that we are against lobbying. We know it is necessary, but we
want the rules of the game to be clear. We want the rules of the
game to be transparent. We want the credibility and the ethics of
this person to be solid so that people put their trust completely or
renews their trust in the men and women in politics.
(1540)
The government had the fine idea of fulfilling its promise and
having someone appointed by the House, who would report to
Parliament. Unfortunately, the Liberals never carried it out.
Mitchell Sharp was initially appointed to advise the Prime
Minister. They ended up hiring a personal adviser. Everytime we
asked the Prime Minister or a member of the government about
the famous role of the counsellor, we were told that he was
11767
consulted after the fact, and it was not entirely clear that the
advice was actually given to the Prime Minister. Finally, we
have no idea whether this helps the Prime Minister, except that it
costs us a fairly substantial salary, which raises questions about
the role of this counsellor, when we give him a particular role. It
has not, however, raised the credibility of someone who was the
Prime Minister's counsellor.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is proposing this amendment.
Despite the remarks of my colleague, which I fully support, we
have the impression of playing opposition here. People must not
think we are playing games. We are trying to show the
government that points in their legislation are unacceptable and
could be taken further. We really have to amend the policy
somewhat in order to improve things. We are not being paid to
do nothing. We are being paid to express the viewpoint of people
outside government, who do not have the same focus on things.
The government could easily agree to change certain
amendments and even carry out some of its promises. Can you
believe it, we in opposition want to help the government? We
tell the government to be as good as it promised, to keep its
promises. What more could the public want from a government
and an opposition that work for the collective good in order to
protect the interests of the people?
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, in considering the motions
proposed at the report stage of Bill C-43 on lobbyists'
registration, to go back to the definition of lobbyist. Without
reading the definition in the dictionary, I can say that a lobbyist
is a person who gets paid to influence government decisions to
the benefit of his employer, who can be a person or a company.
For example, lobbyists are hired by the Canadian Bankers'
Association to ensure that Canadian banks do not pay more
taxes. Employers rely on public relations experts who make
these kinds of representations. Another example is the courier
companies that would like to break the monopoly enjoyed by
Canada Post and make representations to that effect to members
of Parliament.
We can see right away that this has a very long history. It
involves what I would call the dark side of a politician's life.
That is why it is very important, in dealing with this issue, to
preserve openness so that ordinary citizens can see very clearly
that elected officials responsible for running the government are
free of any dishonest or undue influence. Legislation in this area
must be very clear and there must be specific rules to ensure
openness. The key principle is that decisions must not only be
proper, they must also be made openly and legally without any
undue influence.
(1545)
This has an impact not only on the quality of decisions but
also on the quality of democratic life in any society because
citizens who believe that parliamentarians are influenced by all
kinds of hidden forces on which they have little control may feel
that their role as citizens is less important than it should be and
that they may not take part in democratic life to the extent that
they should.
Yet it is very important, and that is the message conveyed by
several of the motions before us. They are designed to improve
on this bill because, as it stands, it contains very interesting
principles, but the wording does not go as far as it should to
ensure the kind of transparency to be expected regarding
lobbying.
Take Motion No. 22 for example. It specifies that the ethics
counsellor should be appointed by the House. The difference
between being appointed by the House or by Cabinet may elude
laymen. But there is a very definite difference: Cabinet
appointees are actually appointed by people they will have to
evaluate later on. This is totally unacceptable.
People know full well that, in their everyday life, if they hire
someone to keep an eye on their property and their own
activities, they control the way this person perceives them and
does his job because they are the ones paying him. That is why a
high degree of transparency is required, and it is recognized in
every parliamentary system that individuals appointed by the
House of elected representatives have greater credibility.
Here is a case in point: the returning officer responsible for
the entire electoral system of a country or province. If appointed
by the government instead of the House of Commons as a whole,
he will certainly have less credibility. The same problem arises
here. That is why an amendment was moved to ensure that
appointees will truly be serving the people of Canada, not the
government, let alone the Prime Minister. This is not a chief of
staff or a political adviser we are hiring, but a person who will be
able to ensure that things are done within acceptable ethical
limits.
Similarly, to ensure transparency, the number one criteria in
my view when it comes to lobbying activity, we must be able to
hold public inquiries. We all recall the example provided by the
Prime Minister, with his personal ethics counsellor briefing him
on such and such situation in a confidential report. We could not
even have access to the document per se. In such case, even if
what the Prime Minister says and the report says is true and
accurate, because there is not a strong enough colour of fairness,
equality and transparency, the medium becomes the message
and, since the medium as such is not believable due to its lack of
flexibility, no effort is made to check that the content is
sufficiently objective.
11768
I think that it would be in the government's best interests in
the future to recognize the need for this kind of courageous
action. Of course, we may find out that there is abuse-nobody
is perfect on this earth-and we will deal with this in due course.
But in the long run, this will improve the system by ensuring that
the public in general can assess the situation, have access to
facts and conclusions and, therefore, be truly in control of the
system. It is important to have an amendment to that effect and
that it be passed.
Another amendment deals with the tabling of the ethics code.
Let the rules of the game finally be laid on the table. What are
the rules and regulations? What game is this? What constitutes
acceptable behaviour and what does not?
In this area, this democratic society of ours, one of the most
developed democratic societies in the world, still has a long way
to go. It needs to get out of the dark and the slightly ambiguous
situations we sometimes encounter, such as the whole issue of
Pearson International Airport.
(1550)
An act on lobbyists which would clearly define the various
situations would have two positive effects. First, it would deter
those who might be tempted to line their pockets when they are
not supposed to, or who might be tempted to do things more or
less legally. Second, it would give a clear picture to everyone.
For these reasons, the opposition must ensure that the bill will
be the best possible piece of legislation and that it will reflect
the objective pursued. The government seems to have forgotten
the principles which underlie its election promises. It now has
an opportunity to amend the bill and ensure that it accurately
reflects the commitment made during the election campaign.
Let us consider the ethics counsellor, for example. If the
counsellor is appointed by cabinet, then he is actually
designated by those whom he must monitor. This creates a
strange situation. The person responsible for saying that a
minister acted inappropriately in a certain situation will have
been hired by cabinet, which includes the minister in question.
This puts the incumbent in an impossible situation. I am
prepared to predict that, if the bill is passed in its present form,
problems will surface in two, three or five years, and the next
government will have to make changes and improve the
legislation to make it more acceptable.
I do wonder about this bill. Why does the government not put
more distance between itself and lobbyists? Why does it
perpetuate the impression that governments are more or less
puppets controlled by secret groups? What is the purpose of
acting like that? Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have
come to realize that lobbyists can take up my whole day. They
can ask to meet regularly with me. They can act so as to get a lot
of my time, through visits and meetings, sometimes at the
expense of my constituents. Why does the government not
clarify the whole situation and make our lives as members of
Parliament easier and simpler by promoting direct contact with
the public?
I think the answer has to do with the way that federal political
parties are financed, and particularly the contributions made by
corporations, including Canadian banks. Indeed, banks are
known to make large contributions to several political parties.
The Bloc Quebecois does not accept money from corporations,
but the law currently authorizes such contributions.
If our elections act allows such donations, we are sure to find
it difficult to pass a law to enforce tighter rules on lobbying
because the people who contribute to election funds are the ones
who hire lobbyists. Both acts would be at cross purposes. It is
easy to understand why this Liberal government, after making
terrific promises in its red book, is not able to deliver the goods,
and comes up with such a toothless bill.
To conclude, I urge government members to examine
carefully the proposed amendments and more particularly
Motions Nos. 22, 25, and 19. Passing those amendments would
give us a bill that would allow once and for all adequate control
of lobbyists and make it clear to Quebecers and Canadians alike
that politicians are here primarily to serve them.
(1555)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question in on
Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred.
11769
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 28. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), the recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 31. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at report stage of the bill now before the House.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
(1600 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, I have been requested by the chief deputy whip to
defer the divisions until 5.30 p.m. today.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division on
the question now before the House stands deferred until later
this day at 5.30 p.m. at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
* * *
The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-70, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income
Tax Application Rules and related acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. parliamentary
secretary had approximately 10 minutes remaining. He might
choose to elaborate on his previous intervention.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the
opportunity to continue to talk about the debate on tax reform.
Something that I believe concerns all members of the House
of Commons today is the fact that the world monetary system
does not seem to be functioning properly. In all the major
financial institutions, the banks, are sections where they are
dealing with derivative funds, working around the clock seven
days a week. The flow of capital being perpetrated right now
affects all countries, managed by a very few men and women in
my judgment in an unaccountable way, is one of the major
reasons why we have these major fluctuations in interest rates
and in exchange rates.
When we look at all the activity around the derivatives,
around all the speculation on the stock market, we discover that
the amount of productivity related directly to the manufacturing
of a product or service is very small in relation to the amount of
speculative movement within those markets. Somebody writing
11770
in the New York Times the other day said that for every $1,000
exchanged on the stock market only about $1 is related directly
to productivity.
The more we get into this flow of capital, the more we come
back to the fact that our basic tax act is in need of major reform.
This is an area where all members of the House have to come
together to address the problem in a comprehensive way.
This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that affects every
person who generates income in this country. As we all know the
current tax system is a disincentive to productivity. The harder
one works and the more one makes on the gross income, it seems
that the less one has left in one's pocket.
What we see now, whether it be an individual or a corporation,
is the flight of capital, the flight of talent out of our country. It is
easy today to move capital around, move companies around by
pushing buttons but we cannot move people around.
We are a nation. We have built one of the greatest
infrastructures in the world in terms of promoting our quality of
life, whether it be our health care system, our educational
system or our social safety net. All of a sudden, these things are
in jeopardy. They are in jeopardy not because of waste and not
because people are abusing the system. We must eliminate the
abuse of the system, waste and overlap. No one is debating that.
(1605)
However, we face a more fundamental problem. Because we
are now legislators who are on our knees to the capitalist
markets, in my judgment we are becoming less liberal in the way
we look after some of the disadvantaged people in our
community. We are becoming less sensitive to the whole
purpose of why we are here.
We come to this Chamber not to dot i's and cross t's, we come
to debate ideas that will either maintain or improve the quality
of life in the country. Right now we are not controlling the
agenda. The people who are controlling capital flows outside of
sovereign states are the ones who are having the most effect on
the decisions we make.
Our whole thrust as the House of Commons for the last 10 or
12 years has been deficit and debt. A lot of the deficit and debt is
exacerbated by a world monetary policy which is not working
and ultimately by a tax system which is not working. That is why
I feel it is very important, as I previously mentioned, that we
change the basic tax act.
One of the things we must be aware of is the fact that our
neighbours to the south are starting to look at comprehensive tax
reform in a very serious way. In fact, just before question period
today I was handed an article which was written in the New York
Times by William Safire-
* * *
[
Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Secretary of State for
Parliamentary Affairs on a point of order.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been impossible to
reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2)
with respect to second reading of Bill C-76, an act to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
February 27, 1995.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice
that I will be moving a time allocation motion at the next sitting
of the House for the purpose of allotting a specific number of
days or hours for further consideration of the bill at this stage
and every question necessary in order to dispose of this stage of
the bill.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-70, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax
Application Rules and related acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the article in the New York
Times talked about the new bipartisan spirit that is sweeping the
United States Congress right now on comprehensive tax reform.
It talks about Republicans Dole and Kemp and Democrats
Bradley and Gephardt all working together on this issue. I note
the last sentence of the article, which reads: ``This 25 per cent
solution builds on the reform that Bradley and Senate finance
chairman Bob Packwood, Republican, worked out in the
mid-eighties and it need not wait for a Republican president''.
What concerns me about the fact that the United States is
seized with this issue is that if it implements this before we do,
then once again we will not only be following, we will lose a
tremendous amount of investment. Some of our larger
corporations, high achievers, income earners and entrepreneurs
are naturally going to flow to that market where they can achieve
more in the way they earn their incomes. Therefore, we should
somehow figure out a way to get involved in this debate in a very
aggressive way.
11771
(1610)
I read a paper just before Christmas written by an economist
from the province of Quebec by the name of Pierre Fortin. He is
now one of the most respected economists in the province and
one of the advisers to the Bloc Quebecois. Obviously, he would
give strategy on its future. He may not be a close adviser but he
is someone who is listened to by certain members of the Bloc.
He too is advocating this type of a system.
The best way to handle the tax act of Canada is to go right back
to basics and flush out all the special privileges, preferences and
loopholes. If we added up the value of all the preferences and tax
loopholes in the last 15 years that were given to foreign
multinationals and the top 150 companies in Canada, we would
see that those preferences or, as some would call them, tax
grants, would add up to close to $500 billion which is equivalent
to almost the national debt.
I believe it is time for us, as a country, to get involved in this
debate in an aggressive way.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood and I must say that I was quite
surprised because he made a very sensible and thoughtful
speech. The problem is that he stated exactly what we have been
saying to the finance minister and the government for the past 15
months. As we said before, we need to review the whole
Canadian tax system, because it is full of holes and is preventing
us from reaching our goals and ensuring social equity
throughout Canada, in the East as well as in the West, and a fair
balance between what individual taxpayers and private
corporations pay.
So, I want to ask my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood
why the members of his own government do not understand his
message, which I find quite sensible? Why can he not convince
his colleague, the Minister of Finance, of the need, indeed the
urgency to remedy the obvious deficiencies in the Canadian tax
system, which allow high income earners as well as big
corporations to benefit from loopholes such as the tax
conventions signed with some tax havens?
Why can we not abolish these loopholes? Could it be because
his colleague, the Minister of Finance, is both judge and judged?
It is a well known fact that he has a fleet of vessels flying the
Panamanian flag, a flag of convenience, and may not have the
same interests as his colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois for the question. It is a
question I have been asking myself for the last two years.
I have been campaigning on the single tax system for the past
five years. When I started the debate I did not understand the
complexity of the tax act and its sensitivity toward progressivity
for seniors and families with children. We designed and
redesigned the tax form over 30 different times in order to try
and have something that was doable. Having said all of that I
really do believe our last effort on this project was very close to
something that was doable and worked for everyone.
(1615)
I like to think I have a little bit of experience in selling to my
colleagues in this House of Commons. I have worked hard for
the party for 15 years now. I have discovered regrettably that the
lobby system which exists around the tax act and the Department
of Finance is the strongest lobby which exists in Canada. The
men and women who have lobbied for a particular tax preference
within the 1,400 pages of the tax act are all people who believe
in their cause. I am not saying they are doing anything
subversive or illegal, but their ability to lobby their cause and
add their preference to the tax act is certainly more powerful
than mine.
I am not alone. Other members on this side of the House
believe in comprehensive tax reform as well. I believe that only
when we as elected members of Parliament come together as a
fist, rather than going in 10 different directions, will we have the
ability to move the officials in the Department of Finance. This
is something the elected members of Parliament put here by the
people can do, not the unaccountable bureaucrats in finance.
That is the challenge.
I do not mind saying to members opposite that there are some
days when I wonder whether I am spinning my wheels. However,
I want members to know that I really believe if we all work
together on this, that it is achievable. Why will it be achievable
now? It is no different from the music industry. How did some of
the best talent in our country make it? They went to the United
States, made a hit and came back as superstars.
Now both the Republicans and Democrats in the United States
of America are looking very closely at reforming the whole
system. We will be consistent, traditional Canadians. If they
implement it, we will follow rather than having the guts to take
the lead.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to applaud the member for the work he has done over
the years on the single tax. I know he certainly understands that
we on this side of the House support it.
He said there are days when he feels as if he is spinning his
wheels. I would like to ask him specifically how he felt a few
moments ago when someone from his caucus walked into this
Chamber in the middle of his speech and said that time
allocation was going to be brought in on this piece of legislation.
11772
The hon. member and I sat together on this side of the House
in the last Parliament. It was deplorable then for the Tory
government to bring in time allocation.
Could he explain to me if he feels like he is spinning his
wheels right now because someone just cut him off with time
allocation? This is debate, openness and democracy? Bunk.
Could he address that please.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, that is a
very tough question for me to answer. There is only one answer
and that is the answer one believes in. I have been in opposition
where we have had the guillotine of closure put on us. I would
say that we did not like it.
Let me say first that the administration of this House because
of the legislative agenda and because we do not sit as much
requires this from time to time. We have brought in time
allocation or closure on bills about 10 per cent compared to the
previous government. I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that
any time we have brought in closure it was in the interests of
making sure that the administration of certain pieces of
legislation got through the system for a very specific purpose,
but never in terms of shutting down debate.
(1620)
We on this side of the House, and I have said this repeatedly,
would welcome good, tough, solid debate from the opposition.
Quite frankly sometimes we feel that the best debate we have in
this Parliament is among ourselves. We have actually talked of
having a good intersquad game among ourselves in the House of
Commons.
The bottom line is that we have brought in closure less than 10
per cent in comparison to the Tories.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to speak to Bill C-70. I listened to the hon.
member for Broadview-Greenwood, and I was both amazed
and impressed.
I was amazed to hear a Liberal member, an experienced
member of the House of Commons who did a very thorough
study of the tax system in Canada, say that the tax lobby is the
most powerful lobby in this country and that there is no tax
reform in this country because there are powerful interests that
do whatever is necessary to influence governments.
I am also impressed, because I see a Liberal member who is
swimming against the tide as he tries to advance the cause of fair
taxation in this country. I am impressed because, considering his
experience, he must realize that his chances of succeeding are
very slight. Nevertheless, he belongs to a group that is
submitting a proposal for tax reform.
I suppose that five, ten or twenty years from now, he will
probably still represent the riding he represents today in the
House of Commons and will probably be making the same
speech and say: I have these wonderful ideas. I want to reform
the tax system, but the big business lobby, the lobby of the
haves in this country is so powerful that I cannot do a thing. But I
will persevere.
So again, I have nothing but praise for the hon. member, and I
would urge him to keep up the good work, because it is a very
slow process, as the hon. member for the Reform Party said
earlier.
The purpose of Bill C-70 is to implement certain measures
announced in the budget of 1994, not the budget tabled a month
and a half or two months ago but the one that was tabled 14
months ago. Now this is a good example of an institution that
just ambles along, without realizing that some people in Canada
are in a hurry for tax reform.
There are people who look at our tax system, and right now,
they are probably finishing their income tax returns. They will
probably file them at the last minute because, like a lot of people
here, they owe money to the government. Taxpayers do their tax
returns, saying to themselves: ``It seems that Canada's tax
system is not quite what it should be''. They look at their tax
returns, saying to themselves: ``I get very few exemptions and
tax credits''. The people filling out their returns perhaps work
for someone else, so evasion is not an option.
At the same time, the same people will see in the papers or on
certain television programs that some people in this country are
fortunate enough to have tidy fortunes, and to, it would seem,
not have to pay taxes or to be able to take advantage of some
form of tax evasion scheme, like family trusts, like tax credits
such as the research and development credit, which in some
cases may be used for praiseworthy pursuits but in reality boil
down to a means of not paying a fair share of taxes.
(1625)
The citizens in question who are in the process of filling in
their tax returns may still recall the Auditor General's report last
year, which said it was astounding that we continue to tolerate
that Canadian income tax laws still contain certain tax haven
provisions.
The Auditor General asked the government to review some
tax conventions with certain countries, which permit businesses
that we believe to be Canadian but are registered in foreign
countries with laxer tax laws than Canada, to avoid paying taxes.
I hope to be able to prove, in my speech, that Canada's Income
Tax Act is very kind to the rich, but that there are other countries
where it is even worse, where the tax legislation is even more
lenient for those who make profits.
It should be noted that usually these countries are not rich
ones, but rather countries which are struggling and belong to the
third world. They probably benefit in some way from having
such tax provisions. But on second thought, one realizes that
they probably do not derive huge profits from signing these
11773
conventions. According to the Auditor General, Canada
probably loses vast sums of money in these transactions.
How is it that, in the bill before us today, which enacts certain
provisions contained in last year's budget, there is no definite
provision concerning tax havens, and tax conventions? Why?
I believe that the speaker who addressed the House before me,
the member for Broadview-Greenwood, answered this
question. It is because the lobby for rich Canadians is so
powerful that the efforts of those who strive for greater and
clearer fairness in the tax system are being defeated by people
with huge interests.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood, speaking of
eliminating privileges, loopholes, and grants in the form of tax
breaks, even gave the figure of $500 billion. This is a huge
amount of money. I did not do the same research as he did. I trust
him.
That figure tells us that maybe there is a good part of the
federal debt that we are trying to pay off, or rather that some
people in Canada want to pay off by going after the middle class
and even the less fortunate, through cuts in tax credits such as
the age credit which has been slowly decreased year after year,
for example.
Let us say I am happy to see that, on the Liberal side, the
social conscience of some members is still strong enough to
make them denounce the present situation, although the Liberal
Party has done so before.
In the red book, the bible of the last election campaign, they
proposed certain measures to increase the fairness of the tax
system, certain steps which, according to the Bloc Quebecois,
would revive trust in the taxation system, and would make
Canadians believe there is justice in taxes after all. But once in
office they no longer seem to be interested in such measures.
(1630)
The speech that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood
gave today, he could have given it with the same result when he
was in opposition and the Conservatives were in office.
An hon. member: He probably did.
Mr. Caron: Yes, he probably did, maybe at that time we did
not care so much about federal politics, but I believe that we
might have supported it at the time, supported his efforts of
clarification regarding the tax privileges some social classes
enjoy in Canada. The speech he made today, he could have made
it at the time of the Conservatives and he would have had the
same result.
People might consider his proposition favourably, like many
of us did when we heard about it. They might look at it and say:
``There might be something there, maybe we could do
something''. But next year, when we are going to talk about new
amendments to the Income Tax Act, we will probably say the
same thing again. There are privileges in Canada. There are
people who do not pay the taxes they should be paying. We
deplore it, everybody talks about it, newspapers mention it, TV
commentators mention it, and tax experts say so too.
The other day, a tax expert was saying that the Income Tax Act
is so dense and contains so many exceptions that it takes an
expert to find one's way through it. A provincial finance
minister is even known to have said that, with our tax system, if
a big company pays taxes, it is probably because its accountant
is not very good.
So, when we are faced with these kinds of situations, I think
that we cannot limit ourselves to proposals like those in Bill
C-70, which deals with all kinds of things that are, in fact,
secondary. As far as the exemption is concerned, I think that it
might be the only provision which would be somewhat sensible
for the working class. In the case of funeral arrangements,
people would not have to pay taxes on the interest earned on
amounts prepaid for these arrangements.
This is not serious. I believe that Canada is in a very difficult
fiscal and budgetary situation. Minor improvements such as the
ones proposed in Bill C-70 are not going to solve anything. We
have to look once and for all at the Canadian tax system that we
have had for the last 20 to 25 years and which has not undergone
the reform everyone expected. Canadians are waiting for some
kind of reform. Taxpayers, Canadians who contribute to social,
health and education programs are ready to continue to do so,
but they want everyone to do his or her fair share and to realize
that taxes due must be paid. But that is not the case nowadays.
When we consider the case of banks and big business and, as I
said a moment ago, the whole issue of tax shelters, we see how
outrageous the whole situation is. Some would say: ``Well, you
are not an economist''. If, for example, we increase corporate
taxes, we are going to lose investments. That might well be but
very often this is a point used to scare us, to prevent us from
taking measures which would be significant, which would be
necessary if we want Canada to have a sound tax system, if we
want everyone to pay taxes according to their income and to
prevent people from being in a situation where they can avoid
paying taxes since this is essential to the survival of this country.
It is not just a question of saving money for all taxpayers. A
country where taxes are not considered fair and equitable is on
the road to ruin. A country has obligations and must have
sufficient revenues to meet them. It has the responsibility to see
that the revenues are there and that they come from the
population as a whole, not only the middle class and the least
fortunate members of our society, but also from big corporations
and well-off families. The more fortunate members of our
society must also pay their share of taxes because they benefit
from the central government and from its services.
11774
(1635)
No business in Canada would survive if we were in a situation
where people are opposed to a certain extent to the tax measures
because if they are not sure that justice is the same for everyone,
that responsibilities are the same for everyone, people will be
less and less interested in paying taxes. They will turn more and
more to moonlighting, thus taking away the money needed by
government. This would lead us to disaster. That is why I call
upon the minister-I do not know if many members did,
although all the members of the Bloc who spoke on tax issues
did do so-, I call upon the Minister of Finance to show more
social understanding and to initiate a genuine tax reform. I hope
that we, the members of the Bloc, will see such a reform while
we are still in the federal Parliament.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the account the hon.
member for Jonquiere has just given. I believe he has clearly
taken into account the fact that since its election in this House
the Bloc has never missed an opportunity to ask for a review of
the Canadian tax system.
We asked for the abolition of family trusts and tax havens. We
asked for some figures that were never made available to us. We
talked about transparency every time we had a chance to do so,
but without great success it seems. There even were some cases
where members on the other side and even government members
came to the same conclusion and rose in the House on that issue.
My hon. colleague did the same thing today, apparently not for
the first time but once more without great success. The member
for Gander-Grand Falls himself denounces regularly, because
he goes to Taxation, outrageous things that occur in taxation,
among other things people who do not pay their income tax,
which can be huge amounts.
I would like to ask my hon. friend if the crux of the problem is
not the fact that we cannot discuss those problems in this House.
The crux of the problem is the fact that people who finance
political parties are those who decide how the government will
act. We know that some people give astronomical amounts of
money here. There even was a bill introduced by a member of
the Bloc in this House, although maybe not for the first time, on
the necessity to have a popular financing of political parties.
The bill was rejected.
I wonder if my hon. colleague does not believe that the saying
according to which he who pays the fiddler picks the tune is
relevant to political parties who, receiving huge financial
support from banks and other important institutions, are forced
to pass tax laws which serve the interests of these contributors
rather than fair laws for all? I would like to know where my hon.
colleague stands on this.
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, I always wondered why, according
to the Chief Electoral Officer's reports that I often read in
newspapers, some corporations or major banks were giving
$50,000, $100,000 or even $150,000 to the Liberal Party's or the
Conservative Party's election fund. It has always been a mystery
for me since, as an ex-member of a provincial party that
promoted and adopted a bill on political party financing, I was
used to contribute $50, $100, or maybe $300 in the good years,
or the election years. No one of those who acted as I did were
getting any particular benefit for their contribution.
In particular, I have often been surprised to see that some
corporations were giving $100,000 or $200,000. My colleague,
the member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, is telling me
why. In fact, when those people give to some party's election
fund, they are probably expecting some benefit in exchange. But
it may be more subtle than that. I do not think it is necessarily a
give and take process.
(1640)
I hope that I will never see a minister of the Crown award
contracts or give favours for money. I think that would be too
disgusting, and it is probably not done these days, at least I hope
not. But I think that things are done in subtle way, because the
big corporations, the ones that contribute significantly to
campaign funds, affirm their position in a particular milieu, that
is the haves, the people who, in all good faith, and I do not in any
way condemn wealth, belong to a certain social class, to a
certain milieu, and who want that milieu to continue.
When we hear the statement made by the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood, we realize that this milieu organized a
lobby for itself, to make representations to the government on
its behalf and to have members of the milieu elected to
government. Earlier, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe
mentioned that the present Minister of Finance used to own-I
hope that it is not the case any more-a fleet of ships sailing
under flag of convenience. That does not surprise me. The
Minister of Finance knows the system very well, but he must
feel in all good faith that it is a good system. If it is good for him,
it surely must be good for every one else. So, he is perpetuating
it.
So, be it through election funds, through having people
elected, or through lobbying, I think it is the same system that is
being perpetuated, and Canadians and Quebecers have had
enough.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was with much amusement that I listened
to my colleagues in the opposition, who repeated to a large
extent what I said in my remarks in the first days of the first
session of this Parliament. I had said that any measure of social
justice must also take into account the tool the government has,
that is the tax system, and review it to increase the system's
fairness.
11775
The proof of this government's commitment to review the tax
system to ensure that Canadians, at least the least fortunate of
our fellow citizens, can benefit from measures that are fairer and
more equitable, is the reform announced by the Prime Minister
during and after the election campaign. He promised the
removal or the reformulation of the GST, a tax that is paid not
once a year but every day, and a rather heavy burden for
Canadians with low and even middle incomes.
I think this government shows on a daily and continuing basis
its will to ensure greater fairness at the national level and
particularly for people living in Quebec.
As for Bloc members, I hope they will support the government
when we bring forward measures to ensure greater fairness in
the tax system, and to abolish the GST, a daily form of taxation
imposed on the population and a heavy administrative burden
both at the federal and provincial levels.
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, the candor of my colleague for
Madawaska-Victoria amazes me. She spoke of an announced
fiscal reform.
I do not know if it has already been announced, but it has not
been announced very loudly since the present Liberal
government came to power. Maybe it was announced in the red
book, but there has been nothing more than promises since then.
(1645)
But I am happy to learn, for example, that the GST will be
abolished. I heard it would be on January 1, 1996; according to a
few items in the papers just before Easter, the government
announced it would not be on January 1, 1996, but maybe
sometime in 1997, 1998 or 1999. This promised reform is
probably similar to the promise made when the tax on income
was introduced during the war. It was supposed to be only
temporary. That is what they said. Since the reform was
announced, I hope my colleague for Madawaska-Victoria's
wish, which is shared by all Canadians, will be fulfilled and that
the much abhorred GST will be abolished one day. But I am not
sure that we will still be around to see it happen.
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I support the main provisions of Bill C-70. They have
obviously been written in response to difficulties that have
arisen out of initial legislation. They are designed to make life
easier for taxpayers, eliminate ambiguities and remove
inequities. As such, the provisions are laudable.
A careful study of each provision in the bill was undertaken
by Reform research. I spent some time looking at the findings. It
turns out the laudable attempts to make the Income Tax Act
more equitable and efficient do not offer a perfect solution.
Some of the new provisions conflict with principles
developed by Reform Party assemblies where grassroots
Reformers have the opportunity to express their views and bind
members of caucus. Most involve technical issues and it is not
easy to apply simple principles.
My colleague from St. Albert yesterday in his speech on this
bill expressed Reform's objection to specific clauses of it. I will
not repeat his analysis. Instead, I wish to take this opportunity to
do two things. First, I will make the case for the revision of some
income tax changes contained in the February budget. Second, I
will take up the challenge by the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood and discuss an alternative system for
taxation which would eliminate the need for complicated
income tax provisions of the sort contained in Bill C-70.
On the first topic let me read the contents of a letter written to
the Minister of Finance by Carol Loughrey, chair of the
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants of Canada. A copy
was sent to me as a result of my involvement in the issue. This
involvement started when I asked the Minister of Finance a
question in the House and he gave me a very unsatisfactory
answer.
I have received several letters from other affected parties such
as professionals, tax lawyers and accountants. They agree with
the points made in the letter by Miss Loughrey and simply
elaborate on some of the issues she raised.
(1650)
Let me now read this letter:
I am writing to convey the CA profession's disappointment and concern
regarding the announcement in the budget that individuals with business or
professional income will be required to have a December 31 year-end. We have
three primary concerns: the removal of the ability to use natural year-ends, an
even more compressed workload for our members and the lack of fairness in the
changes.
Natural year-ends
Many businesses have year-ends other than December 31 because of the
nature of their business rather than for tax planning purposes. The tax system
should not impose a year-end that for these businesses make no business sense.
For example, forcing a retail business to have a calendar year-end would
impose a significant workload increase during their busiest season and would
impede effective measurement and evaluation of their business performance.
Where a business wished to preserve a natural year end it could do so only by
incorporating. For businesses which can incorporate this would mean additional
legal and accounting costs. Many professionals, including chartered
accountants, are prevented by law from incorporating. However, even where
the professionals are permitted to incorporate, the budget will require them to
maintain a December 31 year-end.
The workload of many of our members is by far the greatest during the first four
months of the year. Our members are already strained coping with the demand for audit
and accounting services, tax return preparation, including personal tax returns
information returns such as T4s, T5s, workers' compensation returns, payroll tax
returns and PST and GST returns. Moving all professional and unincorporated
11776
business year-ends, and some incorporated business year-ends, to December 31
will add considerably to that already compressed workload. We are concerned that the
changes will seriously limit the ability of our members to properly serve their clients
and could turn smaller practices into seasonable businesses.
Fairness
The budget refers to the need to improve the fairness of the tax system by
treating professional and business income the same as employment income.
However, there are important ways in which income from a profession or
business is not the same as income from employment. Professionals and business
people assume risk by gathering business capital and investing in their business, a
task that will be more difficult without the tax deferral; they lease or purchase a
business location and business equipment; they employ others; they must protect
against liability; they must carry on their business without benefit of
unemployment insurance or protection against disability or severance. A fair tax
system should recognize that the self-employed are not the same as employees
and that they should not be treated the same.
We are also concerned about the fairness of the transitional provisions. We
believe they are too restrictive and will impose an unfair tax burden. It would
appear that the ten-year reserve will not be available in certain situations, such
as where an individual changes firms or changes from being a partner to sole
proprietor or vice versa. The loss of this reserve in such circumstances would be
inequitable and would create a barrier to the natural movement of individuals,
interfering with their ability to carry on their business or practice as they see fit
or as conditions require. Furthermore, it is unfair that the income to be included
over the transition period is to be taxed at the individual's highest marginal tax
rate rather than the average rate and that individuals could lose one year of
eligibility to make RRSP contributions. We believe that the fairness of these
measures could be improved through additional transitional measures.
Finally, it is very troubling that the changes are retrospective. We are already
within the 1995 fiscal calendar year-the changes will have a real and harmful
impact on taxpayers who had arranged their affairs in accordance with the law
as it stood before the budget.
In the last few minutes I have been reading a letter which had
been sent to the Minister of Finance by the institute of chartered
accountants.
I fully agree with the technical assessment of the problems
with the budget provisions identified in this letter and urge the
Minister of Finance to make the changes in the Budget
Implementation Act to correct the inequities and the
inefficiencies created by this action.
I want to add the following political judgment which people
like the writers of this letter cannot express but probably agree
with.
The Minister of Finance justified his budget measures as a
step for greater equity. We all know equity is in the eyes of the
beholder. The letter I read referred to the difficulties that arise
from the arbitrary lumping together of employment and
self-employment income which is used to make this equity
argument. I agree this is rather arbitrary.
However, my main additional argument is this provision is
simply a one time tax grab motivated by the desire to raise
revenue, lower the deficit and avoid the need for spending cuts.
The people of Canada in their taxpayer rallies and even in their
presentations to the finance committee of the House made it
abundantly clear they preferred spending cuts over tax increases
to eliminate the deficit. Reformers agreed.
The Minister of Finance thought he could raise taxes on what
he considered to be a relatively small group of professionals by
justifying the tax grab to the general public as a measure of
increasing equity.
(1655)
The minister may have underestimated both the strength of
the opposition from the affected professionals and their
accountants and tax advisers. I hope he takes note of the
legitimate objections I have raised.
As an economist I see these objections as quantifiable costs
that need to be examined in relation to the value of the one time
tax revenue increase. I am convinced the ratio of social costs to
benefits makes this tax provision one of the least efficient
alternatives for raising revenue and more broadly eliminating
the deficit.
As I noted already, Bill C-70 stands in support of the widely
accepted view that Canada's tax system is too complicated. The
readjustment of accounting years for professionals just
discussed is only another example.
Every country's tax code becomes more complex every year.
Inequities and inefficiencies of the existing code have to be
corrected. Dynamic new developments in the economy and
financial intermediations require adjustment. There are
developments abroad that need to be reflected.
Every country periodically faces the need for a major
overhaul of its tax code when the complexity has become so
large that it threatens to strangle incentive, drown the private
sector in red tape and divert too many of the country's best and
brightest accountants and lawyers into activities which
essentially are socially unproductive.
I believe, much like the member for Broadview-Greenwood,
Canada has reached this stage. There are several members of the
Reform caucus, in particular my colleague from Calgary Centre,
who strongly support such efforts.
The proposed overhaul of Canada's tax code should be aimed
at the creation of what alternatively has been called a flat or
proportional tax, a single tax. An intensive study of such a new
tax system should start now, not just because of the excessive
complexity of Canada's tax code but, more important, because
of new developments in the United States.
To make this point I cannot do better than read from a Globe
and Mail editorial from April 24, 1995, unsigned:
11777
There is a time bomb ticking under the Canadian welfare state. It is not the
debt, nor the aging of the population, though these are threats enough. It is the
coming revolution in the U.S. tax system.
Already, several large northeastern states have embarked on radical tax
cutting programs. Now leading federal politicians in Congress and on the
presidential campaign trail are promising not just to overhaul the federal
income tax but to abolish it.
Dick Armey, leader of the Republican majority in the House of
Representatives, is pushing the most moderate-relatively speaking-reform
plan, a flat tax that would eliminate most deductions and credits in favour of a
single low tax rate for everybody. Mr. Armey figures it is possible to get the rate
down to 20 or even 17 per cent this way without running up the deficit. The tax
form would be the size of a postcard.
The immediate objection to this is that it would kill progressivity: that is, the
principle that richer people should pay a larger share of their income in tax. But
rising marginal tax rates are not the only way to make the system progressive;
you can also do it through the tax base. Mr. Armey's plan would exempt roughly
the first $20,000 of individual income from tax. Someone earning $25,000
would pay Mr. Armey's 20 per cent flat tax on only one-fifth of his income, for
an effective tax rate of 4 per cent. At $40,000, he would pay tax on half his
income, for an effective tax rate of 10 per cent. At $100,000, the effective rate
would be 16 per cent.
I have enough time to conclude with another excerpt:
Too radical? Dreamsville? Think again. Not only do the Republicans control
both houses of Congress, but all of the GOP candidates for president have
endorsed one or other of these proposals. This has enormous significance for
Canada. We do not have to slash tax rates to U.S. levels. But we do have to stay
within hailing distance. At 17 per cent, U.S. personal income tax rates would be
a half to a third of the top combined rate in Canada. Indeed, a flatter, simpler tax
system would be desirable in its own right. At the least, it would free some of the
brightest minds in the country, now employed as tax lawyers and accountants,
for more productive work.
(1700)
I would like to end my quotations here, except to mention that
the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is mentioned by
name in this editorial, and I congratulate him.
I would like to make a couple of comments in closing. Please
note that in my short remarks I do not endorse the particular
version of a flat tax described in the Globe and Mail editorial or
advanced by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood or by
my colleague from Calgary Centre. The reason is, as is the case
with many appealingly simple ideas, there are devils in the
details and there is a danger that advocates of policies end up not
telling quite all. For this reason, I urge the immediate start of a
major study of the proposals for a simplified flat tax system.
During the study and public hearings on the subject I think it
will become immediately obvious that the widespread support
for such a measure is based on false assumptions. Few people, if
asked, will object to a new system that promises to lower their
tax rate from the present high one. Often quoted are the marginal
tax rates on incomes in British Columbia, which are now around
53 per cent for the federal and provincial rates combined. The
most important false assumption is that the lower flat rate,
normally discussed in this context, is deceptively low. In the
Canadian system every federal rate will automatically be
increased by about 50 per cent due to the provincial income tax
laws, even if the provinces also adopt a flat tax system.
The second and perhaps most fundamental point is that
Canada's fiscal problems stem from overspending. Based on
reliable estimates, the combined spending of all governmental
jurisdictions equals about one-half of our national income. That
is why tax freedom day falls in July.
The government has to raise the revenue to pay for this
spending. As it does, by definition, the average tax burden on the
average Canadian will remain about 50 per cent of his or her
income. No tax reform can alter this basic fact. People who are
seduced into believing otherwise by the promise of a flat rate,
much lower than the current marginal rate they pay, have to face
the fact that the government has to get its revenue somewhere.
Most likely, it will get it from exactly the same people and in the
same amounts as it does now. There are no large hidden incomes
that will be tapped by the flat tax and there are no magic
solutions to the problem of overspending.
Finally, I would like to note that the idea of a flat tax has been
around for a long time. It once served as a basic model for
reform in the United States and in Canada in the 1980s. As it
turned out, by the time all of the trade-offs between efficiency
and equity were studied thoroughly, both countries ended up
with modified flat tax rates; that is, three broad tiers and
relatively small marginal increases rather than the previous
scale with many incremental steps and very high ultimate
marginal rates. The idea that basic personal exemptions result in
progressive average rates, as noted in the Globe and Mail
editorial, did not carry the day during the deliberations in these
two countries. I am worried that it may also not do so in the
future if we have hearings again.
These and the other concerns I have about the merit of a flat
tax do not mean that the system should not be studied. The hope
of eliminating the kinds of complex tax codes contained in Bill
C-70 make it very worth while. In the meantime, I urge the
proponents of the tax to be cautious in their advocacy, much as I
have done in the past and in my brief discussion today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding to
questions and comments to the hon. member for
Capilano-Howe Sound, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-the environment;
the hon. member for Don Valley North-human rights.
11778
(1705 )
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member
for Capilano-Howe Sound for entering the debate on
comprehensive tax reform.
I accept his note of caution when he spoke about overstating
the accomplishments of a single tax. I think the member forgot
to mention three very important fundamentals that would be
achieved by a simple, fair, and efficient tax system. We always
stated that the provincial rate would be added on to the federal
rate, but I think there are three additional advantages the
member did not cite.
First, I believe that a simplified fair tax system where
everybody is in the loop would reduce the underground
economy. I think one reason we have an underground economy
in such an exacerbated state right now is because our tax system
has driven people underground. A simplified and fair tax system
would reduce the underground economy, which would add more
revenue to the treasury.
The second issue that is fundamental to the system of a single
tax system deals with what is happening in Hong Kong. They
have a form of a single tax system over there, and it creates large
pools of capital. When large pools of capital come into a country
it puts downward pressure on interest rates. That downward
pressure on interest rates means that capital is less costly for
governments when they borrow it, which deals with the revenue
or expenditure problem. It is also less costly for
entrepreneurship. I believe that one thing entrepreneurship
needs right now is cheaper capital and lots of it. That in turn
would create an environment for investment and job creation. So
the single tax has a direct impact on flows of capital, which
would put downward pressure on interest rates.
The third thing the member did not touch on in his address on
tax reform has to do with productivity. With a fair tax system I
believe people would work harder and smarter and therefore the
cost of goods would go down, which would help our exports
tremendously, which would increase the bottom line, not only in
business but in corporate tax revenues to the treasury also.
The member did not deal with those three specific features,
which are part and parcel of the single tax system. Since the
member is an economist, I wonder if he would consider they
would be valid premises to work on.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to those
ideas. Clearly, I did not have enough time to go into all the
advantages.
I have attended several conferences on the subject of the
underground economy. The high marginal tax rate certainly has
an effect on it, but the emphasis recently has been on the role of
the GST. Clearly, they interact, but it would help.
On the other hand, I have been quite convinced by evidence
that was educed about the size of the underground economy and
especially by some simulations made by the Ministry of
Finance. It turns out that while it looks like it is very big, it
really probably is no more than about 5 per cent of national
income. However, this is not the time to discuss that. Maybe we
could do it some other time.
On larger pools of capital, I can give a personal view, which is
not a Reform Party position. Long before I was a member of
Parliament I used the idea in my lectures that if I were in charge I
would lower the capital gains rate and the rate on corporations in
Canada to 5 per cent and I would make Canada the Switzerland
of North America. I have speculated that probably we could
have had so much capital flowing in, especially during the
period of the cold war, when we were under the protection of the
Americans, that the revenue raised at 5 per cent would have been
grater than the revenue we raise at our high rates at the moment.
I think Americans are thinking about that as well. I am sure that
if the Americans are going to lower their tax rate on corporations
and we do not follow we will have exactly the opposite problem
of what the hon. member is talking about.
(1710)
The issue in a strictly economic seminar is an
oversimplification, in a way, in today's world of integrated
capital markets. Money is flowing in at essentially a risk
adjusted rate where we can borrow as much as we want to. Our
problem is that we are not saving enough.
To the extent that the lower tax rates on income would lower
the incentive to consume and would encourage savings, we
would probably lower the interest rate marginally. However,
that would not be the main effect. Nevertheless, I appreciate that
the member has called my attention to the idea that there is this
effect on capital markets.
Finally, he noted that productivity would increase. Indeed,
most people agree that the high marginal tax rates on income and
on capital have led to distortions in the decisions of individuals
in the allocation of their time between effort and work, between
savings and investment, which overall have resulted in a
lowering of productivity. It is therefore agreed widely about the
direction in which the incentives would go by lowering the
marginal tax rates. There is little doubt about this encouraging
more work, discouraging leisure, encouraging more savings and
discouraging consumption. That would be all to the good.
11779
The problem is that econometric estimates of those effects are
extremely difficult. Nobody really has been able to prove that
there would be such a very large effort. I think the conclusion
has been that the main effect of the high marginal tax rates on
income and capital in the past has been to change the allocation
of resources, which leads to distortions, which are essentially
costly to society.
Being a little bit cautious about this point does not mean that I
reject the hon. member's suggestion. I think it should be
considered as another plus of us studying and perhaps ultimately
adopting a simplified, open, and cheap new flat tax system.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am happy to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on
Bill C-70, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
The bill seeks to implement a number of measures that were
introduced in 1994 budget, along with certain measures that
have been announced by the government at other times over the
last year.
The fiscal challenge facing this country has been a topic of
considerable debate, both in the House and across the country.
Few dispute the scope of the challenge. Few dispute that
difficult choices must be made. Few dispute that we must act
decisively. As well, few dispute that fairness and effectiveness
must be essential guiding principles of any and all steps that are
taken to overcome our deficit challenge.
These principles have guided the government as we have
worked to restrain our spending. They guided the minister in
crafting the budget that was presented in February. However, for
the moment and for a discussion of this legislation, let me take
hon. members back to the budget of last year.
Spending cuts alone could not deliver the deficit reductions
that were set out at that time. Spending constraints had to be
complemented with some measures on the tax side. Doing so
was simply a question of fairness. It was our vision of fairness
that guided us as we looked at the tax system, addressing
unsustainable tax preferences instead of imposing general tax
increases on Canadian taxpayers.
In looking at the corporate tax regime, we sought to ensure
that corporations paid their fair share of the tax revenues needed
to fund government programs and to prevent certain businesses
or sectors from taking undue advantage of certain tax
provisions.
(1715 )
With this in mind the budget last year proposed a number of
measures to the rules governing the taxation of business income.
Let me stress our goal was not to penalize the business sector,
nor to impede the competitiveness of Canadian corporations.
We believe it is essential to maintain a competitive tax system in
today's global economy.
We cannot disregard and we do not disregard the role of
business in creating and sustaining employment; nor do we
ignore the pressures faced by Canadian companies as they
operate in fiercely competitive markets both at home and
abroad.
One fairness issue the budget addressed was the tax rules
dealing with debt forgiveness and foreclosures. Under the old
provisions of the income tax, many transactions involving the
settlement of debt were not recognized in any meaningful way
for tax purposes. The new rules provide a comprehensive basis
to deal with debt settlement. In general they provide that
forgiven debt amounts will be applied to loss carry forwards and
expenses or partially included in the debtor's income. However,
there are special relieving rules to minimize undue hardship
from these new rules.
Let me turn now to the tax treatment of securities held by
financial institutions. Until now the Income Tax Act has not
provided specific rules regarding the tax treatment of such
securities. The measures proposed in this bill seek to reduce
uncertainty in this regard and also to ensure the income derived
from such securities is measured appropriately.
The amendments provide that certain securities be marked to
market; that is, the appreciation or depreciation in their value
each year must be recognized in that year. In keeping with our
goal of fairness, the amendments include a transitional rule that
allows increases in income resulting from the new rules to be
spread over five years. These new measures are generally
effective after February 21, 1994.
In addition, new rules are provided for debt securities not
required to be marked to market. These rules deal with the
measurement of income while the securities are held and the
treatment of gains and losses on disposition.
Bill C-70 also amends the rules for the taxation of resident
shareholders of foreign affiliates. This action is being taken as a
result of the government's ongoing monitoring of developments
in this area. The changes expand the categories of income of
foreign affiliates which must be reported as income of their
Canadian affiliates.
Another modification prevents the use of an affiliate's foreign
active business losses to reduce Canadian shareholders' income.
This change protects the shareholders but also protects the
Canadian tax base. The amendments are generally effective for
taxation years commencing after 1994.
Let me turn now to six other tax measures announced during
the months after the 1994 budget. First, this bill addresses the
issue of eligible prepaid funeral and cemetery arrangements.
That is I have heard from my constituents about. Under this
legislation individuals making such arrangements will not have
to declare interest on the deposits up to a $15,000 maximum
11780
contribution as income provided the deposit is not withdrawn
for other purposes. The provider of eligible funeral and
cemetery arrangements is, however, required to include in
income the total amount received from the eligible arrangement.
Turning to the next measure, the bill proposes real estate
trusts with publicly traded units be allowed to qualify as mutual
fund trusts. This measure responds to representations from the
real estate sector, which is interested in expanding the available
methods of financing real estate. We believe the proposed
change will facilitate the restructuring and refinancing of this
sector.
(1720)
The third of these post-budget measures is the measure that
will help mutual funds reduce overhead costs and improve
service to investors. These amendments allow mutual fund
corporations to convert to mutual fund trusts on a tax free basis
and also allow tax free mergers of mutual fund trusts.
The bill also proposes new rules to speed the resolution of
objections and appeals, particularly by large corporations.
Large corporations will now have to specify the issues under
dispute, the amount of relief sought and the facts and reasons for
objecting.
Those of us who speak on the public accounts committee are
well aware of the tremendous losses that can be incurred to the
Canadian taxpayers by cases that go on far too long without
enough rules to constrain the matters that can be brought into
those cases.
The rules also limit the ability of large corporations to raise
new issues in the notice of objection where the objection relates
to a reconsideration of an assessment. However, new issues
raised by Revenue Canada on such reconsiderations may still
give rise to notice of objection.
We are trying to be fair on both sides without unduly exposing
the Canadian taxpayers to risks through prolonged court cases
on interpretation of tax legislation.
In addition, this legislation will ensure the new requirements
relating to notices of objection will not apply to assessments
appealed to court before this legislation receives royal assent. In
other words, we are not changing the rules retroactively which I
think everyone would agree is only fair.
The final measure I want to highlight deals with the tax
treatment of dividend compensation payments and other
amounts connected with securities lending. The Income Tax Act
currently provides that the lender of securities not be treated as
having disposed of the security under these arrangements. As
well, payments to the lender as compensation for dividends are
treated as dividends in the lender's hands.
While these dividend compensation payments are generally
not tax deductible, a special rule established in 1989 allows
security dealers to deduct two-thirds of such payments. This
legislation extends the use of the two-thirds rule, ensuring our
securities industry remains competitive.
However, the deduction of these payments will be somewhat
limited and I can assure hon. members the government will
continue monitoring these measures to make certain they
operate effectively.
Other changes clarify the effects of certain dividend rental
arrangements and the means of securities dealers registered or
licensed to trade in securities for purposes of the Income Tax
Act.
In closing, Bill C-70 amends the Income Tax Act equitably
and fairly. It seeks to better target tax assistance delivered to
certain business sectors while at the same time broadening the
tax base and thus protecting government revenues and, as we all
know, that means the revenues of Canadians. The legislation
contained in this bill also clarifies a number of important issues
related to the act.
In considering the measures before us I have no hesitation in
encouraging all hon. members to support the bill at this stage so
that measures announced by the government during the last year
can become effective to the benefit of the tax system and to the
benefit of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before I get into this subject any further, in the limited time at
my disposal, I must take a moment to situate this bill. Bill C-70
implements measures from the budget, last year's budget, that
is. It was tabled at first reading before this year's budget. It is a
series of fairly technical measures, highly complex ones true to
the image of today's tax system. We will be examining these
measures further in committee, so I will spare you all the details.
(1725)
One measure was the focus of discussions before and after the
elections and within the Liberal Party and has been raised by the
Bloc Quebecois as well since the elections. It is the whole issue
of foreign affiliates, commonly known as tax havens, raised by
the Auditor General. This fairly voluminous bill contains
various measures. A number are indeed positive. However, it
does not go very far and it skirts a number of issues. This could
be called a timid reform, which enables the government to say
that it has satisfied some of the Auditor General's requests, but
it does not go far enough. There is no mention of the list of
countries with which we have tax agreements. Sixteen countries
are listed as having agreements deemed to be sources of
problems.
11781
The aim of tax agreements is to avoid or enable businesses to
avoid double taxation. This is laudable and understandable. The
problem arises when different countries have different tax rates.
At this point we start talking about fickle businesses. They
produce in various countries, sell their products from one
business to another and with the cost transfers, manage to switch
profits and losses between countries. This causes problems
because profits are transferred to places with the highest rate of
taxation and losses can be deducted in others.
And then you have countries like Canada, where interest
charges are allowable expenses. This makes matters worse and it
is an extremely complex task to tackle corporations with
operations in several countries. Slightly higher, stricter
standards are set for them, to determine whether they are really
producing, but the fact remains that it is not easy to figure out,
particularly when rates vary widely. So, there is a need to look
seriously into this and not in a piecemeal fashion as it has been
the case for a while now.
This brings to mind the whole Liberal approach to taxation.
When they were in opposition and during the election campaign,
the Liberals used to say that the way to deal with taxation was
not piecemeal but comprehensively. So far, not much has been
done in this respect. A piecemeal approach continues to be
applied to very technical, complex issues. Sometimes positive
measures are taken. Still, they miss the main point, that is to say
streamline the whole system, make the tax system less complex
and easier to understand, which furthers the goal of transparency
and restores people's confidence in their institutions and elected
representatives, particularly as regards this trust that was lost.
I wish to take this opportunity to draw a parallel with a tax
matter on which the government made a rather clear
commitment, namely to do away with the goods and services
tax. If you think back a little, originally, when this legislation
was first passed, it was fiercely opposed by the Liberals in this
place, the other place and everywhere. They opposed it even
more strongly in the days and months that followed, going as far
as promising, during the election campaign, to replace it within
two years, that is to say by January 1, 1996, eight months from
now. But there is no concrete proposal on the table yet.
Considering how long it takes to develop and draft this kind of
document and how quickly the GST was implemented, causing a
great many problems, it is safe to assume that the government
will be unable to honour and fulfil its commitment in the next
eight months. Furthermore, this is another reform characterized
by a piecemeal approach.
I will get to elaborate further on this subject in the second part
of my remarks, to be continued when debate is resumed. I just
want to say for now that this bill contains some good measures,
which we will consider in committee. There is one in particular
that we will consider thoroughly and it deals with foreign
corporations. But we will do so bearing in mind that this
piecemeal approach must end. A more comprehensive approach
to taxation must be taken.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to thank the hon.
member for Témiscamingue for his co-operation.
* * *
The House resumed from April 6 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the
budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, be read the
second time and referred to a committee; and the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m.,
pursuant to order made Thursday, April 6, 1995, the House will
now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the
amendment moved by Mr. Loubier at second reading of Bill
C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995.
Call in the members.
(1750 )
[English]
Before the taking of the vote:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I think you would
find unanimous consent to deal with the vote on private
member's Bill C-263 at the conclusion of the other votes, in
other words, after we complete all the votes on Bill C-43 later
this day.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment standing in the name of Mr. Loubier.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 191)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
11782
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-94
NAYS
Members
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-143
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bachand
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Gaffney
Gallaway
Grose
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Parrish
(1800)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
negatived.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of
electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of
electoral boundaries, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division at the third reading stage of Bill C-69, an act
to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries
commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There
has been a slight change to what had been discussed informally a
little earlier.
I think you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote
just taken on the amendment to Bill C-76 at second reading in
reverse to the motion now before the House. In other words, the
11783
vote would be applied in reverse to the main motion for third
reading of Bill C-69.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not
vote on the last motion and I would like my name to be added to
the government's vote on this bill.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 192)
YEAS
Members
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-144
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-94
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bachand
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Gaffney
Gallaway
Grose
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Parrish
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
11784
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, an act to
amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related
amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from
the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division at report stage on Bill C-43.
[English]
The first question is on Motion No. 1.
(1805)
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that those members who
have voted on the previous motion for third reading of Bill C-69
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House
in the following manner: Liberal members voting nay.
Mr. Duceppe: Bloc Quebecois members also vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party will vote yea.
Mr. Taylor: The New Democrats will vote yea.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 193)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-47
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
11785
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-191
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bachand
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Gaffney
Gallaway
Grose
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Parrish
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 1
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 24, 26, 27, 32
and 33. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the need
for a vote on Motions Nos. 3, 15, 16, 17 and 18 but necessitates a
vote on Motion No. 11. A negative vote on Motion No. 2
necessitates a vote on Motions Nos. 3, 11 and 16.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent for the members who voted on Bill C-69 to be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House in the
following manner with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Bloc Quebecois members vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party vote
yes, except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats vote no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 194)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-89
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
11786
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-149
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bachand
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Gaffney
Gallaway
Grose
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Parrish
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 2
lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 24,
26, 27, 32 and 33 lost.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 3. The vote on this motion
also applies to Motion No. 15.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that those members who
voted on Bill C-69 be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House in the following manner: Liberal members
voting yea.
(1810)
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members also
vote yea.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party vote
yea, except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
[English]
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats vote nay.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 195)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bouchard
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
11787
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-233
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
McLaughlin
Robinson
Taylor-5
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bachand
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Gaffney
Gallaway
Grose
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Parrish
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 3
carried and I therefore declare Motion No. 15 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 11. The vote on this
motion also applies to Motions Nos. 17 and 18.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent to
apply the vote taken at report stage Motion No. 2 to the vote
presently before the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the Reform Party
whip agree?
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the NDP agree?
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 194.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 11
lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 17 and 18 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 16.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that those members who
have voted on Bill C-69 be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House in the following manner: Liberal
members voting yea.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote yes,
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats vote no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 16, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 196)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
11788
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-186
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bachand
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Gaffney
Gallaway
Grose
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Parrish
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 16
carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that those members who
voted on Bill C-69 be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with the result being applied in reverse.
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the Reform Party
whip agree?
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the NDP agree?
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 197)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
11789
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-94
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-144
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bachand
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Gaffney
Gallaway
Grose
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Parrish
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 7
lost.
(1815 )
The next question is on Motion No. 9.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent for those members who voted on Bill C-69
to be identified as having voted on the motion now before the
House in the following manner with Liberal MPs voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will
vote nay.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the Reform Party
whip agree?
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote yes,
except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the NDP agree?
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats vote no.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 196.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 9
carried.
11790
The next question is on Motion No. 19.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, since we are voting on Motion No.
19, I think you would find consent for those members who voted
on report stage Motion No. 1 to be recorded as having voted in
exactly the same manner as the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the Reform Party
whip agree?
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the NDP agree?
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 193.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 19
lost.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The next question is on
Motion No. 22, in Group No. 4. An affirmative vote on Motion
No. 22 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 23. A negative
vote on Motion No. 22 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 23.
Order, please. I hear comments regarding Motion No. 21. That
motion was already put and agreed to.
I have just received confirmation that, before proceeding with
Group No. 3, Motion No. 21 was put and agreed to earlier today.
(1820)
The next question is on Motion No. 22.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find there is
unanimous consent for those members who voted on Bill C-69
to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House in the following manner with Liberal members voting
nay.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, which motion are we voting on?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We are now dealing with
group four, Motion No. 22.
Mr. Silye: Reform Party members vote no, except for those
members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote yea on this
motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 198)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-52
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
11791
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-186
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bachand
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Gaffney
Gallaway
Grose
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Parrish
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 22
lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 23.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to apply the vote taken on Bill C-69 in
reverse to the motion now before the House.
If the House would also consider it, we could apply the same
vote to Motions Nos. 25 and 28 at the same time. In other words,
we would now be voting on Motions Nos. 23, 25 and 28 along
with all the consequential amendments.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the chief whip for
the Bloc Quebecois agree?
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the Reform Party
whip agree?
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the NDP agree?
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 197.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motions Nos.
23, 25 and 28 negatived.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 30.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the vote on report stage Motion
No. 3 to the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the Chief Whip for
the Bloc Quebecois agree?
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the Reform Party
whip agree?
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the NDP agree?
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, would you clarify which motion we
are voting on?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The motion we are
dealing with is Motion No. 30.
Mr. Taylor: New Democrats would be voting no on this one,
Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 195.]
11792
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 30
carried.
(1825 )
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 31.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the vote on Motion No. 1 to the
motion now before the House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the chief whip for
the Bloc Quebecois agree?
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the Reform Party
whip agree?
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the NDP agree?
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 193.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 31
negatived.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
the bill, as amended, be concurred in and read the second time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the
results of the vote on Bill C-69 to the motion now before the
House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the chief whip for
the Bloc Quebecois agree?
Mr. Duceppe: Agreed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the Reform Party
whip agree?
Mr. Silye: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the NDP agree?
Mr. Taylor: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 192.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
_____________________________________________
11792
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-263, an act to amend the Financial Administration
Act and other acts in consequence thereof (exempted crown
corporations), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of
Mr. Hart at second reading stage of Bill C-263, an act to amend
the Financial Administration Act and other acts in consequence
thereof (exempted crown corporations).
As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row,
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour
of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover.
Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the
House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be called
in the same order.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 199)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
11793
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-88
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Althouse
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacDonald
MacLaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-143
PAIRED MEMBERS
Alcock
Bachand
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Deshaies
Gaffney
Gallaway
Grose
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Parrish
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.37 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved that Bill C-254, an act to amend the Interpretation Act
(convention on the rights of the child) be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to bring forward this
bill on behalf of all Canadian children. It amends the
Interpretation Act to provide that every act of Parliament shall
be construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe
any of the rights recognized in the convention on the rights of
the child. It is as close as a private member's bill can come to
introducing a children's bill of rights.
At the World Summit for Children, held at the United Nations
in 1990, 71 world leaders, the largest gathering of world leaders
ever, discussed actions that could better the lives of children
throughout the world. As a result of that summit, the United
Nations developed the convention on the rights of the child
which Canada ratified on December 13, 1991.
I am proud to say that Canada took an active role in the
summit and in helping to develop the convention which provides
us with a set of standards that confirms the respect our society
11794
gives its youngest and most vulnerable and recognizes that they
need special safeguards and care.
(1840 )
Responsibility for implementing the rights set out in the
convention is shared by federal, provincial and territorial
governments. International human rights conventions, even if
ratified by Canada, do not automatically become part of
domestic law. Canadian courts do, however, frequently refer to
them in interpreting and applying domestic law and, in
particular, in interpreting and applying the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
This private member's bill, if passed, would require the
Government of Canada to interpret all legislation in harmony
with the UN declaration on the rights of the child, which, as I
say, Canada was instrumental in engineering. Essentially
Canada's laws will comply with the convention.
Canada must continue to be a leading force in protecting
children's rights both at home and around the world. In order to
do that we must ensure that our international commitments are
treated seriously and that federal legislation complies with the
convention that the government signed on behalf of all
Canadians.
The world summit and the convention were both predicated
on the notion that children should have first call on the nation's
resources in both good times and bad. In other words, Canada
and the other countries that signed the convention should put
children first at all times.
A year before the summit, in November 1989, the House
debated a motion in the following words:
That this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian
children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating
poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
The motion was unanimously passed by the members of the
House of Commons.
At that time there were approximately 956,000 children under
the age of 18 living in poverty. The subcommittee on poverty
proceeded some time after that to address the problem, but did
nothing very much to improve the situation of child poverty.
Looking at the shocking reality of what has happened since,
the situation has worsened. Recently, Statistics Canada showed
that in 1993 child poverty reached a 14-year high, despite the
fact that the Canadian economy had made a modest recovery. In
1993 almost 1.5 million Canadian children, which is one in five,
lived in some deprivation. Many of these children live not just in
poverty, but are very poor. Clearly that is unacceptable. With
only five years left until the year 2000 it is clear that the
government must move quickly or the 1989 House of Commons
resolution will be nothing more than empty words.
Last year I tried to move the same motion but was refused
support from at least the Reform Party and possibly others. In
other words, we have regressed in terms of our commitment to
Canadian children since 1989.
The bill would go a long way to ensuring that the issue of child
poverty and children's rights will be addressed. However, it will
do more. It will ensure that the nation's children should always
be put first, that they will be given the protection and assistance
they need in order to grow to become happy, healthy and
productive adults. It will enforce the concept that Canadian
children be free from exploitation and abuse; that government
action should be interpreted with regard to children in the best
interests of the child; that children should have access to child
care, health care and a standard of living that, at minimum,
meets basic needs; and that disabled children should receive the
same level of dignity and opportunity as other children.
If we are going to put words into action, if we are going to do
anything other than spout empty words, it is vital that the
commitments which Canada has made on behalf of its children
to the world community are enforced by the government.
I would like to refer to some of the provisions and point out
some of the problems that are faced in Canada with regard to the
international commitment made when the UN convention was
signed and when Canada committed itself to ensuring that
children have the first call on resources.
A provision in article 6 says that Canada and other nations
shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the survival and
development of the child. Canada has 1.5 million children living
in poverty. Clearly we are a long way from recognizing and
enforcing the commitment which we made to our children and to
the world economy. Article 17 of the convention talks about
education, clearly a core element in the development of our
children.
(1845 )
In that article there is provision that Canada and other nations
encourage the production and dissemination of children's
books. After many attempts in the last Parliament to remove the
GST from children's books, which the last government
recognized as being detrimental to educational expectations,
that GST still remains on books and this government has done
nothing to reduce it. There are measures we can take there to
ensure that the commitment we made with regard to education
and the dissemination of education can be met.
In article 18, Canada and all other nations agreed to take all
appropriate measures ``to ensure that children of working
parents have the right to benefit from child care services and
facilities for which they are able''. We have seen the reneging of
commitments with regard to child care, commitments that were
in the red book. Over the years we have seen a clear derogation
11795
on the part of the Government of Canada to respond in a critical
way for the protection and benefit of children as well of course
for those parents who need to work in order to maintain their
families. With regard to child care, the government clearly is
also not responding to the spirit and words of the convention.
Canada also agreed to take all appropriate legislative,
administrative, social and educational measures to protect
children from all forms of physical and mental violence, injury
or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or
exploitation, including sexual abuse. The cuts to social
programs, which continue under this government in spite of the
aggressive opposition to the same cuts when this government
was in opposition, mean that we cannot effectively say that we
are responding positively to this provision of the convention
either. We are not taking all appropriate legislative,
administrative, social, and educational measures to protect
children in this way. Indeed, we are going backwards.
There are special provisions in article 23 to respond to the
special needs of disabled children. In particular, it indicated that
we commit ourselves to assistance that will be designed to
ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receive
education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services,
preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a
manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible
social integration and individual development, including his or
her cultural and spiritual development.
We all know from our own experiences across this country
that we are far from responding positively to the needs of
disabled children.
In article 24 we have a commitment to recognize the right of
the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and
rehabilitation of health. This government once again follows the
Tories in cutting funding to health care, clearly making it more
and more difficult for children to receive access to the highest
attainable standard of health care, which this country committed
itself to providing. Again, we are in breach of this convention.
In regard to the pursuit of health care facilities for children,
we agreed to combat disease and malnutrition, including within
the framework of primary health care. Clearly, with 1.5 million
children we have not addressed the concerns of malnutrition.
Indeed, as those numbers increase we make it clear that we are
going backwards rather than forward.
With regard to social programs, Canada and the other
countries recognized for every child the right to benefit from
social security, including social insurance, and to take the
necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right.
Once again, we have not responded to that obligation. We have
been cutting social programs at the federal level, and many
provinces have also cut their social programs, I might add,
although not the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, and
British Columbia, which are NDP provinces.
With regard to article 27, we agreed to recognize the right of
every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's
physical, mental, spiritual, moral, and social development.
Again, the fact that we have 1.5 million children living in
poverty makes it clear that we have done nothing to deal with
this question in the last budget. Again we saw the government
renege on its commitment dealing with child poverty.
In article 28 we see a commitment on the part of Canada to
recognize the right of a child's education and in particular to
make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity
by every appropriate means. We again see cuts to
post-secondary education funding in this budget of 10 per cent,
the 10 per cent reduction on the health and social transfer.
Again, how can we possibly be said to be responding to these
international commitments when we make these cuts? Not only
are we not responding to these commitments that we made, but
of course we are undermining our ability to be competitive in the
world economy in the future.
(1850)
We also have agreed to take measures to encourage regular
attendance in school and the reduction of drop-out rates. There
is much we need to do in order to address this particular
problem. Again, we need a concerted full effort to address our
drop-out problem.
We have a commitment in article 23 to recognize the right of
the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from
performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere
with the child's education or to be harmful to the child's health
or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. We
have yet to take effective measures to bar the importation of
products made by child labour in countries where that child
labour is also illegal. I only need to point out the issue of carpets
to know that we have not done all we could do in that regard.
We also have committed ourselves under article 34 to
undertake to protect the child from exploitive use in prostitution
and other unlawful sexual practices. Anyone who spends any
time in any of our inner cities will know that there are many
children who are participating in the sex trade, again flowing
from poverty, flowing from a loss of hope, things this
government and this country should be able to do something
about.
There are provisions dealing with some changes this House
made, against the wishes of the New Democratic Party, with
regard to the Young Offenders Act. Canada made commitments
with regard to young offenders in the convention. Among other
things, we committed ourselves to making imprisonment of a
child a matter of last resort and for the shortest appropriate
period of time. In flagrant disregard for that commitment, this
11796
House not very long ago increased sentences for young
offenders.
Last, Canada recognized under article 40 the right of every
child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed
the criminal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the
promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which
reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and
fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account
the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's
integration and the child's assuming a constructive role in
society.
Again, the changes this Parliament made, contrary to the
wishes of the New Democratic Party and all those experts on
children, flies in the face of this commitment too.
In closing, I would like to say that what is being asked for here
in this bill and what I am asking on behalf of all Canadian
children is that this House recognize the commitments Canada
made on behalf of all Canadians among its international peers to
commit resources to children, to put children at the first call of
Canada's resources, and to respond to the specific provisions
contained in the convention.
Canada has a long way to go. Indeed, I think we have gone in
the opposite direction. It would be important if we made a
change in direction, if we put children first and if we kept our
word to the international community on behalf of our children.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill was not granted votable status in
the committee, I wonder if I might ask for unanimous consent
for it to be votable, in which case it could then be votable at
some later stage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's
Crossing. Is there unanimous consent to make his motion
votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to consider Bill C-254, which the member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing has introduced.
Bill C-254 proposes to amend the Interpretation Act to
provide that every act of Parliament shall be construed and
applied so as not to abrogate, abridge, or infringe any rights
recognized in the convention on the rights of the child.
(1855 )
Bill C-254 also deems the reservations and statement of
understanding Canada entered upon ratification not to be part of
the convention.
Before commenting on Bill C-254, I will briefly examine the
process that led to Canada's ratification of the convention.
Members are no doubt aware that Canada played an active
role in the world summit for children held in September 1990.
At that time world leaders spoke of the need for action to better
the lives of the world's children. Canada's efforts at the world
summit and its involvement in drafting the convention on the
rights of the child served as a catalyst for increased federal
efforts on behalf of children in Canada. These efforts, which
included such initiatives as the action plan for Canada, entitled
``Brighter Futures'', began with the ratification of the
convention on the rights of the child on December 13, 1991.
Canada's ratification of the convention on the rights of the
child followed extensive consultations with the provinces and
territories under the auspices of the continuing committee of
federal, provincial, and territorial human rights officials. Since
1975 the continuing committee of officials on human rights
examines questions concerning domestic implementation
whenever Canada contemplates ratifying or acceding to another
international human rights instrument. Consultations with
national aboriginal representatives and organizations formed
another important element of the consultations prior to ratifying
the convention on the rights of the child.
These federal, provincial, and territorial consultations are
held because while the federal government has the power to
sign, ratify, or accede to international instruments, many human
rights matters fall within spheres of provincial jurisdiction
under the Constitution Act of 1867.
In Canada, international human rights conventions that
Canada has ratified do not automatically become part of the
domestic law so as to enable individuals to go to court when they
are breached. Rather, each level of government is responsible
for implementing in legislation or in practice those human rights
obligations that arise within the constitutional powers it
possesses. For this reason, Canada seeks provincial and
territorial support before ratifying international human rights
instruments.
Toward this end, legislation was reviewed at the federal level
for consistency with the convention on the rights of the child. In
particular, federal officials considered whether changes in
legislation were required or whether Canada should consider
entering a specific reservation or statement upon the standing to
the convention. With respect to the latter, the law of treaties
provides that in making a reservation a state or a nation indicates
11797
that it is not bound by an obligation of the convention. In a
statement of understanding the state explains how it interprets a
particular convention obligation where the nature of the
obligation is unclear.
Following the federal review of legislation and a similar
review at the provincial and territorial level, Canada decided to
enter two reservations and one statement of understanding to the
convention on the rights of the child. I will speak to those two.
Canada entered a reservation to article 37(c) to ensure that in
determining the custodial arrangements for a young offender,
the well-being of other young offenders and the safety of the
public may be taken into account.
Canada entered a reservation to article 21 and a statement of
understanding to article 30 following consultations with
national aboriginal organizations. Canada entered a reservation
to article 21 to preserve customary forms of care among
aboriginal peoples in Canada. By its statement of understanding
to article 30, Canada seeks to ensure that in implementing the
convention in relation to aboriginal children the child's right to
enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her
own religion, or to use his or her own language are considered.
(1900 )
The Government of Canada takes seriously its obligation to
implement the obligations of the convention on the rights of the
child in Canada.
However, implementing these obligations without reference
to the reservations and statement of understanding which
Canada entered to the convention, as section 39.1(4) of Bill
C-254 contemplates, would not reflect the manner in which
Canada determines the custodial arrangements of young
offenders and the concerns of aboriginal peoples of Canada. In
this way Bill C-254 does not reflect the result of extensive
consultations with provincial and territorial governments and
with national aboriginal organizations. Therefore, I cannot
support Bill C-254.
Bill C-254 also proposes to change fundamentally the
relationship between domestic and international law in Canada.
As I mentioned earlier, international human rights conventions
that Canada has ratified do not automatically become part of
domestic law so as to enable individuals to go to court when they
are breached.
Bill C-254 would fundamentally change the existing
relationship between domestic and international law for matters
within federal jurisdiction. Bill C-254 would fundamentally
change the precedent setting. To go along with Bill C-254 would
set some important precedents.
In essence we would elevate some of Canada's obligations
under the convention on the rights of the child, namely those
obligations within federal jurisdictions, and make these directly
enforceable before Canadian courts while other convention
obligations, those within provincial jurisdictions as well as
human rights obligations in other international human rights
instruments, would not be so enforceable.
Not only would we be creating distinctions between different
international human rights obligations but we would be
fundamentally changing how international law is applied in our
domestic legal system.
My difficulties with Bill C-254 do not, however, diminish the
Government of Canada's support for implementing the
convention in Canada. The Government of Canada in its first
report to the UN on the convention on the rights of the child
considers not only how Canada has implemented the convention
to date but also discusses factors and difficulties we have
encountered and sets out some goals for Canada in the future.
The United Nations committee on the rights of the child will
continue to supervise our government's performance, in
particular our progress in meeting these goals.
Therefore, it is important the government respect its
obligations under the convention when creating legislation or
policies which may affect the rights of the child. For this reason
the Department of Justice takes the convention obligations into
account when providing legal advice. Parliamentarians should
similarly take the convention into account when enacting
legislation.
As well, Canadian courts have a role to play. Generally the
courts presume legislation will be interpreted in a manner
consistent with Canada's international obligations, including
the convention on the rights of the child. Courts take
international human rights instruments into consideration when
they interpret the guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
Finally, courts may turn to international human rights
instruments like the convention on the rights of the child when
interpreting legal concepts relating to children.
The speaker who proposes this motion had very good
intentions. I cannot but agree with some of his expressions.
Justice L'Hureaux-Dubé in the 1993 Supreme Court case Young
v. Young addressed those questions of access and custody. The
need to affirm the best interests of the child is a primary
consideration in all actions concerning children, including legal
proceedings.
In Justice L'Hureaux-Dubé's view, this reference to
international law assisted in demonstrating the best interests of
the child test is of enduring value in Canada. The court plays a
very important part in ensuring Canada's international human
rights obligations are respected.
(1905)
As parliamentarians we have a similar responsibility;
however, Bill C-254 is not the means by which this
responsibility should be undertaken. Bill C-254 seeks to
directly implement some convention obligations into domestic
law but not others. Bill C-254 rejects the results of extensive
consultations which
11798
have been held with provincial and territorial governments and
aboriginal organizations.
In government, in Parliament and in our courts Canadians
must be vigilant and ensure the values and guarantees in the
convention on the rights of the child are respected. The
Government of Canada takes seriously its responsibilities to
better the lives of Canadian children. Toward this end we will
continue our efforts to meet the goals set out for us in Canada's
first report on the convention on the rights of the child. In this
way I hope to make the convention on the rights of the child a
living, breathing document in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-254
deals with children's rights. I am glad to participate in this
debate as the official opposition's critic for training and young
people's issues to support the good intentions the hon. member
for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing expressed regarding
children's rights in his private member's bill. I find it a little sad
that there will only be a debate, and no vote, on his bill.
With issues such as sexual exploitation, child labour, health
and education, social assistance, special care for handicapped
children and especially when we consider that the bill is based
on a convention signed by Canada and on a declaration of rights
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is a
little surprising to see that the Liberal government, represented
by its parliamentary secretary, has reservations about a bill of
this kind. After all, it deals with rights which are, all told, quite
basic.
The official opposition does have reservations, however,
about certain rights falling under provincial jurisdiction. Take
education and health, for example, over which the provinces
have exclusive power, as you know. This does not stop us, of
course, from agreeing in principle with the provisions of the
bill, since the Bloc Quebecois is clearly very much in favour of
giving children the best education and health care possible.
It is all well and good to wish to implement the principles of a
bill based on a declaration of rights passed by the General
Assembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1959, as I said
earlier. All well and good, but how does one go about really
implementing such a measure?
I will now quote what the current Minister of Human
Resources Development said on November 24, 1989, when he
was an opposition member, regarding a private member's bill
which also dealt with children's rights.
The Minister of Human Resources Development, the hon.
member for Winnipeg, said the following: ``I ask members to
shed the speeches prepared by their departments. Open your
eyes and your hearts a little, start looking at the reality of what is
going on, and begin to talk about what is the real vocabulary in
this country. A day does not go by in this House of Commons
that we do not hear ministers or members of the Conservative
regime talk about the deficit. That has become the icon of our
times: the deficit. I never hear the Minister of Finance talk
about the real deficit in this country-'' and at the time, he said
the real deficit was ``-those one million kids in poverty''. He
went on to say: ``That is where we should invest. That is where
the real tragedy lies. Ten years from now, these children should
be our teachers, business people, politicians and journalists.
They will never get there because they will never be able to get
started. When one million children live in poverty, that is a
considerable loss. That is the big deficit we have to deal with.
But nothing is being done to solve this serious problem''. This
was in 1989.
(1910)
But what about children today, in 1995? How are they doing? I
would like to quote the figures in the latest report from the
National Council of Welfare for 1993, in Canada. What does it
say? It says that in Canada 1,415,000 children live in poverty,
which means that 20.8 per cent of Canadian children are living
below the poverty line. There were one million in 1989, and now
there are 1,415,000.
In Quebec, 348,000 children live below the poverty line,
which means 20.9 per cent or slightly more than the national
average. So the situation is getting worse instead of better. If we
take the figures for 1981, we see that, since that time, the
number of poor children has doubled. In 1981, Statistics Canada
set this number at 700,000. This is incredible!
So if we have poor children in this country, it is because their
parents are poor. There are no poor children without poor
parents. So what has the Minister of Human Resources
Development done since he was appointed a year and a half ago
to remedy the situation, the same man who, in a speech in
November 1989, condemned the Conservative government's
failure to act in this respect? He said we should drop all our
prepared speeches and start speaking from the heart and do
something about the problem.
We saw the minister make cuts in unemployment insurance
totalling $2.5 billion, so that the Minister of Finance could
balance his latest budget, meaning that the budget would come
in right on target. This was done by cutting unemployment
insurance. Mr. Speaker, do you really think that by cutting
unemployment insurance, by hitting the families of the
unemployed, we have helped to reduce child poverty in Canada?
Everyone knows the answer to that.
Was that the end of it? It was not just $2.5 billion. He also
announced it would be $2.5 billion annually, in other words $7.5
billion over three years. That was just the first year. So what
does the Minister of Finance have in store for this year?
11799
Additional cuts which may get worse, starting with next year's
budget. So we may be talking about a cut in social programs
totalling $15 billion since the Liberal government came to
power, in other words, the $7.5 billion that have already been
announced and another $7.5 billion in the future.
Social programs include more than just unemployment
insurance. There is also, of course, the federal contribution to
welfare which may be as much as 50 per cent. Will cutting and
freezing transfer payments to the provinces for social welfare
financing help reduce child poverty in Canada?
(1915)
I think the answer is obviously no. There are other serious
situations. In the end, however, many children are poor because
of the increasing number of single parent families here. In
Canada, 453,000 children live below the poverty line because
their mother is the head of a single parent household. Ninety per
cent of children living with single mothers are living below the
poverty line.
Worse yet, increasing numbers of couples with children are
finding themselves living off only one salary. For those earning
only minimum wage, the breadwinner would have to work 73
hours a week just to stay above the poverty line. Does this
situation indicate an improvement in the child poverty
situation? No, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, beyond the speeches and beyond the principles
and good intentions of the hon. member presenting this motion,
there is the matter of applicability and implementation and, in
the end, of the government's political will to really work to
reduce child poverty.
I would like to talk to you about a situation in Quebec.
Particular efforts have been made in Quebec to protect young
people. There are rehabilitation services. When I was a member
of the committee on human resources development, I noted that,
in many provinces, people asked us about services available in
Quebec, which seemed to spark some jealousy in certain
provinces. In a way, I say so much the better. True, Quebecers
are very proud of their social programs in general.
Many people talk about the rights of children. Of course, I
agree with them but I think that we should start right here in
Canada and in our democratic societies to teach our children
about their responsibilities with regard to the rights of others,
particularly the people in their families, their communities and
their schools, and their responsibilities to themselves. We
should make every effort to ensure that our children can improve
their knowledge while learning how to exercise their right to
criticize, even at a young age, public policies in Canada and
everywhere else.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-254 as
chair of the Reform Party's task force on the family. I am
pleased to do so.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Interpretation Act to
provide that every act of Parliament shall be construed and
applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe any of the rights
recognized in the convention on the rights of the child.
I would like to devote the majority of my time in reviewing
the significance of the convention on the rights of the child to
Canada and its families.
In May 1990 the Mulroney government signed the convention
that was ratified by the House of Commons in December 1991. It
officially came into force in January 1992. The intent of the
convention is to provide a set of standards that confirms the
respect our society gives to its youngest and most vulnerable
members.
The convention is nobly phrased and seems well intended in
attempting to address the needs of children from all corners of
the globe. But does it or is it even wise to attempt such a task?
There are some very real inherent problems with the convention
that I wish to address today. First, the convention creates a new
international bureaucracy, the committee on the rights of the
child.
(1920)
Under the convention each signatory state is required to
submit reports to this committee through the UN
Secretary-General every five years and it is: ``to provide that
Canadians become better informed of the obligations
undertaken by Canada, to apprise them of measures taken by the
various levels of government and to enlist their support and
co-operation in efforts being made to promote the rights of the
child''.
The committee is made up of 10 experts elected for a
four-year term from nationals of the signatory governments. It
reviews the reports, makes suggestions and recommendations to
the signatory governments and the Secretary-General as to what
they think should be done. These reports and suggestions are
passed through our internal guardian of family affairs-it has
been known as the children's bureau-that then wields its
interpretation on Canadian families.
The process of representation is at best flawed. Who
represents Canada at international conferences? Or for that
matter, how can we know whose agenda is being put forward?
How do they know whether grassroots Canadians agree to the
principles that they endorse? Who are the elite that interpret the
ongoing directives that come back?
The record shows that Canada automatically signs many
international conventions and treaties without really allowing
for input or even the time to consider the long term implications
11800
of the agreements. Then too, I would guess that our
representatives are likely the very special interest groups or
experts that determine our often flawed domestic policy
direction.
Children in this country face numerous problems. We have
heard a few from members already; abuse, poverty and others.
The solutions implemented, let us face it, have been an abysmal
failure. Now this UN convention seeks to expand those very
same solutions on even a grander scale.
Presently a very real conflict is forming between international
obligations and domestic policy as supported by Canadians. I
would like to address this for a moment.
Section 43 of the Criminal Code provides legal protection for
parents and teachers who use reasonable physical discipline of
children. The current justice minister has stated that the
government is reviewing this section of the Criminal Code ``to
determine that it meets the international obligations to which we
now subscribe''. He refers, as have other vocal groups, to
Canada's obligation under article 19.1 of the UN convention of
the rights of the child.
This is the agenda being pursued by the government, even
though an overwhelming majority of Canadians support the use
of reasonable physical force by parents in disciplining and
correcting their children's behaviour. In March 1994, as
reported in the Toronto Star, 70 per cent of those surveyed
supported this view.
Canadian parents are being threatened by a movement to
repeal section 43. For example, a triple amputee Calgary mother
has recently been charged with assault for spanking her 11-year
old daughter. Today an American visitor to our country is in
court answering charges for disciplining his five-year old.
I support section 43 of the Criminal Code along with a
majority of Canadians. I believe that parents and teachers
should have legal protection to physically discipline children if
they deem it necessary. A distinction has to be made between
reasonable physical force in disciplining children and physical
violence that constitutes abuse. In no way do I condone abuse
against children. But if this section were to be repealed, parents
and teachers would be powerless to impose authority by way of
physical discipline on children even if circumstances warranted
it.
The bill being debated today advocates that every act of
Parliament be interpreted within the context of the UN
convention on the rights of the child. As with section 43, my
main concern is the impact that these externally imposed duties
and responsibilities of a foreign UN convention would have on
parental responsibilities now and in the future.
Article 3 of the convention would empower: ``public or
private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative
authorities or legislative bodies'' the responsibility to safeguard
``the best interest of the child''. No mention is made of parents
or families safeguarding the best interests of the child. All of
these bodies will be able to interfere in family matters, driving a
deepening wedge between parents and children. In this way
parental authority is undermined and usurped by government
and bureaucrats. Excessive and unjustified government
interference already is at the source of many problems and
difficulties Canadian families face.
(1925)
Let me conclude with an anecdote. Last week I had the
opportunity to meet with some of my constituents. They came
from all walks of life and wanted me to hear them out and carry
their concerns to Ottawa. One request relates to our discussion
today.
Two parents came to meet me with four of their seven
children. The oldest of the seven is nine. While they shared with
me their concern about this very issue their four boys waited
patiently at the next table. Those boys' politeness and good
behaviour were a testimony to the millions of families that do
know better than the government or any bureaucrat will ever
know how best to care for the best interests of their children.
I believe the duties and responsibilities for the rearing and
safeguarding of children rests within the family unit,
specifically the parents, the mother and father and extended
family members if that is the case. It not the responsibility of an
international committee of experts to suggest or recommend
what our governments, families and parents should be doing to
assist or protect children. Parents can do that independently
without the interference of an international organization or
committee of experts.
Government authorities should only be recognized when there
is absence or real abuse of that parental authority. When will the
government recognize it is our families that should be at the
heart of every public policy debate? The best interests of our
children are met by those healthy families.
Governments must not replace families. Disaster is at the end
of that path. Governments must strengthen families so that they
can do what they do best: nurture future generations that will
build a strong Canada.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 96(1), since there are no more speakers and since the
motion was not selected as a votable item, the time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
11801
11801
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on April 3, I rose in the Chamber to put a question
to the government relating to Canada's participation at the
Berlin meeting on climate change. It was the second time in a
week that I had raised the issue, hoping the federal government
would announce a real action plan aimed at establishing and
stabilizing our levels of greenhouse gases. I was not to be
satisfied.
The Berlin talks were the result of the June 1992 meeting of
106 of the world's nations held in Rio de Janeiro. At that
meeting Canada made commitments which sadly we have not
kept.
At the time of my last intervention in the House of Commons I
reminded members that when we look at what has happened
since the Rio meeting we do not have to look too far to see that
nearly nine billion more tonnes of carbon have accumulated in
the atmosphere and the evidence of climate change is mounting.
In response to the crisis the Minister of the Environment even
went so far as to say that if Canada and the other nations emitting
greenhouse gases do not do something about this, climate
change and global warming will create a situation in which
floods will occur off the east coast of Canada and the tiny and
beautiful province of Prince Edward Island will be all but
submerged.
It is hard for me to imagine that the Minister of the
Environment knows about the possibility of this catastrophic
event occurring but is not prepared to take immediate and
dramatic actions to combat it.
In Berlin the Minister of the Environment pushed the plan for
trading technology between industrialized and developing
countries, but she put forward few details on measures to reduce
greenhouse gases. She was criticized and continues to be
criticized because this is not an action plan at all. The minister is
said to have blocked progress on an agreement that would
contain specific goals and deadlines for further reductions. The
minister seems to have loss sight of the fact that Canada is
committed to cutting carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by
the year 2000.
It appears Canada will likely be up by 13 per cent above 1990
levels by the year 2000. As a result there is no question a real
action plan which contains timetables and targets is an absolute
necessity if this critical world problem is ever to be properly
addressed.
For all intents and purposes the United Nations climate
change conference wrapped up by accomplishing very little.
Despite the urgent need for world action and despite the
opportunity that Canada had to play a leadership role, the
problem remains. More talks are needed to reach agreements for
specific reductions.
The minister has put on a brave face, claiming the agreement
to set new objectives by 1997 is a step forward-to quote her
properly, a big win for everybody. Surely she cannot really
believe this, especially if she wants to avoid moving the entire
population of the province of Prince Edward Island.
When I read the news reports of the Berlin conference I cannot
help but see the April 8 editorial that appeared in the Vancouver
Sun which called the conference's conclusion a national
humiliation. The Sierra Club indicated the results of the
conference showed from Canada a shocking abdication of
leadership.
Canada did, however, show leadership recently in the turbot
war. Canada was prepared to take drastic action in the name of
conservation of the fish stock off the continental shelf. Where is
this same leadership in the name of conservation of the earth
itself?
At the time of my question in early April there was media
speculation that the federal government had lost its interest in
the environment and had cut back federal spending in this regard
to the point at which Environment Canada was no longer
effective. This week we discovered that the much touted green
plan was among those cuts and no longer exists.
In this regard, when will the Minister of the Environment and
the federal government take up the political will necessary to
strengthen the federal role on domestic environmental issues so
that we will once again have true and meaningful credibility at
the international level?
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake and give the
perspective of the Minister of the Environment. I want to assure
the member the accomplishments of the Government of Canada
at the recent climate change negotiations in Berlin are proof that
Canada has an essential role to play in finding solid solutions to
environmental challenges both at home and on the international
scene.
The government and the environment have come out of that
conference a clear winner in what is considered a significant
step forward. Countries agreed in Berlin that current
commitments contained in the framework convention on
climate change are inadequate.
All developed countries that signed the convention will be
required to begin negotiations on the protocol concerning future
commitments. Countries will be required to report on the
emission reduction policy and measures as well as set quantified
limitations and reduction objectives.
11802
Also, countries have agreed on a pilot phase for projects
which can be undertaken jointly between developed and
developing countries. This concept, known as joint
implementation, is an important opportunity for Canadian
business. We now have the green light to pursue commercial
emission reduction projects in other countries. This is good for
global climate change objectives and good for business here at
home.
Canada's national action program on climate change tabled in
Berlin sets out strategic directions which Canada will follow to
meet our own commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas
emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2
p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.34 p.m.)