CONTENTS
Friday, May 5, 1995
Bill C-43. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 12237
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12242
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12247
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12248
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12248
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12248
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 12249
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 12249
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12252
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12252
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12256
Bill C-89. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 12257
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 12258
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12258
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12258
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12258
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 12259
Bill C-43. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 12260
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 12264
Division on motion deferred 12265
Bill C-70. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 12265
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 12270
Consideration resumed of the motion 12272
Division on motion deferred 12278
12237
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 5, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-43, an Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act
and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate at
third reading of the bill on lobbyists. I think that it is important
to reflect on the role of lobbies. Their role is essentially to
attempt to influence the positions taken by the government and
parliamentarians on policy issues and to defend private
interests.
I would also say that lobbyists end up reducing the direct
influence that citizens have on their representatives. We have
seen some instances of this in the past year, for example the
lobby that formed around the somatotropin issue. One company
that wanted to see somatotropin approved went so far as to hire a
manager who was on leave without pay to lobby the government
machine. There are also very obvious cases where Canadian
banks are systematically making representations to MPs in an
effort to either effect changes or to maintain the status quo in
taxes and regulations.
I do not think that anyone is against the fact that lobbyists
exist. The same thing goes on in all parliaments. What should be
looked at, however, is their methods, because so many things
have come about mysteriously in the past which could have been
the result of lobbying. Parliamentary history, be it in Canada,
England, the United States, or almost anywhere else in the
world, is characterized by blatant examples of this. This has led
other parliaments to reflect on the best way to monitor this
activity to prevent abuses.
Other examples of this have cropped up recently in the news
here in Canada. For instance, there is the connection between the
Liberals, Power Corporation and certain decisions. Today, it is
DTH television services. Yesterday, it was the railways. It is
always there and it is always connected with important
decisions. Under the Conservatives a major debate began on this
issue because the Tory party was very close to the business
community and there had been quite a few instances of practices
that were doubtful, to say the least, the latest and most notorious
example being the privatization of Pearson airport.
During the election campaign, the Liberal Party promised that
it would make some major changes in this respect, and that was
before it formed the government. Unfortunately, Bill C-43 is a
typical example of much ado about apparently nothing. They
promised us a transparent system, and what we get is, for
instance, an ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister
and accountable to the Prime Minister. To the Bloc, this does not
denote transparency. It is not the way to establish a code of
conduct and restore public confidence in our democratic
institutions, because how can you ask an ethics counsellor who
is appointed by the Prime Minister to judge the actions of the
government and the Prime Minister?
In the past, in fact this year, we saw situations where the ethics
counsellor was put on the spot when he could not really give an
independent opinion. We would have preferred the government
to consider the Bloc's recommendations, including a request
that the ethics counsellor be appointed by Parliament so that he
or she is directly accountable to the members of this House and
is free to criticize the government and in fact any
parliamentarian, irrespective of the connection that is there.
We have a situation where a lobbyist approaches a member of
the government, the counsellor evaluates the government's
transparency in all this, gives an opinion and then reports to the
Prime Minister who is himself a party to the case.
12238
(1010)
This is entirely unacceptable, and perpetuates the image that
politicians are always looking out for their own interests. I think
this government will assess this later on during debate. I think
there is support in Canada to improve the situation, and the bill
does not satisfactorily do so. Considering the commitments the
Liberals had set out in the red book, it was very clear that they
wanted to go a lot further.
Once it crossed the floor, how is it that the government did not
manage to drop its old habits? We can only guess at what
influenced it. I think the answer lies in the fact that, in Canada,
political party funding is still very unstructured. Companies,
unions, groups and pressure groups can all contribute to party
funding. So, once a party is in power, it is forced to pay careful
attention to the comments and suggestions of those who funded
it.
I think that the big companies, such as the Canadian banking
network, for example, want to make sure that their lobbyists
have a lot of leeway.
We parliamentarians must ask ourselves the following
question: Is this advantageous for Canadians? It is advantageous
for Quebecers to leave all this leeway to lobbyists and to end up
cancelling out the direct effect the public must have on the
people they elected to represent them?
The second indication that a government has not let go of its
old habits is the action of the lobbyists themselves. They are a
highly polished group. We can see very clearly in the business of
the Pearson airport that lobbying firms have interchangeable
people. When the government changes, they have someone from
the right family and the right school, who has access to a
particular ear. When another party comes to power, they bring
out of mothballs someone from the right family and thus ensure
uninterrupted influence.
We in the Bloc Quebecois feel that the government should
have given a much stronger message to the public that it wanted
to ensure that the people of Canada were the primary agents of
democracy and that they had the greatest influence on their
members. To this end, we made some very constructive
suggestions, which the government rejected. This is rather sad.
Let me give you examples of that situation. The Bloc
Quebecois is in favour of registration for lobbyists, regardless
of the tier to which they belong. Currently, some lobbyists make
representations to ministers, while others are in contact with
senior officials or MPs.
The existing rules regarding the disclosure of the fact that
these people are lobbyists vary. These people should all have to
register in the same manner, so that we know exactly who is
lobbying, not just those who are paid specifically to do it, but
also all those who do it under cover, as director of public
relations, director of governmental relations, etc. We want to
have an accurate and comprehensive overview of the situation.
It is important, for reasons of transparency, to know about all
the activities and dealings which relate to government contracts.
Lobbyists should be required to disclose, on a regular basis,
which contracts they are working on, so that we could have a
clear idea of how such representations are made and how
contracts are awarded. The process must appear relatively fair,
and there must be sufficient transparency to be able to determine
whether the most deserving group or company was awarded a
contract, in compliance with acceptable standards and criteria.
(1015)
We also think that meetings with senior officials should be
reported. After being elected to the House of Commons 18
months ago, one of the first changes I noticed compared to my
previous job was that lobbyists were calling us and knocking on
our doors asking, ``Could we meet with you to discuss this or
that situation?''
I think that this type of relationship with elected officials is
normal and should be reported. What is a little more nebulous,
however, is the representations made to senior officials. One of
the ways lobbyists can exert influence is by becoming involved
in the drafting of bills or regulations before decisions are made.
It would be interesting to receive a list of these interventions
to see whether or not a given clause has been included in a bill as
a result of lobbying. The disclosure requirement alone may even
reduce the number of such meetings. Again, I think it would be
interesting because it would allow elected officials to have more
control over, and more direct contact with, senior officials, thus
allowing the people they represent to exert, through them,
greater influence on the work done by senior officials.
Therein may lie one of the causes of the current situation in
which high level bureaucrats, senior public servants, often seem
to govern through a third party and exert some control over
ministers instead of the other way around. Much about this type
of influence remains unknown and unclear at the present time.
Another decision, which was suggested by the Bloc and
which, I think, is very important because money has been
described as the root of war, is to eliminate tax deductions for
lobbying expenses.
Paradoxically, companies can now obtain tax deductions for
lobbying expenses often incurred to influence policies to their
advantage even when these policies are not in the public
interest. It is a government incentive to spend money on this
kind of lobbying, while ordinary citizens trying to get organized
to apply pressure often cannot obtain similar services.
We could look at this in the context of the ongoing debate on
gun control, without getting into too much detail. There is
lobbying around this issue, lobbying by those who want more
gun control and by major associations which oppose gun
control. For my part, what I see mainly is citizens trying to
express opinions, one way or the other, on this issue. But they
cannot
12239
exert the same influence, mainly because the companies or
corporations on either side of the debate can claim income tax
deductions for their lobbying expenses, while the residents of a
village cannot.
Here is an example. I met in
Saint-Médard-de-Rivière-du-Loup, a locality in my riding,
with 25 or 30 people who wanted to talk to me about this bill. It
was not possible for them to form an organized group and defray
the cost this entails. Still, they had worthwhile arguments that
made good horse sense to put forward and they should be given
the chance to do so.
That is why I think it would be important to reinstate the
relative balance between stakeholders and one good way of
doing so would be to stop encouraging companies to hire
lobbyists by making sure that no tax deduction can be claimed
for this purpose, as it acts as an incentive to hire lobbyists.
How could we finally get a government that would stand up
and seriously tackle problems like this one? This would have a
direct impact on the way people perceive their elected
representatives. Just look at the degree of confidence the people
have in their elected representatives, I would say it is far from
satisfactory and we have to do something about it. One way is to
show all Canadians that there is no hidden force acting within
the system, that nobody has more power than they should have
because of the rules of the system.
(1020)
What fundamental change should be made? It all boils down
to party financing. If we want a responsible government that will
make changes in this area, we have to make sure that political
parties do not owe anything to anybody. We have this model in
Quebec where only individuals can contribute to the financing
of political parties, which makes the government much more at
arm's length with companies, unions and other groups.
If federal political parties would agree to this kind of
financing, the party elected to office would be under a lot less
pressure in terms of keeping its election promises, instead of
feeling the kind of pressure that has forced this government to
introduce such a weak bill.
The subcommittee report on Bill C-43 is coyly entitled
``Rebuilding Trust''. The way to rebuild trust is to make sure
that the public knows everything there is to know and has an
complete overview of the situation, that there is nothing secret
going on. The only way to achieve this goal would have been for
the government to do almost exactly what it had promised
during the election campaign so that Canadians could see a clear
relationship between what the Liberals said and what they are
doing.
Unfortunately, in this case as in several others, this
government has a double standard. It campaigned to be elected,
but today it is implementing the agenda of a party that the public
completely rejected, that is the Conservative Party. This is as
true in the case of lobbyists as in the other areas. This is why the
Bloc Quebecois is very disappointed with the choices made by
the government and wants the public to be aware of it. For once,
it can be said that this has nothing to do with the constitutional
or with the national issue.
We should realize that for the federal Parliament to serve
Canadians well-and this is true for any provincial legislature,
any government-the appearance of justice and the citizens'
confidence in government are of critical importance. But as with
many other issues, the government has lost an opportunity to
make history. It is our hope that it will have the courage to go
back to the drawing board.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the comments of my colleague from the Bloc. I note with
interest that the Liberals promised great openness, great honesty
and great accountability in their now infamous red book. I read
that they will appoint an independent ethics counsellor who will
report directly to Parliament. They say they will not allow the
public agenda to be dominated by lobbyists as it has been since
the Conservatives took office.
I invite my hon. colleague to comment on whether or not he
thinks openness, accountability and independence have been
achieved.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the criteria of the
government's accountability and independence vis-à-vis
lobbyists have not been met. The reasons are outlined in the
Bloc Quebecois's minority report which also proposes
solutions.
(1025)
The report prepared by the Reform Party, which believes that
the Liberal report has two major shortcomings, namely
insufficient disclosure and the way the ethics counsellor is
appointed and his accountability, concurs with the report by the
Bloc Quebecois as far as these problems are concerned.
However, perhaps because of the expertise acquired in Quebec
concerning the financing of political parties, the Bloc
Quebecois went much further, making some concrete proposals
that may improve the situation. Having listed these proposals in
my speech, I will not repeat them. But as we are about to enter
the next century and we see that governments have less and less
control over international decisions and the way things are done,
I believe this will be one of the criteria people will use in
determining whether their government is doing its best to ensure
adequate development for their country.
People can understand that we can no longer control all the
variables and that we live in a very complex world, but they will
never accept that those variables may be controlled by others
than their elected representatives. I believe that, in choosing
their representatives, voters will systematically come back to
12240
the following criterion: they will want to make sure that their
elected officials really represent them and are not continuously
influenced, with varying degrees of transparency, by lobbies
that do not reflect the opinions of the electorate.
Having been made aware, since I was elected, of all the twists
and turns involved in bringing about a policy decision, it is
obvious that what people want is for their elected
representatives to have control of what is going on and not
simply be the puppets of people who have received no mandate
from the voters. I think that the government will have to go back
to the drawing board. I do not know whether it will have the
courage to do so during this Parliament, but this whole issue will
surely remain a fundamental one for voters, and the suggestions
that were made by the Bloc Quebecois in its minority report will
prove to be an interesting guide in this respect.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member,
and I think he did a very good job of pointing out the problems
with this bill, and more particularly the fact that it does not go
far enough. Members of the official opposition have been
receptive to representations and comments made by the public
during committee hearings. I was one of those who attended
most of the hearings of the committee on lobbying. What struck
me the most is that people want more openness in the public
sector. They do not trust politicians any more. They said it quite
bluntly: We do not trust politicians. We have the definite feeling
that all the decisions made on Parliament Hill-or at any other
level of government, but let us deal with our own House
first-are made to serve the personal interests of politicians.
That is what people told us. It is quite clear and easy to
understand.
I think Bill C-43 was an opportunity for us, as politicians, to
demonstrate our commitment to openness. We had an
opportunity to pass a bill on lobbyists that would clearly show
that we are not here to advance our own interests or those of the
government's buddies. That was the very praiseworthy goal of
Bill C-43, but the government did not take the necessary steps to
reach that goal.
With Bill C-43, we had a chance to really shed some light on
what goes on on Parliament Hill, but we let it slip by. One thing
we could have done to promote openness and show Canadians
how serious we are on this issue would have been for the House
to have a say in the appointment of the ethics counsellor, and for
the bill to stipulate that our code of conduct was binding, just
like the one lawyers have. I am a lawyer myself and, when I used
to practice law, our corporation had an official whose job it was
to slap us on the wrist if we misbehaved. I think we should have
taken this opportunity to develop a binding code of conduct to
ensure some kind of supervision.
(1030)
Instead, we will end up with a non binding code of conduct
written by an ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister,
in other words, with a document that is just so many empty
words.
The hon. member mentioned some issues and current events.
My question is: Does he agree that, if we had had an ethics
counsellor appointed by the House, accountable to the House,
with the statutory instruments needed to enforce the law and
ensure openness, would the goal set out in Bill C-43 have been
reached and better defined? Could the hon. member provide an
answer to my question?
Mr. Crête: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a symbolic
example of the situation regarding the ethics counsellor.
I would like to remind you of a sentence which was in the red
book of the Liberal Party of Canada. It 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''. Hence, what our citizens want,
according to the Liberal red book, is better information on the
influence of lobbyists.
Opting for an ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime
Minister and accountable only to the Prime Minister, is like
saying that the person who is going to look into the situation has
a direct tie with the one who might be implicated. This shows
concretely that Liberals did not go to the core of things and did
not deal, in a definite, long term way, with a situation which is
unacceptable to the people.
This is something we had been trying to deal with following
the last election campaign, and I repeat that Liberals will be
accountable to the people for not having used the solutions
which, in the end, were the results of a consensus in our society.
Today, the decisions needed are very complex and we have to
make sure that things are open enough and that the people who
are going to pass judgment have an independence somewhat
similar to the one enjoyed by the auditor general. If the auditor
general were not independent of the government, do you think
that he could systematically report on the government's
efficiency like he is now doing? A new auditor general would be
brought in before he could get a second report out. The same
goes for the ethics counsellor. The Prime Minister will either
give him a very limited role or he will simply be obliged to give
in to pressure from the lobbyists and, in this way, serve to cloak
their activities even more. We have before us a perfect
example-the MP's question is quite germane-of the fact that
the government did not fulfil its mandate and that is the main
reason the Bloc Quebecois will not support this bill.
12241
The Deputy Speaker: The five hours provided for debate
have now expired. We are now entering the ten minute period.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
everybody knows that it is high finance that controls the
government.
If Bill C-43 had had more teeth, it could have had the merit of
keeping this pack of predators at bay.
The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, my Bloc
Quebecois colleague, introduced a series of amendments which
would have effectively caged them in, but the Liberals rejected
them all. How can they possibly hope to control the situation
when they, like negligent shepherds, have flung the doors of the
fold wide open, turning a blind eye to the hungry wolves killing
off every last lamb in the flock, one by one?
Let us not kid ourselves. If Bill C-43 is passed as is, the
government will not be able to pry open the stranglehold that the
lobbyists have on the affairs of the state.
(1035)
They will still be able to promote their own interests as they
influence major decisions that should be made in the best
interests of the people of this country. In the debate on this bill,
the very credibility of our democratic system is at stake. We
know and we said this earlier, that the public does not have a
very high opinion of politicians. This attitude extends beyond
elected representatives to include our institutions as well.
With Bill C-43, the Liberal government had a good
opportunity to keep its promises and promote the transparency
of our political life and our democratic system. Unfortunately,
these promises will never be kept if it depends on hon. members
opposite. They reject all amendments. They reject all the good
ideas my colleagues submitted, although these were proposed in
a spirit of co-operation, not as a way to score points.
My colleague submitted amendments based on the concept
that democracy is the only valid system of government. We in
the Bloc Quebecois believe that democracy is sacred. It is the
only system we accept and practice, and we uphold its
principles. The aim of democracy is to promote the public good.
In a real democracy, governments are elected to manage the
country's assets in the best interests of its citizens.
The aim of a genuine democracy is to ensure that all citizens
have a chance to pursue their dream of individual happiness. In a
democracy, this dream of individual happiness and success
could be called the DIH. Today, the only thing that counts for
this government is the GDP, the Gross Domestic Product or
whatever contributes to the well-being of the financial
community, the lobbyists, wolves whose only purpose in life is
to feed on helpless sheep.
In a democracy, we all have the right to express our opinions.
We have the right to promote and defend our interests, but we do
not have the right to do so at the expense of our fellow citizens.
However, that is exactly what is happening, and that is why
public confidence in our institutions has hit a new low.
Lobbyists for the financial sector manage to get government
contracts through secret negotiations. They manage to influence
government policy to further their own interests.
A good example is the fact that the wealthy in this country
hardly pay any income tax. The rich can set up family trusts and
avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The reason for this is
simple: they have access to government and they use their
influence. Our democracy is no longer being run by a group of
individuals who have been elected to serve the community. It is
governed in the utmost secrecy behind closed doors and on the
sly.
We in the Bloc Quebecois agree with the need to restore
people's faith in their institutions. I also believe that many of my
colleagues opposite feal the same way, but I think the
government is not willing to do the job. Since its election, the
government has not been particularly transparent. A number of
matters hint at the possibility of there being determinant outside
influence, such as the matter of the Pearson airport in Toronto,
for example.
However, what finally convinced me about the government's
lack of willingness was the $400 a plate dinner in Montreal on
May 3 given by the Liberal Party of Canada. You will never
convince me that only Liberal partisans were involved. There
surely were lobbyists there as well. Rest assured, Mr. Speaker,
however, that there was no one, not even a Liberal, from
Sainte-Irène, and there were no fishermen from Grosse-Roche.
The people clearly remember the promises in the red book, but
government leaders seem to have forgotten them.
(1040)
If Bill C-43 were improved, it might mean greater
transparency. A stronger bill, one with teeth, could at least
increase public confidence somewhat. This was the aim of the
amendments proposed by my colleague for
Berthier-Montcalm.
In the case of the ethics counsellor, we in the Bloc propose
that the person be accountable to the House of Commons, like
the auditor general. The ethics counsellor must be independent
and have his or her hands free to act, otherwise he or she would
be subject to lobbyist influence. It would be a complete waste of
time to appoint an ethics counsellor who could be influenced by
outside forces. Such a gesture could only increase the mistrust
of people for their own institutions.
Moreover, we recommend that there be only one category of
lobbyists. Why differentiate? A lobbyist is an individual who,
12242
on behalf of a group or a company, tries to influence the
government. Are some motives more commendable than others?
Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.
Lobbyists do not seek to improve the well-being of the
community, they are hired to defend particular interests or to
represent interest groups. I do not believe that creating different
categories can be justified. If governing was adding up all the
interests at stake, I would understand, but in a democracy, such
is not the case. In a democracy, governing is thinking and acting
with the best interests of the community in mind, which is
contrary to private interests.
Also, we are asking that fees and meetings with senior
officials and ministers be disclosed. The public has the right to
know that information. Parliamentarians who represent
Canadians have the right to know if a senior public servant was
influenced regarding some major decisions. We talk about
accountability in the public service, but let us not forget the
notion of responsibility.
Public servants are paid by taxpayers to serve them. They are
not paid to meet the expectations of lobbyists. What is at stake
here is the credibility of the public service. Bill C-43 must
provide for the disclosure of all meetings with senior officials.
The legislation includes a code of conduct for lobbyists, but
no real means of enforcing it. This is like putting up a sign
saying ``No wolf allowed'' in front of the sheep barn. Is the
government so naive as to believe that such a sign will keep the
wolf away? Is it so naive as to believe that a mere code of
conduct with no enforcement measures will help rehabilitate our
institutions?
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to
Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. It is a
very important bill dealing with a very major problem we have.
It is important we do all we can to restore the trust that has
been lost between the voters and the politicians in Ottawa
representing them. When I think about this bill it brings to mind
the experiences I had when I was campaigning for the election. I
was absolutely shocked at the number of people with the same
response: ``Here is another politician at the door telling me what
I want to here now; however, you will go to Ottawa and do as
you're told''. I encountered that distrust and cynicism at far too
many doors. It was a disheartening experience.
The bill is a small step in the right direction to do something
about that. To reinforce what I am saying about the lack of trust
and the cynicism I want to quote from the royal commission on
electoral reform and party financing, 1992. It dealt with
political cynicism in Canada. Seventy per cent of the people
contacted responded: ``I do not think the government cares
much about what people like me think''. Seventy-nine per cent
responded: ``Generally those elected to Parliament soon lose
touch with the people''. Eight-two per cent said: ``Most
candidates in federal elections make campaign promises they
have no intention of fulfilling''. And 64 per cent said that most
members of Parliament make a lot of money misusing public
office. Those are serious observations by the people we are here
to represent. It is a very serious challenge, which we must do
something about.
(1045)
The mood of the voters was understandable. I understood
where they were coming from as I went door to door. What was
being said then has just been highlighted in the recent book, On
the Take. That cynicism, to a large degree, was justified in the
minds of the public. We are all tarred by that brush. We are
dealing with a minority that does the things that were alleged,
but it is a problem we all face and must address because we all
pay the price.
It was evident that the government understood the problem,
because in the red book it did talk the talk. Unfortunately, it has
been words up to this point and not enough action. Page 94 deals
with public trust:
Nine years of Conservative government have brought our political process
into disrepute. A Liberal government will restore public trust and confidence in
government. We will regulate the activities of lobbyists by appointing an Ethics
Counsellor. We will reform the pension plan of members of Parliament. We will
give more power to individual MPs by providing more free votes and more
authority for parliamentary committees.
I suggest that has not been happening. The government
apparently understood the problem but is somewhat reluctant to
deal with it. Some half steps have been taken, but it has not gone
nearly far enough.
If we look at members of Parliament from the voters'
perspective, whether it is real or perceived, and certainly some
of it is perceived, they look at us while they are paying higher
taxes and receiving fewer services. There are more people
unemployed and indeed under-employed. There are a lot of
young people who have skills far beyond what jobs they are
forced to take because of the economy. There is an increase in
crime, particularly among our young offenders. Our social
programs are threatened and there has been some deterioration
in them. They had no voice in Ottawa. I believe that was
manifested in the GST, where that most unpopular tax was
rammed down the throats of the Canadian people without them
having a say.
All of this resulted in 205 new members being elected to the
35th Parliament. That was a very strong message from the voters
that they were very unhappy with what had been going on here
12243
and they wanted major change. They wanted the windows and
doors open to find out more about what goes on in this place.
Those 205 new members represent a great challenge. It is a
great opportunity for us to bring about the changes that are
needed in order to restore that trust. If we want trust we have to
give trust. Things like freer votes, recall and referendum, and
Bill C-43 all lead toward that. We saw what happened to freer
votes in Bill C-68. Those Liberal members who had the courage
to stand up and vote by the wishes of their constituents were
stepped on rather heavily and removed from committees; so
much for freer votes, as was indicated in the red book.
With respect to recall, we saw what happened very early in the
life of this Parliament, when a member was thrown out of the
government. He was not good enough for the government, but
there was no opportunity for the people of that riding to do
something about the member.
There is no place for the referendum. There is still no voice
for the Canadian people in this Parliament. I think the comment
from the Prime Minister was that he found the referendum
revolting. I do not think that comment would sit well with
Canadian people, given their current mood.
As I said, Bill C-43 is a small step in the right direction. In
dealing with Bill C-43, I return to the royal commission on
electoral reform, particularly that 64 per cent of the respondents
said that most members of Parliament make a lot of money
misusing public office. It is a terrible mood that is prevailing out
there, and we have to do all we can to change that.
(1050 )
The Canadian people want a more open and transparent
process. This bill has got off to a bad start, because it is not
going far enough.
The Pearson mess has been mentioned a couple of times
already this morning. The Pearson situation is a very good
example of lobbyists and the lack of an open process. That
situation continues to deteriorate. If we review that situation, we
had a government that forced that through during the campaign,
which was wrong as far as the Canadian people were concerned.
Then the Liberals cancelled that program without having due
regard for the cost of that cancellation and indeed whether the
Pearson deal that had been struck was a good one.
In looking at that deal, one of the things they did in shutting
the doors was appoint a Liberal to do the investigation. Without
questioning whether Mr. Nixon is qualified or not, that was a
very poor choice, given the mood of the voters. It smacked of
trying to hide things from the Canadian people.
Now we find that renegotiating or taking a look at that
contract was not even an option. It has been made clear that
indeed it was a process that was started with a bias, and that did
not change. We have no idea of what might be the eventual cost
to the taxpayers. The report was accepted by the government
without one ounce of proof as to whether in fact there had been
any wrongdoing. People's names were dragged through the mud.
They were being denied the opportunity to have their day in
court. Here again this is happening behind closed doors. The
Canadian people want a more open process.
When we talk about infrastructure, the Pearson airport is
Canada's most important infrastructure and it continues to
deteriorate. Jobs could have been created in overhauling those
terminals. Indeed jobs are going to be lost in Ontario and all
across Canada because that airport is continuing to deteriorate.
One of the things that really bothered me on that Pearson deal
was the comments that were coming from the other side about
the sleaze, the corruption, and how rotten a deal it was. Yet the
government was prepared to pay $30 million to this sleaze. If
these people are half as bad as the government is making them
out to be, why would they get one nickel of taxpayers' dollars?
We were demanding that an open and public inquiry be held.
That was denied over a year ago, and reluctantly it is being
agreed to now. It is unfortunately too late, because now we are
going to have the Liberal hacks and the Conservative hacks in
the Senate deciding who is the worst in this whole affair.
A problem with Bill C-43 is that the lobbyists should be
identified by activities and not by employers. Another item is
there is a definition in the bill that the lobbyist activity should be
significant. How do we measure significant? If we go back to the
Pearson deal, there was enough potential money to be made on
that deal that you could be in once and out and be set for life. The
word significant would not have applied in the case of the
Pearson deal. The bill ignores the anti-avoidance schemes that
are there.
The appointment of the ethics counsellor is another broken
promise. On page 95 of the red book we were going to get an
ethnics counsellor who would report directly to Parliament.
Another broken promise. Another golden opportunity to restore
the confidence of the Canadian people has been lost. Having him
report through the registrar general is like having the auditor
general report through the finance minister.
Remind all members we have an opportunity, with 205 new
members, to do something to restore that level of trust and lost
confidence. Let us not lose it. Bill C-43 is a small step. We can
open it up so that it is a much larger step, taking us down the road
to a much better and more open Parliament.
12244
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak about Bill C-43, which seeks to amend the
Lobbyists Registration Act and thus, we are told, ensure greater
transparency regarding representations made to the Canadian
government by lobbyists.
(1055)
The Bloc Quebecois has always insisted on the need to
monitor the activities of those who make representations to
politicians and public servants in an attempt to influence
decisions for the benefit their clients.
The Liberals' red book is infamous, because it was their
election platform, but has become the graveyard of all their
unfulfilled commitments and promises. The red book stated that
``a Liberal government will move quickly and decisively in
several ways to address these concerns about conflicts of
interest and influence peddling''. A few weeks later, as soon as
they got to power, the Liberal government stressed in its Speech
from the Throne that ``legislation will be placed before you to
increase the transparency of the relations between lobbyists and
the Government''.
Despite the far from exemplary past of the federal Liberals in
this area, Quebecers and Canadians were ready to believe that
this was it, that this federal government was finally going to
clear out this dark corner of our political institutions and
bureaucracies. Patronage and partisan politics have fed the
public's cynicism regarding the government apparatus for much
too long now for the government to be able to restore their trust.
The 35th Parliament was given a clear mandate to change these
old ways. Canadians and Quebecers opted for change and they
elected us to defend the interests of all our fellow citizens.
Bill C-43 and the Zed report on the registration and control of
lobbyists brought Canadians and Quebecers back to the sad
reality. We have learned that the Liberals should carry a ``best
before'' date, just like dairy products.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon.
member will have the floor after Question Period.
[English]
It being eleven o'clock, we will now proceed to statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
12244
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from a trip to Burma and
Thailand. While making that trip I learned a lot about human
rights and some of the concerns the local people have.
I had an opportunity to visit the refugee camps on the
Thailand-Burma border, where there are more than 90,000
Burmese Karens on the border. One of the major concerns they
had was the security problem of the military government, the
SLORC from Burma, attacking them. More recently I have
learned that some of the camps I did visit in fact were attacked
and more than 200 houses were burned down.
I made these concerns known to the ambassador of Thailand
and to our foreign affairs people.
I would urge this House and all my colleagues to continue to
put the pressure on to ensure that the refugees along the
Thailand-Burma border are secure and that the Thailand
government gets the security it deserves.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
speaking in the House on Tuesday, the federal Minister of
Fisheries admitted that his plan for managing snow crab in 1995
changed the historic shares of the provinces, but he maintained
that the measure would be temporary, just for this year.
This is a complete contradiction of a statement made by his
secretary of state in Shediac on April 23, which indicated that
the plan might be extended as long as the snow crab biomass
remained stable.
Because of this measure, Quebec will lose 400 tonnes of crab
and 40 factory jobs, while fishermen in the Gaspé and the
Magdalen Islands will lose three million dollars in income. And
the minister has the nerve to claim that his decision is fair to
Quebec fishermen.
We are beginning to understand why the federal government
insists on maintaining its right to manage fish quotas and
continues to ignore Quebec's demands. Quebec fishermen, who
are caught in the middle, are feeling the impact of this policy
and are not about to forget it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pleasure and pride that I say these words today.
I was moved by the ceremonies performed today across
Europe in recognition of war's end and especially to remember
Canada's role with the allies in the liberation of Europe. The
news coverage revealed the incredible feelings of hospitality,
12245
thankfulness and warm affection these people feel for
Canadians.
To see the Canadian flag waving, to hear the cordial words
from their youth, to participate in the prayers in their churches,
to see the bloom of flowers on every street and city square made
me, and I am sure all Canadians, even more proud of our heroes
and country. It is this that shows us the true bond that exists
between our nation and our people with the former allies
overseas. We should all pause to consider how fortunate we are
that we inherited and formed these bonds as a result of the
sacrifices our fighters made in defending freedom.
It is moments like these we should dwell on to put into true
perspective our lasting relations with our friends across the seas.
Today in Canada we feel truly proud and grateful that God has
blessed us and our country with such history and friends.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal government has chosen to close Canadian forces
base Chilliwack, a decision which many people in British
Columbia regard as unwise.
I received a letter bearing thousands of signatures requesting
that the government keep the base open. A public rally was held
a few weeks ago, the weekend before the minister visited the
base. Unfortunately the minister stated that the decision to close
CFB Chilliwack was carved in stone, although both civilian and
military personnel have posed questions about the closure that
remain unanswered.
If this decision is final, it means that the government must
now participate with the local committee to plan the transition.
It must provide clear information on the timing and disposition
of both personnel and facilities at the base as soon as possible.
The closure of CFB Chilliwack means the loss of over $100
million to our area. Now that the government's position is clear,
it is time to begin working with the community to minimize the
disruption to our local economy and to the thousands of families
affected by this unfortunate closure.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week we celebrated the fight against illiteracy in Canada. As
someone who has been involved in this issue for a number of
years, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate all the
non-profit organizations, school boards and people involved in
the issue of illiteracy from coast to coast.
Members will know that illiteracy costs Canada about $10
billion a year in lost productivity. To business alone it costs
about $4 billion a year. That is quite appalling.
The initiative the government has taken on the issue is
commendable. I take this opportunity to congratulate the
minister responsible for literacy in the other place as well as the
minister of human resources for their initiatives.
I hope that by the year 2002, we will have a literacy perfect
society, whereby everybody will have a chance to read and write
as they should be doing.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we often refer to our youth as the future of our country.
The majority of young Canadians are ambitious, intelligent,
hard working and caring citizens, including the students from
the Carleton North high school choir, those participating in the
forum for young Canadians and the adventures and citizenship
students, all of whom are visiting Parliament Hill this week.
Our youth are learning Canadian values that will enable them
to grow into the leaders of tomorrow, who will protect others
who are not as fortunate as they are, while providing every
opportunity for those who follow them to flourish in the best
possible environment.
Today I salute tomorrow's leaders, thank them for what they
have done for Canada today and for what they will do in the
future to ensure Canada remains a united and strong country to
be envied throughout the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in an article that appeared in the Quebec media, former
Senator Claude Castonguay, the father of health insurance in
Quebec and former health minister, gave a very clear analysis of
the state of our health care system and the future of the system.
According to Mr. Castonguay, the federal government's
withdrawal from health care funding is a major threat to the
survival of our health care system.
(1105)
Still according to Mr. Castonguay, despite this withdrawal,
the federal government continues to act like an inflexible
regulatory agency and dogmatically enforces the standards of
the system. By calling the shots without sharing the costs, the
federal government puts the provinces in an almost impossible
situation. To us, it is clear that the only way to guarantee the
12246
survival of our health care system is for the federal government
to withdraw, with full financial compensation for the provinces.
The Bloc Quebecois continues to say, loud and clear, that the
provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over health care.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country of many cultures and
languages. Our diversity strengthens and enriches us. In Canada
we have values of respect for one another and accommodation of
our differences. In Canada we do not have to be the same as
everyone else. We do not all have to have the same roots or the
same mother tongue to be Canadian, to love this country and to
work for its betterment.
My mother tongue, Inuktitut, has been spoken in this country
for thousands of years, long before European languages were
spoken here. Along with other aboriginal languages, Inuktitut is
an original language of Canada. Inuktitut belongs in the House
of Commons.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
present the fourth instalment of the Liberals copy Reform
awards.
Today's lucky winner is the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood, who last Monday stated: ``If we do not
have total tax reform in the House in about 25 or 30 months from
now, I agree with the people who say we will hit the wall when it
comes to our deficit and debt''.
In those words, I see a member who is frustrated and lonely
because his party is not supporting tax reform in Canada. It is a
party that in one year in the name of simplicity has added 1,288
pages to the Income Tax Act.
Canada's tax system is out of control. It takes too much
money from hard working Canadians who earn it and gives it to
high spending politicians on that side of the House who blow it
on pensions, on junkets, on programs like TAGS.
Reformers believe in a flat tax. It is supported by our entire
party, unlike the Liberal member who is truly a lone wolf, whose
unanswered howls for tax reform echo through the halls of
Parliament.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday, May 8 Canadians will be commemorating
the 50th anniversary of V-E Day.
I am honoured to rise today to pay tribute to our veterans. I am
especially proud to recognize the many veterans who live in my
riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants. I look forward to joining
them on Monday to commemorate this momentous occasion.
For our military personnel, for our merchant marines, for our
medical teams that worked on the front lines and for all those
Canadians who contributed to the home front I am sure I speak
for all my colleagues when I offer my deepest gratitude for their
sacrifices.
On this occasion, I ask all Canadians to stop and reflect, to say
a prayer of thanks for those who risked their lives and for those
who died to preserve freedom. We are truly indebted to all of
them.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the grade 5
students of William E. Brown Elementary School in the village
of Wainfleet in my riding of Erie ask that the government ban the
use of lead shot in Canada.
Lead shot is used for hunting waterfowl, upland game birds,
small mammals and for trap or skeet shooting. This results in
4,125 tonnes of lead being discharged into the Canadian
environment each year. Lead is a highly poisonous metal that
when ingested by birds or animals as they forage for food leads
to a slow and agonizing death, a death that is totally
unnecessary.
The use of lead shot is one more source of environmental
contamination that is unacceptable, especially when there are
non-toxic alternatives available, such as bismuth shot. It is my
understanding that lead shot has already been banned in the
United States and some European countries and that some
non-toxic shot zones have been established in our own country.
I ask the Minister of the Environment to ban the use of lead
shot throughout Canada. Let us follow the lead of these students
by thinking globally and acting locally. Preserve our wildlife,
simply ban led shot.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according
to information received recently from the Conference Board, the
job situation in Canada is of major concern to consumers and
business people.
12247
In the world of business, 38 per cent of managers foresee an
upturn in the economy in the coming six months, as opposed to
64 per cent last year. Fewer than one third of consumers in
Canada consider this a good time to make major purchases.
(1110)
Only 16 per cent of consumers think there will be more jobs in
their community in the next six months, whereas, at the end of
last year, 26 per cent of consumers felt there would.
Confidence in Canada's economy is shrinking daily, despite
what the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance are saying. The
Prime Minister should look at what is going on around him. Has
he spoken recently to any of the millions of Canadians reduced
to unemployment insurance and welfare?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently had the pleasure of meeting with one of my
constituents, Mr. Richard Aihoshi, who represents the Epilepsy
Association of Metro Toronto.
Having personal experience with persons affected by epilepsy
I know the true nature of this disorder which has long been
distorted by myth and fear. Epilepsy is a physical disorder; it is
not a disease.
People with epilepsy can and do lead full, productive and
accomplished lives. Alexander the Great, Richard Burton,
Alfred Nobel and Agatha Christie all lived with epilepsy.
I therefore congratulate the Epilepsy Association in metro
Toronto. We must all do our part to better understand the
280,000 Canadians that live with this disorder.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this coming Monday marks the 50th anniversary of
V-E Day. Under the banner ``Canada Remembers'' Canadians
will spend that day paying tribute to those Canadian soldiers
who fought for their country in the second world war.
However the ``Canada Remembers'' slogan has a somewhat
hollow ring. Many civilians contributed much to the war effort,
at great risk to themselves, but have been largely forgotten. One
such group was RAF Ferry Command to which I would like to
pay tribute. Ferry Command was a group of determined civilian
pilots who delivered more than 10,000 planes to the battle zones
of Europe and Asia.
Ferry Command began in November 1940 when pilots from
Canadian Pacific Air Services ferried seven Lockheed Hudsons
non-stop across the Atlantic and continued their work for the
duration of the war. Their casualty rate was a significant 20 per
cent.
I would like to ask all members in the House today to take a
moment to remember the brave men and women of Ferry
Command.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I had the pleasure of welcoming the 223rd Girl Guides of
Mississauga to the House of Commons. I also had the great
honour to present heritage badges to 18 of these special young
ladies who had fulfilled the requirements, namely about their
own heritage and about the natural and cultural heritage of
Canada.
On this very special occasion I would like to publicly
congratulate the honourees on their wonderful achievements.
I would also like to pay special tribute to the Girl Guides and
their volunteer group leaders all across Canada for their very
special contribution to their communities and to Canada which,
as the Prime Minister has said so often, is a proud, generous,
prosperous and tolerant nation, the best country in the world.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
will come a point when the entire Pearson mess will crash and
Canadians will be left to pick up the pieces of the wreckage. It is
a sad day in Canadian history when patronage heaven decides to
clear the stench over Pearson with Tory and Liberal hacks
investigating a patronage affair.
Accusations fly between the two while the airport remains in a
holding pattern. Canada's most important piece of infrastructure
continues to deteriorate.
Reformers called for an impartial judicial inquiry over a year
ago. Canadian taxpayers, as always, are stuck with the cheque
and they want some answers. Instead, a year has passed and the
Liberal government provides Canadians with a partial,
patronage based inquiry without a single elected official,
members of the family compact investigating members of the
family compact.
Canadians deserve better government than this. It is time to
rebuild; it is time to reform. We must not delay the development
of Pearson, the crown jewel of our transportation system.
12248
12248
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Industry stubbornly refused to admit
that Bill C-88 gives the federal government extraordinary
powers that go far beyond the scope of the internal trade
agreement.
Now that he has read his bill and his officials have informed
him of the scope of the provisions of C-88 on the government's
retaliatory powers, could the Minister of Industry confirm that
the federal government is giving itself, among other things, the
power to cut transfer payments to any province that fails to
comply with the internal trade agreement?
(1115)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken once again. If he would
read the bill, he will see the following, and I quote:
-pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may,
by order-
In order to understand the bill, the member will have to read
the entire agreement on internal trade.
Had he read it, he might understand that the federal
government's power in this area is very limited and applies only
in the case of provincial discrimination against a company
because of its federal status. Then there has to be a hearing
before a committee to resolve the dispute and then another for
the company and then the province involved has to refuse to
implement the terms of the agreement.
The only provision then is that all parties must comply with
the agreement. There is nothing like what the member for
Roberval has suggested.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can
the Minister of Industry continue to deny that Bill C-88 gives
the federal government excessive powers, when no less than the
executive director of the Internal Trade Secretariat himself, Bob
Knox, says that Bill C-88 enables the government to use
whatever retaliatory measures it deems appropriate in any
sector?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I put the question to Mr. Knox this morning and he told
me that the reporter had completely misunderstood him, which
is not surprising. I can read the provisions of the agreement to
the hon. member if he wants me to. I would like to stress this
point because the federal government is very seldom in a
position to intervene in a dispute. This applies only to those
companies that are subject to action because they are federally
regulated.
If this takes place after every other recourse provided for in
the agreement has been exhausted, then the government may
suspend the application of certain provisions with respect to a
province, but on the following conditions: benefits must be
suspended or retaliatory measures imposed in the same sector as
the measure considered inconsistent with the agreement;
moreover, benefits may be suspended or retaliatory measures
may be imposed in other sectors covered by the agreement only
when it would be impractical or ineffective to suspend such
benefits or impose such measures.
It is strictly limited those sectors covered by the agreement.
So there is no problem.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): No, Mr. Speaker,
there are no problems. There are never any problems with the
federal government. The minister has just told us that the
journalist misunderstood. Yet, I quoted Mr. Knox's statement
verbatim.
You know, if we are to believe the Minister of Industry, the
opposition never understands, the opposition's legal advisers do
not understand, and the same goes for Mr. Knox and the
journalist. According to him, nobody ever understands
anything, except him.
Mr. Loubier: He is the only one who understands.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: He is the only one who is marching in step.
(1120)
I will ask him a third question and I hope that, this time, we
will agree on a possible answer. How can the provinces trust the
federal government when none other than the senior strategic
adviser with the Internal Trade Secretariat, John Richardson,
admitted that the bill goes further than the agreement? That is
what Mr. Richardson himself said.
How can we trust a partner who, at the first opportunity,
betrays his signature and clearly exceeds the terms of an
agreement?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me again try to explain to the hon. member. The
provisions of the bill are limited by the agreement on internal
trade. That is the case in the wording of clause 9 of the bill. It is
the same wording as applies in the implementing legislation for
the World Trade Organization and NAFTA. It is normal
wording.
The agreement limits very specifically the occasions when the
federal government is involved in a dispute resolution. Most of
the agreement on internal trade has to do with regulating
disputes between provinces. Only in the rare case where a
company is discriminated against because of its federal status or
because it is federally regulated would the federal government
be involved in the process of dispute resolution which starts first
12249
with consultation, second with the appointment of a panel, and
then the resolution of the dispute by the panel.
If the dispute were resolved in favour of the federal
government, if the province refused to take the measures that
were dictated by the panel, if a year passed without that
happening and further consultation did not occur, then possibly
the federal government could withhold benefits in the sectors
concerned with the dispute or the sectors involved in the
agreement on internal trade.
This does not at all pertain to the issues of health and social
transfers raised by the hon. member in his first question. It is
ridiculous.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry. The Canadian
provinces and the federal government agreed on the terms of an
agreement on interprovincial trade. The federal government is
now using Bill C-88 to give itself powers that were never
discussed during negotiations or when the agreement was
signed.
How does the Minister of Industry, who claims to be
co-operating with the provinces, to be a reliable partner and to
act openly, explain that at no time was the Quebec government,
or the Ontario government, for that matter, ever consulted on
Bill C-88?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. The ministers responsible
for internal trade met in Calgary a few weeks ago. Together with
the other ministers responsible, I announced at the time that this
bill would be tabled in the House of Commons after the Easter
break.
I repeat that there is nothing in the bill, that it is simply not
possible for the bill to contain provisions that go further than the
agreement itself. It is certainly possible for us to implement the
internal trade agreement, to table in the House of Commons a
bill applying only to the measures included in the agreement
without going any further.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
once again, we did not get it. Why is it that the Minister of
Industry is the only one who understands? We have been told
that he is the only one who does understand.
How can the Minister of Industry continue to claim that Bill
C-88 complies with the Agreement on Internal Trade,
considering that the two senior officials responsible for its
implementation maintain that the legislation goes beyond the
scope of the agreement?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can do no more than refer the member to the bill and
ask him to read its terms so that he can see the provision about
which he complains states:
For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of
equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement,
(1125 )
The provisions of the bill are limited by the agreement. I
regret that words spoken by officials were taken out of context
and misquoted, I might add, by a journalist. I am sure it has
never happened to the hon. member. I would like to emphasize
the importance of reading the bill before the House.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Hughes Aircraft of Canada received a government
contract to modernize our air traffic control system at a cost of
almost $420 million. The system is already 15 months late and
now we have learned that Hughes is looking for as much as $400
million more of taxpayers' money to complete the job.
The Minister of Transport expressed his dissatisfaction with
the delay and said that there would be a limit to the amount of
money the government was willing to add to the contract. The
government should not add anything to the deal. It was a fixed
price contract and Hughes should deliver.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he assure
Canadians that not one more dime of public money will be given
to Hughes Aircraft?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated in response to a question yesterday, the
government is very concerned about the matter to which my hon.
friend refers. We are in the process of negotiations now with
Hughes.
The system should become a very important element in the air
navigation system for Canada. We have serious reservations
about the way the project has been managed and the problems to
which my friend refers in terms of delivery and cost.
I do not want to prejudice the negotiations by doing it in
public, but I want to assure my hon. friend that we are very
sensitive to the potential for cost overruns. We want to make
sure the system functions well. We will do everything in our
power to try to protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers in the
matter.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Hughes officials informed top level officials of
Transport Canada last month that they could not meet the terms
of the
12250
original contract but were willing to deliver a scaled down
version for an extra $150 million.
The Minister of Transport, however, told the House that
Hughes officials had assured him the project was on target and
within budget. This makes me wonder whether or not the
government would have quietly given Hughes more money if the
deal had not been made public.
When did the government learn of Hughes' inability to meet
the original terms of the contract and why was the House not
informed of this serious matter?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I regret the implication in the hon. member's question
that somehow we have been remiss in responding to the
problems.
As I indicated in my response yesterday, immediately that I
became aware there was a problem with the contract I not only
advised the deputy minister of my concerns but I also advised
the Auditor General of Canada and asked him to look into it.
Further, my reference to the comfort that we received from
Hughes with respect to delivery on time and the cost provisions I
said was made several months ago, quite some time ago in a
meeting in my office with the principal officers of the company
responsible for delivering on the contract. They had assured me
at that time that the difficulties had been overcome and they
were confident of being able to meet the terms of the contract.
I want to say in fairness to all the parties involved that these
types of very complex and technological contracts often are
subject to some change and modification as the technology
evolves. However this particular situation is unacceptable to the
Government of Canada and we intend to protect the interests of
Canadian taxpayers to the extent we can.
I know the hon. member is very fond of contracts being
honoured in view of his support for the Pearson airport contract.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I just love it that the minister raised the question of my
favourite subject.
The government has been quite willing to cancel contracts
including those with Andersen Consulting, Micronav
International, and, yes, the Pearson airport contract.
Hughes Aircraft has only delivered a meagre 10 per cent of its
promised contract. Now it states that it cannot meet the original
terms of the deal and will only produce a scaled down version of
the air traffic control system if it gets more public money.
I have a supplementary question. Why will the government
not cancel the Hughes contract immediately? Not one more cent
of Canadian money should be wasted.
(1130 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, those who are following the Pearson saga will know the
hon. member was quoted in a major article this week as having
succumbed to the arguments of those who keep whispering in his
ear about the propriety of the Pearson contract, and he now
supports it. Who knows, given a couple of weeks he could even
come around and support the Hughes contract.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A few weeks ago, the government announced that there would
be an inquiry to shed light on the behaviour of Canadian
peacekeepers in Somalia.
This morning, we learned that, on the advice of his lawyers,
the Minister of National Defence has ordered that no document
relating to the inquiry is to be made available to the media and
the public under the Access to Information Act.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain her
government's refusal to give access to the documents which
relate to the inquiry on the behaviour of Canadian soldiers in
Somalia?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a recommendation
was made by the Judge Advocate General. The government has
yet to make a decision in that respect.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
hope that decision will not take as long as the setting up of a
board of inquiry.
How does the Deputy Prime Minister reconcile this refusal to
give access to information with the government's claim that it
wants to shed light on the events which took place in Somalia?
What is the government trying to hide by acting in this way?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat it in
case the member did not get it the first time.
The Judge Advocate General has made a recommendation
about the issue of access to information. There has been some
discussion among the commissioners, including former
journalist Peter Desbarats who is of the public view that further
informal links of information may put the inquiry in some
difficulty.
12251
We are at the moment examining the issue and we have not
made a decision. We obviously want the inquiry into the
Conservative handling of the Somalia affair to be as thorough
and as public as possible. We do not want it to turn into an O. J.
Simpson style circus. We will do everything we can to make sure
public access to all information is available to everyone.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the Deputy Prime Minister's
statement in response to the Bloc's question. I listened carefully
and it is not adequate for me.
In my opinion the Canadian public is entitled to the
information, and the democratic process is being violated by
this blocking of the Access to Information Act.
If we consider the continued refusal to release information at
the request of the commissioners we understand were appointed
to conduct the inquiry, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain in
simple terms why she believes Canadians' right to this
information can be subverted in this way?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member obviously
prepared his question before he listened to my previous answer.
My previous answer was quite clear. There is a
recommendation by the Judge Advocate General on the issue of
information. We have not made a decision on that
recommendation.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Judge Advocate General is not the be all and end all
of the legal process in Canada. He may be for the Department of
National Defence but he is not for Canadians at large.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to rethink the answer, leaving
out the Judge Advocate General and including someone else in
authority.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I
can be more clear.
There has been a recommendation made by the Judge
Advocate General. The government has not as yet made a
decision about that recommendation.
We will very shortly obviously review the views of the
commissioners, some of whom have concern about the
possibility of tandem inquiries taking place, a la O. J. Simpson.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Over the years, Canadians and Quebecers have invested
billions of dollars to develop and maintain Canada's railway
system in the past century. Now the government is getting ready
to privatize Canadian National without guaranteeing Canadian
ownership.
(1135)
How does the Minister of Transport justify the fact that his
proposed privatization of CN contains no restriction on foreign
ownership and thus no guarantee that CN will remain under
Canadian control?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I intend to present a bill at the end of question period. It
would not be appropriate for me to comment on the hon.
member's question before we table the bill.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will talk about this bill anyway because I feel it is
very important.
An hon. member: It has not even been tabled yet.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, my second question is a
supplementary that I would urge the minister to answer this
time.
Does the Minister of Transport not agree that limiting to 15
per cent, under this bill, the number of CN shares that an
individual or group may own does not seem to do much to
protect the substantial financial contribution the taxpayers of
Quebec and Canada have made over the years to CN's
development? If he has no objections, I would like him to
explain.
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect, if anybody should be embarrassed
in here it is the hon. member who has betrayed a confidence of
the House.
We were kind enough to provide for a lock-up to discuss
legislation that would be brought before all my colleagues in the
House at the same time. I thank the members of the Reform
Party for their honour and integrity to respect those
arrangements.
I deplore that a member who was given a privilege of this
nature would abuse it in the way the member just has.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister responsible for Public Service
Renewal.
Workers who have been declared surplus deserve the first
crack at any job they can seize in the public service. Last year a
regional director in the Department of Health cancelled a job
competition in order to hire someone he knew personally under
an employment equity program called ``Options''.
12252
Surplus employees watched helplessly as their applications
were ignored in favour of an employment equity application.
We have been assured the best qualified persons are allowed
to compete for jobs in the public service. Are employment
equity programs being used to bypass this important principle?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, no. Our equity programs are not there to create the
type of result mentioned.
I can only reaffirm we use the merit principle in the public
service as our basic principle. I will investigate the facts of the
case mentioned to see if they fit with our principles.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will give a few more facts. The person who was hired for the job
happens to be the daughter of the regional director of the
Department of Health. Not only was employment equity used to
bypass the merit principle but apparently it was also used to hire
a close relative.
Any program that does not demand the hiring of the best
qualified is open to manipulation. The government plans to
expand employment equity programs throughout the public
service. The people of Canada do not want that; the public
service does not want that and surplus employees certainly
deserve a lot better.
Why does the government not cancel this program right now?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, even if the facts of the case are as indicated, and we
will check on it, this would not be a reason to cancel the
employment equity principle.
It is a principle that we basically believe which permits all
Canadians, whatever their origin, colour or religion, to have the
same treatment in the public service. It is fundamental to a well
functioning government and a well functioning society. We will
keep it as the basis for our public service.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last week, the President of the Treasury Board refused in this
House to answer a question on the working language of federal
employees, preferring to talk about the services provided to the
public instead. This week, a report released by the
Commissioner of Official Languages shows that only 44 per
cent of francophone federal employees in the Ottawa-Hull area
are able to work in French most of the time, when they are not
dealing with public inquiries.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister not see in the fact that
only 44 per cent of francophone federal employees in the
national capital region are able to work in French a bitter failure
of institutional bilingualism?
(1140)
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the President of
the Treasury Board, I can assure my hon. colleague that the
President of the Treasury Board and the government are doing
all they can to make sure that bilingualism policies are enforced.
On the specifics of her question, the President of the Treasury
Board will be able to provide an answer as soon as he returns to
the House.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages also
confirmed that the French language is almost never used in
written communications between public servants in the national
capital region. I would like the parliamentary secretary to
enlighten me on that as well.
How can he tolerate the fact that, in the federal capital, only
one French speaking employee out of ten is allowed to write in
French?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that, upon
his return, the President of the Treasury Board will be able to
provide an appropriate answer to the hon. member's question.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the
Environment.
[English]
Last week before the House committee on environment and
sustainable development, Canada's Wildlife Service and
various groups including the Canadian Museum of Nature, the
Grand Council of Crees in Quebec, the Canadian Nature
Federation, the Porcupine caribou herd management board and
the Sierra Legal Defence Fund made representations detailing
the impact human actions have on the lives and habitat of
wildlife and many species of flora.
12253
Can the minister indicate when her legislation to protect the
endangered species of wildlife and flora will be introduced into
the House?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for the question.
I certainly thank the endangered species coalition which has
not only encouraged the federal government to introduce
framework legislation but has also encouraged at least four
provinces that previously did not have endangered species
legislation to proceed with their own legislation.
Quebec currently has legislation. There are other provinces
coming on board. We hope to have plain language legislation
ready for tabling in June, followed by a formalized legislative
bill in September.
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is moving ahead
with her plans to ban MMT, a gasoline additive.
The minister will not use federal environmental laws to ban
the substance because she cannot. There is no independent
evidence to prove MMT harms Canadians, the environment or
cars in Canada. If the minister bans MMT without
environmental laws she will likely find herself defending the
ban under the laws governing free trade.
Considering the legal difficulties of an arbitrary ban of MMT,
why is the minister still moving ahead with the ban?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency banned MMT in 1977. Since
that time the Ethyl Corporation has consistently tried to turn
around the ban by court case after court case, which has and
continues to fail.
I advise the hon. member that last week when I had the
opportunity of speaking with Carol Browner, head of the EPA,
she reaffirmed the U.S. commitment not to allow MMT. She
decried the fact that there is only one country, Canada, that still
allows MMT. We intend to change that.
Instead of being the mouthpiece for a particular industry, the
hon. member should be concerned that Canadians across the
country run the risk of having to pay $3,000 more for their
automobiles next year if we do not get MMT out of gasoline.
We intend to do so. We intend to show the leadership the
previous government did not show. Canadians will be happy
with the result.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party supports curtailing toxic
substances but only on the basis of reliable evidence. We do not
choose sides in this matter. We just want some proof. The
minister appears to be deciding for political reasons rather than
science.
How can the minister support an arbitrary ban of MMT
without impartial evidence and especially without the support of
the Minister of Natural Resources?
(1145 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would point out that
any cabinet decision to move on MMT is supported by all
ministers of the government. I would further point out that if the
member is looking for evidence, he can look at the evidence
which was tabled before the environment department by
Chrysler, Ford and GM. All of them have suggested that at the
moment the failure rate for Canadian spark plugs is 17 times
higher than that of the United States because we have MMT and
it does not.
If this member is not interested in protecting Canadian
consumers and cleaning up Canadian air, this government is,
and collectively we are going to do that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the heritage minister.
For several weeks, residents of Hull and Ottawa have been
waiting with baited breath for Cabinet to decide which city shall
be selected to bid for the 2005 World Fair. In its report, a
committee set up by the heritage minister recently
recommended Calgary as the host city for this event.
How can the heritage minister explain this long delay in
processing applications by Calgary and the federal capital and
when will a cabinet decision finally be announced concerning
the selection of one city as a potential host for Expo 2005?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is,
indeed, an important question. We are in the process of
reviewing Canada's participation in a major world fair.
Consultations have to be conducted and that is what I am doing
in conjunction with my colleagues. I hope that we will have an
announcement to make very soon.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given the fact that more than a third of the 45,000 public service
jobs that will be cut as a result of the budget are in the federal
capital region and that, according to the report tabled by his
committee, this region would receive greater support than
Calgary both in Canada and abroad, does the minister not agree
12254
that the federal capital should be the logical and unanimous
choice of cabinet?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see that our colleague has a message for us,
and I take good note of it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we should not yet panic about the unfortunate but
strong and distinct signs of economic slowdown. However, we
should be prepared for it to continue since Canada's record high
real interest rates are sure to keep consumers from buying cars,
homes and other durables.
My question for the Minister of Finance is how much
economic slowdown and resultant reduced tax revenues can
Canada take before the contingency reserve in his budget is
exhausted and he will miss the deficit target he has vowed to
meet?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
has made some interesting points.
I point out to him however that our interest rate levels are
below the levels that were in the budget. Economic growth is
running in the first two months of this year at about 5 per cent
above last year's numbers. Our deficit numbers are very much
on target. The contingency reserves are not in any sense
endangered by the present economic slowdown.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not believe this slowdown was in any of the
models. It had never been put into the forecast about economic
growth in the future. It comes as a total surprise.
The coming economic slowdown will cause higher
unemployment. This will surely cause members of the Liberal
cabinet and caucus to increase their resistance to spending cuts,
cuts which they could not get themselves to approve during last
year's boom.
Given the likely political resistance to essential spending
cuts, will the minister support Reform's proposed balanced
budget legislation which has been used in many other
jurisdictions to protect taxpayers from shortsighted and selfish
actions of politicians?
(1150 )
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite possible
for the hon. member to gather economic statistics that are
negative. However, there are a lot of positive things as well.
The member talks about slowing employment. Let me remind
him that over the last 12 months 338,000 new jobs have been
created in this country. The rate of GDP has been expanding.
Exports were up 25 per cent in the first part of this year. Our
deficit numbers for last year came in well below our target
numbers.
If the hon. member's question was whether or not we would
support his balanced budget amendment, the answer is no.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Training and Youth.
Recently, the Minister of Human Resources Development
created a human resources investment fund in order to focus on
employment priorities. In addition, 11 pilot projects directly
related to job creation and the human resources investment fund
were recently launched in Quebec.
Can the Secretary of State tell us about the objectives of the
investment fund and about the link between the 11 pilot projects
and this revolutionary investment fund?
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for Outremont for making the announcement in Quebec
several weeks ago.
We are putting in place 70 pilot projects across Canada, 11 of
which are in Quebec. These are new, innovative CECs that will
deliver a simplified and more flexible set of re-employment
measures. This is an indication of where this government wants
to go with the new human resources investment fund.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian
Heritage. In the last budget, the Minister of Finance announced
an 8 per cent cut, over a three year period, to the postal program
designed to subsidize the distribution of magazines and
publications in Quebec and in Canada.
How does the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain that his
officials indicated to Canadian publishers that the cut affecting
the postal program was 24 per cent over 13 months, instead of 8
per cent over three years, as announced in the budget?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will check with my officials. This is
obviously a very important issue for the magazine industry. As I
12255
said before in this House, we are considering ways of changing
the financial support we give that industry in order to ensure that
it continues to flourish.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, one change is the fact that the program had a
budget of $220 million in 1990, compared to $77 million this
year. How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who claims to
be the protector of the Canadian publishing industry, justify
such drastic cuts to a program so vital for publishers?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should realize that we are
in a period of fiscal austerity. Obviously, the fiscal restraint
announced in the budget will have consequences. However, as I
just said, we are currently looking at ways of readjusting our
programs to avoid any adverse effect on that important industry.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is official. We have received a memo from OHIP stating that as
of this April the federal government and not the provincial
health plan will be paying for the costs of any health services
consumed by people who are applying for refugee status,
including I presume those refugee claimants with AIDS.
My question is for the Minister of Health. How is it that the
federal government can afford to pick up the tab for tens of
thousands of refugee claimants while simultaneously cutting
funding for Canadians?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for a long
time we have heard the opinions of the Reform Party with regard
to refugees and immigrants to Canada.
(1155 )
This government believes in health care for all Canadians. We
believe in health care for people who come to this country. We
do not cut people off and leave them to be sick in the streets.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
because of Canada's bizarre appeal system for failed refugee
claimants, many stay in the system for years without
determination. By not funding health care for these people,
Ontario expects to save an incredible $32 million which the
federal government will now have to pay.
I ask the minister of immigration when will the government
put Canadians first and reconsider the provision of expensive
medical services for failed refugee claimants who are filing
appeal after appeal just to avoid legal deportation?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
of immigration has announced a number of reforms to the
immigration system. We have announced a number of changes
to the Immigration and Refugee Board. It is a shame that the
hon. member cannot see his way clear from time to time to
support these changes and reforms, as well as to support such
bills as Bill C-41.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Today we learned of another astonishing initiative taken by
this government, the privatization of CN and as we learned
earlier presumably with no limit on foreign ownership.
When we consider this alongside the abandoning of the Crow
rate, the reduced support for health care, post-secondary
education, social programs, cultural programs and I could go on,
this government is beginning to make Brian Mulroney's Tories
look very good.
When we look at what this government has done over the last
18 months, what is it that is Liberal about this Liberal
government?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I regret that the hon. member's rose coloured glasses
are not working today.
Many of the initiatives which have been undertaken by the
department for which I am responsible have been very well
received. I am astounded that the hon. member does not
recognize the tremendous support in his province, for example,
for the policies on international air routes and the bilateral
agreements with the United States.
When the merger talks went on with Canadian Pacific and the
offer from Canadian Pacific to buy the assets of CN in the east,
everyone in the west wanted to make sure we had a national,
viable, transcontinental railroad. That is what the purpose of all
of this legislation will be: to make sure we have a strong railroad
network in this country. That certainly is Liberal policy.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 17 this House will debate a motion which recommends that
we develop and pursue new initiatives to deal with the serious
problems related to the underground economy. While the size of
the underground economy is not certain, most agree that it is
significant enough that we should pursue all reasonable steps to
break the back of the underground economy.
My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Given
the broad concern that many Canadians have about the preva-
12256
lence of the underground economy, would the minister advise
the House of what commitments the government has taken to
address the serious problem of the underground economy?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that in the week when
people have to file their taxes a question like this should come
up.
I assure the hon. member and this House that the measures
undertaken three weeks after this government took office are
bearing fruit. We are succeeding in reducing the scope of the
underground economy through a number of measures, in
particular of course with greater enforcement.
We have done this in co-operation with the provinces. We
now have agreements with every province in the country. We
exchange information, carry out joint orders, work with them.
We have agreements with the professional and trade
associations in areas of particularly high non-compliance so
that we can use the industries themselves.
I can assure the hon. member that the result of this has been a
very substantial increase in the revenues coming to the
government. I would like to point out that in the last month for
which we have figures, revenues are up over 8.5 per cent of what
they were a year ago. Some of this at least is due to the
underground economy initiative, although I must admit that-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians are becoming weary of the endless, empty talk on
government ethnics; all talk, no action.
(1200 )
After appointing an ethics counsellor who is completely
beholden to the Prime Minister, the government is now moving
to draft a code of conduct for MPs and senators, but it has
decided to let MPs and senators, under the influence of
lobbyists, write their own code of conduct, with no input from
regular Canadians. That sounds somewhat like putting Mr. Fox
and Mr. Weasel in charge of chicken coop security.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister please tell the House how this
obvious conflict of interest is going to enhance public trust of
government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member should read the motion
before the House. The motion provides for a committee that will
be in a position to take evidence from people right across the
country and to incorporate those views into its
recommendations.
Furthermore, when the hon. member speaks of foxes and
weasels, I hope he is not looking at himself in the mirror.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Transport. For many
years, the federal government has been very negligent about
maintaining the Quebec City bridge, which has led to major
deterioration of the structure as a result of rust, so that today,
repairs are necessary that will cost an estimated $40 million.
Two years ago, the government turned the bridge and
responsibility for its maintenance over to Canadian National.
Considering that the federal government is about to privatize
CN, does the Minister of Transport intend to include in the
appropriate legislation a provision that the potential buyer will
be responsible for maintenance of the Quebec City bridge?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Yes,
Mr. Speaker.
* * *
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I would like draw your
attention to the presence in our gallery of Jacques Bihozagara,
Rwanda's Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, following question period, my colleague for
Kindersley-Lloydminister rose on a point of order about the
issue of sexual abuse of children on a reserve in Quebec.
When my colleague raised the point yesterday he was
referring to the derisive and flippant reaction of government
members to a question dealing with the serious issue of sexual
abuse. However, the Speaker's ruling interpreted our point of
order as being critical of the parliamentary secretary's use of
language.
On behalf of my colleague, I want to assure the House that at
no time we were referring to the fact that the parliamentary
secretary was speaking in Inuktitut. We recognize his right to
express himself in his native language.
12257
We feel that the Speaker's interpretation-
The Deputy Speaker: I am reminded that the matter was
dealt with yesterday and that really none of us should be raising
it today. I thank the member for his submission.
_____________________________________________
12257
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
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 60
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development, the report of the committee on disability issues of
the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Board.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-89, an act to provide for the
continuance of the Canadian National Railway Company under
the Canada Business Corporation Act and for the issuance and
sale of shares of the Company to the public.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
(1205)
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House
that I intend to move for referral of the bill to a committee,
before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions to this
House today, which will add to the over 10,000 names of people
who are calling for changes to be made to the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code to allow
dangerous offender applications to be made just prior to the
expiration of an offender's sentence, and then if the court
accepts the application the court could issue an order for
continued detention or supervision of the offender.
This petition is in support of private member's Bill C-240,
which is asking for changes to the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act and the Criminal Code.
I would like to add another 900 names to the list of over
10,000 people who are asking for these changes.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition from
the Calgary, Alberta, area of Canada, which is signed by a
number of petitioners.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for pre-school
children is an honourable profession, which has not been
recognized for its value to our society. They also state that the
Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the
choice to provide care in the home to pre-school children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against
families who decide to provide care in the home for pre-school
children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to present a petition
signed by 295 people from the riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin,
other areas of British Columbia, and even one from Alberta.
All who signed the petition are of the opinion that existing
controls on law-abiding responsible firearms owners are more
than enough to ensure public safety. They therefore call upon
Parliament to support laws that will severely punish all violent
criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime;
support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions that
recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own
and use recreational firearms; and support legislation that will
repeal or modify existing gun control laws, which have not
improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or
have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective or
unenforceable.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to rise to
present petitions on behalf of many Canadians who ask that
Parliament, at the earliest possible time, initiate a wide-ranging
public inquiry into the Canadian Armed Forces, including the
reserves, which will investigate, report, and make
recommendations on
12258
all matters affecting its operations, taskings, resources,
effectiveness, morale, and welfare.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present
to the House a petition signed by 66 Canadians who live in the
riding of Ottawa South.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to oppose any
amendments to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and the Canadian Human Rights Act that provide for the
inclusion of the phrase ``sexual orientation''.
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting
two petitions to the House, which call upon Parliament to act
quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all
necessary measures to recognize full equality of same-sex
relationships in federal law.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting
three petitions today.
The first petition requests Parliament to ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
(1210 )
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the other petition requests that Parliament not amend the human
rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate
societal approval of same-sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase ``sexual orientation''.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the last petition requests that Parliament act immediately to
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human
beings to unborn human beings.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of many
residents of Ontario in which they note that morale in the
Canadian forces is in decline. They note the disbanding of the
Canadian Airborne Regiment and other negative factors having
bearing.
Therefore, they request that Parliament at the earliest time
initiate a wide-ranging public inquiry, replacing many that are
being convened piecemeal, into the Canadian Armed Forces,
which would investigate, report, and make recommendations on
all matters affecting its operations: tasking, resources,
effectiveness, morale, and welfare.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my duty to present a petition signed by 25 people, mainly from
the city of Calgary.
These citizens request that Parliament support laws that will
severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the
commission of a crime; support new Criminal Code firearms
control provisions that recognize and protect the right of
law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms; and
support legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun
control laws, which have not improved public safety or have
proven not to be cost-effective or have proven to be overly
complex so as to be ineffective or unenforceable.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to present four petitions today.
The first group of petitioners requests that the Government of
Canada not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
the phrase ``sexual orientation''. The petitioners are concerned
about including the undefined phrase ``sexual orientation'' in
the Canadian Human Rights Act. Refusing to define this
statement leaves interpretation open to the courts, a very
dangerous precedent to set. Parliament has a responsibility to
Canadians to ensure that legislation cannot be misinterpreted.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is on the subject of abortion.
The petitioners request that Parliament reconsider
amendments to the Criminal Code so as to extend protection to
the unborn child.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition concerns the use of a legal defence that has
become known as the drunk defence.
The petitioners believe that in committing the act of choosing
to consume alcohol, the individual must accept all
responsibilities for their actions while under the influence.
12259
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final
petition I wish to present is on behalf of the constituents who
wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul
Thompson.
The petitioners are concerned about making our streets safer
for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early
release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of
their sentences. The petitioners pray that our streets will be
made safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of the
victims of convicted murderers.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition under Standing Order
36. This petition has been signed by individuals and
Organizations in the riding of Berthier-Montcalm, and deals
with voice mail systems installed by various departments.
Of course, the 500 or 600 individuals who signed this 33 page
petition are totaly opposed to voice mail, and ask that the
Government step in to humanize the departments, which have a
very cool attitude toward them.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken ( Parliamentary Secretary to the
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr Speaker, today we will answer Questions Nos. 138, 152, and
153.
[Text]
Question No. 138-Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville):
How many crimes have been solved as a result of the current handgun
registration system, and more specifically what number of (a) found, recovered
or seized restricted weapons were traced to their registered owners, (b)
registered owners of restricted weapons have been charged with a firearms
related offence as a result of the restricted weapon being traced to them through
the registration system, (c) restricted weapon registrations were revoked as a
consequence of the registered owner being convicted of a criminal offence
involving violence towards another person, (d) restricted weapon registrations
have been revoked as a consequence of the attempted suicide by the registered
owner or by another occupant of the household where the restricted weapon is
stored, and (e) restricted weapons have been used by the registered owner or
other occupant of the household in homicides, suicides, and other firearms
related crimes?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
No national data are available for question parts (a) through (e).
Although it would be very useful for policy making purposes,
police have no standard form for reporting this information. To
provide national statistics under the present system would be
administratively impractical.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has
recommended the government establish a system for the
registration of all guns because it will assist criminal
investigations.
A universal registration system will also support the
production of new national statistics. The architects of the
system are addressing the feasibility of collecting data on the
extent to which the system will assist law enforcement efforts.
Question No. 152-Mr. Mayfield:
In regard to the authors' meeting sponsored by the Department of Citizenship
and Immigration last January 6 and 7 in Vancouver, (a) which officials from the
government were present and what were their positions, (b) provide names of
the authors involved and their province of residence, (c) how much was spent on
this meeting and (d) provide an itemized breakdown of how this money was
spent?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): The government officials who attended the
meeting in Vancouver on January 6 and 7 are as follows:
Robert Blackburn, assistant deputy minister, policy sector;
Cameron Dawson, director, citizenship and integration policy
division; Richard Nolan, registrar of Canadian citizenship;
Sandra Souchotte, acting director, promotion and corporate
identity public affairs branch; Naheed Israeli, senior policy
advisor, citizenship and integration policy division.
Their level of knowledge of the dossier and their collective
responsibility for the eventual advice to the government meant
these were the most appropriate officials to work with the
writers and to brief them on the many considerations involved in
the development of a draft oath of citizenship and a strategy for
a citizenship declaration.
The names of the authors and their province of residence are
as follows:
Arlette Cousture, Québec; John Gray, British Columbia; Joy
Kogawa, British Columbia; Simon Langlois, Québec; Susan
Musgrave, Ontario; Nino Ricci, Ontario; Paul Savoie, Ontario;
Alain Stanké, Québec; Wilbur Sutherland, Ontario; Rudy
Wiebe, Alberta.
Seventeen thousand dollars was spent on this meeting,
excluding the participation of the registrar of Canadian
citizenship and the public affairs representatives, the cost for
which came out of their respective operating budgets.
The following is an itemized breakdown of expenditures.
Category amounts are approximate:
Air fare:
|
$9,500.00
|
Accomodation/meals:
|
$5,250,00
|
Facilities (room rental/supplies):
|
$1,250.00
|
Misc. (taxis, incidentals):
|
$1,000.00
|
|
|
Total:
|
$17,000.00
|
12260
Question No. 153-Mr. Mayfield:
In the wake of the authors' meeting sponsored by the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration last January 6 and 7 in Vancouver, (a) have any
further meetings of the sort been scheduled by, or discussed within the
department, and (b) what is the size of the budget allocated by the department
for these consultations on revisions to the Citizenship Act?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): No further meetings of the sort held on
January 6 and 7 in Vancouver are currently scheduled.
Consultations with experts are a regular part of the policy
making process. Any additional meetings will be held as
needed; (b), $40,000 was allocated for consultative purposes on
Citizenship Act amendments, of which $17,000 has been spent.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed
by numerous residents, many from Kingston, but others from
other parts of Canada, in which they call upon Parliament to
support an arms embargo against Indonesia. They call upon the
Indonesian government to free all political prisoners and end
Canadian government funding for the promotion of trade with
Indonesia in light of that country's flagrant human rights abuses
against the East Timorese.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
12260
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1215)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
closing, I pointed out that Bill C-43 reassured no one. I said that
the Liberals should have a ``best before'' label, a bit like dairy
products. They were better before they came to power, better
before the elections, better before they lined up at the trough.
The fine principles they defended in opposition have
evaporated.
I could explain at length the many shortcomings of Bill C-43.
My colleague for Berthier-Montcalm has already done so
amply. As we are short of time, I will raise two flagrant
examples of this change taking place in the Liberal family.
First, the appointment of the ethics counsellor. With great
pomp, as usual, the Liberals across from us announced the
appointment of an ethics counsellor to advise ministers and
government officials and to examine the need to amend the
legislation.
These fine principles will not go far, however, if this
counsellor is not given some independence from the Prime
Minister and his government. Do not forget that the Prime
Minister appoints the ethics counsellor, consults him when he
sees fit and allows him to make public statements only when
they are to his political advantage.
A true ethics counsellor would be accountable to the
representatives of the people. All of the counsellor's decisions
should be made public. He should have the power to launch
investigations and have enforcement powers. Bill C-43 does
none of the above. It merely gives the illusion that someone is
ensuring that decisions are made ethically, while in reality, the
role amounts to nothing.
We are giving the Prime Minister the right to appoint an ethics
counsellor, to consult the latter when he feels like it and to keep
the counsellor's advice secret unless he decides otherwise. They
will have to think of something else if they want to restore the
trust of Canadians and Quebecers in our institutions!
Scandals like the attempted privatization of the Pearson
airport hit home the need for a bill on the registration of
lobbyists. I will not describe in detail all of the underhanded
tricks and schemes that came into play in this tainted deal. What
is really important is that we remember it as a sad incident in
which the government's reputation was tarnished in the eyes of
the public.
As it stands, Bill C-43 could not have prevented this kind of
scandal, no more than it could shed more light on the suspicious
comings and goings of the current Minister of Canadian
Heritage. The ethics counsellor does not have the power to set up
an investigating committee to get to the bottom of it for
Quebecers and Canadians.
The second shortfall of Bill C-43 on which I would like to
comment concerns the categorization of lobbyists. The Bloc
Quebecois wants to eliminate distinctions between different
types of lobbyists. When the Liberals were in the opposition,
when they were ``best before'', they took exactly the same view
as the Bloc Quebecois: lobbyists are lobbyists and should be
accountable for their actions. Since then, the Liberals reversed
their position, probably under pressure from lobbyist friends
and contributors to the party coffers.
And speaking of party coffers, when I look at the latest figures
on funds raised by political parties in Canada, I can understand
why the Liberals are so anxious to change their position on
lobbyists. In 1993, the Liberal Party of Canada raised more than
12261
$20 million in political contributions which was, needless to
say, the largest amount ever collected by the Liberal Party of
Canada during an election year. Last year, in 1994, the Liberals
raised $9 million, the largest amount ever collected by the
Liberals outside an election year. This year, the Liberals have set
their fundraising objective at $10 million.
(1220)
During the election campaign, the Liberals claimed, and this
is again from the red book: ``No one should be required to pay
fees in order merely to arrange meetings with ministers or senior
officials''. However, just to give a few recent examples, last
Wednesday in Montreal, the Prime Minister met 1,800 people
who had each donated $400 to the Liberal Party.
Last month, the Minister of Finance invited members of the
business community to a private reception at $1,500 a head, to
talk about his budget, and so forth. Are we to understand that the
Liberal government's message is: For access to decision
makers, instead of investing in lobbies, contribute to the party
coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada for a better return on your
investment. It seems to be the message an increasing number of
Canadians and Quebecers are hearing.
Bill C-43 does nothing to remove this impression. The Bloc
Quebecois tried to give this bill some teeth by proposing at least
60 amendments. The Liberals were adamant and rejected all
proposals that would have made this a bill with teeth. The
obvious conclusion is that for Quebecers, their only hope for
more democratic and more transparent institutions lies in
sovereignty. Through its bill on political party financing,
Quebec has made an important contribution to the resolution of
this important ethical matter.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise to participate in the debate at third reading on
Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. I say
with pleasure but also with a certain weariness, because the first
speeches I delivered in this House more than a year ago dealt
with the privatization of Pearson airport by the previous
government. In that speech, I denounced the dubious
transactions involving people close to both Tory and Liberal
political circles.
Bloc members who spoke up at the time called for the
supervision, clarification and regulation of lobbyists' activities
in Canada. Reading the bill now before us, I realize that the main
demands made by Bloc speakers, the main conditions we wanted
to set in order to shed light, once and for all, on lobbyists'
activities in Canada, have not been met.
Although we may deplore the fact that lobbying activities take
place in a government such as the Canadian government, it must
be recognized that, given the financial implications-for
example, the federal government signs close to 90,000 contracts
every year-, some people may to try to influence the
government and meet lawmakers and senior officials with
decision-making powers to ensure that regulations, programs
and even bills are in their best interests.
Although we understand this situation, we are surprised that
this government does not understand the need to monitor the
risks of influence and mismanagement so that citizens are fully
aware that things are being done properly. The bill before us
nonetheless contains a number of improvements. Certain
members of the Liberal government now in power had
denounced really unfortunate and unacceptable situations when
they were in opposition and promised, notably in their red book,
drastic measures to regulate the activities of lobbyists.
(1225)
Going over this bill, one realizes that, while some
improvements have been made, major amendments would have
been required at committee stage to increase its efficiency in
terms of its purposes and to bring it at least slightly more in line
with the goals the Liberal Party had set for itself when in
opposition as well as with its promises to sort things out once in
power.
Many of my colleagues have already spoken on this bill,
therefore I will only list a number of flaws or points that should
have been corrected in order to allow us, members of the official
opposition, to vote for this bill. Since these flaws were not
corrected in the legislative process, it will not come as a surprise
to anyone to hear me say that, like all Bloc members I think, I
will be voting against this bill.
One of the main flaws of this legislation has to do with the
whole ethics counsellor issue. At present, no one seems to have
the authority to provide advice or guidance to politicians and
government employees on certain procedures or actions which
may be confusing.
The bill provides for an ethics counsellor to be appointed by
the Prime Minister. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will
choose an honest and reputable person who will be able to
provide enlightened advice. However, this person will have no
power and, being appointed by the Prime Minister, neither will
he or she have any credibility. The House of Commons, or
Parliament, should appoint the ethics counsellor, so as to give
that person the prestige, the authority and the protection
necessary for someone who will have to provide opinions on
actions, representations or projects which often involve
enormous expenses for certain people.
12262
We deplore the fact that, while the ethics counsellor will
undoubtedly mean well, this person will be subject to the Prime
Minister's will in terms of his appointment, and it is the Prime
Minister who will govern to a great extent how the ethics
counsellor executes his or her mandate.
When we reviewed the transactions surrounding the
privatization of Pearson airport, we also asked that there be only
one category of lobbyists. As you know, lobbying activities are
conducted by various firms, groups and organizations. If
someone wants to influence the government or have his or her
views expressed to MPs or to some senior public officials, that
person can go to a specialized agency which will do what is
necessary to convey his or her views to those concerned.
However, there are also other people who lobby while
working for various organizations, such as business
associations, unions, and all sorts of other groups which hire
permanent staff to do so. Some of these permanent employees
may be involved in communications or governmental relations
and make representations as lobbyists, even though they are not
treated in the same way as those who belong to lobbying groups
specifically involved in governmental relations. We suggested,
in parliamentary committee, that there should only be one
category of lobbyists, so that all those involved in the same kind
of representations and have the same responsibilities, would
also have the same obligations. However, the legislation
provides for two categories of lobbyists.
Several other suggestions were also made. We had asked that
the fees paid to companies, agencies or individuals for lobbying
services be disclosed. They will not be. Lobbyists objected to
that. Lobbying experts have told us that this was not possible,
that it was not under federal jurisdiction, that there would be
problems related to competition and non-disclosure of
activities, and that it was not necessary in any case.
(1230)
I feel it is important that Parliament and the Canadian public
be aware of the amount of money involved. Whether a company
hands out $2 million or just $20,000 to a government relations
agency does make a difference. When huge sums are involved,
people who have to watch over lobbying activities would be on
the alert.
We would also have liked some clarification on the political
ties of lobbyists. The media have pointed out that many former
very influential politicians, political staff members and people
close to decision makers easily make the transition to a new
career in lobbying.
It would have been important to have some kind of
registration scheme for lobbyists so that we could determine
who did what, what they did subsequently, and whether they
hold positions, paid or unpaid, in political organizations. If the
president of a Liberal association is active in lobbying, I think
the people should know.
I had more points to make to demonstrate that the bill before
us is flawed. But my time is running out, and I can only express
my disappointment at the lobbying problem we now have in
Canada and the unwillingness of the government to keep the
promises it made in the last campaign, as set out in the red book.
The only legacy of that red book will be the shame of unkept
promises.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-43,
an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make
related amendments to other Acts, that my colleagues have
already commented on extensively. I remind the House of the
detailed analysis made by the member for Berthier-Montcalm.
He explained the many reasons why the Bloc Quebecois would
not support the bill.
Without getting into details, I will sum up the eight major
flaws of this bill, as mentioned by my colleague. They concern
the types of lobbyists, the requirement to disclose contracts,
lobbyists' fees, the contacting of ministers and senior officials,
the lobbyists' political ties, coalitions, contingency fees and,
finally, the whole issue of the ethics counsellor. In fact, the Bloc
Quebecois tabled 60 amendments, as my colleagues have
already pointed out. They were all negatived.
The major flaw of this bill, the basic problem, is the fact that
the ethics counsellor reports only to the Prime Minister. All
those things that could enlighten the public will only enlighten
the Prime Minister's office.
Again, as I had mentioned in the case of Pearson airport, it is
like having a fox guarding the hen house. We all recall the bill to
cancel the privatization of Pearson airport. It contained a clause
allowing those claiming to have lost future profits to negotiate
arrangements in a private meeting with the minister. That also
was like asking the fox to guard the hen house.
This analysis of the bill, which was made by my colleagues
much better than I could do it now, shows that the government
has chosen to use smoke screen tactics in its bills. It says it will
take certain actions, but the resulting bills show no sign of
openness and everything will be decided by the Prime Minister's
inner circle.
(1235)
These smoke screen tactics have also been used for events that
have occurred over the past 10 or 15 days, in this House,
regarding two major problems surrounding Power DirecTv and
Seagram.
For the benefit of our viewers, I will briefly outline the case of
Power DirecTv. Last August, only two weeks after the CRTC
announced its decision exempting Canadian satellite
broadcasting companies from licencing requirements, the
Liberal govern-
12263
ment announced that it intended to review policies concerning
direct broadcasting. A first, Mr. Speaker.
On November 29, 1994, the government decided to create a
three member task force to review the CRTC decision, which ran
contrary to the interests of Power DirecTv and prevented the
company from going ahead with its plans; as we know, it wanted
to broadcast from an American satellite, which the CRTC found
unacceptable.
The task force received briefs from several groups, including
Power DirecTv. On April 6, it submitted a detailed report tailor
made for Power DirecTv, which is partly owned, as we know, by
Power Corporation and Hughes Aircraft of Canada.
On April 26, the government adopted the report's
recommendations, verbatim, and tabled two orders, telling
Expressvu, a Canadian company, that it must now apply to the
CRTC for a licence, thus delaying its going into operation,
which was planned for September 1995. And yet, this company
had simply abided by the CRTC decision. After that, the CRTC
announced that the government could be liable to prosecution.
Expressvu believes it has a vested right and I think that it is
legally defendable.
And who is the head of Power DirecTv? André Desmarais,
son-in-law of the Prime Minister and son of Paul Desmarais,
CEO of Power Corporation.
This happened in the House, right here, and it was raised
repeatedly during question period.
There was also the Seagram case which is just as obvious. The
Minister of Canadian Heritage went incognito to Los Angeles,
with two members of his staff, supposedly to meet major players
in the U.S. film industry. He got there on the very day the deal to
sell MCA to Seagram was signed. Seagram is a Bronfman
company, and it just so happens that Paul Desmarais, the
father-in-law of the Prime Minister's daughter, is a member of
the board.
They say the minister was in the Bronfman suite while the
deal was being signed. He denies he was aware of that
transaction, which must be reviewed by the Minister of Industry.
This review is necessary, it seems, in order to determine whether
Seagram is a Canadian or an American company. If it is
Canadian, there is no problem, and the investments are exempt
from any further investigation. If it is American, Canada will
protect its cultural market and will have to review several
aspects of the transaction, particularly the buy-back of
Canadian subsidiaries. And at that point, the minister, who just
happened to be there, will have something to say on the issue.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage will have to be consulted,
and there appears to be a conflict of interests.
Of course, the newspapers played the whole thing up and
English Canadian newspapers wrote at length about the events
surrounding that problem. I had brought here, to read it in the
House, a one page article written in English that traces all the
family and political ties, the people the Liberals are working for.
And, at the heart of all this, we find Power Corporation in both
cases.
And all the Prime Minister could say in response to the many
questions, both from the Bloc and the Reform Party, is that he
certainly had the right to find a good match for his daughter. We
agree. But in fact, what we are finding through all this is that the
government of Canada, in its agreement, has now become a
branch of Power Corporation. So, it is using smoke screen
tactics to explain what is actually going on in the House.
It also uses smoke screen tactics in its statements both in the
House and outside of the House. For instance, when the Minister
of Finance tells us in committee, with a lump in his throat, that
we must absolutely tighten our belts, of course, he will tighten
the belts of the poor, he will make cuts to unemployment
insurance and social welfare, he will raise all the costs relating
to post-secondary education, he will probably go after old age
pensions, but the finance minister's ships are still sailing under
a foreign flag. And then it dawns on us that those who are asking
us to tighten our belts always wear suspenders.
(1240)
The Prime Minister also makes statements in the House and
outside of the House. For example, the Liberals said there were
problems in Canada because of people who guzzled beer in front
of their television set. But oddly enough, and these are smoke
screen tactics again, they never talk about champagne drinkers
slumped over in hotel lobbies, those who take advantage of tax
havens to avoid paying taxes, about family trusts which they do
not want to touch, or ever so slightly, if they have to.
They never talk about the hon. Peter Trudeau, who is getting a
$1 million tax credit for the papers he is handing back to the
government. That is welfare for the rich, Mr. Speaker. Brian
Mulroney did the same thing; that too is welfare for the rich.
They hardly ever talk about Paul Tellier, the chairman of CN,
who is getting a huge salary, who is having his mortgage paid off
by CN at the taxpayers' expense, and who is laying everybody
off.
They did talk a little about the $250,000 for new furniture
spent by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, while cuts are
being made everywhere else. The only answer we got from his
department is that furniture is expensive. I was a carpenter and
cabinet maker before becoming a member of Parliament, and I
can tell you that for $250,000, you can get some really nice
furniture.
12264
More smoke screen tactics, when the Prime Minister himself
tells us that everything is going wrong in Canada because of
Quebec. I do not know how many times I have heard him say that
since he has been in politics. He started that as soon as he
became a politician, even before he was given a portfolio.
Yet, we realize-I have said it before, but this is worth
repeating-that is was in a period of political stability, in the
years following the rejection of sovereignty by the people of
Quebec in 1980, that Canada experienced interest rates over 20
per cent. So that is exactly the opposite of what the Prime
Minister said.
It was in 1986, also, that the Canadian dollar tumbled to 69
cents. I remind you that at that time, the Mulroney and Bourassa
governments were in office. That was before Meech and
Charlottetown, the Bloc Quebecois did not even exist, and the
Parti Quebecois was completely out of the picture. Therefore,
there is no relationship between the disastrous state of Canada's
finances and the political situation in Quebec. Once again,
smoke screen tactics.
You will recall another masterminded statement, the one
made by the Royal Bank just before Charlottetown, where they
said that if Quebecers and Canadians rejected the Charlottetown
agreement, it would mean the end of the world. We said no to
Charlottetown and the world did not end, but of course this was
all orchestrated to scare people. This was also a case of smoke
screen tactics.
Let me give you another example of these tactics. The Prime
Minister said that Quebec, through its premier, is showing
contempt for democracy. I think we should review a bit of our
history. Who was responsible for the patriation of the
Constitution in 1982? The current Prime Minister. Who was
involved in the implementation of the War Measures Act in
Quebec? The current Prime Minister. I like to remind people that
these measures were taken to scare Quebecers.
I will not say anything more on this issue, except that we also
remember the smoke screen tactics used in 1980 when some
politicians told us they were betting their seats that there would
be some changes. There never were any changes and now, in
1995, our political situation has not changed at all. At the time,
they tried to scare us by saying that if we voted yes to
sovereignty, we would be crippled with debts, taxes and
unemployment.
We said yes to Canada because we wanted to be team players,
and what did that get us? Debts, taxes and unemployment. The
debt has gone from $90 billion to $550 billion. Unemployment
is constantly on the rise. We now have 808,000 people on
welfare in Quebec. All this happened within Canada.
We were told it would take us 15 years to get back on our feet.
That was in 1980, and now, 15 years later, were are in it up to our
necks, and things will only get worse. The Wall Street Journal
raised openly the very real possibility that Canada would go
bankrupt. All this is part of a smoke screen strategy.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for the second time to Bill-43,
which amends the Lobbyists Registration Act.
The first time was when the bill was at second reading and we
discussed amendments hoping that we would be able to force the
government to take more seriously the promises it made in the
red book and also to stand by the positions it took when many of
its members were in the opposition and discussed a situation
identical to the one in which we find ourselves today.
(1245)
Unfortunately, like the majority of my colleagues, I feel that I
am wasting my breath. However, we are not asking the Liberal
Party for anything very special. We are not asking it to attain the
goals of the Bloc or the Reform Party. We are only asking it to
keep the promises it made in the red book. The promise to
tighten controls on lobbyists' activities and make the legislative
process or the awarding of government contracts more
transparent was one that should have been easy to keep. This
time, the government cannot use the usual excuse that the till is
empty to avoid doing what it promised to do. This promise costs
nothing. The government had the power to tighten up the rules
and to issue new standards of conduct. It had the unanimous
support of the opposition to act but did nothing.
Where are the Liberals who clamoured against the
carelessness of the Conservatives? Where are the Liberal Party
hardliners? Where are the transparent and honest Liberals? They
have vanished and unfortunately their words have also vanished
without a trace.
Liberals have changed the meaning of the word promise. A
promise is a firm commitment to do what you said you would,
but for the Liberals, a promise is something you talk about but
never do anything about or which you achieve in an incomplete
or uncertain way. Indeed, it is becoming more and more obvious
that, for the Liberal Party, there are two kinds of promises: the
promise made to the people and which deals with public interest.
That kind of promise is achieved only when all favourable
circumstances are present but you can always find good reasons
to postpone them and bring them back at election time. The
second kind are the promises made to friends of the government,
those who finance the slush fund. Those promises are often tied
to private interests and can take the shape of bills or orders in
council for the benefit of a few individuals or companies, or
expensive contracts which are often overvalued and given
without a real call for tenders.
In the case of Bill C-43, there were once more conflicting
interests. On one side, the general public and all the people who
elected the Liberal Party, that is a few million people, and on the
other side, a few hundred lobbyists and the thousand or so big
companies which employ them. By not keeping its red book
12265
promises and by watering down and thus weakening this bill, the
Liberal government has shown its contempt for the public
interest.
The clear message that this government is sending to the
backers of the Liberal Party, to former organizers and
dignitaries of the party and to the friends, relatives as well as
former and future associates of government members is this:
everything is allowed, but would you please be very discreet.
That will certainly not help restore public confidence in
politicians.
The message from the government should have been that
lobbyists, like any other professionals, must follow certain rules
and be more transparent in their work, as promised on pages 94
and 95 of the Liberal red book. This bill is not all bad, but it does
not go far enough in terms of supervising and regulating the
work of lobbyists. I am not implying in any way that lobbyists
are in the business of corrupting. The great majority of them do
their job in a most honourable fashion. This bill should be aimed
at preventing abuse and influence-peddling, not at preventing
individuals and companies from dealing legitimately with the
government.
In this regard, Simon Reisman, chairman of Ranger Oil
Limited and star witness for the liberal government, expressed
the opinion, at the hearings on the bill, that the practice of
contingency fees, which will not be precluded by Bill C-43,
``encourages the wrong kind of people into the business
and-contingency fees perpetuate the perception of cronyism
and back-door access to government insiders''.
(1250 )
In another vein, I would like to remind members that in the red
book, the Prime Minister committed himself to: ``regulate the
activities of lobbyists by appointing an Ethics Counsellor''. The
Bloc, like all Canadians, expected the appointment of someone
who is beyond reproach who would go after people engaged in
murky business. In reality, the ethics counsellor has only limited
powers in spite of all the goodwill this person brings to the task.
The code of conduct that the counsellor produced does not have
the force of a statutory regulation, but is just so many empty
words.
The ethics counsellor is not accountable before the House of
Commons. The counsellor is chosen by the prime minister and is
accountable to him alone. All investigations are conducted in
private. Moreover, it has become clear that the prime minister
does not always deem it necessary to consult his counsellor or
that he consults him only after the decisions have been made or
after the fact. Such a manner of proceeding is not calculated to
raise public confidence in our political institutions. What we
needed was a counsellor appointed by the House of Commons,
having real powers and accountable to the House.
A code of conduct having the force of a set of regulations
would have been appropriate, as would more stringent
disclosure rules for lobbyists.
[English]
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
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:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until
Monday, May 8 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
* * *
The House resumed from April 25, 1995, 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. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
chapter one of the Liberal red ink book it clearly states:
``Fairness, simplicity and harmonization should be key
objectives of tax policies''. Unfortunately, after a year in Ottawa
this promise of fairness and simplicity is nothing more than
empty campaign rhetoric.
Bill C-70 is yet another in a series of omnibus bills introduced
by the Liberal Party which further complicates, convolutes and
confuses the income tax system in Canada.
Most Canadians who pay income tax are unable to file their
tax returns without the assistance of an accountant or tax lawyer.
How has this happened? To give an idea, let me take members on
a journey through Liberal income tax amendment bills which
were introduced in the first year of the government's mandate.
Bill C-9, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, was first read
on February 4, 1994 and consisted of 70 pages. Bill C-15, an act
to revise certain income tax law amendments in terms of the
revised Income Tax Act and the income tax application rules,
was first read on February 23, 1994 and consisted of 670 pages.
Bill C-32, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act
and the Income Tax Act, was first read on May 27, 1994 and
12266
consisted of 62 pages. Bill C-27, an act to amend the Income
Tax Act, the income tax application rules, the Canada pension
plan, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Excise Tax
Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and certain related acts,
was first read on May 5, 1994 and consisted of 176 pages. Bill
C-59, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and the income tax
application rules, was first read on November 24, 1994 and
consisted of 110 pages.
(1255 )
Finally, we have the bill before us today, Bill C-70, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act, the income tax application rules and
Related acts, which was first read on February 16 and consists of
200 pages.
The total is 1,288 pages of new amendments to the Income
Tax Act.
The Reform Party believes the time has come for us to
question every aspect of our system of taxation. The urgent
pressures of a spiralling debt and the ever growing complexity
of an out of control Income Tax Act forced us to look seriously at
fundamental reform of the tax system.
A flat rated system of income tax is an important example of
such a reform. The idea has been the subject of much discussion
in both Canada and the United States. It is relevant and has a
great deal of merit.
There have been a number of flat tax models outlined in past
years. When debating Bill C-70, the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood outlined his single tax proposal. Now I
will outline ours; note the difference. His model is his model,
not the Liberal model, whereas ours is a party model, not my
model. The primary areas of variation between the two centre
around the definition of taxable income and the application of
tax rates.
Canadians are among the highest taxed citizens in the
industrialized world with about 45 per cent of a family's income
going to government taxes. Our deficits and debts are so high
that they are squeezing money out of program spending and we
are transferring it over to interest payments instead.
Increasing revenues by adding to the heavy tax burden already
carried on the shoulders of Canadian citizens and businesses
alike is not the solution. Raising individual taxes would increase
hardships for many families.
Leaving more money in the hands of the people who earn it
makes it possible for more people to provide themselves with
the basic necessities of life. Forcing people to send more taxes
to Ottawa and returning it to them through social assistance is a
waste of time, effort and money.
Continued increases in taxation rates encourage governments
to keep spending at current levels and avoid the difficult
problems of dealing with the kinds of significant spending cuts
that are needed.
The first stage of tax reform should be a commitment on the
part of the federal government to produce balanced budgets.
This could be done through a Canadian taxpayers protection act
that requires deficit control and reduction by eliminating
expenditures according to deficit targets, inflation, and
population growth.
This legislation would not be designed to say how money is to
be spent but rather to regulate how much can be spent. Its
purpose would be to protect the Canadian taxpayer from being
dragged into the kinds of serious debt situation we have now by
irresponsible governments.
The second stage of tax reform should be a commitment to the
reform of the Income Tax Act. Our overall tax burden is the
second highest in the G-7 countries in recent years. High taxes
stifle economic growth in every sector of society. They decrease
the productivity of the private sector, leading to more
unemployment. They tempt governments to keep spending at
current levels instead of coming to grips with the real problems.
As I demonstrated earlier, the current system of amending the
Income Tax Act is ridiculous. The Income Tax Act is already
2,091 pages. Now in this past year we have added another 1,288
pages. It is a struggle to administer, a puzzle to interpret, a
nightmare for the majority of Canadians who have the courage
to try to do their own tax returns. A complete overhaul of the
system is required.
Furthermore, in view of our current economic dilemma, tax
reform must also mean tax relief. However, we cannot give tax
relief until we come to realize that we must look at spending and
what levels of government should be spending money where.
The following outline for a proportional flat tax is a serious
proposal that would go a long way toward solving some of our
economic problems, an attempt to bring our system of taxation
into the 21st century. The system must be simple, visible and
fair: Simple so that everybody understands it; visible with no
hidden taxes; and fair to both individuals and corporations with
no loopholes, no exceptions.
As it stands, the incentives should be to reward production
and leave more dollars in the hands of taxpayers and wage
earners than in the pockets of government, thereby reducing the
need for many governmental assistance programs. In other
12267
words, the cost of government assistance would decrease
because fewer people would need it.
As it stands now, Canada's Income Tax Act is based on three
graduated rates of taxation and an extensive network of
exemptions, deductions, reductions, deterrents and incentives.
(1300 )
The proportional flat tax proposal incorporates a flat tax and
establishes a single rate for everyone, both individuals and
corporations, with no loopholes. With a proportional element,
the basic flat tax model is improved further by proportioning an
individual's tax liability according to income, family size and
therefore the ability to pay.
A basic level of income is tax free for all wage earners.
Individuals and corporations would pay the same rate on income
with a minimum of exemptions and deductions. Taxes would be
used exclusively for the purposes of raising revenues to fund
approved government programs, not as an instrument of
economic, industrial or social policy.
The rate of taxation would therefore be determined solely on
the basis of how much the government needs to provide the
services that Canadians want. The rate may be in the range of 20
to 25 per cent.
The key principle of our flat tax model is that a buck is a buck.
Income is defined as productive income from employment,
business and investments including interest income, capital
gains, pensions and dividends. Some of the areas under the
definition may be debatable, whether they should be treated that
way, but that is for the Canadian public to decide.
All personal income generated in any form would be taxed
with no special treatment for various forms of income. The only
capital gain that would not be taxed would be the one primary
personal residence because this could represent a lifetime of
effort over years of inflation.
The fundamental approach to corporate income would be to
ensure that income is only taxed once. Depreciation is
eliminated and purchases are 100 per cent deductible in the year
of purchase, even if it creates a loss.
There would be one personal exemption per individual,
perhaps $12,000. Lower income individuals would therefore be
basically exempted from paying tax and families are granted a
generous deduction.
Deductions are at levels the middle class can afford. This will
result in more tax being paid by the wealthy than is now the case
and leaves more disposable income in the hands of taxpayers.
A child care deduction will leave money in the hands of
families to use to care for their children as they wish, whether it
is at home or in day care centres. This deduction could be in the
area of $5,000 for children up to age 7 and $3,000 for each child
between the ages of 8 and 14.
Spousal deductions are also included, perhaps up to $6,000. A
charitable deduction would be included, perhaps up to 5 per
cent. The amount of RRSPs would be reduced to $6,000
annually so that higher income earners do not gain an unfair
advantage and provisions would include a deduction of about
$2,000 for seniors.
For businesses, we could look at what they could deduct as
cost of operations or goods, services and materials, wages and
benefits, interest payments and pension contributions plus
dividends paid out. This is the big difference. Dividends paid
out to individuals for investing in that company would be
deductible to the corporation and taxable in the hands of the
recipient which would end the current problem of double
taxation on dividends.
GST or other forms of federal sales tax would not continue.
Sales tax would be left to provincial governments to raise money
for their own needs. This is one of the advantages of tax reform,
looking at various levels of government and raising the money
that they need at their level that could be shared.
The federal government does not have to grab all, end all and
waste all. The initial objective would be to establish a tax rate
that is revenue neutral to begin and is redistributed equally
between individuals and corporations.
From that starting point, as we eliminate the waste in
government spending, as we determine which levels of
government should be responsible for which programs, as we
privatize crown corporations and government gets out of the
business of being in business, this rate would go down and down
and down.
I acknowledge we must start at a revenue neutral base and let
that work through the system over a three-year period. Some of
the advantages of this system would be an even distribution of
the tax load by eliminating exemptions and reductions, a lower
tax rate over the current three tier graduated system, more
disposable income, a broader base spread out over corporations
and individuals more equally.
It might increase government revenue because corporations
and higher income individuals would pay tax on everything with
no exemptions, no tax shelters, thereby restoring tax
expenditure costs to the government.
More government revenue could be generated because
perhaps the underground economy would start to disappear.
Some economists say it presently ranges from a low of $15
billion to a high of $100 billion. Nobody knows what level the
transactions take on there. If we had a system of taxation where
people were more willing to pay their taxes, the underground
economy would
12268
disappear and taxes would then flow into government coffers at
all levels.
The fourth advantage would be equity in the system. The
Liberal red book dangles that idea but it does not deliver. People
with the same level of income would pay relatively the same
amount of tax.
(1305)
Another major benefit of a proportional flat tax system would
be simplified tax forms. Everybody could fill out his or her own
income tax form at taxation time. As politicians and
parliamentarians, is that not what we are here for, to try and
improve the system, try to make laws easier for people to
understand and for governments to administer?
Where is the tax fairness and simplicity that the Liberals
promised in their red ink book? We have bills like C-70, C-9,
C-50, C-27, C-32, C-59. Next week the government is going to
introduce another excise tax amendment to the Income Tax Act.
All these bills put together add up to thousands and thousands of
pages. The government has fallen into the same trap as previous
governments. It has made the same mistake.
In the name of simplicity and fairness it continues to make the
system more complicated and more inequitable. It says that by
passing all these bills, it improves the system and makes it more
fair and more understandable. Give me a break. Who could read
all this in six months or less and understand it?
To members of the Liberal caucus here is an opportunity to
stop the madness, to end the bureaucratic nightmare known as
the income tax system and start moving the country toward a
simple, visible, flat rate taxation system. Show some leadership.
Follow the member for Broadview-Greenwood. Follow his
advice. Follow our vision of a simple, visible flat taxation
system. Show Canadians that omnibus bills like Bill C-70 will
no longer be necessary.
The Liberals can only spin the public for so long. They can
only use sophistry so long in the budgets they present every year.
They can only use sophistry so long in presenting all their
wonderful amendments and changes to bills before the Canadian
public will realize that their clever use of words has a false and
misleading conclusion and will not be accepted at election time.
Canadians will realize that if the Liberals do not do anything
about it, that it is business as usual at plant Ottawa, they could be
booted out just as fast as the Tories were. When the public does
boot them out, the Reform Party will be waiting in the wings
with a bill called Bill C-1 or C-2 or C-3. It will be a bill with a
very high priority. It will be entitled an act to repeal the Income
Tax Act and institute in an orderly fashion a proportional flat tax
system in Canada over a three-year period.
A flat tax has further advantages in that visually it makes you
feel good. I have with me a personal income tax return under the
proportional flat tax system. It has three categories for gross
income. It has seven elements of deductions which I defined in
my speech. When the total deductions are added up and
subtracted from total income, the tax is paid at whatever
percentage we need initially to be revenue neutral.
As we improve government and eliminate waste in spending,
we can continue to lower the rate to really give tax relief to the
Canadian public. We can show them the more they look after
themselves, and this gives them that opportunity because more
money will be left in their pockets, then the better the system
will be for everybody.
The corporate income tax return is also a simple one-page
document that scares tax lawyers and tax accountants. They
should not be scared. In this system rather than working for
corporations that are in receivership and trying to determine
whether it is 10 cents, 20 cents or 50 cents on the dollar and
wasting fruitless hours trying to do personal income tax forms
for $50 or $100, these people will be advising the public and
corporations where to invest, where the best rate of return will
be. They will be helping them build profitable companies.
I acknowledge that some tax lawyers and tax accountants will
have to get out of the profession. Perhaps they will become
entrepreneurs. Perhaps they will be contributors to the income
stream rather that being on the receiving end of the expense
stream. They do good work and they are necessary now.
However it would open the field for a lot more opportunities. I
do not think these people need to worry.
(1310 )
On this tax form under income we have everything the
corporation makes. There are five deductions. Any losses are
carried forward, for a total of six items of deductions for
corporations. Subtract those deductions from income and send
in the tax at the same rate as individuals.
This principle of fairness would make every Canadian and all
corporations happy. Corporations would be proud of no longer
being accused of manipulating the system, of not paying their
fair share. We hear all the time that corporations do not pay their
fair share of taxes. We hear all the time that the wealthy do not
pay their share of taxes.
Under this system individuals would have a certain level of
tax free income. A married couple with two children would have
the basic $12,000 deduction, $6,000 for a spouse is $18,000, and
$5,000 each for two children under seven equals $28,000 of
income that would not be taxed.
Currently somebody making $12,000 has to send in $1,200.
They then have to line up for some kind of subsidy program for
education, job retraining, unemployment and welfare. By the
time that $1,200 comes back to that individual it has shrunk to
12269
about $400. That is what gets used up sending it to Ottawa and
then sending it back to the people in the field who need it.
Let us stop this nonsense. It is one of the best ways we have to
reduce the pressure and save social programs. Leave the money
in the hands of the people who need it for their own subsistence,
for food, shelter and clothing. We are supposed to be here to find
solutions and that is a very concrete solution.
Without the loopholes, exemptions and deductions that the
wealthy use now to manipulate the system and receive tax
breaks, they will pay their share on all income. This will enable
wealthy people not to worry about whether or not they are
paying their share. I already know for a fact that 50 per cent of
the tax revenues generated in this country on an individual basis
come from 10 per cent or less of Canada's taxpaying population.
The wealthy are paying their share. Now the Liberal government
is saying the corporations are not paying their share. The
corporations under this system would pay their share.
As we discuss the simple, visible, flat system of taxation
perhaps the debate could lead to a system where corporations
would only pay 5 per cent, allowing them to hire more people, to
reinvest their profits.
Why would I invest in a company and how would I get my
money back? I am using 80 cent dollars. I make an investment
and it is not deductible. However, I have invested in an area
where I feel and see that the economy is going to grow. It is not
driven by the government. It is driven by speculators, risk takers
and investors.
The company may be making a profit digging out gold or they
have a manufacturing company and make bicycles better than
the other bicycle. If I invest in that company and it makes profit
it will pay me out of the profits. It gets to deduct those dividends
and I pay tax on them. It is an equitable and fair system.
The government will no longer be able to accuse one sector of
the economy of abusing the system. The flat tax cleans up the
entire system of taxation and reallocates the purpose of
government, what the government should be doing, whether it is
regulation or social programs. It raises the money required to do
it and delivers it.
I believe a flat tax system is going to become a reality in the
United States. Therefore, why delay in making the proportional
flat tax a reality in Canada? Let us start today.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member spent quite a bit of time talking about the flat tax
approach. In my experience as a chartered accountant, if it
sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
The member's approach and what he has been proposing to
the House time and time again is overly simplistic and unfair. He
seems to think that if one takes a tax return and shrinks it down
to one piece of paper that somehow helps the situation. The
method of reporting is only bookkeeping and paperwork. It does
not impact the amount of taxes collected.
(1315 )
The member will know that if Canadians have medical
expenses they have to provide an itemization of the expenses for
deductibility. If they have charitable donations, and many
Canadians have a lot of charitable donations, they have to be
itemized. Nowhere on his proposed form is their room for
detailing eligible expenses.
The member will know that unincorporated businesses with
sole proprietors must have a set of books and must report the
detail from those books as to various sources of revenue and
legitimate deductions against business income on their personal
tax return.
Similarly rental properties, which many Canadians have as
investments for the future, must also have a set of books and
must report in some detail so that revenue is properly accounted
for and eligible rental property expenses are claimed.
I heard a contradiction in the member's speech. In the first
part he insinuated that the rich were not paying their fair share.
In the conclusion of his statement he argued that the wealthy and
the rich were paying their fair share.
The member is quite right in the latter case. The top 10 per
cent of taxpayers in Canada make $50,000 a year or more. They
pay 37 per cent of all taxes in Canada. What is more important is
that they also pay 42 per cent of all charitable donations. If the
tax burden on Canadians who are fortunate enough to earn
higher incomes is increased, the first thing to suffer will be their
level of contributions to charitable donations, which will
definitely hurt all Canadians.
The flat tax notion has to be dealt with here and now. If the
member thinks that the U.S. has the answers to all Canadian
problems, he is absolutely wrong. Let us give one very
important example considering that last night in the House the
member stood and said that members of Parliament should be
paid a salary of $12,000 a month or $144,000 a year, an $80,000
salary increase. He is saying in the House that they will make
things better. That is not the way to do it.
Under his flat tax system a member of Parliament who makes
$64,400 a year pays income tax at 37 per cent on his average
marginal rate. That equates to some $24,000 a year. Under his
system of a flat tax with no deductions of 30 per cent, a member
of Parliament would only pay $18,000 of taxes or a reduction in
taxes of $6,000.
12270
Persons making $25,000 a year pay $6,000 today. Under his
system they would pay $7,500 a year, a $1,500 increase to a low
income Canadian. Could the member explain why his flat tax
actually hurts poor Canadians?
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the member does not
believe in a single flat tax. I appreciate the difficulty the hon.
member for Broadview-Greenwood has in his caucus.
Let me clear up the comment I made last night. The hon.
member is an accountant. He knows that MPs currently make
$64,000, have a $6,000 tax free travel allowance and a $22,000
living allowance. Those are taxable. Let him dispute right now
that we are getting the equivalent of $10,000 a month. He can
take that number, put it in his little calculator and figure it all
out.
I am suggesting that we get rid of different levels of
remuneration for MPs and quit using a low salary of $64,000 as
an excuse for a gold plated, three tiered, extravagant, double
standard pension plan. That is what the government is trying to
justify to Canadian taxpayers. It is not legitimate.
What I suggested last night was in context. The gentleman
likes to interrupt speeches, take things out of context, do a little
twist, stick the knife in and do a little turn. I am trying to offer a
balanced approach to and a balanced solution for MPs'
compensation, a salary level where MPs look after their own
pensions. They can contribute 5 per cent matched one to one by
the government, not three and a half times one as the
government is doing now.
Getting back to the specifics of the proportional flat tax or a
flat tax, in the current system the tax form is one-quarter inch
thick. In our flat tax system it will be one page. There is one line
for charitable donations. Whether it is 5 per cent of gross
income, 17 per cent of net income or whatever, it can be debated.
When a person has a lot of donations and deductions the backup
to this one page might be one inch thick.
(1320)
Perhaps that accountant can get it through his head that I am
not talking about everything on one page. There are receipts. It
is justified. It is all sent in. That is all people have to worry about
to figure out their income tax. He is out of the accounting
profession because he is now a politician. He is a wannabe
millionaire.
The other point he talked about was the supposed
contradiction about the wealthy. The top 10 per cent is not
earning $50,000 or over. He does not have his numbers straight.
The top 10 per cent is earning $80,000 and over. They are the
ones who contribute.
Is that the right number? What is the number? Help me.
Mr. Grubel: The number is $52,000 and they contribute 50
per cent.
Mr. Silye: I want to get this right because the gentleman likes
the facts. He likes to be specific and I do not want to make
comments out of context as the member does. I like to keep
things in context. When I make a mistake and I am wrong, I
admit it. I do not go on pretending I have all the answers like
some members of the government.
I have vented my frustration with the member eloquently
enough.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in
debate on the legislation.
Bill C-70, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, seeks to
implement a number of measures introduced in the 1994 budget,
along with certain measures announced by the government at
other times over the last year.
In asking for the support of colleagues in the House I would be
remiss if I did not remind them of the context of the legislation.
The fiscal challenge facing the 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 the difficult
choices that must be made. Few dispute that we must act
decisively. Few dispute that fairness and effectiveness must be
essential guiding principles of any and all steps taken to
overcome our deficit challenge. These principles have guided
the government as it has worked to restrain spending. They
guided the minister in crafting the budget presented in February.
For the moment and for the discussion of the legislation let me
take hon. members back to the budget last year. Spending cuts
alone could not deliver the deficit reductions set out at that time.
Spending constraint had to be complemented with some
measures on the tax side. Doing so was simply a question of
fairness. Our vision of fairness guided us as we looked at the tax
system addressing unsustainable tax preferences instead of
imposing general tax hikes 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.
With this in mind, the budget last year proposed a number of
measures for the rules governing the taxation of business
income. Let me stress that our goal was not to penalize the
business sector or to impede the competitiveness of Canadian
corporations. We believe it is essential to maintain a competi-
12271
tive tax system in today's global economy. We cannot disregard
the role of business in creating and sustaining employment. Nor
can we ignore the pressures faced by Canadian companies as
they operate in fiercely competitive markets both at home and
around the world.
One fairness issue the budget addressed was the tax rules
dealing with debt forgiveness and foreclosures. Under the old
provisions of the Income Tax Act many transactions involving
the settlement of debt were not recognized in any meaningful
way for income tax purposes.
(1325)
The new rules provide a comprehensive basis to deal with
debt settlement. In general they provide that forgiven debt
amounts will be applied to losses carried forward and expenses,
or partially included in the debtor's income. I should point out,
however, that 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 was not
providing specific rules regarding the tax treatment of such
securities.
The measures proposed in the bill seek to reduce uncertainty
in this regard and to ensure the income derived from such
securities is measured appropriately. The amendments provide
that certain securities will be marked to market, meaning that
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 that are
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 the area. The changes expand the categories of income of
foreign affiliates that must be reported as income of the
Canadian affiliates.
Another modification prevents the use of an affiliate's foreign
active business losses to reduce Canadian shareholders' income.
This change also protects the Canadian tax base. The
amendments are generally effective for taxation years
commencing after 1994.
Finally let me turn to six tax measures announced during the
months after the 1994 budget. The bill addresses the issue of
eligible prepaid funeral and cemetery arrangements. Under the
legislation individuals making such arrangements would not
have to declare interest on deposits up to a $15,000 maximum
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 an eligible arrangement.
Turning to the next measure, the bill proposes that real estate
trusts with publicly traded units be allowed to qualify as mutual
fund trusts. The 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 the
sector.
The third of the post-budget measures is a measure that will
help mutual funds reduce overhead costs and improve services
to investors. The amendments allow mutual fund corporations to
convert to mutual fund trusts on a tax free basis and allow tax
free mergers of mutual fund trusts.
The bill 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.
The rules also limit the ability of large corporations to raise
new issues in a notice of objection where the objection relates to
the reconsideration of an assessment. However new issues
raised by Revenue Canada on such reconsiderations may still
give rise to notices of objection.
In addition, the legislation will ensure that the new
requirements relating to notices of objection will not apply to
assessments which were repealed through court before the
legislation received royal assent.
The final measure I want to highlight deals with the tax
treatment of dividend compensation payments and other
incomes 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 securities dealers to
deduct two thirds of such payments.
(1330)
This legislation extends the use of the two-thirds rule, thus
ensuring our security industries remain competitive.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Can I go to
my motion?
The Deputy Speaker: No. The time has expired. We will now
proceed to Private Members' Business.
12272
12272
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 24 consideration of the
motion.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this debate is on Motion No. 314 by the hon. member for Moose
Jaw-Lake Centre. It gives the government an opportunity to
point out that it is working with the provinces and industry to
deliver effective, cost efficient programming for the benefit of
the primary agriculture and agri-food industry and the
consumer.
The fundamental proposal in the motion has considerable
merit. Who could not agree with the notion of reducing the
duplication of programs and services? I cannot. It does not make
sense for two levels of government to do the same thing. It does
not make sense to spend $1 more than what is necessary.
If the government were to adopt the hon. member's motion to
immediately pursue negotiations with the provinces and the
agri-food industry to eliminate overlap and duplication, we
would be reinventing the wheel.
We do not want a new set of constitutional negotiations. I
remember what happened during the last set. We want
agreements with the provinces to make a real difference in the
lives of the people actively farming in Canada today.
I can think of no better example than agriculture, a shared
responsibility between provincial and federal levels of
government, to illustrate the enormous effort made by the
federal government, provinces, the industry and municipal
governments to work together to resolve issues and deliver
effective programming and reduce spending.
There are many examples such as safety nets, where both
levels of government and industry have come up with a national
whole farm program that will provide $1 billion of income
support for producers this year; $600 million from the federal
government and the rest from provincial governments.
The federal government has been working with the provinces,
with industry and even with municipal governments to put in
place a national food inspection system that will harmonize
standards across the country, get rid of duplication of effort
where it does exist and at the same time maintain Canada's high
standards of food safety and quality which are respected
worldwide.
In financial services the Farm Credit Corporation and
interested provinces are discussing ways to reduce duplication
of government services. The FCC has acquired the New
Brunswick agricultural development board portfolio. It has been
working with the Alberta Financial Services Corporation since
last June to combine the two lending services into a single
delivery point.
In research, a valuable tool for Canadian agriculture and
agri-food, the federal government is working closely with the
private sector and universities to continue a long tradition of
scientific excellence. The Canadian agriculture food research
council, which has representatives from provincial
governments, universities and industry, helps ensure there is a
co-ordinated approach and that we avoid duplication.
(1335 )
The list is almost endless and I will not tire the House with
much more, just a few more points: trade and market
development, environmental initiatives, a new range of
adaptation measures following the February 27 budget to
support industry as it adjusts to a market driven economy.
There is no area where federal and provincial governments do
not collaborate effectively. After all, what have we been doing
in agriculture since 1867? That is what we will continue to do in
the integrated world of agriculture and agri-food where
co-operation among all the players is more important than it
ever was in the past.
For these reasons I urge members to vote against the motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the motion of my hon.
colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately
pursue negotiations with the provinces and the agri-food industry in order to
reassign jurisdictional responsibilities in agriculture and eliminate overlap and
duplication.
The hon. member refers to this process as reconfederating
agriculture. This is an appropriate term because it alludes to a
new way off looking at how levels of government should treat
agriculture.
The motion undertakes to prod government to adopt a more
efficient and effective agriculture industry by reducing the
amount of overlap between the federal and provincial
governments. It is important to note the suggested changes and
jurisdictions could be made without any constitutional
amendments.
There are major changes afoot in the area of agriculture. In the
west we are seeing the subsidy for grain transportation
eliminated after an existence of close to 100 years. Global
change in agriculture is at an unprecedented pace. We must
change the way
12273
we treat our industry to keep up with it. This is combined with an
ever increasing realization that governments at almost all levels
are in serious debt.
We do not have the money to fund everything. It is time to cut
back significantly. Agriculture departments are no exception.
The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has had its
budget cut considerably in the recent federal budget.
It is now time to take a hard look at how we can eliminate
overlap between levels of government so we can get the most
results from our scarce tax dollars. In 1994-95 the 10 Canadian
provinces will spend a total of almost $2.2 billion on the
agriculture industry. The federal government will also spend an
additional $2.2 billion on this industry. That is a total of $4.4
billion all coming from the same taxpayers.
Where are the provincial or federal funds? The 10 provinces
had 10,000 civil servants employed in their agriculture
departments this year. The federal government had about the
same number for a total of approximately 20,000 full time
people on the public payroll in support of private sector
agriculture. That equals one person on the public payroll for
every seven farms. Clearly with these statistics we must
examine what kind of effectiveness we are getting for our
expenditures.
As members of Parliament we must strive to ensure we have
an industry more marketed oriented, can respond faster to
external demands and is more productive and efficient.
(1340)
With regard to government involvement in agriculture it is
really time to get out the microscope and closely examine what
government does in its dealings with agriculture.
By looking at the various components that make up the
agriculture industry we can clearly label the tasks that should be
performed by government and the tasks that should be left in the
hands of the industry. As has been stated by my colleagues,
reconfederating agriculture means we will develop a system of
agriculture in which more decisions are made at the local level
and at the farm gate.
Reform members have always said farmers, given the
opportunity, will always make the decisions in the best interests
of the industry. The motion really asks for the federal
government to initiate a process where government at all levels
works to give farmers this opportunity.
There are some important themes in the motion. The basic
idea is that the decisions in the industry should be made at the
closest possible level to the farm gate. The higher levels should
be programmed where the federal government and provincial
governments have some input.
We should ask the following six questions from this type of
service. Does the program continue to serve the public? Is there
a legitimate role for government in the program? Is the current
role of the federal appropriate or could it be realigned with the
provinces? What program related activities could be transferred
to the private sector? How can overall efficiency be improved?
Is the program affordable?
Government responsibilities would be clearly divided
between the federal government and provincial or territorial
governments. The provinces would be responsible for natural
and human resources. This makes sense because these resources
are specific to each province and they vary from province to
province.
The federal government would have responsibility for trade
policy, whole farm income, stabilization, import, safety and
health standards and fiscal and monetary policy. This would
reinforce the goals of the federal government which are to assist
lower levels of government in areas that span provincial
boundaries and managing issues common to farmers and
processors regardless of what area of the country they come
from.
Among the functions of government should be research and
development to ensure among other things we are investing
money primarily in sound ventures that guarantee return on our
investment.
Another necessary role of government is establishing a
necessary level of regulatory policy in the private sector.
Although I think most people in the industry would agree that
overall there should be a decrease in regulations and that
governments should get off the backs of farmers and processors,
there is still a need to provide a basic level to ensure the integrity
of Canada's industry.
Another government responsibility is to create the lowest
level of taxation possible for the most efficient environment for
agriculture to operate in. The tax burden in Canada is simply too
high. It has been fueled by indiscriminate overspending and it
stifles investment and jobs.
A clean break is needed from the cycle of tax and spend. If we
are ever to realize the full potential of our industry there are a
few other responsibilities to be studied. I know my colleague
and others have discussed these at greater length.
The responsibilities of the agri-food industry would be to
provide the supplies to meet the demand. That is to say, by
providing goods to the public the industry should have the
responsibility and the input at all stages in the life cycle of goods
including research and development, production, processing
including storage, inspection, grading and labelling, and
transportation. Producers must be directly involved in the
marketing of their products. Financing and insurance should be
available to processors in a competitive atmosphere.
12274
(1345)
I think the motion of my hon. colleague addresses these issues
and gives some very important input into regulating or
deregulating the agriculture industry so that it will become
productive, efficient, and compatible in today's world
standards.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the motion before
the House. I want to thank the member for Moose Jaw-Lake
Centre for bringing this motion forward.
My riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants is the home of a large
and diverse agricultural and agri-food sector. I am always
pleased, therefore, to have the opportunity to discuss what our
government is doing to support this important sector.
I believe all members of the House would agree that the hon.
member's commitment to eliminating overlap and duplication
in the agricultural sector is a good thing. While I believe this
motion is well intentioned, I also believe it is unnecessary.
The hon. member wants to launch negotiations to reassign
jurisdictional responsibilities. Canada's Constitution makes
agriculture a joint responsibility of the federal and provincial
governments. I believe this is one of the areas where flexible
federalism is working.
Since 1867 the federal government and the provinces have
developed a culture of co-operation. While the Constitution
does not specify certain areas as federal and others as
provincial, governments have learned, however, to work
together without treading on each other's toes.
One area where this has worked well is in trade and market
development. While international trade is strictly a federal
responsibility and would remain so under the proposed motion,
this government recognizes the value of working with the
provinces to promote exports of agriculture and agri-food
products.
In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants, I am pleased to say
there is a strong and ever growing value added sector. The
processing of hogs, chickens, fruits, and vegetables can be
found in a number of my communities. Our government has an
important role to play in helping them uncover new market
opportunities.
The best way to expand our markets and reach our potential is
through co-operation, both with the provinces and the
respective industries.
We believe that there is no need to open the Constitution to
address these issues of jurisdictional responsibilities. Instead,
we must work with our provincial colleagues and focus on
innovation and market development. This co-operation takes
many forms.
When the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food travelled to
Chile, Argentina, and Brazil in March, high level
representatives of three provincial governments travelled with
him. These joint missions allow the federal government to
promote the entire Canadian agricultural and agri-food sector.
At the same time, the provinces pursue specific opportunities
for their own industries.
We saw another example of two levels of government working
together in the final days of the GATT negotiations. Provincial
representatives were in Geneva helping reach the draft
agreement. Immediately afterwards the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food convened a meeting with our provincial
colleagues to plan how we could meet our obligations.
Federal and provincial representatives worked very closely in
the following months on the task force on orderly marketing led
by the parliamentary secretary. Thanks to their willingness to
work together for the common good, our supply managed
sectors are moving forward to meet the challenges of the new
trade regime.
Another example of this co-operation can be seen in the
export targets established for this sector. The industry set for
itself a target of $20 billion in agri-food exports by the year
2000. Federal and provincial ministers of agriculture accepted
that target and agreed to help each other reach it. They added a
further target of regaining Canada's traditional 3.5 per cent
share of the global agri-food trade. Reaching this goal would
boost our exports to $23 billion annually.
(1350)
However, setting the goal was the easy part. For our next steps
the federal government will continue to work with industry and
with the provinces. We must work to provide the programs and
initiatives that industry has told us it needs to take advantage of
so as to develop new market opportunities. To this end, the
department's priorities in the area of trade for the next three
years will include a number of initiatives.
We will negotiate further trade access with countries such as
Israel and Chile through the NAFTA. As well, we will work with
countries such as China through the GATT expansion.
Our government is committed to creating the Canada
agri-food marketing council. This will allow the industry to
effectively advise government on how best to support exports in
achieving their targets.
We will create an agri-food trade service to provide
single-window access and market development services. Our
government is also committed to consolidating existing market
and trade development programs into a single streamlined
Agri-food 2000 program. I believe this program will greatly
assist industry in its export efforts.
We are working to provide producers and processors with
timely information about international markets through a new
12275
agri-food trade network. In doing so, we want to help businesses
make better and more informed decisions.
A key priority will be the setting up of the agri-food credit
facility. This facility will provide credits worth up to $1 billion
for exporters of grain and other agri-food products to offshore
private sector buyers. This in turn will help Canadian producers
continue to compete effectively and efficiently in the export
markets.
By working in tandem with the provinces to achieve these
initiatives, our government is committed to helping the
agri-food sector reach its export targets. Now is not the time to
work at cross purposes with the provinces and debate
jurisdictional issues. Now, however, is the time to foster even
greater federal and provincial relations. In doing so, our
agricultural and agri-food sector will only get stronger.
I again thank the hon. member for bringing this motion
forward for debate. I certainly do not question the hon.
member's commitment to eliminating inefficiencies and
overlap in this important sector. However, I believe we can
achieve our goals through federal-provincial co-operation
rather than reassigning jurisdictional responsibilities.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on motion M-314
put forward by my colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
I find it interesting that my Liberal colleagues speak of the
lack of necessity for this bill. Both the hon. member for
Lisgar-Marquette, who just spoke, and the hon. member for
Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, who proposed this motion, are active
farmers who are struggling under the inefficiencies and the
problems of the system as it is now and are seeking to put
solutions forward.
The agricultural industry is intricately tied into the whole
social fabric of Canada. Over one million Canadians today are
involved in agriculture. Many of our peers in this Chamber, as I
have mentioned, have left their farms to represent their friends
and neighbours in the House of Commons. Millions of other
Canadians only need to look back a generation or two to find a
parent or a grandparent who worked the land. My own father
ranched at the Springhouse ranch and my grandfather at the 141
mile ranch in the Cariboo district of British Columbia.
(1355)
The product of the hard work of our Canadian farmers and
ranchers sustained our troops during two great wars, saved the
lives of millions of the world's poorest nations, and feeds the
needy and destitute of today. They fed the world for decades and
will continue to do so for decades to come. We are blessed with
an amazing basket that feeds the hungry of the world. The
question remaining, though, is how to continue feeding the
world in the most efficient way possible.
The agriculture industry of today is vastly different from that
of 50 years ago. Today, agriculture is controlled and managed
through a number of government departments and private sector
organizations. We have bureaucrats in downtown Ottawa
studying regional farming policies, and at the same time their
counterparts in the ten provincial capitals are duplicating many
of the same services the federal government is offering. On top
of these bureaucracies are a variety of government agencies and
private corporations that work in the industry.
Combine all these agencies and government departments
together and you have a tangle of rules, restrictions, and
regulations that hamper initiative and change. What is needed is
a new vision, a new and better approach to the management of
agriculture.
There are three starting points the government must first
realize before a positive change can take place. The three points
I refer to are that each region of our country has unique and
diverse needs; that each government has a responsibility to
respond to these needs, using its respective strengths; and that
each person within the agriculture community has a strong
desire to go about their business in the most efficient and
profitable way possible. Let me take a moment to expand on
these three points.
First, on the uniqueness of each region, I have had the
privilege of travelling through and working in many of the
agriculture regions of our country. I have worked in the cattle
ranches in the British Columbia interior. I have walked through
prairie wheat fields. I have driven by the corn and tobacco fields
of southern Ontario. I hope some day to visit some of the farms
in Quebec, as I have had the opportunity to do in the Maritimes,
particularly in Hants County, where the member for Annapolis
Valley-Hants comes from.
What has always struck me is how distinctive each region is
and how unique each region's needs are. Do these regions have
common concerns? Of course they do. These concerns should be
pursued in a united manner. Yet the regions do not share
common ground on every issue, and we as parliamentarians
must keep this in mind.
Second, on responding to those needs, this year the federal
government will spend over $2.2 billion to support our
agriculture industry, and the provinces will contribute a similar
amount, meaning that almost $4.5 billion will be spent on
agriculture programs this year. This works out to over $157 per
Canadian or over $332 per taxpayer. That is enough to feed one
person for ten weeks, and perhaps longer with careful shopping.
Are Canadians getting value for that money? According to the
farmers and the taxpayers, the answer is no. Is there room for
improvement? Of course there is room for improvement.
12276
For that $4.5 billion the various levels of government manage
to keep over 20,000 civil servants on the payroll, 10,000 at the
provincial level and another 10,000 at the federal level.
According to my colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, this
works out to one agricultural civil servant for every 14 farms.
The limited money remaining after paying these government
employees goes into numerous support programs. These federal
and provincial programs often end up overlapping each other,
resulting in farmers wasting valuable time and paperwork, not to
mention the tax dollars lost through duplication.
To respond to the needs of farmers, governments must play to
their inherent strengths. That is, the federal government
directing its resources to such areas as international trade,
monetary policy, whole farm income stabilization, and safety
hazards, and the provinces more locally investing their money in
such areas as resource management and human resources.
(1400 )
There is the desire for each stakeholder to go about his or her
business in the most efficient way possible. We must begin
talking more about empowerment, giving individuals more
autonomy in their everyday lives.
It is amazing how bureaucratic control has crept into so much
of our Canadian way of life, stifling the very initiative it set out
to reinforce. Extending autonomy can involve encouraging the
private sector to become more involved so the market system
can work to the advantage of the farmer, not just to satisfy
regulations that are increasingly failing to meet the needs they
were designed for.
We in Parliament must be constantly asking ourselves how we
as law makers and the civil servants who enforce the laws and
implement the regulations are interfering with the private
sector. Are we in its way? If so, how can we move out of the
way?
I urge the minister of agriculture and his provincial
counterparts to be constantly asking the same questions asked
during the federal program review for each and every subsidy
and program in the department.
Does the program continue to serve the public interest? Is
there a legitimate and necessary role for the government in this
area? Is the current role of the federal government appropriate,
or can the programs be turned over to the provinces or even
eliminated in the name of efficiency and well-being for the
individual farmer and the agriculture industry? What activities
could be transferred to the private or volunteer sectors? If the
government program continues, how can its efficiency be
improved? Is the final package of programs affordable and if not
which of these programs could and should be abandoned?
My colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has taken an
important first step by proposing a new dialogue between the
players involved in the agriculture industry. I hope this debate
on Motion No. M-314 will be an important first step in bringing
about substantial change in the agriculture policy of Canada.
I ask and encourage all members of the House to support this
motion.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to participate today in this third and final hour of
debate on the motion by my hon. colleague from Moose
Jaw-Lake Centre. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately
pursue negotiations with the provinces and agri-food industry in order to
re-assign jurisdictional responsibilities in agriculture and eliminate overlap
and duplication.
My colleagues who have addressed this motion have focused
on how we can get the agricultural business in Canada done
smarter, better and cheaper. We have said that we must focus on
how the private and public sectors can work together more
efficiently and effectively.
We have reached a time in our history when good economics
and good politics can converge. Canadians want their political
leaders to make the absolute best use of public moneys. They
want all mismanagement and waste done away with. They want
the political turf wars between the federal government and the
provinces to cease.
They want politicians to go back to square one and ask: If we
had to start all over again, how would we structure our collective
affairs? That is not just in agriculture, but may be especially so
today. How would we organize government departments at the
federal and provincial levels? How would we create
co-operation, not competition, between the public and private
sectors? These are conceptual questions that my colleagues have
tried to present answers to as applied to agriculture within
Canada.
We have said that if we could take agriculture, which is
probably the most basic industry, and develop a clear division of
responsibilities between levels of government and the industry,
we could save hundreds of millions of public dollars and we
could unleash the private sector to grow to its complete
potential. By taking one department of government such as
agriculture and working through this redesigning or
reconfederating process, we could learn lessons that could be
applied broadly across all the economic and social portfolios
within government.
A discussion of this nature deals not only with a clearer
division of jurisdictions between governments, but also with a
clearer understanding of the functions and the roles of both the
government and the private sector.
My colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has suggested
government has six roles most appropriate for it. First, there is
basic precommercial research and development. Second, is a
commercial role limited to providing only those goods and
services that are non-rival, non-excludable and thus not captur-
12277
able exclusively by the private sector. Third is a minimum level
of regulation that ensures safety and health. Fourth is a role in
educating and training our children, youth and adults. Fifth is a
role in serving the private sector with suitable public programs.
Sixth is a mediation role in helping to resolve conflicting and
sometimes competing interests.
(1405)
On the other hand, we suggested that the private sector is most
suited to make the vast majority of decisions and have ultimate
responsibility for organizing the production of private goods
and services. The industry must supply the demand and provide
goods and services that can be competitive and from which
profit can be gained. For the most part, government should stay
out of these business related functions. There may be niche
roles, but they will be very few in number. These business
functions include commercial research and development,
production, processing, transporting, marketing, financing and
insuring.
Without question, this kind of business led free market system
is the best way we have found to distribute resources and wealth
throughout an economy and a society. This is because a
business-led free market system is an open social order where
individuals or parties have the right to contract with others on
legal and mutually agreeable terms based on free choice. This
open social order must promote personal responsibility for
choices instead of state protection, individual innovation
instead of bureaucratic control, and the encouragement of
voluntary contracting exchange between free participants.
We must also recognize that we want a free market system to
provide protection for weaker partners so that they are not
victims of unfair commercial practices. In other words, we want
a free and a just market system. This issue is without doubt one
of the most important things that we as politicians can discuss at
this level. It has occupied the attention of legislators and
economists around the world since the free markets began.
At the end of this millennium we are also finding new resolve
to ask how we best ensure a free market system is both free and
just. I suggest there is both a moral and a democratic answer to
the question.
Because the tools of wealth and freedom are available in a free
market system, participants in that system have a moral
obligation to ensure that the creation of wealth and freedom are
spread as far afield as possible. To whom much is given, much is
expected. Our cultural values will determine how moral a free
market system really is. Then a market system that is free and
just will be based upon a genuinely democratic process of
decision making in public and private policy, work and capital.
In a free market economy, justice for all is best realized by
ensuring that bottom up democracy characterizes all economic
and political institutions.
The power and authority must be spread out as widely as
possible. Organizations must be flat rather than hierarchical.
People must be empowered to fully participate in the privileges
and responsibilities of a productive economy. In a multitude of
counsellors there is safety.
This is why my colleagues and I insist on the importance of
direct farmer and business involvement in developing
agricultural policy. We must work from the bottom to the top,
not the other way around. We must get the maximum number of
people involved in the decision making process. Business and
governments around the world are realizing that the more
democratic these institutions are, the more economically and
socially successful they will be.
A parliamentary democracy must submit political party
discipline to representation of the people if it is to maintain the
loyalty of those people.
The private sector has other roles to perform in organizing for
the supply of private goods and services within a free and just
market economy. Industry stakeholders must have freedom of
association. They should be able to democratically organize,
carry out their activities and advocate their causes to other
stakeholders and the public in whatever self-supporting and
legal manner that best serves their interests.
The private sector also has a self-regulation function. A clear
set of regulatory policies that is established internally by
industry or externally by government should be binding on all.
This system nurtures the natural expressions of differences and
openly rewards success within that regulatory policy.
Obviously the private sector should also have some ability to
mediate its affairs and reconcile its own differences. Where this
is not possible, outside private or public mediators could be
called on to help. The real need however is for all the
stakeholders in a given industry to develop a collaborative
approach to allow each player to do what it does best in order to
realize the best possible good for all.
Finally the private sector has an information sharing function,
which is to say that it should research, compile, analyse,
interpret and distribute data helpful to its cause.
These basic ideas about the most appropriate roles for
government and the most appropriate roles for the private
sectors are crucial. We began this debate by saying that it is time
to re-confederate agriculture in Canada. The time is right and
the need is now. We cannot just tinker with policies here and
there. We must think into the future and drive, not drift, into it.
12278
There must be a whole new way of doing agriculture based on
more distinct and more co-operative roles for both levels of
government, as much as possible separate from each other and
separate from private sector industry. These suggestions are
based on sound economic, organizational and democratic
principles.
The first act that our Fathers of Confederation passed 125
years ago was the Agriculture Act of 1868. At the end of the
1990s perhaps we as parliamentarians could have the foresight
and vision for the needs of today. I have sketched out the modest
skeleton of a proposal. I ask the House now to vote in favour of
this motion.
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
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 45(6) the
division on the motion stands deferred until Monday, May 8 at
the ordinary hour of adjournment.
It being 2.13 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday
at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.13 p.m.)